Atari 2600 or the Nintendo NES?

[rhindlethereddragon]

Both systems have game libraries that were comprable in size. Both systems were monoliths of their time. I don't think anybody is going to argue against that the NES had better graphics, but this is only one part of the overall equation. Other things to be taken into consideration are the overall fun factor of the available games, the types of games available for each system, the controllers, and personal preferences encompassing any other factor. Posted on this forum to get the most unbiased opinion (if it were posted in 2600 or NES sub forums, the responses would of course be predictable).

 

Vote and discuss.

Edited August 24, 2011 by rhindlethereddragon

[yell0w_lantern]

The Commodore 64 was the best.

[Rex Dart]

NES, of course. Not that the 2600 isn't awesome too, but c'mon... NES.

[keilbaca]

I think the 2600 slightly edges out, just because of the controller variety. However, the Atari 2600 had the paddle controller. I am more of an arcade type of player, and that's exactly the kind of games that the Atari 2600 had. NES had a lot, but they didn't have Warlords or Kaboom!.

[Cebus Capucinis]

Posting this on an Atari fan site....hmm, I wonder how the results will turn out....

[SoulBlazer]

Posting this on an Atari fan site....hmm, I wonder how the results will turn out....

 

Exactly. Post this on a NES fan site and the results will be just the other way. It's not really fair to post this here to get a 'fair' opinion.

 

Having said that, I notice a lot of hate for the NES on here and I just don't understand it. Both systems were great with large libaries of games covering just about any topic and were groundbreaking for their time.

[Vic George 2K3]

I'd equate the Atari 2600 as being the greatest of the Golden Age, and the NES as being the greatest of the Silver Age, if videogame system generations can be defined in mineral ages.

[+boxpressed]

Isn't the 2600 a lot more durable than the NES?

[Robocop2]

Both have their merits and die hard fans. You can't really argue on the debate of which one was "better" in the terms of capabilities as they are from two completely different generations of technology and with the NES coming later; obviously would be the technologically superior console. The 2600 helped usher in the video game craze (and also was there during the crash) while the NES agruably helped the recovery from the crash considerably. Having had experience with both; I prefer the NES. But I prefer the Genesis to either.

[jetset]

Define "greater"...

Which had the bigger cultural impact?

Which is still going strong 20+ years later?

Which sold more units and generated more buzz?

 

I don't think you can compare based on graphics or sound....just not a fair comparison. Two different generations.

 

That said I play my 2600 several times a week, my NES (collection) is in several boxes in my closet.

[Underball]

I wouldn't be frequenting AtariAge if NES was my answer.

[Rex Dart]

I think the 2600 slightly edges out, just because of the controller variety. However, the Atari 2600 had the paddle controller. I am more of an arcade type of player, and that's exactly the kind of games that the Atari 2600 had. NES had a lot, but they didn't have Warlords or Kaboom!.

 

The 2600 had a lot of 1980-1984 style games, which happened to be basic arcade games. Arcade games "expanded" over time, and the NES & SMS captured those.

 

 

I wouldn't be frequenting AtariAge if NES was my answer.

 

Seriously? It's about the URL and not the people?

Edited August 24, 2011 by Rex Dart

[ls650]

This strikes me as an odd question for an Atari site. Of course if you ask on a site for Atari fans, they'll favor the Atari, while the same question on a Nintendo site will go in favor of the NES.

 

I think it depends on your age too. I was born in '66, so I spent my teens growing up with Atari, whereas the NES came out after I went off to college and I was too busy studying to spend much time on video games. Atari brings me a lot of fond memories, while NES really is just another console I looked at years after the fact. The NES might have some great games, but they just weren't there while I was growing up and playing Atari.

Edited August 24, 2011 by ls650

[Christophero Sly]

2600. No contest.

[Pixelboy]

NES for me. I had a lot more fun playing Mega Man, Metroid, Ninja Gaiden, SMB1/2/3, etc. than I ever had playing such classics as Pitfall II or Pengo on the Atari 2600. The 2600 was a fine machine, but NES beats it, and not just in terms of graphic and sound capabilities, but mostly in terms of sheer fun.

[+save2600]

2600 is the greatest system of the 70's, that went on to thrive in the 80's. Took a little nap in the early 90's, but then Ed Ferdermeyer woke it up and it's been going strong again ever since.

[CGQuarterly]

Apples and oranges. The NES had more in-depth games along with arcade style titles, so how can you really say that the 2600 is better unless it's nostalgia talking? The NES could do everything that the 2600 could do, and WAY more. However, the systems each had different games, so a direct comparison really isn't possible. You can also look at the impact that each had and maybe its a different story. The NES revitalized a half-dead industry, but the 2600 was what made the industry in the first place. The only way to fairly answer such a question is to consider each system within its own time. When the 2600 was king, it was amazing because it allowed you to play your favorite arcade games at home, which was a huge deal at the time. With the NES, that wow factor was gone but the quality of the games was better. I was a NES kid, so I know what a cult of personality the thing had (if an inanimate object can have such a thing), but I can't comment on the VCS.

 

I dunno, I guess I just reject the premise of the question. I don't like these kind of discussions anyway. All of the major game systems were great but each had their own distinct flavor, so there just isn't much point to debating which one was "better". At the end of the day, I wouldn't get rid of any of mine.

 

Chris

Edited August 24, 2011 by Jibbajaba

[wccw mark]

i love both systems,and play both systems often.its really close.both have their good/bad points.that being said,i gotta give the edge to the atari 2600.the paddle games and h.e.r.o is what put it over nes for me.

[Underball]

I think the 2600 slightly edges out, just because of the controller variety. However, the Atari 2600 had the paddle controller. I am more of an arcade type of player, and that's exactly the kind of games that the Atari 2600 had. NES had a lot, but they didn't have Warlords or Kaboom!.

 

The 2600 had a lot of 1980-1984 style games, which happened to be basic arcade games. Arcade games "expanded" over time, and the NES & SMS captured those.

 

 

I wouldn't be frequenting AtariAge if NES was my answer.

 

Seriously? It's about the URL and not the people?

It's about the Games. I like Atari games. I like Atari systems. I come here to talk to people about Atari Games. If I were looking for engaging conversation about NES games, I wouldn't go to an Atari-themed site.

[BydoEmpire]

2600, for me definitely. I like the NES, but I rarely play it anymore. So many 2600 games are just as fun today as they were 30 years ago, whereas there's no way in heck I'm playing and insanely difficult 2d platfomer now. I'm pretty much not replaying any game I've already beaten, as good as it might have been, whereas the 2600's arcadey games are infinitely replayable. IMHO the library just more timeless.

 

The NES wins for me in terms of sports & RPGs, but honestly, those are two genres I'd rather play on other systems besides the NES anyways so while the NES would "win" for me in those categories I still wouldn't play them much.

[desiv]

Apples and oranges. ...

...

(long well thought out reply)

...

...I don't like these kind of discussions anyway.

Oh, it sounded like you really got into the discussion..

 

And I think there is plenty in common to justify a comparison.

They were both game changers.

They were both THE system.

They both had REALLY REALLY long lives for a console..

They both had (have) RABID fanbases..

 

And, they both were systems that I DIDN'T OWN..

That said, I chose the 2600. I now own both systems. I have LOTS of Atari games. I have a few NES games. It's a great system, but the Atari appeals to me more... (And it's not just retro, I prefer the 3DO to the NES (and not for gameplay).. )

It's the intangibles, and for me, the 2600 has them...

 

desiv

Edited August 25, 2011 by desiv

[Emehr]

Both were very popular for their times.

 

How's that for a non-answer?

[Austin]

I can't really give an answer on this one. The style of games is far too different overall, and both were equally important in terms of making videogames a pop-culture phenomenon.

[raskar42]

my atari works the first time - every time.

[Rex Dart]

my atari works the first time - every time.

 

Mine ejects M Network carts. They pop up like pop-tarts.