Forums - Gaming Discussion - 2nd gen (Atari 2600) has aged better than 3rd gen (NES)

The NES was the console that was advanced enough to set up franchises and story lines that people cared about. So you get more memorable stuff.

2600 games are fun, but there wasn't a Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, or Metroid series that spawned from it. So there isn't the same urge to go back to see where it all started.



Around the Network

That's a weird statement. I don't even consider those 2nd gen games to be playable. They're more like fossils, history, but I think you had to be there to actually appreciate them. And I don't even think they were good back then. NES, on the other hand, still is home to some of the best games of all time. Plus, 3rd Gen is not only NES, there's also the Master System which is much better in terms of graphical power.



I’m going to fall in the middle on this one. I recently played a few dozen Atari 2600 games, mostly from Atari and Activision, and many are quite good; good enough to rank alongside the NES/SMS greats. Titles like River Raid, Pitfall II, and Ice Hockey are playable and enjoyable today.

But in general the third gen is superior to the second. The NES, to use the best system of that era, enjoyed a lot of the replayable score-based games that featured prominently on 2600, e.g., Gradius, Donkey Kong, Jr., plus some longer, more in-depth adventures, e.g. The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, and a whole lot in between, like Ninja Gaiden, Super Mario Bros., and Mega Man.



I think Atari 2600 has a lot of games that are certainly fun to play even today, but I don't agree with the assessment that they've aged better than the best 3rd console generation games. Naturally there's a lot of awful stuff to be found on both consoles, but on the whole I think that the best of the NES are easily above the best of the 2600. I can still easily go back and play a number of 3rd generation games, but there aren't that many games on the 2600 I ever really consider replaying.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. Gods and Superheroes: The Story of Clover Studio

2. Video Game Music Spotlight #13: Winter and Cold

3. VGChartz's Top 50 Video Game Composers (5 - 1)

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

I cant play a 2600 game for more than like 10 minutes before Im sick of it. The NES and SMS has many great games I can spend hours on and play over and over. Theres just no contest.



Around the Network
VAMatt said:
Nautilus said:

Maybe its because I didnt grow up with an Atari, or even was born back then, but every Atari game that i do watch a video of or play with are simply horrible.Not saying that they are unplayable, but they are simply horrendous to play nowadays.Personally, the 3 gen (NES and Genesis) is when gaming became truly viable as a business(exclusing a few gems in the arcade space that came before)

Some of my first memories involve the Atari 2600.  So, it is certainly possible that my opinion is colored by nostalgia.  

I agree that Atari 2600 games are extremely primitive.  They are ball and stick, or stick man grabs onto swinging stick, jumps over green and brown blobs, releases stick.  The next generation (which, for me, was more about the Sega Master System than the NES) definitely represented a massive improvement over the 2600 era.  In fact, I think the 2600-era to NES-era was the biggest generational leap we've seen.  Nevertheless, I still find Pacman and Pitfall enjoyable, while most of the NES/Master System games just aren't.  

Fair enough.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

With all due respect...no.



VAMatt said:
Nautilus said:

Maybe its because I didnt grow up with an Atari, or even was born back then, but every Atari game that i do watch a video of or play with are simply horrible.Not saying that they are unplayable, but they are simply horrendous to play nowadays.Personally, the 3 gen (NES and Genesis) is when gaming became truly viable as a business(exclusing a few gems in the arcade space that came before)

Some of my first memories involve the Atari 2600.  So, it is certainly possible that my opinion is colored by nostalgia.  

I agree that Atari 2600 games are extremely primitive.  They are ball and stick, or stick man grabs onto swinging stick, jumps over green and brown blobs, releases stick.  The next generation (which, for me, was more about the Sega Master System than the NES) definitely represented a massive improvement over the 2600 era.  In fact, I think the 2600-era to NES-era was the biggest generational leap we've seen.  Nevertheless, I still find Pacman and Pitfall enjoyable, while most of the NES/Master System games just aren't.  

Good thing Pacman has a better port on NES then. Im not gonna argue with you what you can enjoy more but your full of shit if you tell me you can still enjoy most atari 2600 games enjoyable but only name the 2 most well known ones. 



I think what gets some people more enjoyment out of the 2600 is the more arcade style gameplay. Nevertheless I think, like most people, that the NES is superior in pretty much every way and it did age way better. You cant tell me there is a game on the 2600 that looks as good or plays as good as SMB 3 or Contra. 



Yeah, with games like Super mario bros 3, california games and double dragons 2, castlevania and Punch out, I gotta disagree.