Are we talking about the same point here-- doesn't look like it. When you compare a computer system with a console, the computer automatically gets a whole bunch of advantages so even with you more tiles or another channel or two of sounds don't hold a candle to what the A8 can do. A8 is well-rounded in terms of its computing capabilities whereas NES and some others like 7800 are stressing just sprites or tiles. NES has very little RAM, no scanline based IRQs, no WSYNC, serialized joystick ports, less colors, very little sprite collision/priority registers, NO KB/Disk drive, etc. etc. Doesn't matter if you can build a few games targetting its strengths that show up a little better.
You sure you understand the idiom that "it doesn't hold a candle". Take another example: Atari 800 doesn't hold a candle to Pentium IV PCs. That means that you can still have a few things that Atari 800 has superior to modern PCs (like fastboot, better joysticks, etc.) and still that statement is true. GroovyBee is wrong and you are too for agreeing with him. Sorry, but just biasing a machine for a certain hardware aspect doesn't make it superior. It doesn't hold a candle to so many other features of A8 which NES and other 8-bit consoles lack.
I understand that and YOU can stop being so condescending. The feature line items the A8 had over the NES were basically irrelevant to the hordes playing the SMB series, Kirby series, and other well regarded franchises on the title. My point was the NES was very good at such games and developing them was relatively easy. Can the A8 be cudgeled into doing such a game? Sure, but it isn't easy or quick and the results are debatable. We basically have Crownland and a small handful of other titles to hold up in that regard and the number will stay small because the limited talent and expense pool for creating them probably isn't going care about the no doubt voluminous feature list you'll reply to this with.
It's the reverse; it's the middle of the bell curve applications/games where A8 wins. See explanation above. A8 shows the major strengths; NES is good just for a few games biased towards its tiles. And that cartridge connector isn't a big thing either. Stressing one aspect of the hardware and then claiming it superior over A8 is the exact faulty logic that I was disputing.
The NES IS superior for big-world tile based games and those were the "killer apps" for the console. To be sure, the A8 has it all over the NES for Ballblazer but Ballblazer wasn't what was making the NES a hit. The A8 can no doubt show some superiorities in other areas but so what? They aren't terribly relevant to type of gaming that started predominating in the mid eighties.
And while I'm on the point of "quick and easy", the A8 can truly do some astounding things in the hands of a super talented developer even things that aren't easily replicated elsewhere. But to middle of the bell curve devs, the A8 doesn't yield it's treasures easily or quickly and platforms like the NES did.