truly101 said:
Compared to what....an Amiga?
Compared to what was available at the time (or shortly after), which includes the Amiga, yes. Home consoles were more or less a thing of the past in the US at the time, and Europe played computer games almost exclusively. Only Japan didn't care much for computer games if I'm not mistaken.
Not to say Amiga games were not quality games though. I had an Amiga AND a NES and enjoyed both almost equally as a kid. Interestingly, I never even began to compare them on a technical level. I just played the games
. In retrospect though, I think that my NES games hold up better in terms of gameplay than Amiga games, save maybe for shooters and point n' clicks. But I might be slightly biased towards consoles here
.
Also not noted for their playability. Computer games back there were pretty esoteric and not as fun to play. Occasionally you had something like California games or Skate or Die, but for the most part computer games were more difficult to get into
You mean their accessibility then? There's truth to that, but despite what I said above, a fair share of games were accessible on computers. Not as accessible as many NES games though, yes. I guess we're essentially saying the same thing.
Like who...Amiga owners? Some would argue that the NES days were the base that today's gamer culture grew out of.
Sadly, I don't have the site I had in mind here (I'm not at home and won't be until this weekend or next week's), but you can find messages from as far back as the end of the 80's via Google where some would go into passionate arguments about how the NES is a piece of shit and computers can do everything the NES can do and better. I'll try and remember to PM you the link once I can get hold of it
.
I know and actually think that the NES days, as you said, were the origin to today's games. Despite having an Amiga back in the day, I don't think I would have continued to play games weren't it for the NES and the Gameboy. But this and the fact that the NES was seen as an anomaly by some people aren't mutually exclusive. Of course, others such as myself still enjoyed both experiences.
The NES had a fair variety of games, some family friendly, but a bulk of their library catered to kids who liked games like Super Mario Brothers and Mega Man. EA also farmed some of their titles to the NES, like Skate or Die, or LucasArts did with Maniac Mansion. I can't think of too many big time computer games that the NES missed out on, but I'm sure there were some.
You're right about that. My bad for trying to make my message short and to the point (I'm more into looooong boring rants). What I mean is that the NES wasn't seen as your typical "gamers' system" (whatever that means), right down to the advertising. Kids are, well... kids, and everyone remembers those corny advertisements with families playing together in front of the TV screen. You're also right when you say that the NES enjoyed a fair variety of games, including computer-type games, but the crème de la crème computer games weren't on the NES, or, if they were ported, aren't fondly remembered today as NES games. You said Maniac Mansion, but that's one of the only point n' click games that ever saw the light on home consoles, Nintendo or other. They are exceptions rather than rules.
If someone thinks I'm wrong and has many counter-examples, then be my guest. After all, I was a kid at the time, so maybe I lack hindsight. It's just that I don't remember playing Moonstone, Cadaver, Monkey Island and stuff like that on my consoles. The games I used to play on the Amiga, the Amstrad and the Atari ST and those I used to play on the NES, Gameboy and SNES were quite different.
Really, the point is that the NES tried to appear more acceptable to the general public and to reach beyond traditional audiences. Many kids grew with Nintendo, not with computer games.
ooookay now you're just bullshitting.
Aw, come on, Wii Sports/Play are 2006's Pong and basic sports games you would find on the 2600 (and on the NES, but I don't think they're as fondly remembered... Might be wrong, though). I might have been exaggerating when implying that the Wii enjoys a fair share of games that are reminiscent of the 2600 days, but the true killer apps of the Wii are more akin to 2600-type experiences than NES games, don't you think? Just saying there's a bit of 2600 in the Wii, anyway. Remember that my main point is that the Wii is the NES 2. The 2600 part is the icing on the cake
.
Of course, never would I imply that the Wii is
strictly-speaking the new NES, that would be silly. But its purpose, impact on the market and overall appeal is the closest thing to the NES that Nintendo or any other manufacturer has ever done. To me, the Wii is the spiritual successor to the NES, even if some factors make it hard to see when you're a long-time gamer and given the parametres of today's market. I feel that some of us - not ALL of us, obviously - are the pro-computers/anti-NES of the 80's/90's, and those people are accustomed to a certain type of games and standards that the Wii doesn't offer. The fact that the development process today is far longer and riskier than it was back in the day adds to the problem, because developers and publishers are slower on the uptake now than they were at the time... When they're not simply unwilling to adapt.
Hope I made myself clearer!
[EDIT] Oh, silly me, there's something so blatantly obvious that I forgot: the controller. I'm sure some computer gamers didn't like the NES controller very much when they saw that it didn't have a joystick but a weird cross-shaped pad. It didn't have the stigma of imprecision that the Wiimote had regarding its motion-sensing capabilities, but still, the basic idea is the same. Not mentioning the lack of keyboard/mouse combo on the NES, giving the whole interface of the thing a simplistic feel. I mean, 1 D-pad and 2 action buttons? You've got to be kidding.
