Jakandsig

True, and yet, it's a source or claimed to be one, which the general population will decide to believe. Why do you think half the gaming world thinks if they are wrong, that Nintendo is the second coming?

Your reading comprehension is quite bad.

No, no one gave any references or links. Only one person named scrolling games that could be looked up. Almost all other points were typed the same way as wiki.

A thing that has been on my mind for awhile. The NES started blowing the 7800 out the water in 1988, and causing it to pretty much lose all TP chances that it had, and dropped sales to insanely low levels I don't think has ever been repeated by another system. But then if you look at the facts: The Atari 7800, from launch was at less retailers, but still managed to be only a few hundred thousand behind the NES the first year. BTT both peaked at 1988, which may have been due to new 2600 games along with 7800 games, and a few other factors, the NES was not "that" far ahead to call it a watch. The NES was ahead by maybe 3-4.5 million depending on what source you decide to believe at most until the END of 1988, where the 7800 sales dropped and continued into 1989, and than in 1990 went to an all new low of which it had not recovered. But the 2600 may have been the reason for this, and infact, may have prevented a further sales increase in its better first 3 years. The 2600 was still being sold, the JR and other versions came out, and the 7800 main selling points were enhanced graphics and 7800 BC. So when by 1988 were the NES pretty much had everything by the grip and by the end of 1988, the 7800's only real value other than having game droughts, was the 2600 BC, which the 2600 and the newer versions were all dirt cheap. If said 2600 sold a million in 1985 as reported, and managed 40 million with a good chunk of that 1985 plus, it's clear that Atari should have killed the 2600. The 2600 was basically cutting into what would have made the 7800 much closer to the NES, and people saying the system failed despite being a commercial success, would be quiet and zip that lip.

Actually, it was not until the Neo-Geo released that graphics started making actual jumps from each other. The TG-16 was not that far ahead of the best SMS and Xegs games, and was barely much of a difference from the Genesis, which only really had a color weakness against the SNES. Also, the 7800 was a competitor to the NES until 1988, were they both peaked, and was when the NES started to lead by more than 4.5 or so million. (It also by this time, and third-party support for the 7800 non existant and probably made the most legendary drop of sales of any game console.)

A lot of you people have made claims that these statements are not true, but have not posted any links or references whatsoever that back your statements up, while on wikipedia, there are sources to un sources sources from gaming journalists, and while that is quality debatable, this site has a habit of only posting links if someone continually says something that is deemed true over and over again. If wikipedia is wrong, and all these uh, gaming people businesses are wrong, then it would help if you proved each of those claims wrong with something that shows you got it from somewhere.

It always baffles me when people actually believe that the third gen (which started 1986 usings wikis set-up) only includes the 7800, Mastersystem and NES. I mean using logic, that would mean the gen was barely over 2 years. Not to mention the 7800 and famicom/nes were made 83 and 84, and the fact that the famicom until 1987 was at a comparable power to the Colecovision until it started adding chips gets rid of the "power per gen argument" that people use as well. So I am wondering what the order is determined by? And why in its current order.

I was looking at a wikipedia article that seems to be considered true by many people in the gaming industry and I wanted to know that if these accomplishments were indeed 100% true as many of you seem to not realize in earlier thread how the NES is the reason why video games in general still exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(third_generation) and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros. Now here is the list: 1.The NES introduced tile-based graphics. Introduced a leap in game design seen by neither console or computer. 2.The NES introduced game suthorization. 3.IGN says that Atari killed the industry and the NES saved it. 4.There was no video game market at the time according to sources like EGM. 5.NES is the longest running console and it's not the 2600, even though people still say it's the 2600, so something is missing here. 6.Invented the D-pad 7.Created the Modern gameing industry. 8.SMB single-handedly for the most part revived the industry. 9.Games did not scroll until the NES. Now, these 9 points are often considered true, but many people here had said these are not true before but provided no evidence. Systems like the 7800 were commercial failures and were forgotten as the NES saved the industry day one.

The NES with chips still had the same problems the NES did with flicker, slowdown, etc. To be honest, SMB3 is the only real exception I see graphically that actually seems to distance itself from it's original father the Colecovision. However, even with that, the SMS (basically a Colco with a better GPU) still managed to look better anyway which is very interesting.

No, thread title is more than just the thread title, there is an op.

No, Cd-I association would be a better link. Includes the multiple versions including rare ones (although not all have descriptions stating differences) and it's well over 100

No, I was bl;unt and truthful. There are more than the few models of CD-I then what you have seen but based what few you have you jumped to a random assumption.

Don';t remember that having a multi-purpose browser, memberships, and movie/game downloads.

THere are over 100 models of CD-i. It seems like a dislike of doing research on google then anything.

People seem to be confused here, and I am even seeing people saying that the NES was way ahead of the Coleco Vision when the only advantage the late NES had was chips in the carts.

In accurate, later CD-I models had it built in. There are dozens of them btw. Also it allowed browsing, downloading, E-mail, and WW online play. Something no other console did..

That doesn't match the title of the thread at all.

All your above examples are limited. This is Cross-country online play withdownloads, and browsing.

Now as TECHNICALLY (before wikipedia) a 2nd gen console itself, I was wondering what consoles were better or on par in the 2nd gen (RDI not included) to the NES in terms of post 1986 graphics. I know Colecovision is popular although I only have 15 games for it and I am sure there are better looking games on it as I have seen.

This site has provided some interesting numbers in the past. However, I noticed that there aren't any 2600 posted from the time period in the thread title. Did anybody find them? I hears that over a million were sold in 85 but that's as most as I have seen.

I noticed the Cd-I is seldom discussed even on this site where people usually go for accuracy. I though I would share that the CD-I was the first modern console in online gaming. Browsing, E-mail, internet, downloads, and even a gold membership (hmm.....Where have we heard that before) As well as a commercial telling you how it is and works: It's often stated (and it took me 5 years to get the Wikipedia people to stop reediting even with numerous sources) that the Dreamcast was the first to offer modern online, yet, even MS had a CD for the CD-I online. CD-I also introduced us the PSX which would not exist (nor the SNES CD attempt) if not for their own branded CD-I machines. The CD-I disc format is also what brought us Video CD's and VDV's, and arguably is the most important, and expensive to collect for, system os all time for the modern gaming set-up we see today.