Currently Online 
| archbrix said: 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. |
Operating a C64 was as simple as typing "Load" and "Run", MSX also used cartridges just like NES. The MSX failed in the US due to competition from the C64 and lack of marketing, no confidence from Japan (and MS who made the operating system...)
NES had the right marketing and benefited from the crash in the US coming in 2 years later.
MSX is the birthplace of Metal Gear Solid but that didn't come out until 1987.
Ultima and Elite originated on C64.
Both also had all the arcade games and easy to pick up and play games. But just not marketed as well.
It's a shame MSX failed as the console space would have turned out very differently if it hadn't. MSX was a 'standard' by MS and the Ascii corporation that was made by many companies including Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Canon, Goldstar, Toshiba, Sanyo, JVC, Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Sharp, Yamaha, Fujitsu, Spectravideo, and Samsung.
The NES closed it all down and cemented the path to walled gardens.
Only one of my nephews had a NES back in the 80s, and only had Mario and Duck Hunt on it. Compared to my other nephews with C64 where we went to play all kinds of games. We had an MSX and PC at the time, friends also had either MSX or C64 and later Amiga 500.
There was indeed a lot of piracy, but parents still bought us games and after we grew up to have money to buy our own games the addiction was set.
C64 and MSX were nothing like the complexity of even simple PCs today. Instant on, insert tape, type LOAD "*",8,1 then RUN. A 5 year old could do it (my nephew at the time)
MSX you could switch to BASIC and make your own stuff. It's how I initially learned how to program and made my own games. But also played a lot of games on it, some from cartridge, most from tapes.
Since MSX got me interested in programming I migrated to PC, first console I bought was a PS1 for TR2 as I couldn't afford a better PC at the time that could run it. First Nintendo console was N64 for me after seeing Wave Race 64 on it. NES and SNES never interested me at the time.
Anyway I don't see why NES was groundbreaking, cause of the DRM shutting down piracy? It came out in the US at the right time with the right marketing, is that the groundbreaking part? Or is it Mario and Zelda?
