Maybe I'm biased cause I grew up in the 90s and my first video game console was a second hand NES, but whenever I see screenshots of old Atari games, they look like such primitive shit. The graphics are so basic, that compared to the cover box art these games came with, you'd *really* have to use your imagination to help immerse yourself. There's like not even any change of worlds hardly its the same layout all the time - the hardware limitations were terrible.Before you say "its a reflection of its time", look at how Super Mario/Nintendo blew everyone away in 1985/86. The difference in graphics is insane, its embarrassing for Atari! Was it simply another case of the Japanese once again being able to deliver a better product (like cars over the crappy big three automakers) where Americans just failed to keep innovating and rested on their laurels? It's not like Atari totally failed, some games sold well, but you gotta think did people eat that slop up because it was all they had at the time?
>>724791373Top right game there is actually pretty good
>>724791373>Super Mario/Nintendo blew everyone away in 1985/86.it didnt though. you're comparing atari games from 1981 there you disingenuous faggot.the Atari 7800 came out in 1986 and its superior to the NES in every way.
>>724791373>whenever I see screenshots of old Atari games, they look like such primitive shitBecause it is, where's the problem?
>>724792386>the Atari 7800 came out in 1986 and its superior to the NES in every way.Then why isn't Atari a powerhouse the way Nintendo is now?The vidya crash of 1983 was caused in part because Atari got too cocky and thought they could just keep shoveling mundane basic crap into everyone's face because there was no one else putting up good competition. That people would just keep buying it no matter what. People got wise, the games got boring fast, and people moved on to a better console and games.
