I was born in 1983.
Pitfall was made in 1982.
Donkey Kong was made in 1981, and was better than Pitfall in every way.

It had more enemies, moving platforms, and it even had a POWER-UP. It had things to jump on, jump over, and run under. It had a boss and an ending. It had a level in which you change the environment, creating holes that you then have to jump over. It had items to collect for points.

Pitfall had alligators and vines. They go on forever. They are boring. The game was uglier, slower, had more awkward controls, no power-ups, and no ending.

Donkey Kong is more important to gaming history both aesthetically and technically.

I don't need to be really old to know this. I can judge art made before I was born. I read books written hundreds and thousands of years ago, watch films made over a century ago, and listen to music from all over time and space. Why you think you're the only person old enough to understand Pitfall is beyond me.

You've gone through every horrible argument in the book in this thread, but you haven't made the one argument you can defend, which would be to say "I had more fun playing Pitfall than Donkey Kong, so I like it more." But instead you're supporting your subjective preference with objective baloney.

       I've defended it multiple times.  And you're wrong about Pitfall it had an ending.  In order to reach it you had to collect 32 treasures in twenty minutes and how you went about trying to accomplish that goal which path you chose to take was entirely up to the gamer.

I may be under 30, but the 2600 was my first gaming experience.  I never even owned a NES.  And yet, I still know that you are completely off your rocker.

By the way, you really screwed up your arguement trying to defend Pitfall and Pitfall 2.  Those are the worst platformers I have ever played.  They are slow, boring, repetitive, have no clear goal, and are filled with cheap ways to die.  You should have picked a game that was actually fun to play, like Keystone Kapers.  That was a good platformer.  There was a real sense of urgency, a clear goal, harder difficulty levels, and varied traps.

Even then, Keystone Kapers doesn't compare to most games on the NES.

      I already posted reviews from Classic Game Room that gave both games 5 out of 5.  And in turn, those videos were given 5 out of 5 star reviews from people that watched them on youtube, so I don't feel as if your opinion has any shot at being the only valid one.

Youtube scores are less than worthless; I've seen vore videos with with five out of five ratings.

Here's a couple more then:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/a2600/review/R16410.html

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/a2600/review/R14787.html

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/a2600/review/R128085.html

Gamefaqs also has people who like E.T.

It's ok for you to like Pitfall or think it's more important than SMB, but don't force it down other peoples throat's, no one has any tolerance for that.

      Yeah, well, I equally don't looking on this site and seeing threads like "NES can Be Considered to be the best video game console of All Time" when it isn't.

Are you sure you want to appeal to other people's opinions and opinions of those opinions?  I guess you just did, so let's go down that road.

Everyone in this thread disagrees with your opinion that the 2600 was better than the NES.  By your logic, that makes your opinion wrong, and everyone else right.

     I guess I have to agree with the believers then.  But even if I give you Mario being superior to Pitfall, I really haven't seen one shred of evidence to contradict the notion that the 2600 had far better shooters coming from the early age of arcade than the shooters that were available on the NES.  Megalomania, Missle Command, Moon Patrol, Atlantis, Yar's Revenge, Centipede, Phoenix, Berzerk, Vanguard, Defender, Space Invaders, Asteroids, River Raid those games were never matched by any shooters on the NES.

     The NES never had a racer the equal of Enduro either.

    So, that still adds up to the 2600 being better than the NES.