Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Did Nintendo save gaming with the NES?

Did Nintendo save gaming with the NES?

Yes 54 72.00%
 
No 21 28.00%
 
Total:75
Nautilus said:
SvennoJ said:

Ever heard of a little title called Myst?

My introduction to Atari was from people (adults) being so in awe of it they let us play with it to show how cool it was.

I'm not trying to downplay the role of Nintendo. I simply grew up in that era and never got a Nintendo console until I bought the N64 myself. My first introduction to Mario was on the game boy. The console simply was not popular where I lived, nor did video games need saving. Sierra was doing perfectly fine without Nintendo.

The thread title is, Did Nintendo save gaming. No, but they did make console gaming popular (home computers without a keyboard) and I guess contributed to the demise of the Commodore Amiga. Commodore went bankrupt in 1994 :/

The Amiga 500 came out just over 30 years ago, seeing as many as 6000 games released across its lifespan and that of its two immediate successors, the Amiga 600 and Amiga 1200. / A total of 715 known licensed game titles were released for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) during its life span.


I do understand where you are comming from, but your example comes from a personal experience of a regional occurance, whereas this debate revolves around gaming as a whole, in the whole world.

Bolded: There were adults that were fans of gaming, for sure, but the perception of the general public was that games was for kids. And that's the whole point. Enthusiasts exist everywhere and have different ages, but these discussion, about impacts to the industry and overall perception, is regarded against the overall public and/or society.

So yes, not only did Nintendo save gaming, but it also made it more popular than it was.

More popular sure.

Looking at best sellers, Populous released '89 on Amiga sold about 4 million copies, Super mario world released '90 sold about 20 million copies.
Myst, best selling PC game until the sims, sold 6 million copies.
Kings Quest V only sold half a million copies and was actually also released on the NES (but censored for violence and religious themes)

Save gaming, nah. Make it more popular, yes they did. They made it more kid friendly as well.



Around the Network
tack50 said:
LivingMetal said:

Oh... So you agree that in this reality Nintendo DID save console gaming?  Thanks.

No I do not. Let us clarify. They saved console gaming in North America. But North America =/= console gaming at large.

And it isn't an inevitability like I said. With no NES or a flop, maybe the SMS takes its place. Or the Game Boy revives the market. Or the SNES/MD or possibly even the PSX.

Neither Europe nor Japan were affected. The former had a small console market until the PSX and the latter never had a crash either.

I'm going to quote myself to ask you the same question I asked others. 

SpokenTruth said:

Are you familiar with the New York test market of 1985?  Go check it out.  No, someone else would not have done this.  It was single handily the boldest and riskiest move in the history of video games and was directly responsible for the resurgence of the US video game market.

Have any of you read the 1993 book 'Game Over'?  Or just read any review or story about it. 

The NYC test market was absolutely crucial in returning home video game consoles to the US market.  Between that and winning some critical legal lawsuits, the NES undoubtedly saved it and it's quite clear when you read up on it that another company or device probably would not have pulled off the same feat.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

To be honest, my point is more so that the argument that it saved console gaming ignores the rest of the world and pretends it does not exist.

In Japan, the Famicom was already a thing in 1983. So we can safely assume the Japanese would have still played consoles like they did.

In Europe, the opposite was true, and there was no real console market. We can relatively safely assume that the Master System and NES would have sold just like they did; and that console gaming wouldn't have really taken off until the PSX.

So no. Console gaming at large was not saved. Europe's market was non-existant at the time and you cannot save something that does not exist. And Japan's market was unaffected.

Now I still think companies would have launched consoles in the US regardless (if you think a 350 million people market with tons of disposable income and little barriers to entry will be ignored, yeah that is not going to happen). Whether they catch on or not is of course the question but I do think companies would launch consoles in the US regardless.

Microsoft routinely launches Xbox consoles in Japan despite doing miserably. So why wouldn't Nintendo and Sega launch their consoles in the US even if they only sell 1-2 million?

But what really makes me angry is the claim that it saved console gaming at large, which it absolutely didn't. In the US it is at least debatable but not worldwide :P



Nautilus said:
SvennoJ said:

Ever heard of a little title called Myst?

My introduction to Atari was from people (adults) being so in awe of it they let us play with it to show how cool it was.

I'm not trying to downplay the role of Nintendo. I simply grew up in that era and never got a Nintendo console until I bought the N64 myself. My first introduction to Mario was on the game boy. The console simply was not popular where I lived, nor did video games need saving. Sierra was doing perfectly fine without Nintendo.

The thread title is, Did Nintendo save gaming. No, but they did make console gaming popular (home computers without a keyboard) and I guess contributed to the demise of the Commodore Amiga. Commodore went bankrupt in 1994 :/

The Amiga 500 came out just over 30 years ago, seeing as many as 6000 games released across its lifespan and that of its two immediate successors, the Amiga 600 and Amiga 1200. / A total of 715 known licensed game titles were released for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) during its life span.


I do understand where you are comming from, but your example comes from a personal experience of a regional occurance, whereas this debate revolves around gaming as a whole, in the whole world.

Bolded: There were adults that were fans of gaming, for sure, but the perception of the general public was that games was for kids. And that's the whole point. Enthusiasts exist everywhere and have different ages, but these discussion, about impacts to the industry and overall perception, is regarded against the overall public and/or society.

So yes, not only did Nintendo save gaming, but it also made it more popular than it was.

This will get written off as anecdotal as well, but my grandfather owned an Intellivision.  He was an avid golfer and bowler and had won many trophies, and Intellivision was known for having the most detailed looking/playing sports games of their time.  Mattel was the first console manufacturer to seek out licenses from professional sports associations (NFL Football, NHL Hockey, NBA Basketball, etc.). 

Two of the games my grandfather enjoyed playing the most were PGA Golf and PBA Bowling.  He had other games of course like Snafu, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Microsurgeon, Atlantis, Dracula, etc.  Anyway, this was a console that he bought for himself and played frequently, not just something that he would pull out of the closet when his grandkids came to visit.  I think if you look at the crux of the Intellivision's library, and the games that made it stand out apart from the Atari 2600, you can clearly see that it was not a console just for kids.  I'm not talking about just the sports games.  Play (or look up videos of) Microsurgeon or Utopia (credited as being a precursor to Sid Meir's Civilization) and tell me which audience those games were specifically targeting.  Children with short attention spans, or adults looking for a deeper mental challenge?  The Intellivision sold over 3 million consoles between 1979-1983, and carved out 20% of Atari's market by the time of the North American Video Game Crash.  Even the Intellivision ad campaigns are reminiscent of tactics Sega (and later Sony) used against Nintendo to show that the opposing console was "kids play" compared to theirs.



SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

I do understand where you are comming from, but your example comes from a personal experience of a regional occurance, whereas this debate revolves around gaming as a whole, in the whole world.

Bolded: There were adults that were fans of gaming, for sure, but the perception of the general public was that games was for kids. And that's the whole point. Enthusiasts exist everywhere and have different ages, but these discussion, about impacts to the industry and overall perception, is regarded against the overall public and/or society.

So yes, not only did Nintendo save gaming, but it also made it more popular than it was.

More popular sure.

Looking at best sellers, Populous released '89 on Amiga sold about 4 million copies, Super mario world released '90 sold about 20 million copies.
Myst, best selling PC game until the sims, sold 6 million copies.
Kings Quest V only sold half a million copies and was actually also released on the NES (but censored for violence and religious themes)

Save gaming, nah. Make it more popular, yes they did. They made it more kid friendly as well.

Yeah... It did save gaming, for sure.

As said before, if Nintendo didn't do it, someone else would, as entertainment is part of human culture. But many gaming companies went bankrupt at the time, and everything seemed bleak, then Nintendo came and proved once and for all that gaming had a future.

Myst, the game you kept going on about?It first launched in 1993 on MAC, many years AFTER Nintendo already launched the NES and saved gaming. Hell, the Super Nintendo was already out. Nintendo already brought back the industry and made it more popular than ever before that game you went on. The same was for this Populous.It launched way after the NES hit stores shelves everywhere, since the NES launched in 85 in the Americas and 86 in Europe. By then, the reputation to gaming was already restored and was already walking into it was today, so of course those games did well.

All your examples came after Nintendo fixed everything up. So yeah, they saved gaming.



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

Around the Network
Mandalore76 said:
Nautilus said:

I do understand where you are comming from, but your example comes from a personal experience of a regional occurance, whereas this debate revolves around gaming as a whole, in the whole world.

Bolded: There were adults that were fans of gaming, for sure, but the perception of the general public was that games was for kids. And that's the whole point. Enthusiasts exist everywhere and have different ages, but these discussion, about impacts to the industry and overall perception, is regarded against the overall public and/or society.

So yes, not only did Nintendo save gaming, but it also made it more popular than it was.

This will get written off as anecdotal as well, but my grandfather owned an Intellivision.  He was an avid golfer and bowler and had won many trophies, and Intellivision was known for having the most detailed looking/playing sports games of their time.  Mattel was the first console manufacturer to seek out licenses from professional sports associations (NFL Football, NHL Hockey, NBA Basketball, etc.). 

Two of the games my grandfather enjoyed playing the most were PGA Golf and PBA Bowling.  He had other games of course like Snafu, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Microsurgeon, Atlantis, Dracula, etc.  Anyway, this was a console that he bought for himself and played frequently, not just something that he would pull out of the closet when his grandkids came to visit.  I think if you look at the crux of the Intellivision's library, and the games that made it stand out apart from the Atari 2600, you can clearly see that it was not a console just for kids.  I'm not talking about just the sports games.  Play (or look up videos of) Microsurgeon or Utopia (credited as being a precursor to Sid Meir's Civilization) and tell me which audience those games were specifically targeting.  Children with short attention spans, or adults looking for a deeper mental challenge?  The Intellivision sold over 3 million consoles between 1979-1983, and carved out 20% of Atari's market by the time of the North American Video Game Crash.  Even the Intellivision ad campaigns are reminiscent of tactics Sega (and later Sony) used against Nintendo to show that the opposing console was "kids play" compared to theirs.

That is a nice story!

But just it becomes confusing: What I am saying here is that Nintendo brought the industry back from the dead, not invented it. That didn't impede companies having some success before the crash, but nobody managed to actuyll save it after it did crash. Not until Nintendo.



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

Nautilus said:
SvennoJ said:

More popular sure.

Looking at best sellers, Populous released '89 on Amiga sold about 4 million copies, Super mario world released '90 sold about 20 million copies.
Myst, best selling PC game until the sims, sold 6 million copies.
Kings Quest V only sold half a million copies and was actually also released on the NES (but censored for violence and religious themes)

Save gaming, nah. Make it more popular, yes they did. They made it more kid friendly as well.

Yeah... It did save gaming, for sure.

As said before, if Nintendo didn't do it, someone else would, as entertainment is part of human culture. But many gaming companies went bankrupt at the time, and everything seemed bleak, then Nintendo came and proved once and for all that gaming had a future.

Myst, the game you kept going on about?It first launched in 1993 on MAC, many years AFTER Nintendo already launched the NES and saved gaming. Hell, the Super Nintendo was already out. Nintendo already brought back the industry and made it more popular than ever before that game you went on. The same was for this Populous.It launched way after the NES hit stores shelves everywhere, since the NES launched in 85 in the Americas and 86 in Europe. By then, the reputation to gaming was already restored and was already walking into it was today, so of course those games did well.

All your examples came after Nintendo fixed everything up. So yeah, they saved gaming.

So Nintendo fixed Amiga 500 sales and started Bullfrog so they could produce Populous...
They also fixed Sierra online so they could keep producing mainly PC adventures like they were doing before the 'crash'

Sierra entertainment was founded in 1979, Bullfrog in 1987 but they didn't develop for the NES, it was licensed to be ported to the SNES after the game had won awards and proved to be successful. Same happened to Metal Gear, success first then ported to the NES (drastically altered btw)

Lucasfilm games was doing fine as well (Maniac mansion) also got ported to the NES later (A port for the Nintendo Entertainment System had to be reworked heavily, in response to complaints by Nintendo of America that the game was inappropriate for children)

NES got a lot of (mangled) ports from already successful games. Great save!



SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

Yeah... It did save gaming, for sure.

As said before, if Nintendo didn't do it, someone else would, as entertainment is part of human culture. But many gaming companies went bankrupt at the time, and everything seemed bleak, then Nintendo came and proved once and for all that gaming had a future.

Myst, the game you kept going on about?It first launched in 1993 on MAC, many years AFTER Nintendo already launched the NES and saved gaming. Hell, the Super Nintendo was already out. Nintendo already brought back the industry and made it more popular than ever before that game you went on. The same was for this Populous.It launched way after the NES hit stores shelves everywhere, since the NES launched in 85 in the Americas and 86 in Europe. By then, the reputation to gaming was already restored and was already walking into it was today, so of course those games did well.

All your examples came after Nintendo fixed everything up. So yeah, they saved gaming.

So Nintendo fixed Amiga 500 sales and started Bullfrog so they could produce Populous...
They also fixed Sierra online so they could keep producing mainly PC adventures like they were doing before the 'crash'

Sierra entertainment was founded in 1979, Bullfrog in 1987 but they didn't develop for the NES, it was licensed to be ported to the SNES after the game had won awards and proved to be successful. Same happened to Metal Gear, success first then ported to the NES (drastically altered btw)

Lucasfilm games was doing fine as well (Maniac mansion) also got ported to the NES later (A port for the Nintendo Entertainment System had to be reworked heavily, in response to complaints by Nintendo of America that the game was inappropriate for children)

NES got a lot of (mangled) ports from already successful games. Great save!

Nothing exists in a vacuum. Yeah, Nintendo brought gaming as a whole, and that also helped the popularity of PC gaming, even if on a smaller scale. That also applies to other gaming consoles.

People jumped in/invested in gaming because Nintendo showed them it can be profitable and sustainable, which made poeple make games for both the NES and other gaming consoles(obviously after the NES and Super Mario Bros was a gigantic success).

I should also mention, because it seems that if I don't say anything about everything people don't get it, that while Nintendo saved gaming, it's not like it was completely defunct. Arcade was doing reasonably well and it's not like gaming didn't sell a single copy until the NES came. Their sales were just so stupidly low(even a few million for a console, considering that you needed tyo invest alot, was rather low back in the day) that you couldn't considered that a success, even if there were a few exceptions.

So yeah, yet again, Nintendo saves the day!



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