By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

 

Did Nintendo save gaming with the NES?

Yes 70 70.00%
 
No 30 30.00%
 
Total:100
Agente42 said:
SvennoJ said:

Actually MS was behind the MSX platform which is the birthplace of Metal Gear Solid. The MSX did well in Japan and in parts of Europe, but for some reason failed in the USA.

Nintendo on the other hand was seen as the kiddie console where I lived with expensive cartridges and crappy conversions. NES and the 50hz curse... Sony dragged consoles away from the games are for kids stigma back to where they were with Atari, Commodore and Amiga.

Anyway, I was born in '74, been playing games since 1980 and never heard of the video game crash until I moved to NA. Apparently I lived through it without ever noticing it, happily gaming away.

Who played The Legend of Zelda and Metroid is not kids, and the sports games too. The marketing of Sega is too good, and perceive a teenager console only and die with this.(besides the marketing) The marketing saying something, the data say another thing. The neutral aspect of Nes and Gameboy says this console for everyone. Sales wise demonstrate this. Nintendo kids game myth is applied, in some way, true for worst selling Nintendo console and not for the best selling, when Nintendo sells for a niche core fans and the kids ( Wiiu, Gamecube,SnEs[ in part], 2ds). 

I don't know who played them, we played on C64 and Amiga 500 at the time. Those were very successful spawning frequent copy parties in community centers all around the country. Parents (the ones I knew) and schools thought more highly of these home computers since you could do a lot more of them. The MSX I had doubled as a keyboard (learned to play the piano on it, midi keyboard attachment module) plus I learned BASIC on it and got me interested in programming which became my career later on.

NES was released end of '86 in Europe. I was 12 at the time and among my age group the NES was considered to be for under 10. We were too busy with MSX C64 and the upcoming Amiga 500 which launched the year after. Amiga 500 had a lot of buzz, NES none. After Amiga 500 PC became the choice for teenagers until the PS1 came out. The first Zelda I played was OOT. We grew up on war games on the C64, Leisure suite Larry / Police Quest / Monkey island / Lemmings / Sim city on PC, racers and platformers on Amiga 500. N64 started to get the older kids interested with Wave race initially.

My much younger Nephews did have a NES and Sega (Sonic) which was also fun but looked like kids games.



Around the Network

When it comes to home console gaming, what Nintendo did was raise the bar to a level that exceeded the expectations of gamers and made games exciting again. It was the difference between having a single person crank out a new game every month versus having a team of people work on a game for several. With the nature of the arcade, games could only be played for a few minutes at a time without requiring more credits.

I think Nintendo saw that it would be possible to put a larger budget into their games and still profit. If not for Nintendo, that isn't to say that Miyamoto wouldn't exist, right? So maybe Mario would belong to another company. :P



Jumpin said:
tack50 said:

In the US? Yeah maybe. Worldwide? Hell no.

In Japan consoles were just keeping business as usual. So there would certainly be tons of consoles being released in Japan, and I imagine at least one of them would have been sold internationally and exported. If Nintendo had decided not to export the NES to the US for some reason, maybe Sega would have and instead we'd have threads about "Did Sega save console gaming with the Master System?".

And like others said, PC gaming kept dominating Europe until like the PS1 came out.

The absolute worst case scenario I can think of is that the 3rd generation of consoles never gets released internationally, and the first console to launch internationlly ends up being the Game Boy in 1990. The Game Boy would undoubtbly take off just like it did irl, and it is certainly a console, so the Game Boy would be considered the saviour of consoles I suppose. With the success of the Game Boy, maybe Nintendo launches the SNES in 1992 or something like that

Edit: Wow the question is even dumber than I thought. Gaming at large was certainly not saved by anyone lol. Even in the absolute worst case scenarios, PC gaming would continue going on.

What you said.


The NES didn’t “save gaming” because there wasn’t really anything to save yet. The NES was more or less just a really successful console, but there was no guarantee that game brands would continue to grow beyond 1 console until Sega introduced the 16-bit generation and achieved it.

And my below post is more a response to other things (mainly because I’m ancient and actually lived through this period and was a pretty active member of gaming culture as a kid).

The console video gaming industry was in its infancy at the time and manufacturers didn’t know how to keep their brand alive long term. What happened with the Atari 2600 is many crappy games were released for it - and I don’t mean games that fat nerds take tantrums over because “therrr casual and I’m hardcore!” - these were shitty games that weren’t playable.

The Vic20 and C64 were seen as video game systems in Europe, not PCs. PCs were something pretty much specifically tied to Microsoft Windows and stuff like that. These consoles had better games on them, as did the SMS, and the NES, where it was available (you literally could only get it in certain cities in Europe until around the launch of the SNES) were what you wanted to play. No one thought of them as “next generation consoles” so much as just “consoles with better games.”

The first time we were introduced to new consoles as a “new generation” was the move from 8-bit to 16-bit: and Atari, C64, and NES weren’t two or three different generations, they were all just one: The 8-bit generation. Splitting all this stuff into different generations is just inaccurate to how things were marketed and understood back then; and it makes no sense to alter it, because all that does is make these so-called video game historians writing up story that didn’t happen.

The Mega Drive (Or Genesis/Exodus/Torah, whatever you want to call it in the US) as a new generation of video game systems was an effective strategy, and people saw it as a much more valuable console than the NES, and SNES followed with its own 16-bit console. What this achieved was Nintendo and Sega were both able to extend interest in their brand.  I think the SNES was also the one that more or less opened up the notion that the Nintendo and Sega were mainly Japanese things, because I don’t think people really saw it that way before (I assumed the NES was Scandinavian). But the SNES was where the importing of Japanese games became a major thing - but anyway, I’m rambling WAY off topic now.

The video game industry grew a lot with the 16-bit generation, and while on paper the NES did better overall, the popularity of the 16-bit generation far exceeded it. The NES was supported and sold from 1983 to 1994, while the SNES sold from 1992 to 1996. The years of the SNES were way more profitable for Nintendo, worldwide, than the NES-only years. Of course, the NES continuing to sell, helped, and so did the Gameboy; but the SNES annual sales were always higher than most NES years. What Nintendo and Sega did, was not only extend the life of their brand, but expand it.

CONCLUSION

So the concept of generations, introduced by Sega, is IMO the marketing/hardware strategy that “saved” the video game industry. The Mega Drive showed that Sega could both extend and expand their brand in a way no one had ever done before (except Commodore, but that was more or less then building another console that happened to catch fire too, not really seen as a “new generation of video games!” thing).

Another way of looking at it is that it was what really established and defined it, while the early years was a lot of experimentation until someone discovered a way to make it work as a long term business.


EPILOGUE

(just silly extra off-topic but related rambling)

Back on generations topic, the Saturn and N64 weren’t the 8th or 11th or 37th generation, they were the third generation of Nintendo and Sega hardware: in fact, there was a bit of confusion about the 32-bit generation thing Sega was marketing and the 64-bit console Nintendo had: did Nintendo jump ahead to the  generation AFTER the Saturn? Short lived as it became the 32/64 bit gen.

But then Sony came along with the PlayStation 1, PlayStation 2, etc... they just did generations better. It’s why Nintendo is really on a totally different generational track than Sony at this point.

Nintendo saw the failure of the N64, and they were like “We can’t be arrogant anymore, let’s just do what Sony did next gen, except Nintendoish” The GameCube was Nintendo’s attempt at making a PS2 clonebox, and everyone laughed because it was ridiculous and kiddy, they failed because Sony actually knew what they were doing and Nintendo was trying to copy. So Nintendo comes back and they’re like “ALRIGHT! We’ll start doing our own thing again!” The Wii was the revolution that disrupted Sony, and they did so BIG time. But then Nintendo went crazy and made the Wii U, which was Nintendo saying “now that we’re King again, try OUR take on High definition gaming!” and everyone laughed again! “OK! OK! The Switch, this is what we really meant!” And now everything is right in the world again =P

I think you are confusing use of the term generations with the Bit Wars of the early 90's.  Console manufacturers and video game writers of the day very definitely did use the term "generation" in their marketing and articles in the early 80's.  The Colecovision and the Atari 5200 were both lauded as "Third Generation Systems" when they released in 1982 with near as you could get to arcade quality graphics on your living room TV at the time.  They were a clear advancement from the Magnavox Odyssey (1972), Atari 2600 (1977) and Intellivision (1979) systems that preceded them.  It's true that historians did later alter the generations by retroactively lumping both the Colecovision and 5200 back into the 2nd Generation many years after the fact.  But, that doesn't mean that the term "Video Game Generation" was something that got invented in the PlayStation era.  Take this 1982 article from Electronic Games Magazine, whose title reads, "Third Wave Video Gaming Comes to Market":

Also, see this review of the Colecovision and its games from the December 1982 issue of "Electronic Fun with Computers & Games" which literally breaks down home consoles by generation as viewed at the time:

Third Generation

"I’ve had a chance to carefully evaluate the ColecoVision versions of Donkey Kong, Venture, Cosmic Avenger, Lady Bug, and Smurf at press time and enjoyed them all immensely. Because of the ever-changing game screens, the high-quality graphics and the imaginative music and sound effects, I found the games to be always entertaining and rarely boring—no easy feat, with my limited attention span. If anything. my only complaint is that some people might find a few of the ColecoVision games to be too difficult—something that you don’t usually hear about a standard game. This can be good or bad, depending on how competitive you are.

The ColecoVision games put other versions to shame. The VCS Donkey Kong, for example, gives you a simplistic “bare bones” display, without any of the subtleties or the arcade-like background music of the ColecoVision game.

The VCS omits the last. most difficult level, the infamous “elevator level.” By comparison, the ColecoVision version was a near-perfect duplication of the arcade classic, with all of the sound effects and most of the visuals left virtually intact.

The ColecoVision execs are extremely proud of their system, which they consider to be the first Third-generation programmable on the market, right after the original Atari VCS and Odyssey² (first-generation) and the Mattel Intellivision (second-generation). As one spokesman told me: “The coin-op designers are always worried about keeping the home versions of their games as accurate as possible and so far we’ve had nothing but praise for our ColecoVision designs.” I’d have to agree with his assessment.

The only question that remains is whether or not Coleco will be able to get their system and games on the market fast enough. So far, dealers have been clamoring for the ColecoVision consoles, which have been in extremely short supply since their introduction this fall. My bet is that those consumers who are lucky enough to be first on the block with a ColecoVision will find the wait well worth it. The system is great, but there’s one thing Coleco has to fix. Before any game you have to stare at the words “ColecoVision” for 12 seconds. And when your game is over, you have to stare at it for another 12 seconds. Maybe Coleco wants to let us run to the refrigerator between hours of Cosmic Avenger, but when I play, I just want to play."

http://vgpavilion.com/mags/1982/12/ef/game-workout-colecovision/



Mandalore76 said:
Jumpin said:

What you said.


The NES didn’t “save gaming” because there wasn’t really anything to save yet. The NES was more or less just a really successful console, but there was no guarantee that game brands would continue to grow beyond 1 console until Sega introduced the 16-bit generation and achieved it.

And my below post is more a response to other things (mainly because I’m ancient and actually lived through this period and was a pretty active member of gaming culture as a kid).

The console video gaming industry was in its infancy at the time and manufacturers didn’t know how to keep their brand alive long term. What happened with the Atari 2600 is many crappy games were released for it - and I don’t mean games that fat nerds take tantrums over because “therrr casual and I’m hardcore!” - these were shitty games that weren’t playable.

The Vic20 and C64 were seen as video game systems in Europe, not PCs. PCs were something pretty much specifically tied to Microsoft Windows and stuff like that. These consoles had better games on them, as did the SMS, and the NES, where it was available (you literally could only get it in certain cities in Europe until around the launch of the SNES) were what you wanted to play. No one thought of them as “next generation consoles” so much as just “consoles with better games.”

The first time we were introduced to new consoles as a “new generation” was the move from 8-bit to 16-bit: and Atari, C64, and NES weren’t two or three different generations, they were all just one: The 8-bit generation. Splitting all this stuff into different generations is just inaccurate to how things were marketed and understood back then; and it makes no sense to alter it, because all that does is make these so-called video game historians writing up story that didn’t happen.

The Mega Drive (Or Genesis/Exodus/Torah, whatever you want to call it in the US) as a new generation of video game systems was an effective strategy, and people saw it as a much more valuable console than the NES, and SNES followed with its own 16-bit console. What this achieved was Nintendo and Sega were both able to extend interest in their brand.  I think the SNES was also the one that more or less opened up the notion that the Nintendo and Sega were mainly Japanese things, because I don’t think people really saw it that way before (I assumed the NES was Scandinavian). But the SNES was where the importing of Japanese games became a major thing - but anyway, I’m rambling WAY off topic now.

The video game industry grew a lot with the 16-bit generation, and while on paper the NES did better overall, the popularity of the 16-bit generation far exceeded it. The NES was supported and sold from 1983 to 1994, while the SNES sold from 1992 to 1996. The years of the SNES were way more profitable for Nintendo, worldwide, than the NES-only years. Of course, the NES continuing to sell, helped, and so did the Gameboy; but the SNES annual sales were always higher than most NES years. What Nintendo and Sega did, was not only extend the life of their brand, but expand it.

CONCLUSION

So the concept of generations, introduced by Sega, is IMO the marketing/hardware strategy that “saved” the video game industry. The Mega Drive showed that Sega could both extend and expand their brand in a way no one had ever done before (except Commodore, but that was more or less then building another console that happened to catch fire too, not really seen as a “new generation of video games!” thing).

Another way of looking at it is that it was what really established and defined it, while the early years was a lot of experimentation until someone discovered a way to make it work as a long term business.


EPILOGUE

(just silly extra off-topic but related rambling)

Back on generations topic, the Saturn and N64 weren’t the 8th or 11th or 37th generation, they were the third generation of Nintendo and Sega hardware: in fact, there was a bit of confusion about the 32-bit generation thing Sega was marketing and the 64-bit console Nintendo had: did Nintendo jump ahead to the  generation AFTER the Saturn? Short lived as it became the 32/64 bit gen.

But then Sony came along with the PlayStation 1, PlayStation 2, etc... they just did generations better. It’s why Nintendo is really on a totally different generational track than Sony at this point.

Nintendo saw the failure of the N64, and they were like “We can’t be arrogant anymore, let’s just do what Sony did next gen, except Nintendoish” The GameCube was Nintendo’s attempt at making a PS2 clonebox, and everyone laughed because it was ridiculous and kiddy, they failed because Sony actually knew what they were doing and Nintendo was trying to copy. So Nintendo comes back and they’re like “ALRIGHT! We’ll start doing our own thing again!” The Wii was the revolution that disrupted Sony, and they did so BIG time. But then Nintendo went crazy and made the Wii U, which was Nintendo saying “now that we’re King again, try OUR take on High definition gaming!” and everyone laughed again! “OK! OK! The Switch, this is what we really meant!” And now everything is right in the world again =P

I think you are confusing use of the term generations with the Bit Wars of the early 90's.  Console manufacturers and video game writers of the day very definitely did use the term "generation" in their marketing and articles in the early 80's.  The Colecovision and the Atari 5200 were both lauded as "Third Generation Systems" when they released in 1982 with near as you could get to arcade quality graphics on your living room TV at the time.  They were a clear advancement from the Magnavox Odyssey (1972), Atari 2600 (1977) and Intellivision (1979) systems that preceded them.  It's true that historians did later alter the generations by retroactively lumping both the Colecovision and 5200 back into the 2nd Generation many years after the fact.  But, that doesn't mean that the term "Video Game Generation" was something that got invented in the PlayStation era.  Take this 1982 article from Electronic Games Magazine, whose title reads, "Third Wave Video Gaming Comes to Market":

Also, see this review of the Colecovision and its games from the December 1982 issue of "Electronic Fun with Computers & Games" which literally breaks down home consoles by generation as viewed at the time:

Third Generation

"I’ve had a chance to carefully evaluate the ColecoVision versions of Donkey Kong, Venture, Cosmic Avenger, Lady Bug, and Smurf at press time and enjoyed them all immensely. Because of the ever-changing game screens, the high-quality graphics and the imaginative music and sound effects, I found the games to be always entertaining and rarely boring—no easy feat, with my limited attention span. If anything. my only complaint is that some people might find a few of the ColecoVision games to be too difficult—something that you don’t usually hear about a standard game. This can be good or bad, depending on how competitive you are.

The ColecoVision games put other versions to shame. The VCS Donkey Kong, for example, gives you a simplistic “bare bones” display, without any of the subtleties or the arcade-like background music of the ColecoVision game.

The VCS omits the last. most difficult level, the infamous “elevator level.” By comparison, the ColecoVision version was a near-perfect duplication of the arcade classic, with all of the sound effects and most of the visuals left virtually intact.

The ColecoVision execs are extremely proud of their system, which they consider to be the first Third-generation programmable on the market, right after the original Atari VCS and Odyssey² (first-generation) and the Mattel Intellivision (second-generation). As one spokesman told me: “The coin-op designers are always worried about keeping the home versions of their games as accurate as possible and so far we’ve had nothing but praise for our ColecoVision designs.” I’d have to agree with his assessment.

The only question that remains is whether or not Coleco will be able to get their system and games on the market fast enough. So far, dealers have been clamoring for the ColecoVision consoles, which have been in extremely short supply since their introduction this fall. My bet is that those consumers who are lucky enough to be first on the block with a ColecoVision will find the wait well worth it. The system is great, but there’s one thing Coleco has to fix. Before any game you have to stare at the words “ColecoVision” for 12 seconds. And when your game is over, you have to stare at it for another 12 seconds. Maybe Coleco wants to let us run to the refrigerator between hours of Cosmic Avenger, but when I play, I just want to play."

http://vgpavilion.com/mags/1982/12/ef/game-workout-colecovision/

Very interesting. I had never come across or heard any of this stuff before. Although it’s a bit before my time. The mid-80s was when I got into gaming, and no one really spoke about generations of consoles until Mega Drive, and no one called it the fifth generation - it was the 16-bit generation. The understanding was generally tied to the bits of a system, and this continued even into the Dreamcast/PS2 era - where “128-bit” was used, even though that wasn’t accurate.

But, either way, it seems people using numbered generations are actually not in agreement with those early documentations either because they call this upcoming one the 9th generation. Those articles are talking about the 5200 and ColecoVision as the third wave, but that would make the NES/SMS wave #4, SNES 5, PSX 6, PS2 7, Wii/PS3 8, PS4 9, then PS5 would be the 10th generation. I’m assuming this represents the general thinking in the US (it definitely wasn’t the case in West European countries by the mid-80s until early 2000s), it still would not match the generation narrative people push today, that would still be inaccurate.

But anyway, thanks for digging those old magazines up. I’ve been digging up some stuff myself on the history of RPGs, and it’s very interesting when you get into the pre-Dragon Warrior stuff, that game has more of an impact on RPG design around the world than it’s given credit for... but I like to rant, and that’s a different story.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Once upon a time, Victor Grant was drowning in troubled waters. A few strong swimmers (Nick, Steve and Aaron) were around but were reluctant to hop in to save him since they could very well risk their own skin. In the end, Nick dove in and saved poor Victor. Most people agree Nick saved Victor and thank him for it but others look down on Nick and say he didn't in fact save Victor since if he hadn't jumped in, Steve and Aaron would of instead.

Last edited by TruckOSaurus - on 09 July 2020

Signature goes here!

Around the Network
tack50 said:
LivingMetal said:

So it could be argued that console gaming "came back" because Nintendo was at the right place at the right time.  Therefore, Nintendo revitalized the console market.  So tell us All-Wise-One-From-An-Alternate-Timeline.  If the NES never existed, how was console gaming "always gonna come back?"  Hmm...

Designing an scenario where some other console saves the console market in the US is relatively easy. 

.........................................

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



SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

For everywhere, really.

First of all, it's not just the "US market', but rather The Americas market. The whole continent.

Second of all, Nintendo proved with the NES that gaming was more than just a "toy" and thus not a fad. The market in the Americas had died, and the European one and Japanese would soon follow after, at the very least the home console(which is like 70% of the market as of right now, give or take), since most big players would not exist without Nintendo. Sega probably wouldn't make the genesis, since that was an answer to the NES, and Sony would also never going to enter the market as a result. And since MS created the XBox only to compete with Sony, that would be a no go.

Plus, like I said, most gaming staples were created by Nintendo and it's 3rd and 4rd gen consoles. Without them, I have no idea how many decades of gaming techniques and design behind we would all be.

Actually MS was behind the MSX platform which is the birthplace of Metal Gear Solid. The MSX did well in Japan and in parts of Europe, but for some reason failed in the USA.

Nintendo on the other hand was seen as the kiddie console where I lived with expensive cartridges and crappy conversions. NES and the 50hz curse... Sony dragged consoles away from the games are for kids stigma back to where they were with Atari, Commodore and Amiga.

Anyway, I was born in '74, been playing games since 1980 and never heard of the video game crash until I moved to NA. Apparently I lived through it without ever noticing it, happily gaming away.

Yeaaaah, kind of.

First of all, gaming was never seen as an "adult hobby" until the 7th gen, let's all be honest here. It was never seen as that during the 2nd gen- Atari - (don't even know where you took that from), and while Sony moved towards that direction, they only really accomplished that "adulthood approved seal" during the 7th gen, since before that it was very much as a kid/teen hobby (even if Nintendo had that reputation of the " for young kids" image, while Sony and MS had that "for teens and 20s "teens"" going for it.)

Second, Nintendo DID prove the industry authenticity and viability, not only bringing it back from the dead, but also getting record breaking sales numbers with it's consoles, games. Not to mention all the new experiences never before seen that it brought to the table, thus proving that it could be more than something to "pass the time"

Anyways, never got this recent trend of trying to downplay the vital role that Nintendo had in rescuying the industry from the blink of destruction.



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

TruckOSaurus said:

Once upon a time, Victor Grant was drowning in troubled waters. A few strong swimmers (Nick, Steve and Aaron) were around but were reluctant to hop in to save him since they could very well risk their own skin. In the end, Nick dove in and saved poor Victor. Most people agree Nick saved Victor and thank him for it but others look down on Nick and say he didn't in fact save Victor since if he hadn't jumped in, Steve and Aaron would of instead.

The victor is the one who writes the history.Dosen't make said achievement any less grand

The courage to be the first one to jump is as hard as to be the one to first invent the art of jumping.

... Goddamn my analogy was horrible.



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

They did

/Thread



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

LivingMetal said:
tack50 said:

Designing an scenario where some other console saves the console market in the US is relatively easy. 

.........................................

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.