Did Super Mario Bros end the crash?

[Video]

I'd say yes to the OPs question, mostly because the NES had a slow start, even in the US, it wasn't until the Super Mario Bros became a standard packin that the console really started to take off. Granted the world would have gotten bak onto games eventually anyways, but I think Mario jump started a renewed interest in games as a whole, as nothing had been seen quiet like it before.

[+Random Terrain]

I've been asking around and trying to refresh my memory, but unless a memory bubbles to the surface that I can't access right now, it seems my family didn't hear about the NES until 1987. Did they not advertise as much until then? Seemed like from 1987 on, you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing some kind of Nintendo-related commercial.

[Emehr]

Yeah, I didn't hear about the NES until 7th grade (late '87) when a student brought his Zelda cartridge to class (ooh! it's gold!). After that it seemed like everyone had a Nintendo.

 

While it probably makes for better headlines to put a face on the savior, I wouldn't credit Mario for ending the drought of console video game goodness, but the NES as a whole. This is coming from someone who bought a Sega Master System first only to realize Nintendo had the better games on the whole. It was a phenomenon. I remember even the local news anchors had a story on how much it cost to produce the cartridges versus what they sold for. It was sweeping the nation like Rubik's Cube.

[+Ransom]

I don't think I'd heard about it until the fall of '87, when I started college. I definitely didn't buy one until after that Christmas.

[tz101]

I've been asking around and trying to refresh my memory, but unless a memory bubbles to the surface that I can't access right now, it seems my family didn't hear about the NES until 1987.

 

 

Yeah, I didn't hear about the NES until 7th grade (late '87) when a student brought his Zelda cartridge to class (ooh! it's gold!). After that it seemed like everyone had a Nintendo.

 

 

I don't think I'd heard about it until the fall of '87, when I started college. I definitely didn't buy one until after that Christmas.

 

Target stores in my area had NES Deluxe ROB sets and Control Deck sets in fall of 1986. I got my Control Deck for Christmas of 1986 and still have it today.

[BydoEmpire]

My first thought was "of course not" but I wonder... would the NES have been such a huge success without SMB? That was such a huge, killer-app type of game. It sold a lot of systems. Then again, Zelda was also huge. My guess is that if there was no SMB, then Zelda, or Metroid, or Tecmo Bowl or some other game would have made the NES enough of a hit to revive the market (along w/ the concept of 1st party approval that was pretty crucial to the industry's survival). I suppose you could argue that if there was no SMB, Nintendo may not have continued the NES enough to produce Metroid...

[Arkhan]

My first thought was "of course not" but I wonder... would the NES have been such a huge success without SMB? That was such a huge, killer-app type of game. It sold a lot of systems. Then again, Zelda was also huge. My guess is that if there was no SMB, then Zelda, or Metroid, or Tecmo Bowl or some other game would have made the NES enough of a hit to revive the market (along w/ the concept of 1st party approval that was pretty crucial to the industry's survival). I suppose you could argue that if there was no SMB, Nintendo may not have continued the NES enough to produce Metroid...

 

It would have been fine. It was developed alongside Zelda, which did amazingly. Alot of early Nintendo power era stories I remember reading seemed to gravitate around other games. Hell, Ice Hockey sold alot of people.

 

Kid Icarus is what did it around my family/friends from what they've told me.

[Rev. Rob]

wgungfu, I greatly appreciate your research in the matter.

 

Appreciate hearing that.

 

 

 

*Rob's theories on ability to compete in the market removed for brevity*

 

I'm just saying that early media coverage is only a small piece of the picture.

 

 

It seems we're discussing two separate things here. [/font]

 

Yes, it seems that we were. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I enjoyed the read.

 

 

 

Might wanna check yo'self before you wreck yo'self with ignorant assumptions.

 

Bad cliche especially from someone making most of the assumptions in this thread. If you actually own BC, then you should know that it's closer kin to Moon Patrol than it is to Mario. You stated otherwise, which is evidence that you haven't played it. Assumptions are not evidence based conclusions. The term you're looking for is hypothesis.

 

Varying background music. Yeah, what 4 songs? (Overworld, Underworld, Water, Castle... oh and the bonus world, so 5?). The game is cookie cutter. Same thing over and over with mild variation each time to make you think you've gone and done something special. Boss fights? Where. You don't fight anything. You run UNDER him. Powerups Galore? LOL. There's what, 3 power ups? If that's your idea of "galore" wtf have you been playing besides SMB?

 

I honestly don't even like SMB. Five different songs on a console game was quite a bit at the time. The game may be cookie cutter, but so are a lot of well received, genre redefining games throughout history (Doom, Legend of Zelda, Halo), this has been a key strategy in videogame development since pretty much forever. And mostly, it's only cookie cutter in hindsight. At the time, it was fresh. Redefining a boss fight to fit your qualifications doesn't make it something other than a boss fight. Further, my idea of "galore power ups" are ones that are plentiful. Levels are full of them, and it was a relatively new experience. Next time you're confused I might suggest consulting a dictionary or asking nicely. It seems like you thought I said the game had a massive array of power ups. For a guy who's idea of having a conversation about video games includes pretentious insults about typos and reading comprehension, you are very hypocritical. Most people can discuss game history without name calling. Despite what you may think in your mind, there's no audience cheering you on, there's no competition to score points. We're talking about retro games on a retro game forum.

 

 

 

Elitist condescension like this is pretty stupid on an Atari forum.

 

That wasn't me being condescending. I apologize if you mistook my meaning. The point was SMB combined a lot (note the spelling for future reference) of elements into a single game that the general gaming public had not experienced.

 

I.E.: Acting like only old dopes like you have a clue about anything classic. You've made it apparent multiple times now that you don't know as much as you let on. I mean, I'm guessing I am half your age and you aren't really doing so hot right now in this discussion.

 

Another interesting assumption. If you're half my age, then that would make you 14. I would have ventured to guess that you're more like 35, but it turns out that would be wrong because you're 23.

 

You're perception of ageism is a delusion. That doesn't mean, however, that gamers who lived through the event have a better perception. Just like high school students today learning about 9/11 don't feel the same cultural impact as those of us who remember the event.

 

Appeals to personal relationships is a fallacy.I knew no one who had a computer of any kind until the 1990s. I didn't play an NES until 1987, and before that I only had a 2600. It was a gigantic leap forward compared to the previous generations. Generalized individual experiences from testimony do not paint a clear picture of historical reality.

 

SMB was an instant classic because of TIMING.

 

I wouldn't argue that point.

 

There were games (Dragon Buster, a game you failed to address.) in arcades doing Mario style stuff, BEFORE mario.

 

I didn't fail to point it out, (the way you failed to use proper grammar in that sentence), rather I felt it already had been addressed. The basic element that the games you point have in common with SMB is the mere fact that they're side scrollers and that they had some elements that existed before SMB came out. That's like saying that Facebook isn't all that original because Friendster was there before it. Fact is, like Facebook, SMB did things in a way that was different from anyone else at the time.

 

 

 

That being said, how many people even NOTICED a crash anyways?

 

Anyone with stock in Warner. It was a pretty major event. Guys here who lived through the crash and who have heavily researched it would be happy to help you understand the event if you were to ask.

 

PS: You made a couple typos. You also have these and other glaring inconsistencies on your site. Spend less time being a moron, and more time making sense please. Proofreading is your friend. Thanks.

 

Now, what was that you said about choking on a herpes infested cock?

 

 

In this one post I stopped counting your grammatical errors at eight. Criticizing people for typos actually is elitist, and is hypocritical coming from a guy who doesn't know that "a lot" are two words, not one. Stalking though, that's creepy.

 

I wouldn't normally point out false assumptions and grammar on this forum, but it really seems important to you, so I thought you should know.

 

Calling names and making personal attacks gets you nowhere.

 

It's foolish arguing over whether Super Mario Brothers was a technological breakthrough, because it's really beside the point. We all know it wasn't the first platformer, we all know that it wasn't the first game with catchy music or snazzy graphics or smooth jumping physics, and so forth. SMB didn't do any of these things first, and it didn't have to: it just did them better than the games that came before it, and at the right time. And, as I said in my earlier post, Nintendo successfully built the game around a very appealing franchise that's still going strong today, and we shouldn't downplay what that added to the game. I don't think it would have had quite the same appeal if it had been (for example) some guy in a spacesuit jumping on aliens in a generic Martian landscape.

 

This is basically my point.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Rev. Rob

[fiddlepaddle]

...blah blah blah...

...Calling names and making personal attacks gets you nowhere.

Well said.

[carmel_andrews]

Did SMB end the crash...No it didn't, People seem to forget that most of the companies that hadn't gone under and started shifting their energies to developing computer games (since that market had'nt been so saturated)

 

There was a little crash in the UK mainly related to computer games publishers dolling out crap clones of coin op games (Imagine software being the most famous of the companies that went under..And only because of it's unreleased, at the time MEGAGAMES series, which eventually found it's way to Psygnosis's initial games releases)

[Atari_Falcon]

SMB didn't end the crash, but games like it cured the market. In my personal opinion, Atari stuck too long on arcade adaptions for their consoles, but people demanded new unique games and Nintendo and Sega delivered. In my opinion Atari finally died from the crash. As they kept on that "we deliver arcade games to the people" until the Lynx and Jaguar. If you look at the last 2600/7800 titles you can clearly see that they aimed at the NES, but couldn't compete at the end. In the crash era, there was the same situation: VCS/ColecoVision/Intellivision and many others sharing mainly arcade titles and regarding the 2600 tons of mock-ups of those. I don't think that these are bad games, but it gave people the feeling there's nothing new (while homecomputer games were often unique ones, never seen in the arcades)... Having that said, SMB was the best that could happen to console market.

[Nukey Shay]

Back OT before the thread lock...

 

It depends on how the console market crash affected you personally. Like most users at the time, I did not lose any sleep over the incedent. Yes, I was aware of what was happening and how it affected console producers at the time...but it wasn't much of a big deal to me since I had already shifted to using home computers for my gaming fix. I'd already gotten rid of my 6-switch 2600 and Colecovision consoles because the A8 and C64 systems were offering better (and hackable!) games...consoles were of no concern to me. The fact that console producers were losing cash at the time made no difference.

 

Forward to the NES introduction:

I first viewed it as a curiosity. Yes, the system had some nice games...but it wasn't as if such games of similar quality (or clones of them) hadn't already appeared on home computers. The idea of purchasing another console hadn't entered my mind until the number of exclusive titles that appealed to me started to pile up...and by then I had a job and could afford to piss away some cash on yet another gaming platform.

 

End the crash? There wasn't one from a user's perspective. Games were all around.

[atarian63]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first NES's sold in the States didn't come with SMB? I think that may have come out as much as a year after the system.

I'm fairly certain the first NESes came with Gyromite and Duck Hunt on two separate carts. Of course, the system also came with two controllers, a Zapper, and ROB.

 

I don't know exactly when SMB entered the picture, but it probably wasn't long.

It did and was generally viewed at first by customers as an odd and expensive thing. 85 season as I think I recall we had one setup on the counter, people really thoght it odd, we sold very few for quite some time.

It was far from an immediate success. People liked Super Mario brothers but wanted it for their system not another system.They did like Duck Hunt! People would always play a few rounds and liked it very much! Gyromite and the Robot were just confusing for people. Were were doing closeouts of all the major systems from warehouses around the country so really at first NES had to compete with great prices on better more popular systems, as well as Atari 800 and C64. I think folks believe that NES was some immediate success. It wasn't. 85 would have been different if Warner had not been so skittish. 7800 would have done very well. People asked ALL the time.Seemed like as the closeouts dwindled and NES had more title things just went that way as there was little else to chose (yes SMS) so.. right place right time. The industry is full of these examples.

 

 

 

Very intersting.... Especially from retailers point of view......

 

I know my friend and I had a helluva time finding a NES for sale in it's initial launch...And we live in the Chicagoland area!!! In know I didn't get mine till Feb. of '86 (B-day gift.) It was the *Deluxe* set that included seperate carts of Gyromite and Duck [email protected] 63---Was there a limited initial supply?

 

 

I'll preface this by saying I "loathe" SMB! I think the original Mario Brothers is the superior version! My friend actually owned a arcade BITD. And I believe he did have a VS SMB when it was new-not sure if it twas 85 or 86.... So for me, I could care less about SMB on the NES. It was the fact that Nintendo, the maker of Mario Bros, Donkey Kong series and Popeye, was coming out with a graphically enhanced versions of such arcade gems! SMB wasn't even a thought.

 

So my answer to the op's question is *NO*! The Nintendo system itself aided in the post crash era......

Yes, as I recall we could only get a few. They were limited in supply. Feb of 86 would have been a tough time to find one,whoever got that for you must have really liked you!

[+Ransom]

Back OT before the thread lock...

 

It depends on how the console market crash affected you personally. Like most users at the time, I did not lose any sleep over the incedent. Yes, I was aware of what was happening and how it affected console producers at the time...but it wasn't much of a big deal to me since I had already shifted to using home computers for my gaming fix. I'd already gotten rid of my 6-switch 2600 and Colecovision consoles because the A8 and C64 systems were offering better (and hackable!) games...consoles were of no concern to me. The fact that console producers were losing cash at the time made no difference.

 

Forward to the NES introduction:

I first viewed it as a curiosity. Yes, the system had some nice games...but it wasn't as if such games of similar quality (or clones of them) hadn't already appeared on home computers. The idea of purchasing another console hadn't entered my mind until the number of exclusive titles that appealed to me started to pile up...and by then I had a job and could afford to piss away some cash on yet another gaming platform.

 

End the crash? There wasn't one from a user's perspective. Games were all around.

 

Well said! +1 for you.

[Arkhan]

Back OT before the thread lock...

 

It depends on how the console market crash affected you personally. Like most users at the time, I did not lose any sleep over the incedent. Yes, I was aware of what was happening and how it affected console producers at the time...but it wasn't much of a big deal to me since I had already shifted to using home computers for my gaming fix. I'd already gotten rid of my 6-switch 2600 and Colecovision consoles because the A8 and C64 systems were offering better (and hackable!) games...consoles were of no concern to me. The fact that console producers were losing cash at the time made no difference.

 

Forward to the NES introduction:

I first viewed it as a curiosity. Yes, the system had some nice games...but it wasn't as if such games of similar quality (or clones of them) hadn't already appeared on home computers. The idea of purchasing another console hadn't entered my mind until the number of exclusive titles that appealed to me started to pile up...and by then I had a job and could afford to piss away some cash on yet another gaming platform.

 

End the crash? There wasn't one from a user's perspective. Games were all around.

 

\o/ Exactly.

[Cynicaster]

In reading this thread it seems everybody wants to overemphasize their own personal experience in recounting the past and how Nintendo/SMB fit into the picture:

 

“It was North America only… Europe didn’t even flinch.”

“It was consoles only, I was busy enjoying my computer games, so no big deal.”

“Neither I nor a single one of my friends noticed, therefore it didn’t happen.”

“I never liked SMB, therefore it’s ludicrous that it should receive any credit for resuscitating the console industry.”

 

Maybe the “crash” has been mythologized a bit over the years by means of the internet and Wikipedia, but I don’t know how anybody could deny that it happened, at least in the sense that the events were consistent with what the word “crash” means as a colloquialism when talking about a market.

 

Bottom line, around the mid-eighties, the existing/common consoles were aging and consumer interest/enthusiasm for those consoles had pretty much reached a nadir. The 2600 was hanging on, mostly on the strength of a large install-base, and low low prices… not because of gotta-have-it appeal. But how much longer would that have been sustainable before the “reserve tank” of interest dried up and there would have been a literal dearth of console-based video games available for us to buy? The retail outlets surely weren’t doing anything to encourage development of next-gen products—to the contrary, they wanted nothing to do with them to the point of actively avoiding them—which is telling.

 

Luckily for us, the marketing brain trust at Nintendo adroitly conceived their strategem of “re-labeling” what their product actually was (i.e. an “entertainment system” with toy robots and guns rather than a “game system”), thus allowing them to slip past the gatekeeper and find a distribution channel. It didn’t take off right away, but eventually it did, and spread like mad. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

So maybe SMB was more of an innovation than an invention. Call it what you like, but it managed to garner mass appeal with a broad market consisting of boys and girls alike--not a trivial achievement by any stretch. In doing so, it moved a LOT of game systems off the shelves, spawned countless imitators, and created a brand that thrives to this day. Did SMB save the console game world as we know it, all by itself? Probably not, but it was a seminal game that played a significant role in turning an ailing industry on its ear. If you don’t acknowledge this you’re kidding yourself.

[BydoEmpire]

Amen, Cynicaster, well said.

[Cynicaster]

Amen, Cynicaster, well said.

 

 

Hey, it's the guy from the Retro Gaming Roundup forums! 'Sup man?

[carmel_andrews]

In reading this thread it seems everybody wants to overemphasize their own personal experience in recounting the past and how Nintendo/SMB fit into the picture:

 

It was North America only… Europe didnt even flinch.

It was consoles only, I was busy enjoying my computer games, so no big deal.

Neither I nor a single one of my friends noticed, therefore it didnt happen.

I never liked SMB, therefore its ludicrous that it should receive any credit for resuscitating the console industry.

 

Maybe the crash has been mythologized a bit over the years by means of the internet and Wikipedia, but I dont know how anybody could deny that it happened, at least in the sense that the events were consistent with what the word crash means as a colloquialism when talking about a market.

 

Bottom line, around the mid-eighties, the existing/common consoles were aging and consumer interest/enthusiasm for those consoles had pretty much reached a nadir. The 2600 was hanging on, mostly on the strength of a large install-base, and low low prices… not because of gotta-have-it appeal. But how much longer would that have been sustainable before the reserve tank of interest dried up and there would have been a literal dearth of console-based video games available for us to buy? The retail outlets surely werent doing anything to encourage development of next-gen productsto the contrary, they wanted nothing to do with them to the point of actively avoiding themwhich is telling.

 

Luckily for us, the marketing brain trust at Nintendo adroitly conceived their strategem of re-labeling what their product actually was (i.e. an entertainment system with toy robots and guns rather than a game system), thus allowing them to slip past the gatekeeper and find a distribution channel. It didnt take off right away, but eventually it did, and spread like mad. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

So maybe SMB was more of an innovation than an invention. Call it what you like, but it managed to garner mass appeal with a broad market consisting of boys and girls alike--not a trivial achievement by any stretch. In doing so, it moved a LOT of game systems off the shelves, spawned countless imitators, and created a brand that thrives to this day. Did SMB save the console game world as we know it, all by itself? Probably not, but it was a seminal game that played a significant role in turning an ailing industry on its ear. If you dont acknowledge this youre kidding yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting perspective Cynicaster, however, I can assure you that Europe (esp the UK) did suffer from the VG crash, but in another way, since there were more computer manufacturers then games console manufacturers marketing their wares in europe (a lot more then what was available in the US, as you have to include the MSX, Amstrad and the slew of European manufacturers like Dragon, Oric, Tatung, Memotech and so on) most of which didn't even reach the US

 

The problem with the European/UK market was, that their was no innovation or original product coming out (apart from the likes of anything by ultimate, which eventually morphed into Rare and Software projects/Bug Byte, of Manic Miner fame and perhaps one or 2 other games/ or publishers) and because of the glut of hardware companies that needed software support (bearing in mind that Atari did a piss poor job at this time at getting software support for it's computers) and because most of the games content on the shelves of the game shops/stores were basically hacks/clones of coin op games or rip off's of various US based Atari/apple/cbm games it meant that not enough new original content was coming out as the publishers wanted to sell exisiting stock just to break even, unfortunately because publishers weren't able to get new releases on the shelves and had to discount massively all their existing games/stock just to generate some revenue a significant number of publishers were caught short (Imagine being the prime example here) and because the couldn't get distribution of their new games and having to write off any profits from existing games caused many publishers to either go under or restructure their business

 

So essentially what happened in the US in the console market happened in the UK/Europe to the computer market, interesting thing is though it wasn't untill after the likes of the n64/playstation/saturn etc (as well as the demise of Atari and commodore as hardware companies ) that software companies in the UK/Europe started supporting games systems on masse (i'd say from 1995, console games publishing/development had overtaken computer games publishing/development)

 

 

Just to also point out, that nintendo didn't really become a major player in the european/uk market till sometime after it changed it's policy on 3rd party games development/publishing

Edited January 28, 2011 by carmel_andrews

[Petran79]

Like many kids, we had an atari 2600. I saw the nes in stores but was not that much impressed.

 

I remember that in large department stores they had consoles like the nes for the kids to play and in specialized video game,electronics and computer hardware shops they had other systems like commodore (eg you would see a karateka demo).

 

My dad bought us an nes as a surprise! It had the game ice climber. The seals were replaced with yetis in the euro version. After exchanging and buying nes games i was hooked to that console though i never played rpgs.

 

But i must admit that the nintendo craze (aided by the cartoons) did not affect all and there was just so much hype. Mario to many was popular thanks to the silly cartoon. Eg i visited a lot of friends to play games and yet only 2 had an nes. The rest (older than me or had an older brother) had amigas, atarist,atari 2600, 8088 etc

 

Nes was successful on a specific generation of players. I belong to that generation but thinking now backwards i prefered the other systems but could not afford those.

 

Nes helped to make video games more accessible but at the cost of censorship (hamster in maniac mansion) and horrible localizations.

When i became a teen it became too kiddy for my tastes so i sold it and moved on to pc games.

 

I recently tried professor layton 3 on the nintendo ds (found the console abandoned!). I felt like the nes kid again!

[The_Laird]

I don't really agree with Carmel at all. We didn't have a crash here at all, in fact if you look at the facts you will see sales of video games in the UK continued to expand and move into more high street stores.

 

What did happen, which he kinda refering too, is that alot of the computer companies themselves went bust. This was because there were so many companies trying to cash in on the success of the Spectrum and releasing there own (most inferior) machines left right and centre. History tells us that each gen there were machines that failed and ones that survived its just at this period in time in the UK more failed because people didn't buy them. There were a few that did well for a while like the Dragon 32, BBC Micro, Electron and Oric but most failed and quickly vanished into obscurity like the Campters Lynx (there was a Lynx before Atari made one!), Tatung Einstien, Grundy Videobrain and Jupiter Ace.

[Retro Rogue]

I don't really agree with Carmel at all. We didn't have a crash here at all, in fact if you look at the facts you will see sales of video games in the UK continued to expand and move into more high street stores.

 

What did happen, which he kinda refering too, is that alot of the computer companies themselves went bust. This was because there were so many companies trying to cash in on the success of the Spectrum and releasing there own (most inferior) machines left right and centre. History tells us that each gen there were machines that failed and ones that survived its just at this period in time in the UK more failed because people didn't buy them. There were a few that did well for a while like the Dragon 32, BBC Micro, Electron and Oric but most failed and quickly vanished into obscurity like the Campters Lynx (there was a Lynx before Atari made one!), Tatung Einstien, Grundy Videobrain and Jupiter Ace.

 

 

 

You're right, and Carmel is confusing timelines and facts (and it appears industries) as usual. The video game crash was an American phenomenon that effected American companies. We're talking about the American market. Japan was of course not effected, Europe and other countries were not effected - and in fact markets in those countries are usually on different timelines with some consoles having releases and retaining popularity long after the US. Brazil is a good example of that, or the Videopac market in Europe.

 

The computer market is a separate market, and in fact the UK computer crash was started just as the US video game market crash was ending. With most of the related companies getting hit and closing starting in '85 or so.

 

There's a reason most people in the UK never heard of the video game crash (a quick hop over to the RetroGamer forums will verify that), why I may be writing a two parter for the mag to cover it for them.

Edited January 29, 2011 by wgungfu

[soloman]

Super Mario Brothers definitely has its place but the NES's true selling point was A) the arcade ports and B) Nintendo's business practices forbid anyone from putting said arcade ports on a competing console for a year and some change. As shark-like and monopolizing as Nintendo was in the 80s, it meant that competition had to carve out a name or die. Sega became known for their unrivaled sports titles with EAs help and NEC became known (in Japan) for the superior graphics and tech. It's ironic that Nintendo's business practices, which were intended to secure them at the #1 spot, pushed developers to try harder which in turn created a stronger market.

[tz101]

I'd say yes to the OPs question, mostly because the NES had a slow start, even in the US, it wasn't until the Super Mario Bros became a standard packin that the console really started to take off. Granted the world would have gotten bak onto games eventually anyways, but I think Mario jump started a renewed interest in games as a whole, as nothing had been seen quiet like it before.

 

Ummm, the Control Deck set I got for Christmas 1986 had SMB as the pack in game. Was 1986 not early in the NES' life cycle? When exactly did the console really take off?

[Retro Rogue]

I'd say yes to the OPs question, mostly because the NES had a slow start, even in the US, it wasn't until the Super Mario Bros became a standard packin that the console really started to take off. Granted the world would have gotten bak onto games eventually anyways, but I think Mario jump started a renewed interest in games as a whole, as nothing had been seen quiet like it before.

 

Ummm, the Control Deck set I got for Christmas 1986 had SMB as the pack in game. Was 1986 not early in the NES' life cycle? When exactly did the console really take off?

 

 

As has previously been shown through the actual box work I provided in this thread to show the evolution of the control deck series, the control deck did not come with a game until 1987 - i.e. every box even states game not included until then. SMB could be provided alongside (as in not packed directly in) during the '86 launch. Feel free to go back and look at the gallery of boxes from the test launch through '87.

Edited January 29, 2011 by wgungfu