What's the Worst Console You Ever Played?

[78001987]

My weakness is answering people directly when they quote me. I don't know if that's crazy, or just good manners.

 

I suppose there are a few posts I shouldn't answer, because it seems kind of strange to me that anyone would bother to register and then continue to post quite frequently at a site named "Atariage" when their entire reason for being here is to hate on Atari consoles and brag about the NES. I mean, there has to be an equally large and popular NESage or something out there, right?

[Bill Loguidice]

My weakness is answering people directly when they quote me. I don't know if that's crazy, or just good manners.

 

I suppose there are a few posts I shouldn't answer, because it seems kind of strange to me that anyone would bother to register and then continue to post quite frequently at a site named "Atariage" when their entire reason for being here is to hate on Atari consoles and brag about the NES. I mean, there has to be an equally large and popular NESage or something out there, right?

 

I'm not necessarily calling you out specifically here, but I hear that comment on a fairly regular basis. Just because the site is AtariAge, it doesn't mean you need to have an irrational love for Atari stuff (especially since the site has evolved to be multi-platform). You can still have reasonable discussions that don't necessarily have to paint Atari in a flattering light, particularly at the expense of other brands or products.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bill Loguidice

[empsolo]

My weakness is answering people directly when they quote me. I don't know if that's crazy, or just good manners.

 

I suppose there are a few posts I shouldn't answer, because it seems kind of strange to me that anyone would bother to register and then continue to post quite frequently at a site named "Atariage" when their entire reason for being here is to hate on Atari consoles and brag about the NES. I mean, there has to be an equally large and popular NESage or something out there, right?

I joined this site mostly to respond to people up in a 2600 thread that were crapping on the NES and Nintendo and acting as if the coming of Nintendo in 1985 was the worst thing to ever happen. According to some here, I hazard that Yamauchi personally ran over their dog. I, as a gamer, respect the people and consoles that came before the NES. That includes pathfinders like Atari and Coleco. But I'm not going sit here and pretty much let my childhood get insulted simply because a bunch of Lost Causers are still upset that Atari never made it out of the 8-bit era as the powerhouse it once was.

Edited January 15, 2016 by empsolo

[Osgeld]

 

 

I hazard that Yamauchi personally ran over their dog.

That S.O.B still hasn't replaced snuffles

[78001987]

I joined this site mostly to respond to people up in a 2600 thread that were crapping on the NES and Nintendo and acting as if the coming of Nintendo in 1985 was the worst thing to ever happen. According to some here, I hazard that Yamauchi personally ran over their dog. I, as a gamer, respect the people and consoles that came before the NES. That includes pathfinders like Atari and Coleco. But I'm not going sit here and pretty much let my childhood get insulted simply because a bunch of Lost Causers are still upset that Atari never made it out of the 8-bit era as the powerhouse it once was.

Bill, this is what I was talking about. I know there are tons of reasonable people here - and then there is this. A guy who fully admits he came here for no other reason than to insult people for their opinions.

 

I mean damn - get off the internet. Go outside, Breath some fresh air. Do something positive.

[empsolo]

Bill, this is what I was talking about. I know there are tons of reasonable people here - and then there is this. A guy who fully admits he came here for no other reason than to insult people for their opinions.

 

I mean damn - get off the internet. Go outside, Breath some fresh air. Do something positive.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

[Papa]

One thing Nintendo did that was smart was distance themselves from the Atari design to appear enough like something new at least long enough to hook new gamers. The carts had to insert like a VCR (although that was also part of the reason that people began to blow into cartridges constantly and complain about games refusing to load and what not). They made the games really long and big although the boards inside were small enough to fit in much more compact frames. They had controllers that were fresh and new for folks to blister up their thumbs with.

On the downside they made everyone who wanted to publish through them sign an exclusivity clause that would force them to make games for the NES only for a period of time! Nintendo was fresh and people needed that, sure. By the time these graphically superior arcade ports surfaced, though, I'm sure the majority of gamers were more excited for the newer style of games that were side scrolling adventures, top down RPG's, puzzle games, etc. I do feel like a great deal of respect should be shown for Atari as that is the name on the forum and the majority of the games in the store connected to the forum are Atari. It's great that multiple platforms are open for discussion here as well.

I had a lot of fun playing Nintendo when it first came out, even though much of what I played initially was through rentals as my parents saw it as the next fad to likely fade rapidly. If the NES was a top loader to begin with and had carts that were short and square like Atari, they probably would have turned a nose up to it from the get go.

 

Now we look at those arcade ports with better graphics and play them up and find them brag-worthy. When I was a kid the last thing I wanted was another Pacman, Dig Dug, Donkey Kong, or Galaga for another system. I was busy with Pro Wrestling, Batman, Castlevania, and Final Fantasy.

 

Now we need to make more immersive adventure games, RPG's, and top down shooters for the 2600, 7800, 5200, etc...

[BassGuitari]

Not to throw another log onto the Double Dragon fire, but I'd surmise that if the NES had a two-player simultaneous mode, it would have gotten a bit of flicker and slowdown. And then people would cite that as a reason the game was horrible 30 years later.

I don't have a horse in the NES vs. 7800 race--fun though it is to watch--but FWIW I had Double Dragon for my NES way back when and I loved it, although I do recall being confused that there wasn't a two-player mode, yet also not being bothered by it. So they tweaked it slightly so that Jimmy Lee was actually your evil twin and the leader of the gang. Alright, whatever. If friends were over or my brother wanted to play, too, we'd switch off levels or lives. It wasn't a big deal.

[BillyHW]

NES Double Dragon 2 managed to be two-player just fine.

[Papa]

Not to throw another log onto the Double Dragon fire, but I'd surmise that if the NES had a two-player simultaneous mode, it would have gotten a bit of flicker and slowdown. And then people would cite that as a reason the game was horrible 30 years later.

 

I don't have a horse in the NES vs. 7800 race--fun though it is to watch--but FWIW I had Double Dragon for my NES way back when and I loved it, although I do recall being confused that there wasn't a two-player mode, yet also not being bothered by it. So they tweaked it slightly so that Jimmy Lee was actually your evil twin and the leader of the gang. Alright, whatever. If friends were over or my brother wanted to play, too, we'd switch off levels or lives. It wasn't a big deal.

 

I too was cornfused by the lack of co-op play in NES Double Dragon. They added to that confusion with the VS mode that tried to be like a Street Fighter game and got played very little. I didn't really like that you had to unlock moves as the game progressed (gather hearts and what not), but at least the moves were there! The game was fun, but they effectively removed the 'double' from Double Dragon. I'm pretty sure that Jimmy was always the Shadow Boss, though. In the two player games you have to face each other at the end to see who wins the tang. I personally believe that the 7800 (with some on-cart sound upgrades and better controllers) has the potential to be better than the NES as titles are being introduced. I don't think it was any real competition to the NES in it's time, though. I got a 7800 for my birthday when they were fifty bucks at Odd Lots and was very pleased with Double Dragon, Pole Position II, Joust (Bird A$$), Karateka, Dark Chambers, Ikari Warriors, and that it played my dusty old VCS titles. If only they would have made some RPG's or more games like Midnight Mutants!

[78001987]

 

I'm not necessarily calling you out specifically here, but I hear that comment on a fairly regular basis. Just because the site is AtariAge, it doesn't mean you need to have an irrational love for Atari stuff (especially since the site has evolved to be multi-platform). You can still have reasonable discussions that don't necessarily have to paint Atari in a flattering light, particularly at the expense of other brands or products.

I completely agree.

 

But when the majority of the reactions to my personal claim that I don't like the NES for purely technical (and provable) reasons is "You're a troll, you're delusional, The NES was popular and you're just a sad Atari fanboy loser!!" it doesn't feel much like I'm posting at a site named Atariage anymore either.

Edited January 15, 2016 by 78001987

[78001987]

I joined this site mostly to respond to people up in a 2600 thread that were crapping on the NES and Nintendo and acting as if the coming of Nintendo in 1985 was the worst thing to ever happen. According to some here, I hazard that Yamauchi personally ran over their dog. I, as a gamer, respect the people and consoles that came before the NES. That includes pathfinders like Atari and Coleco. But I'm not going sit here and pretty much let my childhood get insulted simply because a bunch of Lost Causers are still upset that Atari never made it out of the 8-bit era as the powerhouse it once was.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote?

 

 

I read it.

Did you?

 

In the same breath (or lack thereof, I would imagine) you fully admit that you came here to troll and argue with people who disagree with your personal opinion of the NES, then you claim you respect those people LOL, and then you capped it off by calling them lost causers who were upset with blah blah blah.

 

Dude, make up your mind. If you respect the Atari and Coleco fans, then you can't come here name calling and insulting them just because they might disagree with you. Well - you can, but people will laugh at you for it because it makes you look like a hypocrite.

 

Nobody insulted your personal childhood. People simply stated facts. Nintendo's NES console wasn't much more powerful technically than any other of it's contemporaries. Most of the reason why they were as successful as they were was because they used borderline illegal business practices they employed to strongarm 3rd party development houses into exclusivity contracts. What they did wasn't much different than Mafia "insurance" scams pulled on small businesses. The people who didn't like them for that are clearly older than you, and were old enough to understand how dangerous and shady they were at the time, and eve more so now.

[Rick Dangerous]

The AT Games Sega Genesis. Just a third rate piece of garbage. Terrible sound and video quality.

[empsolo]

 

 

 

I read it.

Did you?

 

In the same breath (or lack thereof, I would imagine) you fully admit that you came here to troll and argue with people who disagree with your personal opinion of the NES, then you claim you respect those people LOL, and then you capped it off by calling them lost causers who were upset with blah blah blah.

 

Dude, make up your mind. If you respect the Atari and Coleco fans, then you can't come here name calling and insulting them just because they might disagree with you. Well - you can, but people will laugh at you for it because it makes you look like a hypocrite.

 

Nobody insulted your personal childhood. People simply stated facts. Nintendo's NES console wasn't much more powerful technically than any other of it's contemporaries. Most of the reason why they were as successful as they were was because they used borderline illegal business practices they employed to strongarm 3rd party development houses into exclusivity contracts. What they did wasn't much different than Mafia "insurance" scams pulled on small businesses. The people who didn't like them for that are clearly older than you, and were old enough to understand how dangerous and shady they were at the time, and eve more sow

 

I am not even going to respond to such gross hyperbole. The fact is that I respect pioneers because, at the end of the day, I am a video gamer. And that includes giving credit where credit is due. What I can't stand are fanboys unwilling to let the past go. You may not like it but it is what is. But you are free to believe whatever you want.

Edited January 15, 2016 by empsolo

[78001987]

I am not even going to respond to such gross hyperbole. The fact is that I respect pioneers because, at the end of the day, I am a video gamer. And that includes giving credit where credit is due. What I can't stand are fanboys unwilling to let the past go. You may not like it but it is what is. But you are free to believe whatever you want.

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/exclusivity.pdf

 

It's not hyperbole. NES was threatened with antitrust lawsuits because of their exclusivity contracts. refer to page 676 in the link above.

[+thegoldenband]

People simply stated facts. Nintendo's NES console wasn't much more powerful technically than any other of it's contemporaries. Most of the reason why they were as successful as they were was because they used borderline illegal business practices they employed to strongarm 3rd party development houses into exclusivity contracts.

 

I think it's the "most" that gets you into trouble there. Even if we restrict things to first-party software, the NES library pretty much flattens the SMS (at least in the US) and Atari 7800, especially if you're not looking to play arcade rehashes from the first half of the decade. They also didn't ship a console with sound hardware that was already outdated at the time of release, or a controller that's torturous to use (the SMS pad isn't so bad, but the 7800's side-mounted fire buttons are an ergonomic disaster).

 

Yeah, Nintendo did some shady stuff, but without SMB, Zelda, Metroid, etc. it wouldn't have much mattered. There isn't some hidden narrative of superior SMS or 7800 games that got suppressed; Nintendo just had a comprehensively better software product, and one that resonated much more with US (and Japanese) gamers of the era. Whether they won fair and square or not, their victory wasn't dependent on the shadiness; the company that made the better games won, at least in the US.

 

And I say that as someone who enjoys the SMS and 7800! But the SMS games I admire are mostly Euro releases, and the 7800 games I enjoy -- Midnight Mutants, for example -- are generally not the arcade ports with which the system was most associated.

 

EDIT: Oh, and BTW if we are getting into ethics, then Atari's corporate culture was if anything worse than Nintendo's. "We could shit in a box and sell it", releasing systems that were DOA the day they arrived, like my brand-new but unusable 5200 for Christmas...they were completely cynical and sometimes monumentally stupid. If they didn't use Nintendo's strong-arm tactics, it was because they didn't have the chance, not because they were too noble for it.

[BydoEmpire]

nearly all "toaster" model NES consoles had significant problems loading games, even during it's original run

If you're claiming this is a fact, I'd like to see some documentation. I and many of my friends had an NES and we never had issues with games loading back then, let alone "significant" issues. "Nearly all" is a pretty strong assertion.

 

 

These aren't opinions. they are facts. tangible, provable facts. and these facts help me form my personal opinion of the NES.

If that's the case, then please provide the documentation. I certainly never noticed it back then

 

demonstrably inferior in pretty much every way to their ports on competing consoles.

This is not something you can say is as fact - you have to be more specific than "pretty much every way." Take Xenophobe, for example. Some people like the NES version better and prefer its controls. Some people like the 7800 version better and its controls. There's no fact here to prove, it's a matter of personal opinion and taste. Sure there maybe a consensus, but that's not fact. Double Dragon is another interesting case - I think the NES version plays and looks better, but the 7800 version has 2 player. I think the SMS version looks the best and has 2 player, but I still think the NES version is more fun. How - other than something like comparing resolution or number of colors - can you say that the NES version is inferior "in pretty much every way" as a fact?

 

 

fact

fakt/

noun

a thing that is indisputably the case.

synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More

Full disclosure, I really enjoy the SMS, NES and 7800 - each has great games and none of them were close to my "worst console" consideration for me.

Edited January 15, 2016 by BydoEmpire

[mbd30]

I've read "Game Over" about the history of Nintendo. It is entirely true that they used monopolizing tactics. But the final result is that Nintendo amassed the strongest library for its time, at least IMO.

 

It's also true that Nintendo produced their own revolutionary franchises. They were creating games like "Super Mario Bros.", "The Legend of Zelda" and "Metroid" that made the Atari 7800 look like a fossil. I mean, SMB is pretty amazing for 1985. That one game did a lot to sell the NES and create a demand once again for home video game consoles after the crash. That Nintendo had strong first party development would have been the case no matter what other questionable tactics they used against competitors. But admittedly it would have been a more fair fight without the exclusivity contracts.

[+GoldenWheels]

 

 

EDIT: Oh, and BTW if we are getting into ethics, then Atari's corporate culture was if anything worse than Nintendo's. "We could shit in a box and sell it", releasing systems that were DOA the day they arrived, like my brand-new but unusable 5200 for Christmas...they were completely cynical and sometimes monumentally stupid. If they didn't use Nintendo's strong-arm tactics, it was because they didn't have the chance, not because they were too noble for it.

 

I tend to think this is the case, exactly.

[78001987]

 

If you're claiming this is a fact, I'd like to see some documentation. I and many of my friends had an NES and we never had issues with games loading back then, let alone "significant" issues. "Nearly all" is a pretty strong assertion.

 

 

If that's the case, then please provide the documentation. I certainly never noticed it back then

 

This is not something you can say is as fact - you have to be more specific than "pretty much every way." Take Xenophobe, for example. Some people like the NES version better and prefer its controls. Some people like the 7800 version better and its controls. There's no fact here to prove, it's a matter of personal opinion and taste. Sure there maybe a consensus, but that's not fact. Double Dragon is another interesting case - I think the NES version plays and looks better, but the 7800 version has 2 player. I think the SMS version looks the best and has 2 player, but I still think the NES version is more fun. How - other than something like comparing resolution or number of colors - can you say that the NES version is inferior "in pretty much every way" as a fact?

 

 

fact

fakt/

noun

a thing that is indisputably the case.

synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More

Full disclosure, I really enjoy the SMS, NES and 7800 - each has great games and none of them were close to my "worst console" consideration for me.

 

But there it is in the highlighted sentence.

 

Obviously, one person's level of "fun" or their personal nostalgic sense of what they convinced themselves was "fun" back in 1986, is not something that can be tangibly measured in numbers, or any other demonstrable metric.

 

but you can demonstrate technical prowess in resolution, # of colors, # of sprites, and resultant CPU speed and performance, like sprite flicker, missing features, or entirely changed gameplay elements due to technical challenges inherent in the NES' architecture. Look through the thread. There are multiple examples of where the NES loses on these comparisons on an apples to apples basis with ports or versions of the same game across the 3 systems.

 

The fact that you seek to discredit any technical, demonstrable differences "other than resolution, # of colors" as if those things don't matter - shows your bias. You're making non-technical, personal aesthetic measurements of "fun" and using them as a means to discount the only tangible metrics of measurement available. At some point, it begins to resemble an argument of creationsim vs. evolution. Just because you bought into the storyline and convinced yourself something is "better" because it's popular or you remember it fondly, doesn't make it so.

 

Now this is not to say everyone isn't entitled to their own opinion of what constitutes "fun". I believe you, in that case - and good on you. You know what you like, and that's fine.

 

But if that's the measurement we're relying on as the be all, end all - then how can my personal non-enjoyment of the NES (based on my own personal experience) be "wrong"? I'm not here telling anyone else their opinion of "fun" with the NES is wrong. It's not.

 

but there seems to be a pretty steep double standard with what are acceptable as valid opinions of "fun" and they seem to be based on popularity, and stand-offish pride. I grew out of that kind of nonsense in high school. I guess I was hoping people here would as well.

[Bill Loguidice]

I've argued in books like "Vintage Game Consoles" that, while we should rightly acknowledge all of Nintendo's brutal business tactics in the US during the NES era, including limiting publishers to releasing a certain number of titles a year, strong arming retailers, and the like, the results in reinvigorating a moribund industry speak for themselves. In other words, it can be argued it was a necessary evil. Fortunately, it was a relatively short-lived evil, lasting just long enough to fix what needed fixing/right the ship, and then no longer being put into practice.

[78001987]

 

I tend to think this is the case, exactly.

I wouldn't doubt this. But because Nintendo did it first, or better, or more deviously - we'll never know I guess.

 

I think part of my opinion on the whole subject is that when I hear people say stuff like "NES was the best console EVAR!!!" I just want to ask them "How would you know? No other console had a chance." It reminds me of the movie Moon Over Parador with Richard Dreyfuss, where the whole country has just accepted the Dictator as the only Dictator, because there is no other.

[CatPix]

The thing is, your opinion is a personnal thing. I have no problems if you think that the 7800 could have done better. I think the same. While very poor in building quality, the Atari 7800 pads we had in Europe were much more easier to play than the original sticks (Atari sold them in Europe as optionnal sticks).

If they had included the POKEY chip in more games, if would have been better.

If they had provided better developing tools, maybe more peopel would have used the high resolution mode. Etc.

We sure can go on forever about what could have been. It's even an interesting thing.

 

Tho, the problem is that you took personnal opinions and said they were facts. Which they werent.

[Bill Loguidice]

I wouldn't doubt this. But because Nintendo did it first, or better, or more deviously - we'll never know I guess.

 

I think part of my opinion on the whole subject is that when I hear people say stuff like "NES was the best console EVAR!!!" I just want to ask them "How would you know? No other console had a chance." It reminds me of the movie Moon Over Parador with Richard Dreyfuss, where the whole country has just accepted the Dictator as the only Dictator, because there is no other.

 

Who cares about "what ifs?," though (other than for fun discussion), when we know what actually happened? The reality is, the NES did outclass its competition with a superior library, regardless of the reasons. Now if someone said, "I like the SMS better," or even "I like the 7800 better," so be it, because they have every right to like what they like. That should have nothing to do with unmet or untapped potential, though.

[78001987]

I've argued in books like "Vintage Game Consoles" that, while we should rightly acknowledge all of Nintendo's brutal business tactics in the US during the NES era, including limiting publishers to releasing a certain number of titles a year, strong arming retailers, and the like, the results in reinvigorating a moribund industry speak for themselves. In other words, it can be argued it was a necessary evil. Fortunately, it was a relatively short-lived evil, lasting just long enough to fix what needed fixing/right the ship, and then no longer being put into practice.

This is a great point. Never really thought about it that way. Kind of explains when they got trounced by Sony and MS later on. They got too big and too bold.