Which console is better? Atari or NES?

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

It appears that Wikipedia uses "The Crash of 1983" as the dividing line between 2nd and 3rd generation. Although the Colecovision and 5200 were obviously later technology than the 2600, they were sold at the same time, so perhaps that's the criteria. The 2600, Intellivision, 5200, and Colecovision were all on the market at the same time, competing for your gaming dollar. They're not looking at "tech." They're looking at what was for sale, when.

 

Can we just accept the fact there are consoles that were released between generations? Most have not been successful. There's a glut of stuff released in the early 80s and early 90s that clearly do not fit into either generation. I don't care what the magazines said in the early 80s. You can't just add 1 to every single console generation that came afterwords. There are two rather large gaps. Firstly between the pre crash and post crash systems in the early 80s. Secondly between the late 2D (4th Gen) and early 3D (5th Gen) consoles in the early 90s.

 

Early 80s: Coleco, 5200, Vectrex as Generation 2.5

 

Possibly TG-16 as Generation 3.5

 

Early 90s: Neo Geo, 3DO, CDi, 32X, and possibly Atari Jaguire as Generation 4.5

 

Dreamcast, Wii, and Wii-U can possibly dock a couple points off because they are underpowered.

 

Perhaps we need a new ranking system based on tenths of a point. Consoles of each generation can have tenths of a point added or subtracted, up to .5 points in either direction. A plus + or minus - denotes the special case of x.5 to denote the console's base generation. X.5- technically belongs to X generation; X.5+ belongs to X+1 generation.

 

Pre Crash, Atari is the de facto standard.

Atari PONG = 1.0

Atari VCS = 2.0

 

2D bit wars, Nintendo is de facto standard.

NES = 3.0

SNES = 4.0

 

3D era, Sony is the de facto standard.

PS1 = 5.0

PS2 = 6.0

PS3 = 7.0

PS4 = 8.0

??? = 9.0 <- end of physical media ???

etc...

 

Each system in each generation can have tenths of a point added or docked based on merits across several criteria, including overall performance, release date, etc. Popularity, units sold, or whether the games rocked or sucked should not influence the score, just technical merits. A separate ranking system should exist for handheld units, as should newer genres like micro consoles (Ouya, et al) and tablet/mobile devices. For instance, a 4th generation candidate could range anywhere from 3.5+ to 4.5-. TG-16, while still a 4th gen console, loses a couple tenths due to reduced performance and earlier release date, being hybrid 8-bit and all. Sega's 32X and Neo Geo would be on the high end of 4th gen. Jag would be on the low end of 5th gen, still above the high end 4th gen, but definitely below 5. Wii and Wii-U take significant hits due to being reduced performance compared to the Xbox and Playstation. Lots of room for interpretation and fanboy nitpicking over the score of each console. Again, I must iterate, having a larger or smaller score does not mean the console is better or worse than another.

Edited May 10, 2014 by stardust4ever

[atarian63]

Famicom released in 1983. NES released in the US is the same damn system with a redesigned cartridge port. So you can't class NES and Famicom in separate generations. Any way you slice it, NES is 3rd gen.

Did not hit the us and in limited numbers till Christmas 85

Edited May 10, 2014 by atarian63

[Seob]

Edited May 10, 2014 by Seob

[high voltage]

 

It appears that Wikipedia uses "The Crash of 1983" as the dividing line between 2nd and 3rd generation. Although the Colecovision and 5200 were obviously later technology than the 2600, they were sold at the same time, so perhaps that's the criteria. The 2600, Intellivision, 5200, and Colecovision were all on the market at the same time, competing for your gaming dollar. They're not looking at "tech." They're looking at what was for sale, when.

They can't even get the 'crash of 1984' right. (The crash actually started in 1982, you can read up about it in Atari Inc Business is fun, and happened in 1984, you can read up about it in EG March 1984 issue)

 

Anyway, the VCS was on the market until 1992, and second best selling console during the NES era, is VCS second, third and fourth gen?

Edited May 10, 2014 by high voltage

[+wood_jl]

Heh heh. You boys bring up some interesting points.

 

Obviously, it's complicated to break this hierarchy down, and different ways to do it. I had forgotten that the 2600/VCS was on the market from 1977 to 1992. The 5200 such a short life, in between those years, etc.

[famicommander]

The NES blows the 2600 completely out of the water in my book.

 

I have both and I love both, but there's just so much more variety and depth to the NES library. Most of the best 2600 games are simple arcade shooters or platformers whereas the NES has great games in pretty much any genre.

 

There's really no experience on 2600 that is equivalent to stuff like The Legend of Zelda (Adventure might be as close as you can get), Final Fantasy, Metroid, Ninja Gaiden, Mega Man, etc.

[R.Bear]

I personally find the NES to be a very overrated console.

 

Having said that, the NES and the VCS I find difficult to compare as they are from different eras and the game types are very different.

 

I prefer the library of games which you find on the NES, as it has lots of adventure games, platform games and RPG games but also some arcade games. It would be difficult to find a good RPG game on the Atari VCS.

 

I prefer the NES as a whole but I don't really think they are comparable as their game libraries are completely different.

 

I do like both of them, but I play the NES more often.

[high voltage]

The NES blows the 2600 completely out of the water in my book.

 

I have both and I love both, but there's just so much more variety and depth to the NES library. Most of the best 2600 games are simple arcade shooters or platformers whereas the NES has great games in pretty much any genre.

 

There's really no experience on 2600 that is equivalent to stuff like The Legend of Zelda (Adventure might be as close as you can get), Final Fantasy, Metroid, Ninja Gaiden, Mega Man, etc.

 

The Genesis blows the NES totally out of the water, so what's your point?

[high voltage]

 

Can we just accept the fact there are consoles that were released between generations? Most have not been successful. There's a glut of stuff released in the early 80s and early 90s that clearly do not fit into either generation. I don't care what the magazines said in the early 80s. You can't just add 1 to every single console generation that came afterwords. There are two rather large gaps. Firstly between the pre crash and post crash systems in the early 80s. Secondly between the late 2D (4th Gen) and early 3D (5th Gen) consoles in the early 90s.

 

Early 80s: Coleco, 5200, Vectrex as Generation 2.5

 

Possibly TG-16 as Generation 3.5

 

Early 90s: Neo Geo, 3DO, CDi, 32X, and possibly Atari Jaguire as Generation 4.5

 

Dreamcast, Wii, and Wii-U can possibly dock a couple points off because they are underpowered.

 

Perhaps we need a new ranking system based on tenths of a point. Consoles of each generation can have tenths of a point added or subtracted, up to .5 points in either direction. A plus + or minus - denotes the special case of x.5 to denote the console's base generation. X.5- technically belongs to X generation; X.5+ belongs to X+1 generation.

 

Pre Crash, Atari is the de facto standard.

Atari PONG = 1.0

Atari VCS = 2.0

 

2D bit wars, Nintendo is de facto standard.

NES = 3.0

SNES = 4.0

 

3D era, Sony is the de facto standard.

PS1 = 5.0

PS2 = 6.0

PS3 = 7.0

PS4 = 8.0

??? = 9.0 <- end of physical media ???

etc...

 

Each system in each generation can have tenths of a point added or docked based on merits across several criteria, including overall performance, release date, etc. Popularity, units sold, or whether the games rocked or sucked should not influence the score, just technical merits. A separate ranking system should exist for handheld units, as should newer genres like micro consoles (Ouya, et al) and tablet/mobile devices. For instance, a 4th generation candidate could range anywhere from 3.5+ to 4.5-. TG-16, while still a 4th gen console, loses a couple tenths due to reduced performance and earlier release date, being hybrid 8-bit and all. Sega's 32X and Neo Geo would be on the high end of 4th gen. Jag would be on the low end of 5th gen, still above the high end 4th gen, but definitely below 5. Wii and Wii-U take significant hits due to being reduced performance compared to the Xbox and Playstation. Lots of room for interpretation and fanboy nitpicking over the score of each console. Again, I must iterate, having a larger or smaller score does not mean the console is better or worse than another.

 

It's a nice thought, but it is documented fact that Coleco, 5200 and Vectrex are third gen.

Edited May 10, 2014 by high voltage

[Rhomaios]

 

It's a nice thought, but it is documented fact that Coleco, 5200 and Vectrex are third gen.

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[famicommander]

 

The Genesis blows the NES totally out of the water, so what's your point?

My point was to answer the original question in the first post of this topic. The topic creator asked which system we thought was better and I answered. Not really sure how you could miss the point.

 

The difference between 2600 and NES versus NES and Genesis is much larger in my opinion. NES and Genesis can both roughly handle the same types of games, Genesis is just a much more powerful machine. There are many different types of games that simply do not work on 2600 hardware, like RPGs.

[high voltage]

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

OK I try to explain in simple terms:

The Coleco, Atari 5200 and the Vectrex are 3rd Generation consoles, it is written in many magazines and books from the era.

That means it is factual that the Coleco, Vectrex and Atari 5200 are third Generation consoles.

 

Wikipedia writes that the Coleco, Atari 5200 and Vectrex are second Generation consoles, which is wrong.

Simple.

[high voltage]

My point was to answer the original question in the first post of this topic. The topic creator asked which system we thought was better and I answered. Not really sure how you could miss the point.

 

The difference between 2600 and NES versus NES and Genesis is much larger in my opinion. NES and Genesis can both roughly handle the same types of games, Genesis is just a much more powerful machine. There are many different types of games that simply do not work on 2600 hardware, like RPGs.

Oh yes true, forget about the original post with all this factual nonsense.

[high voltage]

EG March 1984, the crash:

[Rhomaios]

 

OK I try to explain in simple terms:

The Coleco, Atari 5200 and the Vectrex are 3rd Generation consoles, it is written in many magazines and books from the era.

That means it is factual that the Coleco, Vectrex and Atari 5200 are third Generation consoles.

 

Wikipedia writes that the Coleco, Atari 5200 and Vectrex are second Generation consoles, which is wrong.

Simple.

 

The only factual thing about which they wrote is that they considered them to be third generation consoles. But they and Wikipedia have different criteria. And since all categorization is inherently subjective, to the point, in this instance, of being arbitrary, you cannot consider any groupings of the consoles at all to be factual, by definition. Before you argue which is correct, you need to define the criteria, then match the historical circumstances to it. And of course, since you're relying on historical circumstances to determine the criteria, it will all be circular anyway. In other words, there are multiple ways to do it, none of which have anything to do with "simply" being "wrong."

[Rhomaios]

I see also you still haven't responded to the issues raised with claiming the crash happened in 1984, nor have you yet corrected yourself on "Japanese" controls. Maybe it's time to drop the ax-grinding?

[high voltage]

Crash: Read EG article above.

Japanese controls are still the 'wrong way around' and always will be.

My axe stays sharp.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Crash: Read EG article above.

Japanese controls are still the 'wrong way around' and always will be.

My axe stays sharp.

By "Japanese" Controls, you mean Nintendo's Dpad? Arcade controls are still great, but it is difficult to make them cheaply. The CX-40s fail on so many levels with their stiff 30-year-old plastic. Dpads just work. Sure you can buy or built quality arcade controllers at a premium, but overall, the Dpad is cheaper and simpler by design. And the handheld controllers went full circle with the thumbsticks during the 5th generation.

 

 

The only factual thing about which they wrote is that they considered them to be third generation consoles. But they and Wikipedia have different criteria. And since all categorization is inherently subjective, to the point, in this instance, of being arbitrary, you cannot consider any groupings of the consoles at all to be factual, by definition. Before you argue which is correct, you need to define the criteria, then match the historical circumstances to it. And of course, since you're relying on historical circumstances to determine the criteria, it will all be circular anyway. In other words, there are multiple ways to do it, none of which have anything to do with "simply" being "wrong."

Good writeup. Unfortunately, for years, NES, SNES/Genesis, N64/PS1, etc have been narroly defined as 3rd, 4th, 5th generation. Fact is considerably more time passed between the VCS (1977) and NES (1985), and the "third wave" was considered a new generation even back then. The tables cannot just be recreated. You cannot just add one to everything since.

 

Also maybe the 1st generation PONG units of old had more in common with discrete handheld electronics of the 80s and early 90s, like Game & Watch or Tiger. Handhelds during the third generation had mostly discrete units and not actual consoles. Is Game boy considered 4th alongside Lynx and Game Gear? Probably makes sense.

 

Regardless, that's why I proposed half gen steps to place consoles released midway through a generation's life cycle, or that do not clearly fit with the defined categories. Even then the lines are blurred. Handhelds have been shoehorned into the console generations, even though the releases of new handheld generations often do not line up with the console generation boundaries. GBC was a late entry into 5th gen. GBA lined up well with 6th. That places DS as 7th gen and the 3DS was clearly the first 8th gen handheld out the door by a wide margin. So far, "8th gen" handhelds are competing alongside "8th gen" consoles, but will this trend keep up?

 

Now we have mobile devices and microconsoles. How do we define these? Mobile tech has gone through generations of hardware much faster than console. Microconsoles seem poised to do the same. How do you define those? IPhone is what in it's 5th incarnation? iPad has gone through multiple phases as well since conception. Mobile devices are not currently considered as part of the gaming cycle, but they are taking increasing market share. It's something all console manufacturers will eventually have to face down.

[Andromeda Stardust]

I have a question. New post so it doesn't get lost in my previous wall of text.

 

Were NES and SNES referred to as 3rd and 4th generation consoles during their heyday, or did those terms such as 5th gen, 6th gen only come into use during the 2000s when retro gaming experienced a renaissance of sorts?

[Osgeld]

I never heard the phrase until play-station 2 era (early 2000's) and at first it was only in media to describe, IE "sony introduces its 6th generation game console, the playstation2 ..."

 

you can take this one persons faded memory as 100% carved in stone fact btw

Edited May 10, 2014 by Osgeld

[high voltage]

I'm exhausted.............

[atarilovesyou]

 

OK I try to explain in simple terms:

The Coleco, Atari 5200 and the Vectrex are 3rd Generation consoles, it is written in many magazines and books from the era.

That means it is factual that the Coleco, Vectrex and Atari 5200 are third Generation consoles.

 

Wikipedia writes that the Coleco, Atari 5200 and Vectrex are second Generation consoles, which is wrong.

Simple.

 

Can't be exhausted yet, I ain't even started!

 

Let's face it: anybody can call anyting anything. But I know you have your specific view of gaming cycles n' such (you're from Europe, right? I can't remember but your vehement defence of SMS and downplaying of NES domination means you're probably not a North American gamer).

 

See, the way just about every typical gamer in NA saw it, the first home video game system that was popular and used carts was the VCS. So boom, that's first gen. You can go on about the Odyssey or Pong home units, and you can make a point for the Odyssey due to the 'different' games, but the popular system was the VCS. So that's what most people started the 'generation' thing with. I include the VCS and Inty in that first gen.

 

Then Coleco and 5200 and Vectrex came out, there's your gen 2. And NES, SMS, 7800 (older, yes, but came out with those other systems)...gen 3. And every 'wave' afterwards gets it's own number. For me, gens are meaningless. I go by the pre-8bit, 8bit, 16bit, 32bit, 64bit, and everything after that who gives a rat's ass.

 

Anyways.

[Osgeld]

pre-8bit?

 

bits are another terrible way to go about it ... for instance

 

VCS is 8 bit, but so is the TG16, PS2 is 64 bit but so is Jag, Intellevision is 16 bit and so is the sega genesis

Edited May 15, 2014 by Osgeld

[+wood_jl]

And since all categorization is inherently subjective....<snip!>

So true! There's no point in arguing about subjective things. Is pink or blue the better color?

[Andromeda Stardust]

So true! There's no point in arguing about subjective things. Is pink or blue the better color?

Niether. PURPLE all the way, baby!