I've always been interested in the various differences between the NES and Famicom, and most of the reasons for NOA doing this never satisfy me. I've heard everything from Piracy to "keeping ET away", obviously in reference to the cart that "caused the 1983 crash" (but that is debatable too).
In the long run, I've read that a lot of titles weren't released for the NES - or retooled completely, simply because of the NES redesign, and part of it was the loss of "extension pins" - they were moved to the bottom of the unit. As a result, any games using special chips had to be butchered or recoded for US markets. This seems really silly in retrospect, economically. Plus, I would hate to know that my magnum opus for the Famicom, if I had programmed a game for it, would have to be butchered to work on a console which design changes were, in hindsight, really really silly to do, in my opinion.
Then again I look at Wolfenstein 3D and then Doom for the SNES and wonder what went wrong.
I've always enjoyed Akumajou Densetsu for the Famicom. I had never played the NES version, and have ordered it online this week. From what I've played in an emulator... Dracula's Curse feels hollow
. It's weird to describe it that way, as the gameplay seems to be fine (it's not really changed much other than some monster behavior and the jumping isn't quite right) but everything else seems to be diluted.
Does anyone think Nintendo's idea of radically changing their hardware through the different regions was a good idea at the time? For a collector like me, it makes some titles impossible to get. Luckily, I was able to get a Famicom/NES converter cart that let me play US games. my friends had no such luxury.
(Was I just spoiled for having a Famicom as a child while everyone else had a grey VCR?
Is there anything else I'm missing? And if you were NOA: would you have authorized this?