No leo-j, just no.

leo-j said: Sony should get the credit not nintendo, they freakin rejected them when they wanted to make the SNES a better system. Now because they made the NES everyone thinks they are best. Childs play really..

Dude, the NES is older than you. Heck, the SNES is older than you. Of course you are going to think Sony saved videogames. You were only 3 when the PS1 came out...

Didn't NINTENDO do that mitsuhide?

Also leo-j, just because Nintendo was asses to Sony shouldn't mean the NES ever happened. That is like me saying since PS3 isn't living up to the PS2 Microsoft was the winner of last-gen.

mitsuhide said: Yes they get way too much credit for the saving videogaming thing, for a start give some credit to SEGA, and Commodore and more.They did save videogaming BUT NOT Worldwide only in Japan where it was never that big but look at it now there its MASSIVE.

No not just Japan the NES caused the revival in NA and started the industry in Japan. The only saving they've done in Japan was recently with the DS when their video game market was declining severely back in 04 just like the US market was doing back in the early 80's. I'd argue too the PSP had a hand in it also Japan does seem to be sick of the home console for the most part and I can't blame them their life seems to be much more on the go with a lot more public transportation than you see here in the US.

I guess the message I'm trying to get across is that I think people who say "There would be no videogames today if not for Nintendo saving videogames" are wrong. I don't wish to argue about the size of gaming because we'll never know what it could have been, but without someone pointing out why computer game makers that were making profits would all suddenly disappear then there's no logical reason that the statement given is true.

See what I mean " Nintendo made video gameswhat they are today"

Legend11 said: The Atari ST and Amiga could be compared to expensive videogame consoles of today (and previous generations) and would have eventually come down in price. The Commodore 64 could be compared to the PS2 in that it was immensely successful and attracted a wide range of gamers both because of it's price and library of games.

I'm not so sure they would have ...

Many of these companies were releasing their hardware at $1,000 to $1,500 as an affordable PC, slowly reducing their prices to about $500 to $750 and then replacing them with their next version of their system for $1,000 to $1,500.

The NES was unconventional for its time because it was underpowered, stable hardware which was released at a mass market price and wasn't replaced for a long time (in comparision to their competition).

 

Legend11 said: I guess the message I'm trying to get across is that I think people who say "There would be no videogames today if not for Nintendo saving videogames" are wrong. I don't wish to argue about the size of gaming because we'll never know what it could have been, but without someone pointing out why computer game makers that were making profits would all suddenly disappear then there's no logical reason that the statement given is true.

That I can agree to video gaming certainly wouldn't have ceased to exist that much is certain.

ssj12 said: Na, really SEGA deserves some credit.

 

I think this debate is centered around the NES era. And Sega's Master System wasn't exactly huge during that time.

Of course it's stupid to say things like "If it weren't for Nintendo we wouldn't have videogames today."

But the NES was a major achievement in all aspects. Gameplay, sales, third parties. If Nintendo hadn't jumped in, the industry still would have recovered, but it may not have ever hit the same stride.

No, it's just that the other guys don't get enough credit, when they have all helped build gaming to what it is today.