Why are consoles released before the NES generally unpopular among retro gamers?I'm not saying literally no one cares about them, but NES games are clearly talked about more often than Atari 2600 games
because they're trash
>>12093892Retard>>12093891Breakout is simple and addicting fun you can pick up and play for however long you want: 5 minutes to an hour. It's perfect. But its simple and honest fun also means you can't make video essays about Breakout, thus giving it less attention.
>>12093909autistic sensory toy
theyre a bit primitive and not as engaging.
>>12093891There's retro gamers and there's tendies. Not the same thing.
>>12093912 (Too)
>>12093891the games are disposable fun for a few minutes, but not interesting compared to nes or master system games>>12093909i actually saw a video essay about a book someone wrote about breakout https://youtu.be/cSrP1ipkes0?si=oImFxmp5aMCxqQHU&t=393
>>12093891Because they are a pain in the ass and either require you to be an electrical engineer and rebuild them and upgrade them to function on a modern television. Or you can go and buy a 50 year old TV and pray to god it works so you can play the most barebones video games you could imagine.
>>12093927>buy a 50 year old TVBoomers throw out CRTs for free all the time.
The jump in sophistication from the second gen to the third gen is the biggest in history. The Famicom can run pretty much any 2D game at some capacity. The Atari VCS is very limited.
>>12093891>Why are consoles released before the NES generally unpopular among retro gamers?they are popular, you're just nothing more than a sad compulsive liar.>>12093957>The Famicom can run pretty much any 2D game at some capacity.>any 2d gamethat's just fucking nonsense.
>>12093989What genre of game is 2D and cannot be ported to the Famicom?
>>12093925fuck I kinda wanna play breakout now
>>12094007Anything with physics
>>12093891picture how primitive and janky the nes and master system games were, now picture them even worse
>>120940032600 games are largely the same as smartphone mobile games (minus ads and freemium shit ofcourse).There's no real objective reason to praise 2600 games over mobile games besides the aesthetic. If flappy bird was originally on the 2600, many people would praise it.If kaboom started life on the iphone many people would shit on it for being simple normalfag shit.
>>12094007A game where you put together colorful puzzles using realistic puzzle piece shapes
>>12094013Try Mr gimmick NIGGA (nigga said in the same way as SEGA used to be said in the commercials really fast)
>>12094075>Counterpoint: Smartphone games are being made alongside modern games. It's not really fair to compare them to the 2600 where that was pretty much it. I'm not bitching about old people with nostalgia so much as countering the USUALLY TRUE notion that old good, new bad.>You wouldn't compare Toy Story with a CG movie from last year. I fucking would because Toy Story 1 and I 2 are better than anything in the past 20 years. (3 and 4 suck ass). So this example is bad.A better example is: "you wouldn't compare 8bit games to modern games" and that example would still fall flat on a board where people choose to play 8 bit and 16 bit games when cheap or free modern alternatives exist. I'd rather play Tooie than Odyssey. I'd rather play Diddy Kong than Mario Kart World. Etc.>Another point too is that if the game is fun then it's fun. Flappy Bird is a fun game regardless of the platform. Same with Kaboom.That's fine. If you're willing to say this, than you don't have the attitude my post was intended to counter. I was (still am?) expecting an avalanche of people telling me to kill myself for saying water is wet.
>>12093891In the case of the 2600 it's because most of the games worth playing were arcade ports, that looked and played and sounded significantly better on arcade.
>>12093931Good luck finding any from the late 70's and early 80's in working order. Almost every CRT you find will be from the late 90's or early 00's
>>12093927Emulators.
There was sort of a revival of fascination with the Atari 2600 about 20 years ago. As we move further away from it naturally people into retro games now are going to see it as too archaic. Especially if you don't have any nostalgia for it, it's hard to convince someone. When /vr/ was first created I remember there being several Atari threads on the catalog at once.
>>12093891Its about the demographics who are online. Gen Xers who love Atari are much fewer in number than millennials who love later consoles, and they don't come here to talk Atari. They are on Atari age. Also, people over 50 stop caring as much about escapism, games etc. They are busy with life not reliving things from 45 years ago Summary:Raw numbers of Nintendo generation is much biggerOld gen Xers don't go online to talk about their childhood games as much as younger people, and when they do, they sure as hell don't come here
>>12093891One factor is that game journalists largely focus on Nintendo first, modern consoles second, and barely register anything else as even existing. The reasons for this probably warrant an essay, but I think some of it is what >>12094158 says, it's a generational gap, with people who grew up on the NES and later having no fond memories of anything from before, and zero interest. Which if you're supposedly a game journalist is kinda shitty IMO.>>12094103>most of the games worth playing were arcade portsNot true in the least, even Atari's first party lineup contained many original games that were big hits. When people dismiss the 2600 with this "arcade port machine" meme I want to hit them over the head with an Adventure cartridge. When I play 2600 I'm playing that or Seaquest or River Raid or Kaboom or Pressure Cooker or Dark Cavern or Circus Atari or Dragonstomper or Haunted House or Pitfall or Yar's Revenge.
>>12094007anything with more than 8 sprites on a single lineanything with physicsanything that requires complicated mathnes was a joke console for retarded toddlers.
>>12093891It's just that you self selected to be in younger weeb environments like 4chan. There are still large communities of older retro gamers who are obsessed with Atari and get hyped for stuff like the Gamestation Go.
>>12094179Adventure is one I still come back to often. The randomizer mode has given me so many hours of fun.
Millennials who grew up with Nintendo have no self-awareness that their feelings for certain consoles come from nostalgia , they think it's "objective quality". They can't comprehend that certain people who grew up with Atari 2600 or old arcade games, or c64 have the same feelings for those games that they do about fucking Mario and Pokemon.
>>12093891Because they're exclusively focused on gameplay and the play experience. There's not much financial interest, even the "expensive" things like vectrex barely have any buyers so it's not really a market you get into to make money. The people playing the consoles and making homebrew hardware and software for them are just interested in playing. They rally around good new products like the 7800+ and it's not remotely expensive to get.Those old dudes who play Atari and Coleco are cool as hell.
because the "games" suck dick. if you combined every atari game into one it would not be half as engaging as a single NES game.
>>12094202>engaging>bug ridden, sprite flickering messlol. that thing had more shovelware released for it than the 2600.
>>12093891It wasn't until the NES era did home console graphics evolve to where characters were clearly identifiable, often with details that gave them personality. Add to this recognizable environments, and music that people were able to immerse themselves in.Graphics with Atari and its cohorts were largely abstractions. That blob of 8 pixels? That's a cat.And no amount of exposition in the manuals could transfer any personality to that cat on screen.
>>12094013>>12094183Explain this.
>>12094043Plenty of smartphone games resemble 4th generation games, should the SNES be dismissed as simplistic normie slop?
>>12093925>master systemsega system
>>12094282Yes
>>12094287I am wishing you head cancer.
>>12093891Most people under the age of 50 were introduced to these systems through snarky YouTubers or Nintendo-centric history on the 1983 video game crash and waive the whole era away as primitive and unremarkable. It's certainly primitive. The gap in gameplay depth between your average game from 1980 and 1989 is quite staggering. The only thing that had a semblance of modern single player gameplay depth in the late 70s/early 80s were home computer games like text RPGs and later Ultima. There is definitely a specific subset of retro gamers who want simple pickup and play games to test skill/score attack/speedrun, but the arcade games from that era are vastly superior for scratching that itch.Atari/Coleco/Intellivision are best experienced as a social dynamic at a party or with a group of friends. Most of the best games of that era are 2 Player and most of the single player games can be beaten in a few minutes tops. They get a lot of extra mileage if you play them in turns with other people. My favorite systems are NES/Genesis/SNES/PS1 but I always thought Atari was cool because the games are so primitive that figuring out what to do in some of them without a manual is like reading a map written in alien runes.
>>12094271>the retarded nintentoddler thinks this is actual physicsembarrassing. pre-calculated tables, retard. and it's still underwhelming. and to make things more comical, it isn't even a game released when the nes was a viable platform. hilarious.
>>12094295>chatgpt slop
>>12094295>Most people under the age of 50 were introduced to these systems throughbeing alive when they came out, or through re-releases and emulation. Remember that people born in the 1970s are turning 50 this decade.
>>12094345you're replying to a single digit iq loser using chatgpt. this board is dead.
>>12094345>being alive when they came outYou got me. People who were alive when Atari 2600 came out are as young as 49 now kek.I get what you mean. I was born in the 90s and my intro was getting a 7800 with a bunch of 2600 games from my uncle. >>12094342>>12094348>t. homo
>>12094183You can do 2 out of 3 of these if you settle for 5fps like most computer games of the time did.
>>12094282What I'm saying is I would guess most gamers on the internet would look on mobile games with disdain when they have more or less the same merit as Atari 2600 games which I think would only garner praise. My point is that in both cases they aren't judging the game, objectively.
>>12094464frames per second was not a thing people cared about in general. This is a thing that became a complaint in the modern era.
>>12094467My disdain for mobile games has nothing to do with gameplay and everything to do with the monetization ecosystem, so fuck your attempt to >imply some sort of hypocrisy
>>12093892Zoomers need to be put in camps and gassed.
>>12093891It's just demographics, age specifically though financials are also important. The vast majority of people "into" retrogames these days can hardly even play NES (or any game for that matter) and make the exact same criticisms as people who can't get into pre-NES about the NES. The same thing will happen to gen 4 and then gen 5, and on, and on...Outliers like people with tolerance (who actually played the things) or people with a focused interest in the hobby will always exist for anything. Things become history and history exists for most to be read, not checked out. It's a shame when you can experience it, but that's how it is.
>>12094491The worst are original hardwarefags who collect and don't even play games.
>>12094472Bullshit, being able to run doom at a high enough frame rate was a sign of superiority. This continued with quake and counterstrike, etc... then crisis, etc....Not to mention, many old games have logic/physics/mechanics tied to frame rate. Way to be a real grade A retard, anon.
>>12094583>>12094472Ohh yeah, there were frame limiters too, because older games played on newer hardware were too fast and unplayable. Because fps matterd
>>12093891People connect with characters like Megaman, Mario and Link. They don't connect with the protagonists of 2600 games which are just fucking squares shooting smaller squares.
>>12094797unimaginative self report
>>12094146Anon asked why no one talks about the consoles and I explained the number one issue which is that they are all broken at this point and the ones that aren't require more old hardware that is most likely broken.Emulators are a drop in the bucket for popularity, no one is going out and playing the Intellivision for anything more than a few minutes.Side note to that, why the fuck did Intellivision Lives! get made, I can't imagine it sold very well. Atari did something similar with the Anthology Collection but those games felt more culturally significant, maybe I'm retarded.
Because their games are shit. The Americans might have invented games, but the Japanese invented GOOD games
>>12094184looking around forums and stuff, atari fans are very pleased with Atari in recent years.
>>12094339>pre-calculated tables>N-NOOOOO IT DOESN'T COUNT IT DOESN'T COUNT STOP THE COUNT!!!!Pinball was one of the first games on the NES, retard. Pinbot has a multiball mode where the balls can collide with each other. Solar Jetman exists. the argument that any processor "can't do physics" is retarded to begin with. even the 2600 has a pinball game.
>>12093891>Why are consoles released before the NES generally unpopular among retro gamers?I think it's because most games on those systems are really small and simple ones where you'll have seen everything there is to see in just 15 minutes, and often in much less time than that.They're too small, short, and simple, to fit later gamer's expectations of what a videogame is actually like.With NES and C64 games and stuff, you have a lot of full fledged adventures in a long form, or a more exciting and deep arcade experience. You don't get games like Mario, Sonic, Contra, Castlevania, Zelda, etc, on a 2600, the kinds of games where you can be playing them for hours and hours and still not see all they have to offer.>>12093909Breakout is ok, but I just look at Arkanoid II on SNES, and it gives me everything that Breakout does and much more, and it's a much more enjoyable way to play that game (which I certainly can play for hours). I don't have the old controllers for games like Breakout though, that part is still special.>>12094287I am also wishing you head cancer.
>>12094897>still believing the cope
>>12093891Just the spectacle of "tv game programs" was enough back then. The novelty was most of the appeal-- they didn't need to actually be fun. Some games still hold up like Pong, Breakout, of course Yar's Revenge, but most of them are just garbage.
>>12093891>Why are consoles released before the NES generally unpopular among children who learned about old toys from youtubes about the NES
>>1209389199 percent of games on Atari are shovel ware.That's why.NES games are classics.
>>12094013
I'm glad /vr/ understands that stories in videogames DO matter!
>>12094484Lmao rent freeMost pre NES games have aged like complete shit
>>12095130Story can be good, but you can still make an excellent game with 0% story to it. Look at fucking Tetris.
>>12095139Most pre-snes games aged like shit my man, it's like pre-dreamcast 3d and how much that sucked.Video games sucked until the 16-bit era, even then the TG16 was a piece of shit and the Genesis took forever to get games that were halfway decent.
>>12095021>they didn't need to actually be funThey did, actually. A big contributor to the '83 crash was customers not wanting any of what was flooding the market at that point.
>Jawbreaker>Breakout>Tennis>Robot Tank>Asteroids>JoustAll pretty fun games and I didn't even grow up with the atariIf you don't like these maybe Gay Ming isn't for you
>>12093891Because there's no reason to play them unless you've exhausted everything else. Like others have said, they're too primitive. Endings, progression, presentation, and having enough memory for more than 4-5 levels did more for gaming than even 3D. Bubble Bobble wouldn't even be half as fun if it was just the same four levels repeating but harder every loop. If I'm burned out on a game like Donkey Kong Country I'm not going to waste time on something like >>12095206 mentioned when there's a million other things I could play and complete instead. I still think if you have a child or younger cousins you should introduce them to gaming through early Atari stuff so they develop a real palette and don't spew retarded horseshit like "it's better for Naughty Dog to advance gaming as an artform with games like Uncharted than hold back the medium with Crash and Jak."
Because accomplishment in video games is no longer measured in high scores.
>>12095139No they haven't. They're as fun now as they were then. Not everything needs to be Fortnite. Go play the latest zoomslop full of Disney style rendered homosexual gender-inclusive characters repackaging the same formula for the last 10+ years with more DLC and in-game data and arbitrary textures you can purchase with real world money. Fuck off.
>>12093891>why isnt 50 year old thing popular?a great mystery
>>12095564Lots of things which are 50 years old (and older) remain popular though.
>>12095780No
>>12095819Masterful retort, you insipid doublenigger.
>>12093891No Atari or Intellivision games are worth playing The ideas were expanded upon and made better in later releasesBut their original forms are terribleOverly simplistic, horrific art, bad sounds/musicThe fact that they sell the Atari collections as virtual museums with documentaries inside should tell you that even they know this bullshit wouldn’t sell on its own meritYeah I’ve played Joust.
>>12093891Honestly, its because they've very VERY basic and there were so many bad games. Plus they're generally repetitive single screen games that are just for chasing score. Once games started to evolve when the NES came back, it was hard to look back. Though I do still love me some moon patrol or name that game on the 2600.
Tank Pong is the greatest game of all time
>The games were ..... Le Bad.I hate modern /vr/ so much sometimes
>>12095819>the rekt zbaby says no
>>12096038>Overly simplisticThe problem with zoomers is that they are pure consumers, not geeks in the old sense of people with technical understanding or interests. Part of the fascination of these early platforms and games is that everything was breaking new ground, and doing it all with very limited resources. At least watch a video on "how the hell did the genius dev manage to do X game on an 8k ROM". I find it fascinating because I have a triple digit IQ.
>>12096380I'll also add the metaphor that this type of moron is the same that would say ancient sailors were just shitheads who knew nothing about the sea, their tech was laughable, and they should have taken an air-conditioned Carnival cruise instead.
They're kind of just ass lol. There are a few decent ones like Rogue, Adventure, Pitfall, etc - but generally speaking I'll pick a classic arcade game over a classic console game any day. Same era, significantly better games.
>>12093917Yes. Tendies have actual judgement and taste and recognize good design that makes things actually worthwhile to play. 'Retro gamers' who don't care for Nintendo are mostly nostalgic hipsters who pretend SEGA/Atari actually made stuff there's much reason to go back to and for whatever reason can't appreciate games where the ways you physically move and can interact with things are actually interesting and well thought out. I wish I was being ironic and that there were equivalent quality games on these systems to play.>>12094189This is an example of exactly what I'm talking about.
>>12096485>I wish I was being ironicInstead you're just retarded
>>12096485>This is an example of exactly what I'm talking about.Please explain
People old enough to care about the 2600 mostly thought arcades were real videogames and the 2600 was a substitute. The 2600 games that were not just inferior arcade games like say that hide and seek game didn't catch on that well while the NES had a lot of popular non-arcade experience games plus a lot of good arcade style games that were more or less exclusive
>>12093892This, unironically. Bleep bloops and pacheew noises while you watch huge blocky graphics march across the screen.As better game systems came out people quickly forgot their 2600's even existed.
>>12096514>The 2600 games that were not just inferior arcade games like say that hide and seek game didn't catch on that wellComplete ignorant horseshit
>>12096590>As better game systems came out people quickly forgot their 2600's even existed.You're full of shit and talking out of your ass
>>12096631I was there. 2600 and other junk went on the shelves or in the closets of America as soon as people got their C64s, Apple IIs, and Nintendos.You might like those old systems but they were quickly put away once better options appeared.
>>12094271What game?
>>12096660https://pubbygames.itch.io/little-sisyphus
>>12096380I perfectly understand that angle, and there's lots of late 80s and 90s games which wow me technologically, but typically those games are also pretty fun for me to play. Pic related (actually a port of an even earlier 1988 computer game), is one of those which has really wowed me with how its design and themes are really a decade ahead of its timeThere's lots of games from before my own time (1992) which I like a lot, but the 2600 stuff never did click with me, and it's primarily because of the gameplay. The graphics and sound are actually fine.I always figured that if you took a bunch of the best regarded 2600 games and stapled them together as minigames into like a broader 'board game' setup similar to Mario Party, it'd be easier to get younger generations into them.Seeing people like >>12094295 talk about playing these kinds of games at a party or with a group of friends reinforces in me that this idea could work.>>12095819I checked out Star-Trek TOS back when it turned 50, wasn't sure I'd like it having watched TNG reruns in my teens and heard people dismiss TOS as "inferior, hokey and bad schlock," but I honestly loved it, in some ways even more than TNG. Kirk rules.>>12096645>>12096590Are you actually that old? Genuine question.
>>12094142Newer CRT TV's work just fine with older consoles. They connect to the RF jack and you turn the TV to the channel you have set them to use. If you want to hook them up to an LCD you need an upscaler. There are plenty of plug & play solutions for this but they cost money. So cheap shitheads like you buy chinese dogshit scalers and then complain when they suck. Just get a RetroTINK.>>12093957The Colecovision and 5200 are in the same ballpark as early NES games. The Vectrex can do things you wouldn't see on consoles until the 4th generation, but its a very special case. Honestly, if the crash didn't happen we would probably consider everything released between '82 and '87 part of the third generation. There was a way bigger jump from 2600/Odyssey2/Intellivison systems to 5200/Colecovision/Vextrex systems then there was going to the NES/7800/Master System. Especially if you consider that they never had their hardware really pushed until homebrew games came out decades later. It would be like only using NES games made before 1987 for comparison.>>12096631>>12096645Which is why they kept selling it and making new games for it until 1991? Jack Tramiel was a lot of things including being a greedy piece of shit. If the 2600 wasn't selling he would have dropped it without a second thought.
>>12093892>they hated him because he spoke the truth
>>12094271Is that an actual Atari game?Looks comfy.
>>12093909least pretentious /vr/ user
>>12097101Its a homebrew NES game posted in response to "the NES cannot simulate physics."Game is >>12096705
>>12095467I get what you mean, but before nintendo took over with the famicom, i feel like most developers of that era were less game creators and more tech nerds trying different shit to interact with the TV.
>>12094339>it doesn't count Not an argument.>it isn't even a game released when the nes was a viable platform. hilarious.Moving goalposts, the question was about what things can't be ported to a nes.
>>12097041Noooo, don't tell the Tendies about how cool the Vectrex is, I just found one for 75% off market value! I was gonna go pick it up on Saturday!
>>12097041>Which is why they kept selling it and making new games for it until 1991?>1991 - 4 games made>1990 - 3 games made>1989 - 9 games made>1988 - 1 game made>1987 - 2 games made>1986 - 4 games made>1985 - ZERO (0) games made>1984 - 7 games madeIt cost nothing, the machines and carts were all manufactured already, all they had to do was stick the ROMs in and label 'em.It was all old stock from before the crash, they massively overproduced.
Nothing good in the OG library (or very little). But plenty of great modern day homebrew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIMBh_AgIOU
>>12097041Volkswagen made the original Beetle until 2003 but they weren't selling like like did in the 60s.
>>12093891Define "unpopular".
>>12098165Atari wasn't making 2600s after 1983. It was all NOS in a warehouse.They were still selling the machines they wanted to sell at Christmas in '83 eight years later. But it was a dead system by '84.
>>12098084I don't think that's true. There were very few, but still original titles developed in those zombie years. There's no way Fatal Run was a 1983 or even 1984 game, at least not in the way it was released in 1990.
>>12096003>>12096097prove me wrong. Note I didnt say 50 year old thing bad I said 50 year old thing not popular.
>>12098084You are out of your mind if you think paying professional software developers for 10 years is "nothing." And no, the games themselves were not leftovers from the early 80s. The programmers have talked about writing them in interviews. They were contemporaneous.
>>12093891The games are bland visually. The audio is terrible to. At the time it was fun, now not so much. There are only a few games I can enjoy playing. River Raid, Yars Revenge, Berzerk, Pitfall and Adventure
>>12098279That's what I said. Very few.>>12098302Do you honestly think they were paying a legion of programmers full time for ten years after the crash? Are you retarded? Look at the games published later. Very few were developed by Atari. Those which were developed and published by Atari probably did not involve man-years of work. I'm not saying NONE were made. Just, almost none. A small amount. Nothing memorable either.Atari 2600 has ZERO cult games. Same as all these other pre-Nintendo systems. They are just too creaky and lame to attract much interest from gamers. Programmers and hardware enthusiasts might enjoy the 2600 for various reasons, recreationally. A few folks might be nostalgic for it. But these old systems will remain a curious footnote in gaming history more than being revived as a fun thing to play. As they are now.
>>12098084The Atari 2600 Jr. was the model they sold after Atari was sold in 1984 to the Tremeils. It was a new cost-reduced model that hadn't been available before the sale. It was all new production. The reason no games were made in '85 was because Atari didn't restart their console division until 1986. Now remember, the 2600 only sold around 20 million units before the crash. That means they outputed about 10 million units from '86 until the end. The 7800 also played 2600 games out of the box. Atari only released 48 games for it. So, the 23 for the 2600 doesn't seam so bad in comparison. They weren't as serious about it as the 7800 but they weren't that serious about consoles at all. Jack Tremeil's Atari was a computer company. Consoles were just a low effort side gig to make some cash. The moment they stopped making money they dropped it. Tremeil was a giant piece of shit and they only focused on consoles with the Jaguar and then only because their computer line got crushed by PCs.
This thread proves that /vr/ is fucking dead
>>12098483Holy hell, the ColecoVision version of Dragonfire looks amazing. Is the game good?
>>12098471They were still selling the old 2600s for years though. Anyway I agree with most of what you say but the point is by '85 the 2600 was laughably behind the NES and other coming consoles.
>>12093891After a point they're more interesting from a hardware or historical point than the actual games. 2600 is still incredibly popular in homebrew circles, still fascinating seeing those old punchcard systems and how the inbuilt rendering and hit detection worked. It's worth playing at least the most popular games just to have played them, you know, gives you perspective and doesn't take long.
>>12094069I said it like that
>>12098483every person complaining about this place being dead doesn't know it was slow originally and it was better for it
>>12098484Dragonfire is fast-paced and fun. A fairly simple game, but ramps up to insane levels. Input lag may be brutal if you're not using real hardware on a CRT though
>>12098574Slower paced boards are more comfy, I kind of miss it honestly.
>>12097110But it's the video essays that are pretentious.
>>12098173Sauce on that? I'm not disagreeing that the Atari's popularity fell off hard after the crash of 1983 and the rise of the NES, but I've never heard that before.
>>12098489>They were still selling the old 2600s for years though.The 2600 returned to the market in '86. The 2600 Jr. was the console they were selling at that time. It is a completely different looking machine from the earlier models. Their ads from that time don't even show older models. Its likely that older machines were just stuff left in retail channels from years before. Those aren't even counted in the 10 million number as Tremeil's Atari wouldn't have gotten a dime for them.>the point is by '85 the 2600 was laughably behind the NES and other coming consoles.Why are you moving the goal posts? First you spout some bullshit about it not selling, even though it moved 10 million units. Then you say it was because it was all New Old Stock, which is clearly not true. Then you backpaddle and say it was about the technology being old. No shit. The NES came out in 1985 in the USA and the 2600 in '77. That is the same timespan as the SNES and the Dreamcast.Face it samurai, the 2600 had a 15 year lifespan. Sure, selling for under $50 bucks by '87 helped. It was even cheaper near the end. Tremeil's Atari put out 9 games for the machine in '89, 12 years after it first sold. They weren't doing that because no one was buying them. It was a budget console. Same reason why the Genesis and NES kept having games released for them after the Saturn and SNES came out. They were highly successful and had a long tail.
>>12098574I have the coom adhd riddled brain of a /v/ poster but almost never play games released the past 20 years. I need this board to be fast.
>>12097041>Newer CRT TV's work just fine with older consoles. They connect to the RF jackI rarely see RF jacks these days, like I don't know when they stopped putting them on TV's but I am guessing some manufacturers kept them while others dumped them. I don't have a Sony anymore but if anyone was keeping them into the 90's it would have been them.But personally I have one single TV with RF and it is used as a bench because the TV died over a decade ago, and I don't care enough to fix it. I'd wager most of them share a similar fate.
>>12093891Because it's too old for this board. You can already see this starting to happen to NES.The argument that the games were "trash" is subjective and in the future will be applied to NES, to SNES and so on. It's simply the march of time. It's why people care so little about the board games and toys of the 1920s etc.>b-but things really were worse in the past!If you believe that, you are a dumb zoomer who belongs on /v/
More specifically, the 2600 is too old for the youtubers whose opinions the zoomer posters on this board adopt as their own because they weren't there. Youtube is currently dominated by millennials even if the posters are themselves zoomers. And millennials love their Mario.
>>12093892I don't think they were trash as much as the jump from 2600 to 8 bit consoles was so drastic that it made pretty much all Atari systems look like shit. Something happened along the line where they just upped their game drastically.
>>12093891The 2600 had like 3 good games. You can play the entirety of the good parts of the library in about 3 hours. There is nothing really to talk about.
>>12100576>I'm ignorant, but let me tell you how it is
>>12100418Every CRT TV I have has an RF jack. Newest is from 2008.>>12100550The problem Atari had was every 8-bit console they release was a stopgap or half measure. The 2600 was cranked out in about a year to respond to the Fairchild Channel F (released in '76). They knew cartridge based systems were the future and wanted to get something out ASAP to keep Fairchild from establishing a foothold. They only made it powerful enough to port their current gen arcade games to. The ink wasn't even dry on the final schematics when they started work on a successor. They expected it to be ready in a about 3 years.Sadly, Bushnell was replaced with Ray Kasser in '78. The original next gen system plan was changed. Instead of making a high end computer and a console they instead made two computers. The Atari 400 and 800 were years ahead of anything else on the market when they were released in '79. The 400 was supposed to be the next Atari console. Kasser wanted to sell the 2600 forever and had no plans to replace it. When the Intellivision came out and started selling well they panicked. They reworked the 400 into a console; the 5200. For a litany of reasons it was a failure.To fixed the 5200 fiasco their second party developers, GCC, created the 7800. It was supposed to release in '84 but Atari was sold and the new owners weren't interested. It was a hamstrung console. It was thrown together very quickly and the backwards compatibility requirement made it difficult to hit the price point Atari wanted. So, it shipped with a weak sound chip. Like the 2600, GCC were already working on plans for a successor when Atari was sold before the 7800 released.That said, the 7800 and the NES were comparable systems in the graphics department. Outside of sound, the real difference between them was the MMC chips NES games could be packed with. Outside of putting a POKEY sound chip in a few games Atari never bothered with something like that.
>>12100950>The 2600 was cranked out in about a year to respond to the Fairchild Channel F (released in '76)Atari 2600 was ready for release before Channel F was out. They had to delay because otherwise they would have to pay temporary license fees to Magnavox who sued every company in video game field for patent infringement. Fairchild settled I think, but they had to pay and that's basically why they were out by 1979 and the rights were bought by Zircon.
>>12101008Atari were indeed sued by Magnavox in '74 but settled with them before the sale to Warner. The 2600 was not Atari's first system. Their earlier Pong, Video Pinball, and Stunt Cycle home games came first. Their home port of Pong came out in in October '75.The Channel F was announced in June and released in November of '76. The 2600 started development in December of '75 but was delayed do to financial problems at Atari and chip design issues. They were sold in '76 to Warner and that got them the money needed to finish the design and produce the system.
>>12097041>>12098471Cool it with the antisemetic remarks
>>12100950>When the Intellivision came out and started selling well they panickedFun fact, the Intellivision only came out because Kassar canned a whole slew of wild R&D projects that Bushnell had running, whose primary purpose was to monopolize all the chip fabrication plants until a 2600 successor was ready. Kassar called it a waste of time and money, cancelled all the projects (including some very cool stuff) and suddenly competitors began to spring up again.
>>12093891we literally have 30 zork and wizard of wor threads a day, what more do you want
>>12101452pc and arcade games did age well, it's the consoles specifically that suck. the most you get is something like pitfall being a historical marker for platormers
>>12101456Intellivision had stuff no one else was doing.
>>12093892/thread
>>12093891Because we've experienced so many games nowadays that their level of gameplay is something you would find as a minigame meant to pass some time in other games or so simplistic that it's hard to view them as anything other than an extremely boring thing. Even basic flash games released 20 years ago that are meant to be like 30 minutes long like those zombie tower defense games are more involved and are more engaging than the overwhelming majority of those games.A simple example is something like ET on the 2600. That entire game is falling into holes until you find enough objects to leave while you dodge the cops. There's nothing special to it, there's nothing interesting about it, it's basically wandering around aimlessly falling into holes hoping said hole has a flashing object in it and stretching your neck to get out while at the mercy of the cops randomly spawning in as you transition rooms.How about Shark! Shark! on the Intellivision which is you playing a small fish eating bigger fish as you try to dodge a very slow moving shark?Or Snoopy and the Red Baron on the 2600 which is just you flying around shooting stuff in the sky until you lose.Games that are made explicitly to evoke an arcade-esque experience like Dig-Dug or Asteroids are timeless because from the get-go you understand they're meant to be survived in, gain as many points as possible, you very likely transition stages, and there is constant progress in how difficult it gets with each stage and how the game itself looks. Pong and Breakout are super simplistic, but they exist for score attacks so they're easy to pick up.It's also because a lot of these games have updated versions that make the old versions entirely obsolete. Space Invaders, Breakout, and Tetris are all examples where the old version is so outdated it's not necessary anymore outside of nostalgia. You have Space Invaders Forever on modern systems, Breakout Beyond on modern systems, and Tetris Effect on modern systems.
