Atari VCS vs Nes

[Keatah]

I agree - there were some, but whenever I go back now and play 16 bit computer games, it's almost shocking how bad most of them were, and how poorly most of them hold up today. I'm not totally sure why this was, but it might just be an unfamiliar development environment combined with developers not putting their "A" teams on computing platforms, which is still an issue today.

 

I think there's lotsa ways we can swing this issue. I think that developers never really used the full potential of the 16 bit rigs like Amiga/ST.

 

It seemed to me that they relied too much on the custom hardware sprites and the ability to disconnect the sound from the game action. This "sound disconnecting" does not happen in the VCS or Apple II. It's intertwined with the action. Whereas in a lot of 16-bit computer games, a missile would hit the target, there'd be an animation and explosion sound effect. Oftentimes the sound would continue playing after the animation ran its course and stopped.

 

Sometimes the early 8-bit sounds would seem just a little different from explosion to explosion. And they were often synthesized or formed on-the-fly. Whereas in the 16-bit world, you executed one command and got sound sample played back. Perfectly, every time, no deviances or personality.

 

16-bit computing was a new medium. And I don't think any of the platforms, again Amiga/ST, were used to their potential. The sprites and loopy sounds were like the API's of today, just hardwired in silicon. Vehicles to haul lazy-ass developers around.

 

It''s also interesting to compare Flight Simulator II and Jet, from SubLogic (a company I admire). Look, they weren't all that different from the first Apple II versions.

 

Sure there were more colors and a faster framerate, better resolution too. But that's about it for those two titles. It was a minimal effort port. No extra mile was flown for them.

 

To be fair, ColecoVision and Intellivision also had that sound problem. Not any better than a Flash game!

[spacecadet]

Except retailers and distributors were highly skeptical of a console revival. Nobody was interested in retailing Nintendo's or Sega's stuff at the previous CES. It literally took Worlds of Wonder leveraging their Teddy Ruxbin Dolls in order to force some of those big toy retailers to carry the NES.

 

All it took was a test market. And Nintendo was a tiny little Japanese company with a few arcade games but who'd otherwise sold basically nothing here at retail other than some little handhelds. If they could do it, anybody could have.

 

They just chose to do it. Atari chose not to, everybody else chose to get out of the business entirely. Nintendo chose to sell a game console here in 1985. That is the literal difference between the NES's success and any other console of the era.

 

Of course it was a decent console and Nintendo was a well managed company. Those are obviously prerequisites. But there's no way anybody's going to convince me that any other console couldn't have done the same thing Nintendo did. Nintendo's sole insight, the one single thing they did that no one else did, was recognize that the market was still there. If literally anybody else had done that first, we'd be having a totally different conversation right now.

 

That's why the NES doesn't deserve as much credit as it gets. Anybody can sell anything if there's a year's worth of pent-up demand and absolutely no competition. It'd be like if the auto industry suddenly collapsed and literally every company stopped making or selling cars in America. Then a year later Fiat starts selling the 500 and that's the only car you can get. Of course there's going to be a massive run on Fiat 500's! People need to drive and a lot of cars wear out in a year. That doesn't make the Fiat 500 a particularly good or influential car; it just makes it there at a time when that alone is more than enough.

 

This also goes back to the reasons for the crash of 1983. There's a common myth these days (probably not so much here, but maybe a little bit) that people just stopped buying systems and games in 1983. That's not what happened - in fact 1983 had the highest industry revenue ever to that point. What happened was that manufacturers outpaced the growth of the market, producing more consoles and games than the market could bear. And those companies could not absorb what today we'd call relatively minor losses while making corrections - I mean, MS and Sony together lost a combined $8 billion on the Xbox 360 and PS3 before turning a profit, and they both stuck with it. Atari lost $536 million and even with Warner behind them, they were forced out of the market. Mattel lost $394 million and exited too. But the crash was not caused by the market disappearing; it was caused by companies that were too small growing too fast and making poor management decisions. So it really wouldn't have been rocket science for some company to figure out that all those gamers were still out there, waiting for something new. Nintendo just chose to be at the right place at the right time.

[phoenixdownita]

....

Nintendo just chose to be at the right place at the right time.

Sorry but:

 

[Austin]

Except that a good 90% of the European catalogue is outright shovelware and are in a lot of ways cheap conversions of their better console counterparts. Castlevania, Gradius, Contra, New Zealand story, outrun, Street Fighter, or any version of Double Dragon or Ninja Ryukenden for that matter.

 

Just because you were happy with getting stuck with a shitty home computer doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't glad it dodged a bullet with an over expensive console that offered little for the family as whole here in the US.

 

Glad I wasn't the one that had to say it. Nice job.

[empsolo]

 

Glad I wasn't the one that had to say it. Nice job.

I'm sorry but it had to be said. I'm just sick and tired of British gamers lording their Commodores and Ataris over American gamers while pretending that their crap didn't stink.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skippy B. Coyote]

This is one debate that I'm not sure there's any correct answer to. Atari did bring home console gaming to the masses, and almost everyone recognizes their big name games still to this day. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who has never heard of Centipede, Asteroids, Breakout, Missile Command, or Tempest.

 

On the other hand, there are probably just as many people out there who would recognize Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda today. Moreover, I think there's a good argument to be made for the NES's unique franchises having made a stronger lasting impression on the way video games are designed. Platforming games similar to Super Mario Bros. and Mega Man, JRPGs like Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior, as well as action adventure games akin to Zelda and Metroid are still wildly popular to this day; whereas Atari's influence on the home video game market and the types of games people wanted to play didn't extend much past the lifespan of the Atari 2600.

 

Atari was always about bringing the arcade experience home, and personally I think that's a wonderful thing, but over time the interests of the gaming masses did drift away from arcade style gaming and more towards the story and exploration driven experiences that Nintendo pioneered with the NES. I'm definitely an Atari fan at heart and I play my Atari systems way more than I play my NES, but I do have to admit that Nintendo's success with the NES was due to more than simply being in the right place at the right time. The creative minds behind the NES's most popular titles introduced the world to entirely new concepts of what a video game could be, and many of those innovations in game design have indured to this day.

 

So, while I do enjoy playing the Atari 2600 more than the NES, I think I have to admit that the NES did leave a longer lasting impact on home video gaming. Of course there might have not been a home video game market at all without the Atari 2600 to get it started, so it's really six of one and half a dozen of the other as far which system had the greatest historical impact. The Atari 2600 brought home gaming to the world and the NES shaped the way that games would be played from then until now.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Jin

[Andromeda Stardust]

Well said Jin. A lot of excellent points in this thread. I think Bill put things into perspective by stating that both consoles were a product of their time, and extremely influential. Atari really kicked off home console video gaming with the VCS, and Nintendo proved that games were a mainstay and not merely another toy fad. Nintendo being more relavent today has a large part to do with the fact the company still has a leg in the hardware market. Also the cartoony graphics, superior sound, and deeper gameplay went a long way towards the NES being more fondly remembered by today's retro gamers. Atari became synonomous at one time with crap, which looking back is an extremely short-sighted assesment, but as long as pundits and know-it-alls relate Atari to ET and the video game crash, and Nintendo singlehandedly "saving" the industry (largely though unfair monopolistic practices and draconian license agreements, I might add), Nintendo will always outshine Atari in the eyes of the nostalgic consumer.

 

This is purely apples to oranges. One was influential in its era (late 70s to mid 80s), and the other was influential in its era (mid 80s to early 90s). Long-term, the NES definitely proved more influential for a variety of reasons (it came later, the company survived longer, it had broader international appeal, it had more games, etc.), but it's not like it happened in isolation. Everything builds off what came before it in some way. It's enough to say both have monumental, significant impacts on videogame history. It's not like we're arguing the impact of something like an RCA Studio II or a Memorex VIS here. The 2600 and NES are part of a very short list of wildly influential platforms that had significant industry impact.

[Papa]

my favorite Pacman has always been the VCS Pacman.

[malducci]

The British should be the very last people on earth to act all snobbish to American gamers.

 

LOL! Yeah, I swear.. some Brits... The Atari ST was 16bit gaming? Hell, I guess that makes the Genesis and SNES 32bit gaming. Haha. But yeah, Brits...

[high voltage]

Original poster long gone again. What's the matter with these stupid new members always coming up with these threads, and , whoosh, gone, are they mental or something?

[mr_me]

Someone mentioned these two systems get more credit than they deserve.

 

There was nothing compelling about the Atari VCS until it had Tito's Space Invaders in 1980; and Mattels marketing campaign also helped everyone sell video games (Mattel did it without arcade licenses). In the 1970s I was quite happy with my cheap pong system, it was fun, and I wasn't aware or cared about any industry crash.

 

The NES didnt create demand for video games in 1985. That demand never stopped. I know, I looked for new games in 1984, they just werent in the stores anymore. Even Intellivision continued to sell systems and new games in the late 1980s. Of course the intellivision should have had a hardware upgrade in 1983 just as the 2600 needed to be replaced in 1979/80. I also blame the NES for setting back game controllers about 10 years. Prior to the NES we had 16-direction control and full analog control (the rushed 5200 a poor implementation). The NES had 8-directions but was best for only four directions. That limiting controller might be why side scrolling platform games was popular with developpers. It was very disappointing to play sports games and only move at 45 degree angles. Nintendo's stranglehold on game developpers may also have limited game development at that time, at least in North America. Nintendo does deserve credit for getting videogames back in US retailers. Although they had to partner with Teddy Ruxpin and package a toy robot with the NES to do it. I dont remember anyone in high school talking about the NES. It was was for children; however those kids did grow up still owning their NES.

Edited December 17, 2016 by mr_me

[BillLoguidice]

"Anyone could have done it" is a lame excuse. Maybe anyone could have done it, but the fact is, we know who actually did it, and that deserves lauding. Atari and Nintendo succeeded in their respective eras when others didn't, period.

[godslabrat]

Indeed. As for Nintendo specifically, the two players in the best position to do better than them were Atari and Sega, both of whom had significant reasons they weren't going to pull it off. If Atari and Sega couldn't make their own Phoenix, who would have?

 

My personal view is, had there been no NES, gaming would have idled along until the late 80s, when either a real competitor would emerge, or PCs would finally drop to less insane prices.

[mbd30]

Someone mentioned these two systems get more credit than they deserve.

 

There was nothing compelling about the Atari VCS until it had Tito's Space Invaders in 1980; and Mattels marketing campaign also helped everyone sell video games (Mattel did it without arcade licenses). In the 1970s I was quite happy with my cheap pong system, it was fun, and I wasn't aware or cared about any industry crash.

 

The NES didnt create demand for video games in 1985. That demand never stopped. I know, I looked for new games in 1984, they just werent in the stores anymore. Even Intellivision continued to sell systems and new games in the late 1980s. Of course the intellivision should have had a hardware upgrade in 1983 just as the 2600 needed to be replaced in 1979/80. I also blame the NES for setting back game controllers about 10 years. Prior to the NES we had 16-direction control and full analog control (the rushed 5200 a poor implementation). The NES had 8-directions but was best for only four directions. That limiting controller might be why side scrolling platform games was popular with developpers. It was very disappointing to play sports games and only move at 45 degree angles. Nintendo's stranglehold on game developpers may also have limited game development at that time, at least in North America. Nintendo does deserve credit for getting videogames back in US retailers. Although they had to partner with Teddy Ruxpin and package a toy robot with the NES to do it. I dont remember anyone in high school talking about the NES. It was was for children; however those kids did grow up still owning their NES.

 

Maybe NES was a step backwards in terms of number of directions, but it was a huge step forward in terms of basic utility and comfort.Colecovision, Intellivision, Atari 5200 and 7800 controllers with the stick or directional pad on the bottom and buttons on the side are infamous for being _uncomfortable_ and killing your hands during long play sessions. The NES was a huge improvement. The basic game pad design arranged horizontally with the directionals on the left and other buttons on the right (along with other additions such as analog sticks) is still the norm because it works.

[BillLoguidice]

 

Maybe NES was a step backwards in terms of number of directions, but it was a huge step forward in terms of basic utility and comfort.Colecovision, Intellivision, Atari 5200 and 7800 controllers with the stick or directional pad on the bottom and buttons on the side are infamous for being _uncomfortable_ and killing your hands during long play sessions. The NES was a huge improvement. The basic game pad design arranged horizontally with the directionals on the left and other buttons on the right (along with other additions such as analog sticks) is still the norm because it works.

 

I think it was a good layout and concept, but the NES controllers still suffered from early design issues, with a slightly too small size and sharp corners. Obviously that was rectified with most first party controllers going forward.

[mr_me]

 

Maybe NES was a step backwards in terms of number of directions, but it was a huge step forward in terms of basic utility and comfort.Colecovision, Intellivision, Atari 5200 and 7800 controllers with the stick or directional pad on the bottom and buttons on the side are infamous for being _uncomfortable_ and killing your hands during long play sessions. The NES was a huge improvement. The basic game pad design arranged horizontally with the directionals on the left and other buttons on the right (along with other additions such as analog sticks) is still the norm because it works.

Left-handed design was another step backwards. They should have at least had a switch so you can flip it over and play right-handed. Of course either way works but choice is better.

[empsolo]

Left-handed design was another step backwards. They should have at least had a switch so you can flip it over and play right-handed. Of course either way works but choice is better.

It's a step backward yet became an industry standard that's still going today 32-33 years later.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillLoguidice]

Left-handed design was another step backwards. They should have at least had a switch so you can flip it over and play right-handed. Of course either way works but choice is better.

 

Although it was admittedly difficult for those of us weened on Atari 2600-style joysticks, I don't think it's necessarily an illogical design. After struggling with arcade Donkey Kong and then the NES, eventually we got used to it.

[mr_me]

It's a step backward yet became an industry standard that's still going today 32-33 years later.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The same can be said about Microsoft operating systems.

[mbd30]

 

Although it was admittedly difficult for those of us weened on Atari 2600-style joysticks, I don't think it's necessarily an illogical design. After struggling with arcade Donkey Kong and then the NES, eventually we got used to it.

 

I didn't get a NES until around 1989. I grew up with the Atari 2600 and then Atari 7800, and I took to NES controls right away.

[CatPix]

I switch between usign the pad and the keyboard on my computer (specifically, the games that use the arrows, not the ZQSD) with no fuss either.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Left-handed design was another step backwards. They should have at least had a switch so you can flip it over and play right-handed. Of course either way works but choice is better.

You may want to back this project then. I may support them just for the novelty of it...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1659035215/goofy-foot-an-alternative-nes-controller

 

Also with single button joysticks, I can go right or left with no issues, and I find myself swapping often during play.

[adamchevy]

Much like going from the NES to a Genesis controller. The original Genesis controller still feels a bit bulky in my hands. But I was raised on the NES. I prefer using a Genesis game pad on the 2600. I almost purchased a modded NES controller for the 2600, but in the end I couldn't justify the expense.

[madhatter667]

This is a little bit of an odd one. Both were pretty big hits. Also, I think both are very overrated. There's a lot of shovelware for both systems. However, the standouts for each individual system are pretty great. Take the good with the bad I guess. The 2600 was available long after if should have been pulled from shelves. I remember Atari relaunching the Junior in the late 80's after NES hit (or available in the later 80's where I was living at the time).

 

In terms of hobby influence? Overall I have to give it to the NES. Between those two consoles, it had a wider variety of genres, pretty much all of them still around. It also helped solidify the home gaming console as a mainstay.

I personally have a larger cart collection for Atari, and play more of them for NES. Been digging on the 16bit and newer stuff a lot more lately.

[phoenixdownita]

Anyone would be hard pressed to find arcade cabinets that allow the stick on the right hand especially in multiplayers (Gauntlet is one of them, and there's a few ambidextrous single player with button(s) on both sides like Amidar but that's it) and I mean classics like Vanguard, Qix, Joust, DK, Mario Bros etc..... all have the stick on the left.

 

It always puzzled me how in the arcades I had to use my left hands for the stick and the right for the buttons but not with my VCS without bizarre maneuvers.

 

So the NES/Famicom got it right I'd say.