SvennoJ said:
archbrix said:
The NES actually released just two years after the Famicom and the reason it's (currently) on top is because games like Super Mario Bros and Zelda created a paradigm shift in the industry away from the standard home/arcade gaming model of just beating the highest score - something that the Famicom's library was largely limited to pre-NES. Obviously the Famicom certainly profited from this type of software as well but many attribute the release of the NES in America to a "renaissance" in home gaming. Keep in mind that the entire concept of a home games machine originated in the US, with Atari being the first to create a substantial breakout hit, so it follows that it was here that the home video game crash of '83 had such an impact. To go from the concept essentially being "dead" with cartridges piling up in bargain bins to everybody wanting an NES was just staggering to see. We went from garbage like E.T. and Mystique's titles (look 'em up, young'uns) being prevalent as the state of home gaming to a library which consisted of some truly stellar software with several millions sellers, sustainable mascot characters and an effective (even if controversial) 3rd party business model. Today, there are so many great games with smooth, polished gameplay that it's difficult for some to grasp just how far ahead of the curve Nintendo was at the time. Further, more subordinate aspects like the NES' retro-stylish design and front-loading mechanism helped contribute to it being such a breath of fresh air for the industry. |
"Games like Super Mario Bros and Zelda created a paradigm shift in the industry away from the standard home/arcade gaming model of just beating the highest score"
Err what? Commodore 64 already did that, as well as MSX.Â
Home gaming was going fine and well before the NES in Europe. NES was actually not all that popular since the games were expensive and couldn't be copied unlike cassette tapes that C64 and MSX were using. (MSX had both cartridges and tape deck)
Sure they were sold as 'computer models' but their primary function was games: 5,667 video games were released on Commodore 64 from 1982 through 2025. https://www.mobygames.com/platform/c64/ (NES had 1,367 games total) |
Tell me, what games on the C64 or MSX created a shift in the industry for home gaming the way SMB or Zelda did on the NES/Famicom? I never said that no home games like that ever existed before Mario and Zelda (Pitfall released on the 2600 the same year as the C64 debuted, for example) but there's a reason why those titles and many other NES games are remembered as classics and set standards for the home games industry.
Contrary to what you might believe, the home games console wasn't popularized by the C64, the MSX or their respective libraries. It was popularized by what arcade games did a decade before those systems existed - enticing non-dedicated "casuals" (for lack of a better term) with simple, easy to understand gaming traits that were both addictive and intuitive. Home computers (which is what those systems were) were still seen by the majority as jack-of-all-trades, not simple plug and play machines like the 2600 and NES. The NES was not that popular in Europe... just as the C64 was not popular in Japan, and the vast majority of people in the US have never even heard of the MSX. The crash of '83 took place in the US, but how popular was Atari in Europe after it occurred? Failing to look at the effect something had from a global scale would be highly inaccurate to a system's legacy. Simply put, what the 2600 began with its popularity, the NES sustained due to a plethora of titles that combined simple, arcade gaming traits with deeper experiences. This is why today, PCs and consoles can exist in perfect harmony, despite PCs being so far ahead on so many levels. The games console still offers relative simplicity, which lots of people clearly prefer, and many - if not most, according to the poll here - would agree that the NES was a big part of that.
