Leynos said:
archbrix said:
For me, the biggest problem with the 2600 is that there just weren't that many fun games on the console, even at the time. I never wanted one despite immediately being drawn into video games forever with arcade games like Pac-Man. I could enjoy playing Combat and Space Invaders for an hour or so at my friend's house, but we found ourselves right back in the arcades popping in quarters and being fully engaged by comparison.
There will always be more mediocre games than good-to-great games in a system's full library, but the 2600 was by far worse in that regard than any other game console that ever matched its success. It certainly made its mark on the industry, but it also crashed the US home market with a multitude of terrible games that had no identity, originality or engaging gameplay whatsoever. And even its best standouts like Pitfall have aged pretty poorly compared to classics on the NES a generation later. I still respect the 2600, but it's definitely not the "best" console per this thread's criteria in my humble opinion. |
Yeah esp as Atari's sea of shit is what drove Nintendo to create the Seal of Quality, so only licensed games were released for it. 2600 was getting porn games and stuff from Purina Dog Chow, eating up shelf space in stores. In stores, when game stores were not a thing. |
Yep. I remember seeing 2600 cartridges for as little as a couple of bucks in bargain bins just to clear stock.
I always wondered what would have happened if Bushnell had managed to stay on after the sale to Warner. Granted, Atari was on top of the world for a while, but that cliff due to all of the shovelware and the 5200 flop was devastating.
