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

Forums - Gaming - Why the NES can't be considered to be the best videogame console ever.

Pyramid Head on 16 April 2009
BTFeather55 said:
I would think that most people posting on this site are under 30. Therefore, you have candy coated memories of how great the NES was. If you were born in the seventies instead of the eighties and had 2600s in their peak years, you will acknowledge that no home videogame hardware ever passed the 2600 in its prime.

im over 30, born in the 70s

had a 2600 for a bit before nes came out

and again if you tried to take my nes away even for 50 atari games, id have cut your throat

 



Last year's game of the year turned out to be Silent Hill : Shattered Memories (online GOTY was COD 6).  This year's GOTY leader to me is Heavy Rain.

Wii Friend Code: 4094-4604-1880-6889

Around the Network
Bobbuffalo on 16 April 2009

Could anybody please lock this ludicrous post? it makes my head hurt just reading to it.

BTFeather, as a 33 year old gamer whose first console was an atari 2600 and has followed the industry non-stop, honestly you make me sad.

I hope one day you grow up and act and talk like a real gamer and not a troll one.



BTFeather55 on 16 April 2009
Khuutra said:
BTFeather55 said:
I would think that most people posting on this site are under 30. Therefore, you have candy coated memories of how great the NES was. If you were born in the seventies instead of the eighties and had 2600s in their peak years, you will acknowledge that no home videogame hardware ever passed the 2600 in its prime.

Age has nothing to do with it. By what metric could you possibly compare Pitfall to Super Mario Bros. 3?

 

 Simple.  Take a time machine back to 1981, have brain washing done so that you don't remember anything about the NES, turn on a radio station, here some ads for Pitfall, go to a store, take it home and play it, and you will see how amazing it is, then in a few years you will see that the Super Mario games really aren't doing anything more groundbreaking at their basic levels than what was not previously done in Pitfall.



Heavens to Murgatoids.

Pyramid Head on 16 April 2009
BTFeather55 said:
Pyramid Head said:
BTFeather55 said:

     Because the Atari 2600, PC Engine, Genesis, SNES, PS1, and PS2 were all better systems.

 

as a guy who owned all of those, youre on crack

if you came up to me when i got my nes and tried to trade me my old 2600 back for it, id have cut your throat

i do agree turbografx rocked and was better than many systems, but not nes

genesis?  please cant beat snes. . .

ps1 drove me to pc gaming

and ps2 is no original xbox

imho

 

      Your profile says that you are 30 years old.  That means that to have had the 2600 in its prime that you would have had to have had it when you were between 1 and 3 years old.  Naturally, you would have thought the NES was better because of its improved technical abilities; however, that's a bit like comparing a PS1 to a PS3.  Yeah, games on PS3 look better and can be more complex, but the PS1 was there first and has a greater historical significance + plus more great games that it accumulated during its prime.

its pretty arguable what had better games

look at the series that live on now with new iterations from then:

metal gear, final fantasy, dragon warrior, castlevania, contra (kinda), mario, zelda, metroid, ninja gaiden (arcade yes, but story came on nes), mega man, bionic commando etc

they were games that had just that tiny bit more depth that let them be expanded on and live on, more than say frogger, or combat.

the only way they add to those is by adding neon and techno music (pac man, galaga, asteroids, tempest, space invaders)

also atari was not the first system ever, so its kind of moot on history

 



Last year's game of the year turned out to be Silent Hill : Shattered Memories (online GOTY was COD 6).  This year's GOTY leader to me is Heavy Rain.

Wii Friend Code: 4094-4604-1880-6889

Khuutra on 16 April 2009
BTFeather55 said:
Khuutra said:
BTFeather55 said:
I would think that most people posting on this site are under 30. Therefore, you have candy coated memories of how great the NES was. If you were born in the seventies instead of the eighties and had 2600s in their peak years, you will acknowledge that no home videogame hardware ever passed the 2600 in its prime.

Age has nothing to do with it. By what metric could you possibly compare Pitfall to Super Mario Bros. 3?

 Simple.  Take a time machine back to 1981, have brain washing done so that you don't remember anything about the NES, turn on a radio station, here some ads for Pitfall, go to a store, take it home and play it, and you will see how amazing it is, then in a few years you will see that the Super Mario games really aren't doing anything more groundbreaking at their basic levels than what was not previously done in Pitfall.

Jesus God

So I take it scrolling levels don't really mean anything to you then



Around the Network
BTFeather55 on 16 April 2009
Bobbuffalo said:
Could anybody please lock this ludicrous post? it makes my head hurt just reading to it.

BTFeather, as a 33 year old gamer whose first console was an atari 2600 and has followed the industry non-stop, honestly you make me sad.

I hope one day you grow up and act and talk like a real gamer and not a troll one.

 

 When things aren't going your guys ways, you always love to bring up the "troll" word.



Heavens to Murgatoids.

Hawk on 16 April 2009

     BTFeather55, I am in complete disbelief that you called ET on the 2600 a true gem of a game. I actually played that thing. It's horrible. And I don't mean a matter of opinion horrible, it's damn unplayable. The designer was only given 6 weeks to make the game, and it showed. Granted, games didn't take as long to make back then, but six weeks was still barely any time to make a game.

Wow. Just wow. I am not sure if you believe the things you say anymore, or if you just love attention and irritating people.



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

BTFeather55 on 16 April 2009
Khuutra said:
BTFeather55 said:
Khuutra said:
BTFeather55 said:
I would think that most people posting on this site are under 30. Therefore, you have candy coated memories of how great the NES was. If you were born in the seventies instead of the eighties and had 2600s in their peak years, you will acknowledge that no home videogame hardware ever passed the 2600 in its prime.

Age has nothing to do with it. By what metric could you possibly compare Pitfall to Super Mario Bros. 3?

 Simple.  Take a time machine back to 1981, have brain washing done so that you don't remember anything about the NES, turn on a radio station, here some ads for Pitfall, go to a store, take it home and play it, and you will see how amazing it is, then in a few years you will see that the Super Mario games really aren't doing anything more groundbreaking at their basic levels than what was not previously done in Pitfall.

Jesus God

So I take it scrolling levels don't really mean anything to you then

 

 You could choose to run right or left at the beginning of Pitfall.  You could only go right in Super Mario Brothers 1.



Heavens to Murgatoids.

Hawk on 16 April 2009

     I will say that I did love my Atari 2600 though. I have not read everything in this thread, but like Rubang said at one point, there are some great classics on there. I am totally with you on Warlords, that was my first very favorite 4 player game. A year ago in my Intro to Game Design class, the instructor busted out his Atari 2600 and had everyone play. Muwahahahaha. I was undefeated on Warlords. BRING IT!

Combat was another really good one.



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

Khuutra on 16 April 2009
BTFeather55 said:
Khuutra said:
BTFeather55 said:
Khuutra said:
BTFeather55 said:
I would think that most people posting on this site are under 30. Therefore, you have candy coated memories of how great the NES was. If you were born in the seventies instead of the eighties and had 2600s in their peak years, you will acknowledge that no home videogame hardware ever passed the 2600 in its prime.

Age has nothing to do with it. By what metric could you possibly compare Pitfall to Super Mario Bros. 3?

 Simple.  Take a time machine back to 1981, have brain washing done so that you don't remember anything about the NES, turn on a radio station, here some ads for Pitfall, go to a store, take it home and play it, and you will see how amazing it is, then in a few years you will see that the Super Mario games really aren't doing anything more groundbreaking at their basic levels than what was not previously done in Pitfall.

Jesus God

So I take it scrolling levels don't really mean anything to you then

 You could choose to run right or left at the beginning of Pitfall.  You could only go right in Super Mario Brothers 1.

That is not what "scrolling levels" means.

Look, I'm sure you were amazed by Pitfall when you were a kid. That's fine. But as a person who can view games jsut for what they are, both in terms of function and form, even minding platform limitations, Super Mario Bros. was just a much more fun, technically complete game.

And I was making the comparison with Super Mario Bros. 3, which blows every other platformer in the universe up to its release entirely out of the water.