Atari 2600 VS NES VS Sega Master System

Which game system do you like the best?

NES

Master System. But why is the 2600 one of the choices? I understand the SMS and the NES but you can't really compare the 2600 to them.

why are we comparing consoles from two different generations? the Atari 2600 was launched in the 70´s while the nes and master system were launched in the mid-to-late 80's

I understand the SMS and the NES but you can't really compare the 2600 to them.

kingmav222

You can compare any system to any system actually. It may not be "fair", but you can do it :)

you should have put 7800

Which game system do I like the best? Sega Master System. From a tech standpoint it hands the NES it's @ss, it's built like a rock, and the light gun is actually reliable! lol

Which game system library do I like the best? The NES. So many classics (a lot of crap too lol) Nintendo's third party policy back in the day really didn't give Sega a chance = \

i prefer the nes, but the 2600 isnt too far behind . the sms is a distant 3rd. I have no urge to buy one of those. but maybe i'll get a converter for my genesis.

NES of course.

What game does the 2600 or Master System have that competes with SMB3?

NES of course.

What game does the 2600 or Master System have that competes with SMB3?

Installing

none, but then again the NES doesn't have a game that compares to Phantasy star imo

[QUOTE="Installing"]

NES of course.

What game does the 2600 or Master System have that competes with SMB3?

ohthemanatee

none, but then again the NES doesn't have a game that compares to Phantasy star imo

Dragon Quest/Warrior or Final Fantasy? Phantasy Star is a JRPG, pretty much like those, right? I never played far into Phantasy Star myself, but I've played and beaten Phantasy Star IV, and talk about overrated! - amongst the SNES-hating, Genesis-loving crowd, that is.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="Installing"]

NES of course.

What game does the 2600 or Master System have that competes with SMB3?

doubutsuteki

none, but then again the NES doesn't have a game that compares to Phantasy star imo

Dragon Quest/Warrior or Final Fantasy? Phantasy Star is a JRPG, pretty much like those, right? I never played far into Phantasy Star myself, but I've played and beaten Phantasy Star IV, and talk about overrated! - amongst the SNES-hating, Genesis-loving crowd, that is.

the original Phantasy star is to Final Fantasy and Dragon quest much in the same way that the sonic games for the master system are to SMB 3 imo

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="Installing"]

NES of course.

What game does the 2600 or Master System have that competes with SMB3?

doubutsuteki

none, but then again the NES doesn't have a game that compares to Phantasy star imo

Dragon Quest/Warrior or Final Fantasy? Phantasy Star is a JRPG, pretty much like those, right? I never played far into Phantasy Star myself, but I've played and beaten Phantasy Star IV, and talk about overrated! - amongst the SNES-hating, Genesis-loving crowd, that is.

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

none, but then again the NES doesn't have a game that compares to Phantasy star imo

Daavpuke

Dragon Quest/Warrior or Final Fantasy? Phantasy Star is a JRPG, pretty much like those, right? I never played far into Phantasy Star myself, but I've played and beaten Phantasy Star IV, and talk about overrated! - amongst the SNES-hating, Genesis-loving crowd, that is.

what's more amazing is that graphically, Phantasy star actually manages to surpass many Genesis and SNES tittles

also I love the dungeons, I love it when a game requires you to draw your own maps

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

none, but then again the NES doesn't have a game that compares to Phantasy star imo

Daavpuke

Dragon Quest/Warrior or Final Fantasy? Phantasy Star is a JRPG, pretty much like those, right? I never played far into Phantasy Star myself, but I've played and beaten Phantasy Star IV, and talk about overrated! - amongst the SNES-hating, Genesis-loving crowd, that is.

It seems they did a great job - on the little I've seen of the game anyway (I've only played through Phantasy Star IV, and that was much later on the Genesis/Mega Drive). But did it mean anything for the mechanics of the actual game? All I saw was a standard JRPG. A game that is technically impressive isn't necessarily impressive from an overall gameplay perspective (Mayhem in Monsterland for the C64 comes to mind).

[QUOTE="Daavpuke"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

Dragon Quest/Warrior or Final Fantasy? Phantasy Star is a JRPG, pretty much like those, right? I never played far into Phantasy Star myself, but I've played and beaten Phantasy Star IV, and talk about overrated! - amongst the SNES-hating, Genesis-loving crowd, that is.

doubutsuteki

It seems they did a great job - on the little I've seen of the game anyway (I've only played through Phantasy Star IV, and that was much later on the Genesis/Mega Drive). But did it mean anything for the mechanics of the actual game? All I saw was a standard JRPG. A game that is technically impressive isn't necessarily impressive from an overall gameplay perspective (Mayhem in Monsterland for the C64 comes to mind).

can you name a JRPG on the NES that also has a first person perspective while navigating the dungeons?

these alter the gameplay completly, on Phantasy star it's mandatory that you pick up a pen and paper and start drawing your own maps.

I've never had to do that for Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

[QUOTE="Daavpuke"] Semi correct. I only will say that from a programming standpoint Phantasy Star beats ANY 8bit game released around those days. The graphic prowess is something that was rarely matched since then. It's quite unbelievable for a 8bit console.ohthemanatee

It seems they did a great job - on the little I've seen of the game anyway (I've only played through Phantasy Star IV, and that was much later on the Genesis/Mega Drive). But did it mean anything for the mechanics of the actual game? All I saw was a standard JRPG. A game that is technically impressive isn't necessarily impressive from an overall gameplay perspective (Mayhem in Monsterland for the C64 comes to mind).

can you name a JRPG on the NES that also has a first person perspective while navigating the dungeons?

these alter the gameplay completly, on Phantasy star it's mandatory that you pick up a pen and paper and start drawing your own maps.

I've never had to do that for Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy

Not that I can think of, no (I was never that much into JRPGs on the NES). Phantasy Star IV lacks the first-person perspective, but has dungeons that you either have to memorize or put down on paper (like most, or all games of the kind). Well, I never had to draw anything but a mental map for any of its dungeons, but it wouldn't have changed a thing if I'd had to, i.e. if they had been more complex. Drawing a map is just a matter of doing it, there's nothing to it except compensating for a lack of ability to keep the dungeon layouts in the head - or a lack of interest in keeping such boring information in your head. It is all just exploration; you cannot fail at it - unless you are killed in a random encounter with an enemy. Random encounters - blergh (I'm not even gonna get started on it). There can be the fun factor in discovering items, exits, etc. while exploring, - that I'm not denying. But whether or not I have tracked my explorations on paper, in my head, or if an auto-map has taken care of it, changes nothing for me. As long as the map isn't spoiled for me right away. But I'm with you there on the first-person perspective in general. because I really shouldn't be able to see what's around the corner, in the next hallway or room that would be out of any normal person's sight (without special equipment) - I should have to go there to be able to see what's there. The overhead perspective breaks the illusion of being the character - if that matters. But then again, in those games with random encounters (I couldn't refrain from bringing them up again) you cannot even see the enemies, they just pop out at you.

Atari 2600 probably has the biggest game libary.

Sega Master System has the best hardware and graphics.

But NES has the best combination of the two.

NES may not have quite as large of a game library as Atari 2600, but I think we can all agree it has a much better one. And NES may not have as good of graphics as Sega Master System, however it's game library is superior in every way. (Final Fantasy & DW vs. Phantasy Star can be argued to the ends of the earth, but one or two games really don't make a break a system).

Let's compare the best of each genre in a side-by-side comparison and see who wins

Best Hardware:

Sega Master System

Best Controls:

NES

Largest Game Libarary:

Atari 2600

Best Platformer:

Atari 2600-Pitfall, NES-Super Mario Bros. 3, Sega Master System-Alex Kidd, Wonder Boy, Sonic the Hedgehog, take your pick, none of em beat SMB3.

Point-NES

Best Beat-Em Up:

Atari 2600-Double Dragon NES-TMNT II: The Arcade Game, Sega Master System-Golden Axe (or maybe Streets of Rage)

Point-NES (The SMS versions of those games were kind of bad)

Best Shoot-Em Up:

Atari 2600-Galaxian NES-Lifeforce Sega Master System-R-Type

Whew, this one is close. I don't know which one to vote for, honestly. I'm calling a tie. Point for Sega Manster System and NES.

Best Racing Game:

Atari 2600-Pole Position, NES-Rad Racer, Sega Master System-Out Run

Point-Sega Master Sytem

Best Run-n-Gun:

Atari 2600-Combat, NES-Contra Master, System-Terminator

Point-NES

Best Light Gun Game:

Atari 2600-Sentinel, NES-Duck Hunt, Sega Master System-Safari Hunt

Point-NES

Best Action-RPG:

Atari 2600-Adventure, NES-The Legend of Zelda (or Crystalis IMO), Sega Master System-Golvellius: Valley of Doom

Point-NES

Best JRPG:

Atari 2600-Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Titles (Closest thing to it), NES-Final Fantasy, Sega Master System-Phantasy Star

Another tie between NES and Sega Master System. Point for both.

Best Arcade Port:

Atari 2600-Space Invaders, NES-TMNT II: The Arcade Game, Sega Master System-Space Harrier

This one goes to TMNT for the sheer joy of 8-bit multiplayer action.

By my count that Atari 2600-1, NES-9, and Sega Master System 4.

NES wins it in a side-by-side comparison. But as you can see, it's totally not fair to compare Atari 2600 against NES and Sega Master System. It's not even in the same generation and as such simply has inferior gameplay and graphics. For a time, it was a helluva system. Well until about 1982 when Colecovision, Intellivision, Commodore 64, and all it's competition came out.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

It seems they did a great job - on the little I've seen of the game anyway (I've only played through Phantasy Star IV, and that was much later on the Genesis/Mega Drive). But did it mean anything for the mechanics of the actual game? All I saw was a standard JRPG. A game that is technically impressive isn't necessarily impressive from an overall gameplay perspective (Mayhem in Monsterland for the C64 comes to mind).

doubutsuteki

can you name a JRPG on the NES that also has a first person perspective while navigating the dungeons?

these alter the gameplay completly, on Phantasy star it's mandatory that you pick up a pen and paper and start drawing your own maps.

I've never had to do that for Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy

Not that I can think of, no (I was never that much into JRPGs on the NES). Phantasy Star IV lacks the first-person perspective, but has dungeons that you either have to memorize or put down on paper (like most, or all games of the kind). Well, I never had to draw anything but a mental map for any of its dungeons, but it wouldn't have changed a thing if I'd had to, i.e. if they had been more complex. Drawing a map is just a matter of doing it, there's nothing to it except compensating for a lack of ability to keep the dungeon layouts in the head - or a lack of interest in keeping such boring information in your head. It is all just exploration; you cannot fail at it - unless you are killed in a random encounter with an enemy. Random encounters - blergh (I'm not even gonna get started on it). There can be the fun factor in discovering items, exits, etc. while exploring, - that I'm not denying. But whether or not I have tracked my explorations on paper, in my head, or if an auto-map has taken care of it, changes nothing for me. As long as the map isn't spoiled for me right away. But I'm with you there on the first-person perspective in general. because I really shouldn't be able to see what's around the corner, in the next hallway or room that would be out of any normal person's sight (without special equipment) - I should have to go there to be able to see what's there. The overhead perspective breaks the illusion of being the character - if that matters. But then again, in those games with random encounters (I couldn't refrain from bringing them up again) you cannot even see the enemies, they just pop out at you.

at this moment I realized that you had no idea what you were talking about.

I dare you to go trough Lassic's dungeon without a map

at this moment I realized that you had no idea what you were talking about.

ohthemanatee

Oh, why is that? What was it about the part you've highlighted that you didn't understand?

I dare you to go trough Lassic's dungeon without a map

Please elaborate on reasons for wanting to go through said dungeon.

Oh, why is that? What was it about the part you've highlighted that you didn't understand?

Please elaborate on reasons for wanting to go through said dungeon.

doubutsuteki

no,, I only highlighted the part in which it clearly shows you had no idea what you were talking about yet you pretended like you did and yet I saw an ungodly ammount of pretentiousness in your post

part of the original Phantasy star's greatness is the fact that it forces you to pick up a pen and paper and draw your own maps becase the game goes out of it's way to make sure you're lost, it doesn't give you reference points and it fills it's dungeons with trap doors which will leave you in a new floor without you knowing where you are, where you have to go and which floor you're supposed to go

Really there's no point in dicussing this, I concedeed your point when you said that the adventure in Alexx kidd broke the pacing and that it wasn't straightforward enough.

It turns out you were wrong when you said that the rings on sonic 2 were glitched

and now this?

i'm beggining to think you've never even played a master system games in your life

no,, I only highlighted the part in which it clearly shows you had no idea what you were talking about yet you pretended like you did and yet I saw an ungodly ammount of pretentiousness in your post


part of the original Phantasy star's greatness is the fact that it forces you to pick up a pen and paper and draw your own maps becase the game goes out of it's way to make sure you're lost, it doesn't give you reference points and it fills it's dungeons with trap doors which will leave you in a new floor without you knowing where you are, where you have to go and which floor you're supposed to goohthemanatee

Really there's no point in dicussing this, I concedeed your point when you said that the adventure in Alexx kidd broke the pacing and that it wasn't straightforward enough.

It turns out you were wrong when you said that the rings on sonic 2 were glitched

and now this?

i'm beggining to think you've never even played a master system games in your life

Sonic the Hedgehog for Master System is a great game, for the Master System. It totally isn't as good as the Genesis version, but so what. No Master System game is. And the game is not completely broken as you say, because I've beaten it a few times over.

It's your opinion that it sucks and that's fine. But this isn't the first time that you've gone on and on about how broken Sonic for Master System is and that I must not have played it or else I would know. Obviously this isn't the case. Someone else obviously enjoyed it as well. It's your little hang-up about the game, not that we haven't played.

Sonic the Hedgehog for Master System is a great game, for the Master System. It totally isn't as good as the Genesis version, but so what. No Master System game is. And the game is not completely broken as you say, because I've beaten it a few times over.

It's your opinion that it sucks and that's fine. But this isn't the first time that you've gone on and on about how broken Sonic for Master System is and that I must not have played it or else I would know. Obviously this isn't the case. Someone else obviously enjoyed it as well. It's your little hang-up about the game, not that we haven't played.

Emerald_Warrior

1. I wasn't the one who brought the game up; it is not my "hang-up".

2. I wasn't adressing you.

3. I haven't said that the game is "completely broken" as in impossible to finish - since I've also finished it -; I said that there are bugs in the game that may prevent you from finishing it should you encounter them.

4. You can think what you want about the game, and so can I.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Sonic the Hedgehog for Master System is a great game, for the Master System. It totally isn't as good as the Genesis version, but so what. No Master System game is. And the game is not completely broken as you say, because I've beaten it a few times over.

It's your opinion that it sucks and that's fine. But this isn't the first time that you've gone on and on about how broken Sonic for Master System is and that I must not have played it or else I would know. Obviously this isn't the case. Someone else obviously enjoyed it as well. It's your little hang-up about the game, not that we haven't played.

doubutsuteki

1. I wasn't the one who brought the game up; it is not my "hang-up".

2. I wasn't adressing you.

3. I haven't said that the game is "completely broken" as in impossible to finish - since I've also finished it -; I said that there are bugs in the game that may prevent you from finishing it should you encounter them.

4. You can think what you want about the game, and so can I.

You did say it was broken, glitchy, unplayable, and a failure. And you're the one that insinuated I must not have played it originally or I wouldn't have put it on the Master System list we made, citing that it was broken and that's why I must not have played (pot calling the tea kettle black when talking about opinions there). I'm addressing it because you're talking about it again in the same manner. And finally, you're in a public forum, you address everyone when you post.

You did say it was broken, glitchy, unplayable, and a failure. And you're the one that insinuated I must not have played it originally or I wouldn't have put it on the Master System list we made, citing that it was broken and that's why I must not have played (pot calling the tea kettle black when talking about opinions there). I'm addressing it because you're talking about it again in the same manner. And finally, you're in a public forum, you address everyone when you post.

Emerald_Warrior

OK, so you were the one who put the game on the list? I didn't take notice of much beyond the game being mentioned. I replied because I was surprised at it being mentioned (because, as you know in my own experience it isn't good), with the intent of adressing no-one in particular but "you guys" (meaning you guys who think that the game is good) - but of course including you if you were the one who posted it.

So, what do you want me to do? I am sorry, if you thought of it as some sort of an attack on you, that wasn't my intent.

4. You can think what you want about the game, and so can I.doubutsuteki

That's why we post at all, isn't it?

To me that simply sounds dull, especially considering I'd be forced to fight enemies every few steps in any direction I take - even when turning around and going back the way I just came - wouldn't I? I thought I explained myself very clearly.

doubutsuteki

Phantasy star uses this system as well and it's often regarded as one of the best RPG's of it's time (in my opinion it's the best 8 bit JRPG)

if you don't like it that your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that there's really nothing quite like it on the NES much in the same way that there's really nothing quite like the SMB 3 on the master system

You say there's no point in discussing Phantasy Star and mapping (because you agreed with me on Alex Kidd in Miracle World), yet you do - and now we're discussing Sonic 2 again?

How many rings have you able to get back at most after being wounded?

The ring system as such is not "glitched", but it is broken in the sense that it does not work in the way that the Sonic ring system was originally intended, like I said in the thread where I brought it up before. I didn't play the game yesterday, and it is possible that I mix it up with Sonic 1 for the Master System in parts, because I tend to lump those two games together, as they are so similar to each other - bad in the much the same ways. I could add that the level designs are downright nasty sometimes in both games, in places forcing you to perform very accurate jumps, finding invisible trampolines or falling down invisible holes, ending up stuck on a platform where all you can do is kill yourself or just wait it out - when you don't encounter a bug that forces you to reset the game and start all over, that is, which has happened to me on several occasions. I also remember that being underwater was particularly annoying, as slowdown became more of an issue there. I'm particularly thinking of the segments where you have to ride in bubbles to get ahead when the game runs like a slug, time keeps ticking away, and the tiniest mistake can have you fall down, get hurt, and have to redo a large portion of the stage again, with only seconds to get to a bubble and likely without any rings. Awkward, to say the least.

doubutsuteki

You can get back as many as 20 rings from sonic 2, maybe even more, I just never bothered counting

and really, all I see is you criticizing the game because you suck at it

1. I wasn't the one who brought the game up; it is not my "hang-up".doubutsuteki

the giant post I just quoted states otherwise

The topic title lends itself to something from System Wars. The poll question was easier to answer - I chose NES.Stinger78

you can't really compare the 2600 to them.

kingmav222

No, you can't. The style of gaming in the 2600 days largely differs from the style in the NES/SMS days. You see back in the 2600 days a player would just play to get a high score and not accomplish any real goal in the game. These arcade style games are what made up most of the 2600's library. Now, in the post-2600 days a player typically starts a game and progresses through the game seeing characters develop (most of the times), and at the end the player would normally face a "boss" or overcome a large obstacle to beat the game. Another thing 2600 NORMALLY lacked is a story which most games POST-2600 era have.

Bottom line: you can't compare them

NES

Back in the 80's and very early 90's I would have choosen the master system, now I would say the nes but I would never add easily to the end of that because the MS had some great titles and looked a lot better for its time.

Oh geez...Of course the NES wins the vote. No one gets that the Atari 2600 was far more revolutionary. The Fairchild Channel F was the first to use changable ROM cartridges but the Atari 2600 popularized it, and it also pretty much popularized video games in general, the only video game that was really popular before it was Pong, also made by Atari. It is the most popular and longest running video game console of all time, (EDIT: Actuallyit was behind the Neo Geo AES by 1 year, but of course it was also much more popular)going from 1977 to 1991, 14 years. It had a huge library of many addicting titles, but here's probably why more people voted for the NES:

1) OH MY GAWD IT'S NINTENDO'S FIRST SYSTEM!!!---Well it's actually their third, the Color TV Game 6 and 15 came first, but that's beside the point. Sure, it took the market out of the crash of '83, but it wouldn't have even existed had it not been for the 2600.

2) BETTER GRAFIX---Yes, the graphics are superior, but are the games? At its initial release, the Atari 2600 had the best games around. It was eventually completely out done by the 5200, Intellivision, Colecovision and many home computers in the audial/visual department, but it still remained the most popular for its huge library of games and immense playability, that is until 1983.

3) BETTER GAMEZ---Here's the complaint I hear the most with the 2600: "OH MY GAWD IN ATARI 2600 GAMES IT'S JUST THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND ALL YOU GET IS POINTS BUTT YOU CAN BEAT NES GAMEZ!!!" Want to know why? Because that wasn't what was popular a the time, video games were still growing and at the moment most of the them were Arcade Style. In my opinion, this is much better than beating a game. High Score Arcade games offer endless entertainment, you can always get a higher score. But you can 100% complete ZELDAR TWILIT PERNCESS, and then what? They're not repetitive, because they get HARDER. My friend, for example, can just not understand this. The games are still just as fun to play as they were in the late 70s, early 80s, facts are facts.

And why the Intellivision, Colecovision, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, Magnavox Odyssey 2 and SG-1000 aren't choices is BEYOND me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smnK9Udziwc

Oh geez...Of course the NES wins. No one gets that the Atari 2600 was far more revolutionary. The Fairchild Channel F was the first to use changable ROM cartridges but the Atari 2600 popularized it, and it also pretty much popularized video games in general, the only video game that was really popular before it was Pong, also made by Atari. It is the most popular and longest running video game console of all time, going from 1977 to 1991, 14 years. It had a huge library of many addicting titles, but here's probably why more people voted for the NES:

1) OH MY GAWD IT'S NINTENDO'S FIRST SYSTEM!!!---Well it's actually their third, the Color TV Game 6 and 15 came first, but that's beside the point. Sure, it took the market out of the crash of '83, but it wouldn't have even existed had it not been for the 2600.

2) BETTER GRAFIX---Yes, the graphics are superior, but are the games? At its initial release, the Atari 2600 had the best games around. It was eventually completely out done by the 5200, Intellivision, Colecovision and many home computers in the audial/visual department, but it still remained the most popular for its huge library of games and immense playability, that is until 1983.

3) BETTER GAMEZ---Here's the complaint I hear the most with the 2600: "OH MY GAWD IN ATARI 2600 GAMES IT'S JUST THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND ALL YOU GET IS POINTS BUTT YOU CAN BEAT NES GAMEZ!!!" Want to know why? Because that wasn't what was popular a the time, video games were still growing and at the moment most of the them were Arcade Style. In my opinion, this is much better than beating a game. High Score Arcade games offer endless entertainment, you can always get a higher score. But you can 100% complete ZELDAR TWILIT PERNCESS, and then what? They're not repetitive, because they get HARDER. My friend, for example, can just not understand this. The games are still just as fun to play as they were in the late 70s, early 80s, facts are facts.

And why the Intellivision, Colecovision, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, Magnavox Odyssey 2 and SG-1000 aren't choices is BEYOND me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smnK9Udziwc

MrSaturn33

I agree that Atari 2600 was revolutionary, and I also agree that NES wins. But I just wanted to point out one thing: Atari 2600 is not the longest running video game console. Neo Geo AES beats it by a single year. It was released in 1990, and the last official release for it was in 2005; giving it a 15-year lifespan.

[QUOTE="MrSaturn33"]

Oh geez...Of course the NES wins. No one gets that the Atari 2600 was far more revolutionary. The Fairchild Channel F was the first to use changable ROM cartridges but the Atari 2600 popularized it, and it also pretty much popularized video games in general, the only video game that was really popular before it was Pong, also made by Atari. It is the most popular and longest running video game console of all time, going from 1977 to 1991, 14 years. It had a huge library of many addicting titles, but here's probably why more people voted for the NES:

1) OH MY GAWD IT'S NINTENDO'S FIRST SYSTEM!!!---Well it's actually their third, the Color TV Game 6 and 15 came first, but that's beside the point. Sure, it took the market out of the crash of '83, but it wouldn't have even existed had it not been for the 2600.

2) BETTER GRAFIX---Yes, the graphics are superior, but are the games? At its initial release, the Atari 2600 had the best games around. It was eventually completely out done by the 5200, Intellivision, Colecovision and many home computers in the audial/visual department, but it still remained the most popular for its huge library of games and immense playability, that is until 1983.

3) BETTER GAMEZ---Here's the complaint I hear the most with the 2600: "OH MY GAWD IN ATARI 2600 GAMES IT'S JUST THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND ALL YOU GET IS POINTS BUTT YOU CAN BEAT NES GAMEZ!!!" Want to know why? Because that wasn't what was popular a the time, video games were still growing and at the moment most of the them were Arcade Style. In my opinion, this is much better than beating a game. High Score Arcade games offer endless entertainment, you can always get a higher score. But you can 100% complete ZELDAR TWILIT PERNCESS, and then what? They're not repetitive, because they get HARDER. My friend, for example, can just not understand this. The games are still just as fun to play as they were in the late 70s, early 80s, facts are facts.

And why the Intellivision, Colecovision, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, Magnavox Odyssey 2 and SG-1000 aren't choices is BEYOND me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smnK9Udziwc

Emerald_Warrior

I agree that Atari 2600 was revolutionary, and I also agree that NES wins. But I just wanted to point out one thing: Atari 2600 is not the longest running video game console. Neo Geo AES beats it by a single year. It was released in 1990, and the last official release for it was in 2005; giving it a 15-year lifespan.

Thanks for letting me in on that, and what I meant is that the NES shouldn't have one, the Atari should. I changed it to "The longest running system behind the Neo Geo AES, but of course it was also much more popular."

The reason they are comparable is because the NES and Atari were the most popular systems of the 8-bit generation. Speaking of which, why did the 8-bit era last so long? It started with Atari 2600 in 1978, and lasted until the SEGA Genesis in 1990. Why did it take so long for video game tech to advance to the the 16-bit era? And people say the Xbox 360 has overstayed its welcome...tendoboy1984

No. Atari 2600 is part of the 2nd generation of gaming which began with the Fairchild Channel F, while NES & Master System are part of the 3rd generation of gaming which started with the Famicom in Japan in 1983 and brought over to the U.S. as the NES.

Atari 7800 was Atari's 3rd generation system that competed with the NES.