How come a lot getting into retro games skip Atari?

[empsolo]

I didn't mean to turn this into a pissing match. I read your comments as a Nintendo fanboy dumping on Atari.

If I didn't appreciate what the old guard brought to us and was only interested in post-crash game, I wouldn't be here. I am here mostly because I want to learn about what came before, considering these systems literally pre-date my own birth.

 

If I misinterpreted them, that's on me. I'm certainly not bitter.

Well I apologise if I took your statements as bitter.

 

While I have no reverence for Nintendo and find some of their practices questionable, I do recognize that they revived the video game industry, and for that alone they will always be an important part of video game history.

Indeed.

It sounds like you've at least spent some time with the 2600 and given it a chance.

I haven't spent any time with 2600 hardware but have experienced 2600 software through re-releases and compilations on modern hardware. I enjoyed the hell out of Atari greatest hits for the DS, to be honest as well as Intellivision Lives!

 

I think that's all any of us on the Atari side of the fence ask. You don't have to like it, but at least play a few games before you dismiss it. Yes, Atari made some mistakes, but rather than just reading a blog saying E.T. was the worst game ever, written by someone who never actually played E.T., and dismissing an entire generation of gaming, try a few of the other 600 games for the 2600 and come to your own conclusions.

For the record, I don't actually believe that ET was the worst game ever. That spot goes to better candidates. My opinion of ET is that the game was overbudgeted in terms of the initial licensing deal and then horribly mismanaged and too much shit was piled on to Warshaw's plate to meet a Christmas deadline. For what it's worth, the guy did a hell of a job with what he had.

Edited November 22, 2015 by empsolo

[BassGuitari]

We could talk about arguably poor arcade ports that Atari put thier logo on. Like the ports of Zaxxon, Donkey Kong and JR, Empire Strikes Back, etc.

None of those games were made by Atari.

 

(Atari Corp. did acquire the rights to a few Coleco titles, though, and re-released them in the late '80s.)

 

And then, that same holiday season, Atari released the 5200. A pretty much maligned console for it's non-centering joysticks and tendency for the fire buttons to break. Not to mention, the pretty wierd way you hook the damn thing up to the tv and plug it in. I mean, the power running through the RF BOX? Seriously?

Incidental. Atari had been planning to replace the Video Computer System as early as 1979 (their followup console became the 400 and 800 computer systems). After a couple years of prototyping and unsuccessful designs, they ended up back at that [now proven] hardware and repackaged it, with some tweaks, as a game console when they couldn't wait any more.

 

Re: the powered automatic switch box: I don't see why people use this as a criticism of the 5200. It was innovative and actually pretty convenient in use. I think the weirdness of plugging the power cord into the switch box is psychological; it works just as well as going straight to the console, although it sort of precludes the possibility of video mods without also doing a power mod. Was it the best implementation of the idea? Probably not. Oh well. Pioneers rarely end up being the best of their kind.

 

The fact they released it on top of releasing some terrible major first party titles during a major holiday season and had a seeming inability to control the quality of games that had the offficial Atari logo......(I'm looking at you Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr, Zaxxon, Defender, etc) I would argue was what would destroy Atari's reputation going forward. At least with people of my generation.

Again, except for Defender (which released in 1981 and was a very popular game despite its flaws), none of those games had anything to do with Atari apart from playing on Atari consoles. If that's what the NES generation (full disclosure: I'm 30 and grew up with NES and Genesis) bases its perception of Atari on, their entire foundation is faulty. Should Nintendo be judged by the NES's third-party shovelware? (Sit down, High Voltage. ) The Wii's?

 

Though the [Atari 5200] did had some stinkers though. I remember reading how Galaxian and Gorf weren't all that hot as was Countermeasures.

 

Have you actually played them, though? Galaxian kicks ass; Gorf is pretty good if you can deal with the absolute-position controls; I'm not real big on Countermeasure but I can see why others would be. (Countermeasure is actually a good example of games that were starting to push the envelope a bit heading into the Crash.)

 

You really just played the certain same games on NES over and over.

 

Speaking as a fellow Atari fan (more full disclosure: I'm also a Nintendo fan. I'm a fan of most systems, really.), that's a pretty bold card to play. How many cheap clones of Space Invaders, Pac-Man, and generic space shooters were there on the 2600?

 

I came into this thread because people were dumping on the NES...The fact of the matter is that people apparently still are bitter that none of the original companies ended up surviving the Crash.

Aside from one or maybe two people (gee, I wonder who? ), I think you're really misreading that.

 

I haven't spent any time with 2600 hardware but have experienced 2600 software through re-releases and compilations on modern hardware. I enjoyed the hell out of Atari greatest hits for the DS, to be honest as well as Intellivision Lives!

That's a good start, but there's nothing like the real thing. And with pre-Crash stuff it really is true. Not only is there that special something about popping in physical cartridges and handling the actual hardware, but it was like the Wild West as far as controllers went before we settled into the D-pad standard. 8-way joysticks like the 2600's and Odyssey 2's translate reasonably well to PC keyboards and console controllers, but controllers like the Intellivision's, Astrocade's, Channel F's, and Atari 5200's don't, and really need to be experienced firsthand to be appreciated. Paddle controllers, too.

[high voltage]

Actually, ET is now the most famous game in the world and being displayed in museums all over the world.

[bretthorror]

Actually, ET is now the most famous game in the world and being displayed in museums all over the world.

 

I think Grand Theft Auto, Mario or Call of Duty is the most famous game in the world, but you could be right, man. One time a Gamestop buried one of each in a dumpster in Illinois.

[Gentlegamer]

I believe I had a heavy sixer as a child (my father's) and I've looked into getting one and the games I liked, but it seems the price for the system is a bit higher than I want to pay when I look.

 

I think I would be happy if I could find a solution for paddle control in emulation.

[MrMaddog]

The most practical answer I've gotten from a used game store owner is that the 2600's are hard to test because there's no power light or any reliable RF switches (and no composite video ports). Since they can't tell if it'll work or not they just don't sell them anymore, plus the Nintendo & Sega stuff are more popular with customers anyway. I have seen Sears Video Arcade's & Atari 2800's bundled with a large collection of carts for $100 but not in the area I'm living in now. Even around here it's hard finding good NES games to play, let alone anything Atari related.

 

I did pick up a 2600 at a flea market but without a RF switch and a old TV to test it on I'm not sure if it really works or not. For me I'm better off using emulation for my classic gaming needs...

[Andromeda Stardust]

The most practical answer I've gotten from a used game store owner is that the 2600's are hard to test because there's no power light or any reliable RF switches (and no composite video ports).

[Keatah]

Does that do a 75ohm <-> 300ohm impedance match?

[totallyterrificpants]

I paid $2 for a RCA cable and the picture on my 2600 is really good.

[MrMaddog]

 

Great, so how about I go down to Radio Shack to pick one...oh wait, I Can't Cause They Don't Sell Them Anymore!!!!!!

 

Can still get one online but still need a CRT display...

[DarkCart]

 

Great, so how about I go down to Radio Shack to pick one...oh wait, I Can't Cause They Don't Sell Them Anymore!!!!!!

 

Can still get one online but still need a CRT display...

 

It's a shame they don't, I wonder what the sales were like when they did have them.

[maiki]

I can only support the fact that without the real CRT TV the Atari 2600 experience will never be perfect.

[Nebulon]

Another 70s kid here.

 

Interestingly, I wasn't too impressed with the Atari 2600 at first. For me it was all about trying to match the arcade machines on a home system. As a result, the Atari 400/5200 and the ColecoVision were the machines that I was excited about.

 

Of course, I did play Atari 2600 games (especially Yar's Revenge, Empire Strikes Back, Robot Tank, Fast Food, Berzerk).

 

Now in the modern age, I appreciate the 2600 much more than I did back then. I love its limitations, the obvious pixels, and the sheer variety of gameplay on it. Truly remarkable. Where else will you find "Rabbit Transit" or "Yar's Revenge"? Then there are gams on the 2600 that are every bit as fun as on other systems, like "Ms. Pac-Man", "Bump 'n' Jump", and "Demon Attack".

 

The final element that took it from cool to magic was learning about how brutally hard it is to program. That really put things into perspective.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

Great, so how about I go down to Radio Shack to pick one...oh wait, I Can't Cause They Don't Sell Them Anymore!!!!!!

 

Can still get one online but still need a CRT display...

Yes they do

https://www.radioshack.com/collections/connectors-connectivity/products/radioshack-phono-rca-female-to-f-male-adapter?variant=5717667141

[hizzy]

To be honest, I was hesitant to try out an atari because I thought they wouldn't function. It still boggles my mind to think that something made nearly 40 years ago still works. Heck, I've been through 3 or 4 blu ray/dvd players in the last 8 years. Things are made so shabbily today.

 

It would be nice to atari re-release it's console with modern connections. There are so many NES clones. Haven't seen an atari yet.

Edited November 27, 2015 by hizzy

[ledzep]

I was born in the '60s so I grew up with the old Atari 2600. Now, that obviously makes me biased towards it since nostalgia comes into play but I also experienced the Odyssey 2 (HATE that fucking thing), the Intellivision (best friend owned it, played almost all of its games, never got into it because of the graphics style and I HATE that disc controller thingy), the Colecovision (not bad but for some reason never got into it) and the Vectrex (magnificent, basically perfect, including the analog stick with 4 buttons, at the time I felt the screen was too small - I was wrong of course). It was always the 2600 for me. And, later, the 5200 (I owned an Atari 800, same friend with the Intellivision had the 5200). I didn't really get into anything after that (NES, SNES, Sega, etc.) because of the type of games they had and I was getting a bit overloaded with console games. Now games are really user-driven movies, not interested in that, either.

 

I also went to arcades. A lot. Those are still my absolute favorite games (only 5200 Star Raiders rises to that level). I agree with those who point out an arcade shooter/high score mindset fits with 2600 games vs. story completion for later systems. I don't give a shit about running around a world and solving the story on a game console. I had paper & pencil role-playing games for that (Traveller, AD&D, Tunnels & Trolls). The 2600 was great for that arcade mindset. The graphics are shit, I agree, but in a sense that was an advantage. Not really, obviously shit is shit, but I think not being able to hide a poor/boring game behind great graphics forced programmers to make games that were very playable (of course there were still many garbage games made, as with all consoles). That is key to me and it has its roots in arcade games as well. My favorite games all-time are straight-forward ones like Tempest, Red Baron, Xevious, Star Trek: SOS, Space Wars, Armor..Attack, Star Castle, Warlords, Missile Command, Robotron, Space Firebird, Rally-X, Qix, Space Duel, Centipede, Wizard Of Wor, etc. So many great games.

 

Controllers matter. Fuck d-pads! Goddamn, I hate those things so so so much. I grew up with dedicated arcade controls and only the early 8-bit consoles even tried to reproduce that experience. That means joysticks, of course, but that also includes analog sticks. Also, paddles & spinners (they are not the same!), trak-balls, steering wheels/pedals, and combinations of those. You never held the controllers in your hands, they were mounted. I liked having the Atari joystick sitting on a table (or in my hand, but still), having the trak-ball on a table (2600 and 5200), all the different options. Any gamer who claims that a paddle/spinner/trak-ball/steering wheel/button game plays just as good/the same with a d-pad or joystick is retarded and needs to stop calling himself a gamer. They are different! Sometimes subtly, but significantly. I cannot stand playing Centipede or Missile Command with a joystick, same goes for Breakout and Tempest, Pole Position and even Asteroids. I'll tolerate the joystick for buttons swap (digital to digital), but the rest are terrible.

 

As for "blaming" Atari for the crash, I suppose that that's partly due to Atari being the face of that gaming generation and the one-two punch of E.T. and Pac-Man. E.T. is a horrible game. It's not the worst, no, but it's maybe the worst compared to the hype. Same with Pac-Man. You can find worse Atari games but did they have the same "Oh shit, I cannot wait for Pac-Man for the Atari!!" expectation? And disappointment? I'd say no. In a way it's how I feel about Ralph Nader. He isn't the only reason that muscle cars died in the early '70s but he's a big reason. I will smile when he's gone. That's how much I love muscle cars. In the same way I can understand a hatred for the games that are commonly accepted as destroying the best era of video games. I still miss those arcade experiences. Not what arcades turned into (a bunch of driving pods, FPS cabs and ticket redemption bullshit) but seeing Tempest for the first time with a crowd around it so big I couldn't even see what was going on for a good half hour until I got closer in line to play. I remember spending 10 dollars one weekend playing basically only Xevious when it came out (the arcade had a good deal, 7 tokens per dollar, even more if you got 5 bucks at once). Tried so hard to beat that game. The 2600 maintained that vibe even if the graphics could not possibly hold up for most arcade ports.

 

I also hate cute games. Centipede and Dig Dug are 2 of only a handful of exceptions that I like to play. Those later NES/SNES/Sega consoles seemed to gravitate towards cartoony characters and veer away from shoot everything that moves games. I don't care about cheering for a character in a video game, I'm used to steering a vehicle or aiming pip in order to waste something, usually many somethings. Even when there is a character, like in Wizard Of Wor or Black Widow, the character is faceless, not cute. But if you grew up with that sort of video game then the older games will tend to be more anonymous, no "hero" to latch onto.

[empsolo]

 

I also hate cute games. Centipede and Dig Dug are 2 of only a handful of exceptions that I like to play. Those later NES/SNES/Sega consoles seemed to gravitate towards cartoony characters and veer away from shoot everything that moves games. I don't care about cheering for a character in a video game, I'm used to steering a vehicle or aiming pip in order to waste something, usually many somethings. Even when there is a character, like in Wizard Of Wor or Black Widow, the character is faceless, not cute. But if you grew up with that sort of video game then the older games will tend to be more anonymous, no "hero" to latch onto.

I really hate it when people say this. Sure, Nintendo did pioneer the modern video game after it's smash hit in Super Mario Brothers caught on like a wild fire in late 1986/early 1987. However most of the early games for the console either consisted of classic pre-crash arcade classics (after all the console was designed literally with the idea of playing an arcade perfect port of Donkey Kong in mind) or games in the style of those classics. (games like Birdweek and Devil World by Nintendo, Nuts and Milk by Hudson Soft, and Yie Ar Kung Fu by Konami)

 

Hell, the reason my father bought us an NES was so that he could play a home version of Xevious that was close to arcade perfect. He even bought an Advantage joystick and everything.

 

 

And if you didn't like platformers like Super Mario or Action-Adventure games like the Legend of Zelda, the system still offered a lot of arcade style games for older players. You had run and gun games like Contra by Konami, and modern shooters like Gradius and Stinger by Konami plus the very brilliant Summer Carnival '92 Recca. Also racing games too like Excitebike or Mach Rider and Rad Racer.

Edited November 27, 2015 by empsolo

[Keatah]

I can only support the fact that without the real CRT TV the Atari 2600 experience will never be perfect.

 

The way to jam VCS games on LCD is by keeping the Game Program entirely in the digital domain. That means emulation via software or fpga simulation. While you may not get 100% CRT style, you will gain a number of benefits and have less frustration overall.

 

 

Another 70s kid here.

 

Interestingly, I wasn't too impressed with the Atari 2600 at first. For me it was all about trying to match the arcade machines on a home system. As a result, the Atari 400/5200 and the ColecoVision were the machines that I was excited about.

 

Counterpoint. From the get-go, even as a kid, I knew there was a big difference between VCS and Arcade. And I never compared them directly. The glimmer of hope of having the arcade-at-home experience was with the Atari 400/800. All that remained was dumping the crappy low-res CRT. Alas that wouldn't happen till I got involved with the PC and the 80486 era.

 

 

To be honest, I was hesitant to try out an atari because I thought they wouldn't function. It still boggles my mind to think that something made nearly 40 years ago still works. Heck, I've been through 3 or 4 blu ray/dvd players in the last 8 years. Things are made so shabbily today.

 

It would be nice to atari re-release it's console with modern connections. There are so many NES clones. Haven't seen an atari yet.

 

Yes. Amazing isn't it?

 

But the older hardware needs a lot of PM. Sooner or later you'll be doing something with switches, connectors, controllers, rf cables, ac power adaptors, cart slots and chip slots, intermittent solder joints, capacitors, and other just slightly out of tolerance components. All of it will need attention at some point.

 

I don't think the Atari of today has the correct brains to make an all-digital VCS. For starters you really need to redesign the output stages of the TIA. Furthermore I don't think the audience is there. Today's gamers just don't understand the types of challenges a VCS game puts forth.

[ledzep]

I really hate it when people say this. Sure, Nintendo did pioneer the modern video game after it's smash hit in Super Mario Brothers caught on like a wild fire in late 1986/early 1987. However most of the early games for the console either consisted of classic pre-crash arcade classics (after all the console was designed literally with the idea of playing an arcade perfect port of Donkey Kong in mind) or games in the style of those classics. (games like Birdweek and Devil World by Nintendo, Nuts and Milk by Hudson Soft, and Yie Ar Kung Fu by Konami)

 

Hell, the reason my father bought us an NES was so that he could play a home version of Xevious that was close to arcade perfect. He even bought an Advantage joystick and everything.

 

 

And if you didn't like platformers like Super Mario or Action-Adventure games like the Legend of Zelda, the system still offered a lot of arcade style games for older players. You had run and gun games like Contra by Konami, and modern shooters like Gradius and Stinger by Konami plus the very brilliant Summer Carnival '92 Recca. Also racing games too like Excitebike or Mach Rider and Rad Racer.

 

With that dogshit controller. Good lord, how I hated that thing. One of my friends got that system when it first came out, I remember being at his house and trying the games and not being able to play a single one for long because of those controllers. And people complain about the 5200 controller! That stupid 4-button cross directional pad (though good that it had more than one fire button) was a deal-breaker. And people accepted that! Fine for every game? No thanks.

 

While I agree that the Nintendo and other systems could do arcade ports better than the 2600 (really, which ones couldn't), there was still the general acceptance of the cute games and that includes platformer games. Which I hate (ok, except for Major Havoc, that one was great but it was also vector and had a horizontal spinner so that negates home consoles). That was another "advantage" of the 2600's horrible graphics. I mean, can you imagine trying to create a Sonic hedgehog using the 2600's LEGO block graphics? All you would end up with would be a blocky shape that you would have to imagine was Sonic. Adventure was a square dot for Odin's sake. Later consoles had better graphics, good enough for programmers to shoot for actual shapes instead of crude representations of shapes. More detail and more colors allowed for objects and characters that looked a little more realistic, actually had some depth and shading to them (compared to whatever the 2600 could manage).

 

As I said before, the arcade port will suffer without at least a minimal version of the same arcade controller. The directional pad can go screw. Tron needs to be played with a spinner and a joystick, Warlords needs paddles, Tail Gunner needs an analog joystick. All of those games suffer with something like the Nintendo controller. Superficially you can pretend that what you end up with at home was "the same" but that's like saying a kit car Lamborghini is the same as the real version because they mostly look the same even though the kit car is built on top of a Fiero. No thanks.

[MeneerJansen]

The graphics are shit, I agree, but in a sense that was an advantage. Not really, obviously shit is shit, but I think not being able to hide a poor/boring game behind great graphics forced programmers to make games that were very playable (of course there were still many garbage games made, as with all consoles).

Hear hear! THAT'S the reason the Atari was great. It's games are very creative in game play. Because they had to.

Edited November 27, 2015 by MeneerJansen

[empsolo]

With that dogshit controller. Good lord, how I hated that thing. One of my friends got that system when it first came out, I remember being at his house and trying the games and not being able to play a single one for long because of those controllers. And people complain about the 5200 controller! That stupid 4-button cross directional pad (though good that it had more than one fire button) was a deal-breaker.

First and foremost, I can play games for hours just fine using the d-pad. The D-pad allows me to to have a full range of motion without needing make use of my wrist due to the fact that my thumb can engage in a full 360 degrees. Plus the arcade style layout makes it much easier to engage in movement because the left side of my brain (the side geared toward precision thinking and movement) doesn't have to send signals to the right side of my body in order to move characters.

 

Not to mention that the d-pad allows for tighter controls for games that require quicker reaction time and thinking. I cant imagine playing a game like Super Mario Brothers with archaic control schemes of earlier consoles.

 

The only place I will fault the NES control is the fact that it is a rectangle shaped controller. I much prefer the Hudsonsoft controller and the Famicom controller and the NES 2 dogbone controller due to the fact they have rounded edges. But other than that, the NES controller is a fantastic controller. Give me a good d-pad and I can ace pretty much any game that isn't a first person shooter.

 

And people accepted that! Fine for every game? No thanks.

That's your problem that the industry ended up making it the standard. Hell, Atari's europe division saw that the writing was on the wall for older joystick style controllers when it released the NES style controller for the 7800.

While I agree that the Nintendo and other systems could do arcade ports better than the 2600 (really, which ones couldn't), there was still the general acceptance of the cute games and that includes platformer games. Which I hate (ok, except for Major Havoc, that one was great but it was also vector and had a horizontal spinner so that negates home consoles).

It's this type of of thinking from the older generation that I think would have held back gaming immensely. I understand that you may not like platformers and that's fine. I don't like games that are strictly puzzles in nature or the modern cinematic style RPGs either. But the fact of the matter is that in order to drive the medium, you can't simply stand on old classics and expect people to stomach it indefinitely. Eventually you will hit your saturation point and people will start reacting negatively to the medium.

That was another "advantage" of the 2600's horrible graphics. I mean, can you imagine trying to create a Sonic hedgehog using the 2600's LEGO block graphics? All you would end up with would be a blocky shape that you would have to imagine was Sonic. Adventure was a square dot for Odin's sake. Later consoles had better graphics, good enough for programmers to shoot for actual shapes instead of crude representations of shapes. More detail and more colors allowed for objects and characters that looked a little more realistic, actually had some depth and shading to them (compared to whatever the 2600 could manage)

And this is a bad thing because.......?

As I said before, the arcade port will suffer without at least a minimal version of the same arcade controller. The directional pad can go screw.

As I pointed out, this is absurdly false. The d-pad offers the same controller layout as your standard arcade cabinet. Don't believe me? Go look at your standard arcade cabinet and compare. Second, the d-pad allows the users to engage in movement without needing to put the full force of their body-weight onto the controller with through the thumb. Where as arcade cabinets are built with the idea of supporting people's body weight when people are pushing and pulling on the joystick. This is something that was lost on many earlier joystick style controllers because in many cases you had to hold them while having your supporting hand fire the action button. This is a very awkward set up. In fact, it wouldn't be until the Saturn and the Neo-Geo that you get joystick controllers that are actually supported. But then these were massive and expensive bricks that were built to play only fighting games, really.

Tron needs to be played with a spinner and a joystick, Warlords needs paddles, Tail Gunner needs an analog joystick. All of those games suffer with something like the Nintendo controller. Superficially you can pretend that what you end up with at home was "the same" but that's like saying a kit car Lamborghini is the same as the real version because they mostly look the same even though the kit car is built on top of a Fiero. No thanks.

I would argue this is a false perception. Considering the fact that the joystick style controller was something that even Atari abandoned as a bad idea in the end, it tells me everything I need to know really.

Edited November 27, 2015 by empsolo

[HoshiChiri]

The graphics are shit, I agree, but in a sense that was an advantage. Not really, obviously shit is shit, but I think not being able to hide a poor/boring game behind great graphics forced programmers to make games that were very playable (of course there were still many garbage games made, as with all consoles).

 

 

Hear hear! THAT'S the reason the Atari was great. It's games are very creative in game play. Because they had to.

 

A thought I've had recently along these lines that goes against the Atari... while games were certainly creative and playable, they are often not intuitive. I buy a new cart-only game for my NES or Genesis or what-have-you, I typically know what it wants me to do right away. I've been adding to my Atari collection rapidly lately, and more often than not I put in a game, play for 30 seconds, then pop online to figure out what I have to be doing to make stuff happen. Granted, it's a very quick solution every time (make Eddie grab hearts until the key appears! The Worrior only moves if your controller's in the right port!)- but I still have to look it up. Most gamers brought up after Atari aren't used to needing any sort of additional information, so perhaps not being able to instantly glean the game's mechanics is a big contributor towards the assumption that the old games are broken or crappy. Heck, I legitimately thought my Wizard of Wor cart was broken until I found the controller thing.

[Gentlegamer]

ledzep, you are a true video game grognard. I salute you sir!

[+wongojack]

I was exactly the right age for the NES, and my childhood experiences in the arcade were of the " begging for quarters variety" as mentioned by Stardust. What I think we really missed was the competitive experience of the arcade. I was drawn to games that let me explore and play on my own. Nintendo didn't invent this, they just kept working on it while others dropped out. The industry also had to learn how to sell a gaming experience outside of the arcade and many of the early experiences didn't seem to inspire many spinoffs (Superman, Adventure).

 

My point is that usually a NES gamer looks at Asteroids and wonders "where's the rest of the game". That's because NES games were meant as a contained experience. "The rest of the game" for Asteroids was trying to beat your brother sister or dad - something that kids my age just didn't want to look for.

 

All that being said, I love the 2600, and after having really dug into both libraries I have had a lot more frustrations with NES titles. Yes there are bad games on both, but even some good NES games are confounding. Quick example - I can tell Legacy of the Wizard is a great game, but I'm never going to take on the built in difficulty added by required repetition needed to actually finish the game. My realization of this as I'm playing really takes away from the experience. I could have more fun with Beamrider in as much time as it takes me to search for a LoW walkthrough.

[high voltage]

For the kids the NES was fine, but at the time the NES arrived on European shores, we had ST and Amiga.

For us, going back to 8-bit was a step backwards, hell the better games were on 16 bit.

 

The D-pad is the worst controller ever invented (arcade invention), you need accurate joystick controls for better gaming, for example for platform games, and flight simulators. The D-pad just doesn't give precise controls, but it's ok for quick and easy games on NES. It's also the wrong way around, of course, you need control with your right hand.

Edited November 27, 2015 by high voltage