Atari 2600 or the Nintendo NES?

[+LS650]

but I'm sure there are people out there that prefer the NES to a PS3.

Not sure why you are rolling your eyes - I for one definitely prefer old school systems to any console of the last ten or twelve years!

[PsychoKittyNet]

Love them both but I prefer the NES, grew up with that and a SNES.

[Deteacher]

While the NES may have better graphics and sound, the Atari was not only the first system, but it was built much better. I'd bet there are a lot more working Atari VCS systems out there than NES systems. Atari gets my vote!

[littleman jack]

Atari's gaining some steam.

[pixelated]

I'm gonna hafta say NES. I suppose I have a bias with that system, since it was my very first home console. For me, the NES is kinda at the center of my nostalgia for classic gaming. However, I must say that ever since I got my Atari 2600 back in 2008, I've been so swept up with it in a way that I haven't been since probably the SNES back in '91. But still, on other reason I won't put the 2600 as the best of the '80s, is because I never played it in the '80s. The VCS was essentially over around the time I turned 5 or so, so I was a little to young to get it and to my knowledge, we never had one. I don't think I ever played 2600 until 1991!

 

I love both consoles very dearly, enjoy playing the hell out of them, but to me NES is just a little bit better. Plus, the NES houses what it probably my #1 favorite game of all time - Super Mario Bros. 3.

[SlowCoder]

These machines catered to a different TYPE of gaming. Atari games were typically about getting the highest score,$ but typically there was not an end to the game itself.

 

NES games were more about game completion.

[BrianC]

These machines catered to a different TYPE of gaming. Atari games were typically about getting the highest score,$ but typically there was not an end to the game itself.

 

NES games were more about game completion.

 

This is only partially true. NES has many arcade style games like Pac-Man, Xevious, Donkey Kong, Popeye, and Mario Bros that are about score and 2600 has games like Adventure, Solaris, Pitfall II, Space Battle, and Star Raiders that have a definite end. Even some of the games with endings aren't only about completion (a few of them, especially games with instant respawn, are much more fun to play when you aren't only playing to see the ending). Not to mention that, while they didn't have an ending, plenty of older, Atari-era games, lock up or glitch after a certain point.

 

I prefer the NES, mainly becuase it has more complex games like RPGs, as well as some arcade style games (though it's too bad Dig Dug was Famicom only), though I also love the 2600.

Edited August 29, 2011 by BrianC

[bomberpunk]

this is a silly argument. it's like saying, which do you prefer, the Xbox 360 or the NES? you can't. they're from different eras. but I'm sure there are people out there that prefer the NES to a PS3.

 

i'm one of those guys who prefer the NES over PS3. realistic graphics and voice acting do not win me over. gameplay does. it's not a mistake that so many developers have retro throwback titles. the formula is proven.

 

modern gamers

 

 

[Reaperman]

I'm not an atari 2600 fan, and never have been. I grew up with the A8, and generally look at 2600 as an inferior way to play the same games. I still own several 2600's, but it's been *years* since I've played one.

 

NES was a different beast that I like quite a bit. It's got some great versions of classic computer games I enjoyed from A8/c64, it offers some excellent early arcade ports too, and the newer gameplay styles that NES popularized also resonated with me. I like the added complexity and variety that it regularly brought to the table.

[BydoEmpire]

but I'm sure there are people out there that prefer the NES to a PS3.

Not sure why you are rolling your eyes - I for one definitely prefer old school systems to any console of the last ten or twelve years!

Same here, I haven't played a game on my 360 in ages, but my 2600 (and all my 8-bit systems) get regular use.

 

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

 

I voted 2600, but looking back over the NES library I could definitely see going the other way. There are a few NES arcade ports I really like (DK Classics, Popeye, etc), but a lot of them just don't play real well. Definitely more variety in genres on the NES. Hm...

Edited August 29, 2011 by BydoEmpire

[BrianC]

I don't have PS3, but I have been playing more games on older systems than on my Wii, lately. Mostly, I have been using my Wii for Netflix.

[pixelated]

I don't have PS3, but I have been playing more games on older systems than on my Wii, lately. Mostly, I have been using my Wii for Netflix.

 

Same here! I've haven't really played any Xbox 360 in months, except for Call of Duty: Black Ops a little, about a week ago. Mainly I've been playing my 2600 a lot as well as some emu stuff..

[+FujiSkunk]

Neither. Or rather, both.

 

The Atari 2600 created the market. The NES saved it from extinction.

 

Both were the birthplace of indisputable, genre-defining classics.

 

Both are a hacker's paradise, and those hackers have demonstrated both systems are far more capable than their designers thought possible.

 

Products like the Flashback 2 and the umpteen zillion NES clones prove that both have not been forgotten, long after they left the market.

 

If I absolutely had to pick one over the other, I would pick the Atari 2600, partly because that was the system of my childhood, but also partly because Nintendo played a lot dirtier than they needed to, trying to strong-arm third-party companies into playing ball only with them. Then again, given Atari's relations with Activision shortly after the latter company's creation, I'm sure Atari would have done the same thing if they'd had the foresight.

[mondor1]

The ATARI 2600 Hands Down! Not that I don't like the Nes But the ATARI you had no problem with the carts like cleaning the connectors or having a dirty game flashing on and off.

[AlvinKarpis]

If you put a 2600 and a NES in front of me when I was 12 I would reach for the NES every time

 

If you put a 2600 and a NES in front of me today I would reach for the 2600 75% of the time

 

Its such a tough call because I grew up playing the 2600 but as soon as my family got a NES the 2600 was put in the attic

 

I have fond memories of both, but the reason I picked the NES is because all my friends on the block had one and we would trade and borrow games everyday (or trade for Garbage Pail Kids, Baseball Cards and the like)

 

And me and my friends spent so much time trying to beat the NES games

 

I remember vividly 8-10 of my friends over at my house when we (taking turns between myself and my buddy Joe) finally beat SMB2 and everyone in the house going ape shit

 

Its memories like those that make me look and cherish the NES more then the 2600

Edited September 9, 2011 by AlvinKarpis

[Cybergoth]

C64 > NES > 2600

 

But I love all three of them!

[Van Halbgott]

I don’t know…this depends on my mood, and I was going to build my 2600 collection since I managed to buy one instead of an NES.

 

I can’t really decide between the two.

 

But I did buy an Atari 2600 first.

[+LS650]

12 years later...  

 

I grew up in the late 70s-early 80s with Atari, Intellivision, Colecovision, etc. 

I was in college when the NES came to market, and I was far too busy with school to have much free time for videogames.

I do own an NES with a few carts and enjoy it, but it just doesn't have the same sentimental value to me as my pre-NES machines.

[zzip]

I always felt limited by the 2600 and wanted to move onto something bigger.   But by the time the NES became popular,  I was into ST and 16-bit gaming-- RPGs, sim games and so on.   Then my friends start getting NESes,  and suddenly we're back to 8-bit graphics, and 8-bit music-  I thought I was past that!   Worse games like SMB were too bright and colorful, and the music too bouncy and happy,  I was a moody teenager and couldn't deal with that shit!     I kind of liked Castlevania because it was a darker game,  but almost everything was a side-scrolling platformer, and I wanted more variety.

 

So I never could get into the NES,  I'll have to go with the 2600.

[Cynicaster]

I grew up with both, still have both, and still love both.  

 

For some, it may be a no-brainer that the NES is the answer because it had better graphics, more elaborate games, etc.  

 

But personal preferences can transcend that type of shallow comparison.  There are a lot of side-scrolling action/platforming type games on NES, a trend which I've always assumed was kicked off by the massive success of the original Super Mario Bros.  You have tons of stuff like the Mega Man games, the Ninja Gaiden games, the cute mascot type games, the games based on movie licenses, etc.  These all vary somewhat in their themes and play mechanics but at their heart they're all games where the primary goal is to progress forward and "beat the game" as opposed to focus on achieving a high score. 

 

Honestly, I find a lot of these types of games to be kind of tedious to play nowadays.  On the one hand, with so much stuff available to play and so little time, I'm not likely to want to focus in on one title for an extended period to try to "beat" the game.  On the other hand, if I don't do that, then what's really the point of playing the game other than to have a quick and mindless burst? 

 

In contrast, the quick and dirty arcade style games on the 2600 lend themselves much better (arguably) to short and sporadic gaming sessions.  I only need a few minutes to see what kind of score I can get on a game like Kaboom or Turmoil.  If the game is fun, I'll be motivated to try again and see if I can do better.  The point is, the "goal" of the game is easier to fit into the time available to play it.  I'm not saying this makes the 2600 better, only that when trying to determine which console I'm more likely to want to switch on, there are factors in the equation (at least for me) besides graphics and the hardware's horsepower.

  

[zzip]

16 minutes ago, Cynicaster said:

There are a lot of side-scrolling action/platforming type games on NES, a trend which I've always assumed was kicked off by the massive success of the original Super Mario Bros.

I thought it might be because the NES hardware was so good at that game style, that it caused it to become popular?   IDK. 

 At some point, even the arcades started to get filled with side-scrollers, and seemed like the kids didn't want to play anything that wasn't.

 

50 minutes ago, Cynicaster said:

 

Honestly, I find a lot of these types of games to be kind of tedious to play nowadays.  On the one hand, with so much stuff available to play and so little time, I'm not likely to want to focus in on one title for an extended period to try to "beat" the game.  On the other hand, if I don't do that, then what's really the point of playing the game other than to have a quick and mindless burst? 

 

In contrast, the quick and dirty arcade style games on the 2600 lend themselves much better (arguably) to short and sporadic gaming sessions.  I only need a few minutes to see what kind of score I can get on a game like Kaboom or Turmoil.  If the game is fun, I'll be motivated to try again and see if I can do better.  The point is, the "goal" of the game is easier to fit into the time available to play it.  I'm not saying this makes the 2600 better, only that when trying to determine which console I'm more likely to want to switch on, there are factors in the equation (at least for me) besides graphics and the hardware's horsepower.

That's the other thing I didn't like-  Not every game should be a 10-20 hour affair!  I missed the pick-up-and-play games.   If a game is going to require a time commitment like that,  it had better hook me within 10 min or I'm not likely to ever pick it up again.

But there was also the social aspect.   With the 2600, the etiquette became you played your turn and when your game was over you passed the joystick to the next person.    Starting with the NES, "turns" went on forever.  So one person tended to dominate the console while everyone sat around and watched..   Hanging out with your friends playing videogames became dull and not fun like it was in the 2600 days.

[Shawn]

2600 might have been my first but the NES did so much more. I love the 2600 but the NES really is the better overall gaming experience for me.

[Rhomaios]

1 minute ago, Shawn said:

2600 might have been my first but the NES did so much more. I love the 2600 but the NES really is the better overall gaming experience for me.

This sums it up for me as well. I'd also take either over the PS3 or 360 (or later systems) any day of the week.

[Tanooki]

Wow dozen years old revification of a dead post.  At first I was going to read through the 2+ pages of this, then decided against it and just pasted the starting post below in the box as I write this.

 

I would see totally by quantity how both have a similar game total from the era if you chock it up to licensed and unlicensed they shift around.  But I mean asking one or the other?  That gets tricky.  The hardware of the 2600 compared to the NES are utter opposites more than comparable.  The years between for what audio, visual, basic scrolling, and other stuff can do make the 2600 anemic at best.  Yet, it does have Atari stuff that others didn't get, and well if you were really into those and those arcade games that stayed landlocked to it that would be a true choice.  Taking that out of the picture though, the Famicom, then NES, were the gateway that brought people into a circle of gaming where your imagination kind of finally met reality on screen and in your ears too.  Gone where the few colors and oversized blocks along with some buzzes and other buzzes, and you had some real detail, a system meant to scroll directions, multiple audio channels simulating all sorts of effects and one made to do(DPCM) sampled effects.  The FC/NES were made in a way to be open ended so the hardware inside wasn't a brick wall, but a starting line in a race where more and more options added, bank switching, larger chip sizes, then memory management, to outright memory mappers, and beyond into added audio channels, more colors, more...just more, all in a little cartridge.  The 2600 largely just was what it was, peaked and that was is and people worked within that peak and the NES just didn't have those problems largely.

 

Going beyond that but not too far, those limits also allowed for more creativity.  The 2600 Pitfall and few others aside stayed the view, not much but what you could do within the confines flashed up on screen.  The FC may have started there, but then you had Pac-Land from Namco, and the big boom with SMB on the NES which really created a whole new idea of how game design could be done and done right, so right it stayed relevant for decades.  There was so much more there capable of being done the fun factor could come from dozens of not just re-tread styles of a decade past at home, but in far more new ways you didn't see, including even in the arcade which was in a way kind of epic.  Such a simple design, but well though, right down to middle fingering the classic wonky joystick of this or that sort for a flat brick.  This flat brick with a d-pad that worked 8 ways, and not just 2 buttons, but now 2 comfy ones to use for most actions and 2 more for sub-actions or further use in some titles too.  That allowed for a lot more variety comfortable and faster easier action in play.

 

Not saying the 2600 is bad, I personally realy can't put time on something more basic than a colecovision/stock famicom at this rate to be fair, but it was a true product of the 70s and by the time the coleco and famicom showed up in 83...it was clearly in the rear view mirror and stayed there for a good list of reasons.