How Has Nintendo Revolutionised the Gaming Industry?

In the U.S., at least, Nintendo is revolutionary because with the NES, Nintendo resurrected the dead home console market. In 1983, in the U.S., the video game crash happened. After that nobody wanted to invest in home console gaming or the arcade scene. Only PC gaming was doing well at that, and not even as well as they are today because it was a much more limited market back then.

When Nintendo introduced the NES to the U.S. in 1985-1986, it took off and single-handedly resurrected that dead market. And a lot of that is due in thanks to Super Mario Bros. in particular.

Hey, I'm doing a project for school where we have to answer a question of our choice, and we have to ask 20 people a questionaire. I'd be really appreciative if you answered this. Keep in mind that I need people who know a good deal about Nintendo. What's your name? (Optional. Say first name) Your age What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system? (An explanation is optional) What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)? (An explanation is optional) What was the most important innovation that made Nintendo revolutionary? (Which was most important? Graphics, Gameplay, Controls, etc.) Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles?TaraKaboom

Rather not give my name.

18 years old

Most revolutionary system: N64. It showed with several different franchises that a transition from 2D to 3D can be truly amazing. Many people were skeptical about it.

Most rev. game: Mario 64 for the reason stated above.

Most improtant rev: 3D console (reasons stated above)

Most influential: Yet again, their move to 3D.

[QUOTE="TaraKaboom"]Hey, I'm doing a project for school where we have to answer a question of our choice, and we have to ask 20 people a questionaire. I'd be really appreciative if you answered this. Keep in mind that I need people who know a good deal about Nintendo. What's your name? (Optional. Say first name) Your age What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system? (An explanation is optional) What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)? (An explanation is optional) What was the most important innovation that made Nintendo revolutionary? (Which was most important? Graphics, Gameplay, Controls, etc.) Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles?turtlethetaffer

Rather not give my name.

18 years old

Most revolutionary system: N64. It showed with several different franchises that a transition from 2D to 3D can be truly amazing. Many people were skeptical about it.

Most rev. game: Mario 64 for the reason stated above.

Most improtant rev: 3D console (reasons stated above)

Most influential: Yet again, their move to 3D.

Except to be "revolutionary" you have to be the first at something. N64 was like the last. Sega already did it with the Saturn, Sony already did it with the PS1, and even Panasonic did it with the 3DO before N64 came out. That is unless you're confining this simply to Nintendo systems.

NES was far more revolutionary.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="TaraKaboom"]Hey, I'm doing a project for school where we have to answer a question of our choice, and we have to ask 20 people a questionaire. I'd be really appreciative if you answered this. Keep in mind that I need people who know a good deal about Nintendo. What's your name? (Optional. Say first name) Your age What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system? (An explanation is optional) What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)? (An explanation is optional) What was the most important innovation that made Nintendo revolutionary? (Which was most important? Graphics, Gameplay, Controls, etc.) Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles?Emerald_Warrior

Rather not give my name.

18 years old

Most revolutionary system: N64. It showed with several different franchises that a transition from 2D to 3D can be truly amazing. Many people were skeptical about it.

Most rev. game: Mario 64 for the reason stated above.

Most improtant rev: 3D console (reasons stated above)

Most influential: Yet again, their move to 3D.

Except to be "revolutionary" you have to be the first at something. N64 was like the last. Sega already did it with the Saturn, Sony already did it with the PS1, and even Panasonic did it with the 3DO before N64 came out. That is unless you're confining this simply to Nintendo systems.

NES was far more revolutionary.

I thought we were just reffering to Ninty? I not then yeah NES for sure since it more or less invented home consoles.

Hey, I'm doing a project for school where we have to answer a question of our choice, and we have to ask 20 people a questionaire. I'd be really appreciative if you answered this. Keep in mind that I need people who know a good deal about Nintendo. What's your name? (First name or if you're uncomfortable with that then I can just use your username) Your age (Optional, I guess) What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system? (An explanation is optional) What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)? (An explanation is optional) What was the most important innovation that made Nintendo revolutionary? (Which was most important? Graphics, Gameplay, Controls, etc.) Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles?TaraKaboom

conkertheking1

age 17

Nintendo's most revolutionary system is the NES, because it popularized console gaming in the U.S. in the 1980's

Most revolutionary games:

• Super Mario Bros.
• Super Mario Bros. 3
• Legend of Zelda (NES)
• Zelda: Ocarina of Time
• Super Mario 64
• Yoshi's Island
• Super Metroid

Most important innovation from Nintendo was definately gameplay. The games listed above (and many other first-party titles) have set the standard for platforming and adventure games, both 2D and 3D

They did ****. Outside of dictating with illegal acts to get rid of competition at the time, they never really did anything. They helped bring back the console market from decline, however the market was not dead, there are many reasons why people saying that Nintendo 100% brought it back themselves is completely wrong and they have no clue what they are talking about. Add in the fact that Nintendo also allowed rumors of them creating things that they did not make and allowed that to go on forever, heck, the D-pad was mentioned in this very thread, there are still fools that believe Nintendo made the D-pad. In the end, the only real significant thing they had done was speed up recovery from a very bad crash in the U.S. Which incidentally also had the effect of slowing down progression in the industry significantly for better or worse. Ever since then, the SNES was the start of their downfall.ImJESUS-PROam

Hey, I'm doing a project for school where we have to answer a question of our choice, and we have to ask 20 people a questionaire. I'd be really appreciative if you answered this. Keep in mind that I need people who know a good deal about Nintendo. What's your name? (Optional. Say first name) Your age What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system? (An explanation is optional) What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)? (An explanation is optional) What was the most important innovation that made Nintendo revolutionary? (Which was most important? Graphics, Gameplay, Controls, etc.) Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles?TaraKaboom

21

Most Rev:  Wii.  Tapped into a goldmine with the "casual" market and proved video games can be fun for the entire family while still having games that cater to the more in depth gaming individuals.  The motion controls were the only reason the Wii took off.

Most important Innovation:  Bringing platforming and adventuring into 3D.  They set the bar for platforming and adventuring with their respective flagship franchises (Mario/Zelda) by giving players tight as fvck controls, charming visuals and simple yet deep and engrossing gameplay.  Not to mention some great musical scores.

Most Influential:  See the Wii.  Now glance at Sony and Microsoft and witness the Move and the Kinect.  They were chasing that Nintendo pot of gold for a while there.

The D-pad, Is Nintendo's longest lasting revolution to the Gaming industry. Before that Atari 2600, Intellivision, Colocovision etc Controllers were just Awful to use. A simple D-pad which was originally named the "cross key"

The D-pad is the one thing that really revolutionised the home videogame industry. Every Nintendo console has used the D-Pad (cross-key) NES,SNES,N64,Gamecube,Wii,Wii U,Gameboy,Gameboy color,Gameboy Advance, Nintendo DS,Nintendo 3DS

They have all featured the Nintendo created D-Pad.

Even today with Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 the Cross-key D-pad is still with us.

So if I had to pick 1 thing from Nintendo that revolutiuonised the gaming industry. The D-pad.

The D-pad, Is Nintendo's longest lasting revolution to the Gaming industry. Before that Atari 2600, Intellivision, Colocovision etc Controllers were just Awful to use. A simple D-pad which was originally named the "cross key"

The D-pad is the one thing that really revolutionised the home videogame industry. Every Nintendo console has used the D-Pad (cross-key) NES,SNES,N64,Gamecube,Wii,Wii U,Gameboy,Gameboy color,Gameboy Advance, Nintendo DS,Nintendo 3DS

They have all featured the Nintendo created D-Pad.

Even today with Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 the Cross-key D-pad is still with us.

So if I had to pick 1 thing from Nintendo that revolutiuonised the gaming industry. The D-pad.

Megavideogamer

You know, that's crazy.  I completely overlooked this, didn't even occur to me for some reason lol.  Something that big just flew right by me.

No it was not the firs tone to gain mainstream acceptance, you were most likely bron during the NES times, the 2600 and the NES were just as popular as eachother, the difference is that the NEs was released in more territories, so the NES had a bigger area of popularity. Both the NES and 2600 had clothes, franchises that had tvshows, people muching at arcade and buying them for ports, outpacing the competition terribly, tons of games, tons of imitations, tons of (failed) competition, etc. If the Atari 2600 was released i the same regions the NES, they would probably be not far from eachother at all. ImJESUS-PROam

If you think I was "bron" in "NES times" then your math is way off (hint: if I'm 36 years old then that would mean I was born in the 70s). Atari -did- have massive brand recognition, but that was all about their arcade footprint, which was huge. I saw a lot more c64s and early Apple computers in people's homes than Atari 2600s, and every subsequent attempt that Atari made to recapture what gold they had with the 2600 (before they completely screwed it up) failed miserably. I had two 2600s (the original and the later "jr" model), and Atari 7800 and two Atari Lynxes (orignial and extra crispy). I loved everyone one of these consoles, but goddamn did Atari drop the ball on them badly.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] Funny how mine doesn't. Want to give some research a go? not trying to be mean but...ImJESUS-PROam

I don't need to research something that I physically own. I can just look at it.

But just for you, here's a pic I found online:

That's a game cartridge, not the console. And that isn't a D-pad anyways, those are membrane keys, like on the Magnovox Odyssey 2.

Since you don't believe me, here's a pick of my very own MicroVision, I even have the original box still:

I never mentioned the 7800 being before the NES, which is true anyway, but that conversation had nothing to do with release dates.ImJESUS-PROam

Again, no, it was designed before the NES, but not released until after the NES. And if you never mentioned it, then what is this?

Well, the home console market in the U.S. wasn't really dead, it was just not making much money, only the big companies put out what people wanted to buy. You can see that with the 7800, the market was still there. Oddly enough though, it was through monopolized practices, I never considered gaming myself to come back until the 4th gen since people had no re4stirctions and could go about putting games where they wanted.ImJESUS-PROam

Regardless though, I did say "I think". So it was indeed an assumption on my part. So if that wasn't what you were referring to, then my bad.

Here's some research that you keep asking for, but I original learned this in the "Ultimate History of Gaming" book:

The 7800 was initially released in southern California in June 1984[citation needed], following an announcement on May 21, 1984 at the Summer Consumer Electronics Show.[1] 13 games were announced for the system's launch, including Ms. Pac-Man, Pole Position II, Centipede, Joust, Dig Dug, Desert Falcon, Robotron: 2084, Galaga, Xevious, Food Fight, Ballblazer, Rescue on Fractalus!, and Track and Field. Atari was a sponsor of the 1984 Summer Olympics and planned to push the 7800 aggressively in time for Christmas that year.

On July 2, 1984, Warner Communications sold Atari's Consumer Division to Jack Tramiel.[5] All projects were halted during an initial evaluation period. Modern publications have often incorrectly asserted that Jack Tramiel mothballed the Atari 7800 feeling video games were a past fad and subsequently asserted that he dusted off the Atari 7800 once the Nintendo NES became successful. The reality was that a contractual issue arose in that GCC had not been paid for their development of the 7800. Warner and Tramiel battled back and forth over who was accountable, with Tramiel believing that the 7800 should have been covered as part of his acquisition deal. In May 1985, Jack relented and paid GCC the overdue payment. This led to additional negotiations regarding the initial launch titles that GCC had developed and then an effort to find someone to lead their new video game division, which was completed in November 1985.[6]

The original production run of the Atari 7800 languished on warehouse shelves until it was re-introduced in January 1986 after strong 2600 sales the previous Christmas.[7]

Atari's launch of the 7800 under Tramiel was far more subdued than Warner had planned for the system in 1984 with a marketing budget of just $300,000. Additionally, the keyboard and high score cartridge were canceled, the expansion port was removed from later production runs of the system and, in lieu of new titles, the system was launched with titles intended for the 7800's debut in 1984.

What's your name? -> Robert

Your age -> 36

What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system? -> 8-bit NES

What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)? -> Probably the first Zelda, because it brought open world exploration action rpg/town and dungeon exploration and rpg elements to a mainstream console.

What was the most important innovation that made Nintendo revolutionary? -> Mainstream acceptance. I remember when all these consoles were new and the 8-bit NES was the first that really started to punch through that barrier that existed between the idea that video game consoles were an expensive, specialty item for technology enthusiasts versus being a standard household item. The sales of the 8-bit NES blew the doors off of it's direct competitor, the Atari 7800 and even more than doubled the earlier Atari 2600.

Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles? -> They started the idea of multi-console generation "franchises" with games like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]

Regardless though, I did say "I think". So it was indeed an assumption on my part. So if that wasn't what you were referring to, then my bad.

Here's some research that you keep asking for, but I original learned this in the "Ultimate History of Gaming" book:

The 7800 was initially released in southern California in June 1984[citation needed], following an announcement on May 21, 1984 at the Summer Consumer Electronics Show.[1] 13 games were announced for the system's launch, including Ms. Pac-Man, Pole Position II, Centipede, Joust, Dig Dug, Desert Falcon, Robotron: 2084, Galaga, Xevious, Food Fight, Ballblazer, Rescue on Fractalus!, and Track and Field. Atari was a sponsor of the 1984 Summer Olympics and planned to push the 7800 aggressively in time for Christmas that year.

On July 2, 1984, Warner Communications sold Atari's Consumer Division to Jack Tramiel.[5] All projects were halted during an initial evaluation period. Modern publications have often incorrectly asserted that Jack Tramiel mothballed the Atari 7800 feeling video games were a past fad and subsequently asserted that he dusted off the Atari 7800 once the Nintendo NES became successful. The reality was that a contractual issue arose in that GCC had not been paid for their development of the 7800. Warner and Tramiel battled back and forth over who was accountable, with Tramiel believing that the 7800 should have been covered as part of his acquisition deal. In May 1985, Jack relented and paid GCC the overdue payment. This led to additional negotiations regarding the initial launch titles that GCC had developed and then an effort to find someone to lead their new video game division, which was completed in November 1985.[6]

The original production run of the Atari 7800 languished on warehouse shelves until it was re-introduced in January 1986 after strong 2600 sales the previous Christmas.[7]

Atari's launch of the 7800 under Tramiel was far more subdued than Warner had planned for the system in 1984 with a marketing budget of just $300,000. Additionally, the keyboard and high score cartridge were canceled, the expansion port was removed from later production runs of the system and, in lieu of new titles, the system was launched with titles intended for the 7800's debut in 1984.ImJESUS-PROam

In a limited test market, in one city, and then it was pulled. Hardly a full release and far from saving a dead market. I mentioned it because you were saying that it was released before the NES, and you then said you never said that.

 I heard the Lynx sold 1 million or so but either way, I don't get how the Lynx or 7800 where failures at all. Sales numbers don't mean anything, companies play profit, if I had stock in the 7800 and Lynx back then it would have gone up. I mean, you seem to let the GG have the slide but Sega losts otns of moeny on the GG and Nomad, yet out of the two only Atari walked out with a bag full of cash. The Wii made more money than the PS2 did, yet the PS2 had triple the sales, and at the same time, The Xbox sold more than the Gamecube, but the Xbox was 5x more in debt from it, while the Gamecube still had profits, even though it was mostly because of the GBA. If you removed that factor the Xbox still would have lost 4x as much regarding selling more.ImJESUS-PROam

Obviously it's more complex than -just- sales numbers, but you still need to sell units to make money. Sure, when comparing the Wii to the PS2 or the Xbox to the Gamecube you have to look at more than just the total units sold, but you're trying to compare the Lynx's situation against systems who's total sales numbers were in the 10s of millions of units.

The Lynx sold -less- than 500k. Even if I'm being generous and round that up to 1 million, that still ended up being the tiniest fragment of the handheld market share. The Lynx never got the 3rd party support and had the smallest game library of all of the handhelds of its generation by far (about 70, comapred to the Game Gear's library of over 300 games and the Gameboy's library of over 800).

The fact that Atari did not fold after the Lynx doesn't mean the Lynx was a rousing success for them, it just means that they at least broke even between the Lynx and all the other stuff they had going on.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] All I said was that the 7800 proved the market wasn't dead. And your snip of information is irrelevant to the conversation so I have no idea why you posted it. But it's wrong, the 7800 was re-released after the NES(U.S.) it actually came out limited in 1984: References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atari_7800_games http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Atari_7800.html http://game-consoles.venturebeat.com/compare/4-20/Atari-2600-vs-Atari-7800 http://atariage.com/forums/topic/195224-was-anyone-here-an-original-1984-atari-7800-owner/ But that's irrelevant, the information I was asking for you to look at was the MV, but I provided a detail explanation in the thread.ImJESUS-PROam

In a limited test market, in one city, and then it was pulled. Hardly a full release and far from saving a dead market. I mentioned it because you were saying that it was released before the NES, and you then said you never said that.

You really think a console, released in a limited test market that sold abysmally means the market isn't dead? To point out the Atari 7800 as a reason why the home console market wasn't dead is about as laughable you claiming the Atari Lynx was a success for Atari. How can you possibly believe these claims when you have highly successful consoles all around them like the NES, Atari 2600, and Game Boy.

And what words am I replacing? I'm quoting your posts that you wrote, I'm not replacing anything.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="TaraKaboom"]Hey, I'm doing a project for school where we have to answer a question of our choice, and we have to ask 20 people a questionaire. I'd be really appreciative if you answered this. Keep in mind that I need people who know a good deal about Nintendo. What's your name? (Optional. Say first name) Your age What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system? (An explanation is optional) What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)? (An explanation is optional) What was the most important innovation that made Nintendo revolutionary? (Which was most important? Graphics, Gameplay, Controls, etc.) Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles?Emerald_Warrior

Rather not give my name.

18 years old

Most revolutionary system: N64. It showed with several different franchises that a transition from 2D to 3D can be truly amazing. Many people were skeptical about it.

Most rev. game: Mario 64 for the reason stated above.

Most improtant rev: 3D console (reasons stated above)

Most influential: Yet again, their move to 3D.

Except to be "revolutionary" you have to be the first at something. N64 was like the last. Sega already did it with the Saturn, Sony already did it with the PS1, and even Panasonic did it with the 3DO before N64 came out. That is unless you're confining this simply to Nintendo systems.

NES was far more revolutionary.

N64 had a control stick. Even if it sucked, it was better than a d pad

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] I didn't. all the quote you posted said is that the 7800 showed the market wasn't dead. Why do you keep avoiding the subject? And replacing words I said? Also it still came out first(U.S.) and you could have brought it so it doesn't change anything at all. But back to the point, still trying to figure out why you posted that when I even in the quote you posted never said anything about the 7800 being before the NES?ImJESUS-PROam

You really think a console, released in a limited test market that sold abysmally means the market isn't dead? To point out the Atari 7800 as a reason why the home console market wasn't dead is about as laughable you claiming the Atari Lynx was a success for Atari. How can you possibly believe these claims when you have highly successful consoles all around them like the NES, Atari 2600, and Game Boy.

And what words am I replacing? I'm quoting your posts that you wrote, I'm not replacing anything.

And out of those 4 million, how many were after the re-release after NES was released, and how much was during that very limited 1984 release that you keep claiming meant home industry wasn't dead?

Not even 500,000 I'd be willing to bet.

The video crash of the 80s in the U.S. is a well documented event that isn't even a point of debate. The Atari 7800 didn't save it, not even freaking close. The NES did. I can't believe this has even been this big of a debate. There are entire books and websites dedicted to the crash.

Just because it was made then, doesn't mean the market wasn't dead. If stores don't want to carry your product, and video games are being sold for a fraction of the cost of their actual worth, then that's a dead market. And the Atari 7800 did nothing to help it. The NES on the other hand...

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Rather not give my name.

18 years old

Most revolutionary system: N64. It showed with several different franchises that a transition from 2D to 3D can be truly amazing. Many people were skeptical about it.

Most rev. game: Mario 64 for the reason stated above.

Most improtant rev: 3D console (reasons stated above)

Most influential: Yet again, their move to 3D.

turtlethetaffer

Except to be "revolutionary" you have to be the first at something. N64 was like the last. Sega already did it with the Saturn, Sony already did it with the PS1, and even Panasonic did it with the 3DO before N64 came out. That is unless you're confining this simply to Nintendo systems.

NES was far more revolutionary.

I thought we were just reffering to Ninty? I not then yeah NES for sure since it more or less invented home consoles.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Except to be "revolutionary" you have to be the first at something. N64 was like the last. Sega already did it with the Saturn, Sony already did it with the PS1, and even Panasonic did it with the 3DO before N64 came out. That is unless you're confining this simply to Nintendo systems.

NES was far more revolutionary.

ImJESUS-PROam

I thought we were just reffering to Ninty? I not then yeah NES for sure since it more or less invented home consoles.

Or brought them into the mainstream.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

I thought we were just reffering to Ninty? I not then yeah NES for sure since it more or less invented home consoles.

turtlethetaffer

Or brought them into the mainstream.

Ok than how about gamecube and PS2? THat's a big difference in sales a profits.

What did I -just- get done saying? You're comparing systems that have sales that are at a minimum in the 10s of millions to a system that sold 500k units against it's competitors that sold TENS OF MILLIONS of units.

Going from there, about half the Lynx's library was third-party support. I have no idea where this Lynx having no third-party came from. Lynx has imagitac, Tecmo, Namo, Gremlin, Quick Silver, DMA Design, Tradewest etc.

The system had 71 games TOTAL. The number of companies that make up those games doesn't really matter if they only make a couple games each.

Yes, it sold badly, but it still made money. The Lynx was on the market for like 6 or so year, and the Lynx did quite well with the amount it sold, it was more than just broke even. I highly doubt they would have a canned 32-bit console and then have the funding to switch to an advanced 64 bit console in a very short period of time if they only broke even. Again, the Gamecube is a good example. Intellivision is another. etc.

500k units over 6 years is horrible. Atari was also a software company at that time so it's not like the Lynx was their sole source of revenue, not to mention the money they were making on their various lawsuit settlements since they were suing practically everyone back then. You're just assuimg the Lynx must have been a success in spite of it's terrible numbers because Atari was able to come out with the Jaguar.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] ImJESUS-PROam

Or brought them into the mainstream.

The NES? It made the home console "better" with its games and really brought them into the mainstream.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Or brought them into the mainstream.

turtlethetaffer

The NES? It made the home console "better" with its games and really brought them into the mainstream.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Rather not give my name.

18 years old

Most revolutionary system: N64. It showed with several different franchises that a transition from 2D to 3D can be truly amazing. Many people were skeptical about it.

Most rev. game: Mario 64 for the reason stated above.

Most improtant rev: 3D console (reasons stated above)

Most influential: Yet again, their move to 3D.

turtlethetaffer

Except to be "revolutionary" you have to be the first at something. N64 was like the last. Sega already did it with the Saturn, Sony already did it with the PS1, and even Panasonic did it with the 3DO before N64 came out. That is unless you're confining this simply to Nintendo systems.

NES was far more revolutionary.

I thought we were just reffering to Ninty? I not then yeah NES for sure since it more or less invented home consoles.

Maybe you should use Turtletheaffer for this report, lol. First he says the N64 is the first 3D console, then he says NES invented home consoles.

Ummm, what about the real first home console, Magnavox Odyssey. Or how about the extremely popular Atari 2600? Colecovision? Intellivision?

They did ****. Outside of dictating with illegal acts to get rid of competition at the time, they never really did anything. They helped bring back the console market from decline, however the market was not dead, there are many reasons why people saying that Nintendo 100% brought it back themselves is completely wrong and they have no clue what they are talking about. Add in the fact that Nintendo also allowed rumors of them creating things that they did not make and allowed that to go on forever, heck, the D-pad was mentioned in this very thread, there are still fools that believe Nintendo made the D-pad. In the end, the only real significant thing they had done was speed up recovery from a very bad crash in the U.S. Which incidentally also had the effect of slowing down progression in the industry significantly for better or worse. Ever since then, the SNES was the start of their downfall.ImJESUS-PROam

Who did?  Not being snarky, just generally curious as I can't recall seeing a D-Pad on console controllers prior to the NES.

And the 2600 did not bring consoles into the mainstream? If you actually are talking about mainstream, gaming never really reached that market until 4-5th gen. Which you were getting people not interested in games getting into games, and then you have 6-7th for dragging the ones that held onto online and computers to start jumping on boards and gathering the socials and casuals.ImJESUS-PROam

No, not really. Atari initial sales were better than anything prior but it wasn't until the 8bit NES that you started the clear the 100 million units mark.

-Byshop

You are really trying to hide the fact you have no clue what you're saying. Comapring a console that sold around 1 million, or heck ok, 500,000 to a console that sold 60 million is That's a 59.5 difference. Comparing a console that sold 21 to one that sold 150 is 129 difference. Using your own poor logic, the Lynx did better than the Gamecube did. You still ahve not learned ANYTHING from profit =/= sales and you insist on still using that nonsense as an argument when it's just doing nothing but backfriring. And I prove you have no idea about third-party support and then say they don't matter using logic that can be applied to every system releaed. That's jsut pretty sad really. I am also not assuming anything, Atari themselves said it was popular. Atari in the later half of the Lynx, was losing money in the software market, The Lynx was still being supported when they dropped computers for focus on the jaguar, and eventually after the canned 32-bit prototype, they had to focus on the jaguar entirely since that was there only way to make up for that money, which they used for that project and the quick turn around to rush out plans for the Jaguar.ImJESUS-PROam

Math is clearly not your strong suit. 500k unit sales compared to the Gameboy's 118 million units sold means the Gameboy sold 200 times more units than the Lynx. The PS2 sold about 7.5 times the number of units the Gamecube did, and yet you still think that's an apples to apples comparison. Tetris for the Gameboy alone sold 60 times more better than the entire Lynx console (and by extension any game on that console unless you think that every Lynx owner was buying 2 or more copies of each game). The Gameboy's game library was also more than 10 times the size of the Lynx library, which is really where the bulk of the money gets made anyway.

Atari's handheld market share was pathetically small, so no, I don't consider it to be "sucessful". The last thing that Atari put out that could really be called successful was the 2600, but since then nothing they've produced has been able to hold a candle to its competitors. You clearly are an Atari fanboy if you're trying -this- hard to claim that Atari was doing well during these periods.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]They did ****. Outside of dictating with illegal acts to get rid of competition at the time, they never really did anything. They helped bring back the console market from decline, however the market was not dead, there are many reasons why people saying that Nintendo 100% brought it back themselves is completely wrong and they have no clue what they are talking about. Add in the fact that Nintendo also allowed rumors of them creating things that they did not make and allowed that to go on forever, heck, the D-pad was mentioned in this very thread, there are still fools that believe Nintendo made the D-pad. In the end, the only real significant thing they had done was speed up recovery from a very bad crash in the U.S. Which incidentally also had the effect of slowing down progression in the industry significantly for better or worse. Ever since then, the SNES was the start of their downfall.MLBknights58

Who did?  Not being snarky, just generally curious as I can't recall seeing a D-Pad on console controllers prior to the NES.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]And the 2600 did not bring consoles into the mainstream? If you actually are talking about mainstream, gaming never really reached that market until 4-5th gen. Which you were getting people not interested in games getting into games, and then you have 6-7th for dragging the ones that held onto online and computers to start jumping on boards and gathering the socials and casuals.Byshop

No, not really. Atari initial sales were better than anything prior but it wasn't until the 8bit NES that you started the clear the 100 million units mark.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="MLBknights58"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]They did ****. Outside of dictating with illegal acts to get rid of competition at the time, they never really did anything. They helped bring back the console market from decline, however the market was not dead, there are many reasons why people saying that Nintendo 100% brought it back themselves is completely wrong and they have no clue what they are talking about. Add in the fact that Nintendo also allowed rumors of them creating things that they did not make and allowed that to go on forever, heck, the D-pad was mentioned in this very thread, there are still fools that believe Nintendo made the D-pad. In the end, the only real significant thing they had done was speed up recovery from a very bad crash in the U.S. Which incidentally also had the effect of slowing down progression in the industry significantly for better or worse. Ever since then, the SNES was the start of their downfall.ImJESUS-PROam

Who did? Not being snarky, just generally curious as I can't recall seeing a D-Pad on console controllers prior to the NES.

Are you talking about the MicroVision when you say Milton Bradley? I own one, it doesn't have a D-pad, it has a turnable nob like an Atari 2600 paddle controller.

There are tons of devices with D-pads, they just aren't the same shape as Nintendos. Milton Bradley Epoch Atari And technically, the intellivision has a 16-way D-pad, but people don't count that so if you don't than just pay attention to the first three.ImJESUS-PROam

Milton Bradley's not a device.

Epoch was a handheld.

Atari's not a "device" and all the Atari hardware that predated the 8-bit NES used joysticks.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]There are tons of devices with D-pads, they just aren't the same shape as Nintendos. Milton Bradley Epoch Atari And technically, the intellivision has a 16-way D-pad, but people don't count that so if you don't than just pay attention to the first three.Byshop

Milton Bradley's not a device.

Epoch was a handheld.

Atari's not a "device" and all the Atari hardware that predated the 8-bit NES used joysticks.

-Byshop

I think he believes the Atari 7800 came out before the NES. He mentioned something similar in another thread. While the Atari 7800 was indeed designed before the NES, it didn't come out before the NES because it sat in a warehouse for a few years while Jack Tramiel who bought out Atari by that time focused on Atari's computer line instead.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="MLBknights58"]

Who did? Not being snarky, just generally curious as I can't recall seeing a D-Pad on console controllers prior to the NES.

Emerald_Warrior

Are you talking about the MicroVision when you say Milton Bradley? I own one, it doesn't have a D-pad, it has a turnable nob like an Atari 2600 paddle controller.

[QUOTE="Byshop"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]There are tons of devices with D-pads, they just aren't the same shape as Nintendos. Milton Bradley Epoch Atari And technically, the intellivision has a 16-way D-pad, but people don't count that so if you don't than just pay attention to the first three.Emerald_Warrior

Milton Bradley's not a device.

Epoch was a handheld.

Atari's not a "device" and all the Atari hardware that predated the 8-bit NES used joysticks.

-Byshop

I think he believes the Atari 7800 came out before the NES. He mentioned something similar in another thread. While the Atari 7800 was indeed designed before the NES, it didn't come out before the NES because it sat in a warehouse for a few years while Jack Tramiel who bought out Atari by that time focused on Atari's computer line instead.

The NES did not sell 100 million lol? Atari and the NEs market with winners and victors where nearly the same. The NES released in more markets which brought almost exactly 30 million more than the slightly over 30 million the 2600 sold, if the 2600 sold in more markets the NES and the 2600 would barely be apart most likely. It was not until the 4th gen that gaming started heading in the mainstream direction, which multi-media devices started to do 5th gen + till now, which is ironic since people used to hate multimedia consoles.ImJESUS-PROam

You're correct. It was 60 million, I had misread the page I was looking at. Still, that's double the Atari. My point was that I remember when these were out and I remember how the public received them. The 8-bit NES was the first one that really started to gain mainstream acceptance. This is the first console that I really saw marketed heavily. TV commericials, magazine ads, etc.

-Byshop 

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]There are tons of devices with D-pads, they just aren't the same shape as Nintendos. Milton Bradley Epoch Atari And technically, the intellivision has a 16-way D-pad, but people don't count that so if you don't than just pay attention to the first three.Byshop

Milton Bradley's not a device.

Epoch was a handheld.

Atari's not a "device" and all the Atari hardware that predated the 8-bit NES used joysticks.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Byshop"]

Milton Bradley's not a device.

Epoch was a handheld.

Atari's not a "device" and all the Atari hardware that predated the 8-bit NES used joysticks.

-Byshop

ImJESUS-PROam

I think he believes the Atari 7800 came out before the NES. He mentioned something similar in another thread. While the Atari 7800 was indeed designed before the NES, it didn't come out before the NES because it sat in a warehouse for a few years while Jack Tramiel who bought out Atari by that time focused on Atari's computer line instead.

How about you look it up and put it in your original post? It's not our job to support your arguments for you. :P

-Byshop

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]The NES did not sell 100 million lol? Atari and the NEs market with winners and victors where nearly the same. The NES released in more markets which brought almost exactly 30 million more than the slightly over 30 million the 2600 sold, if the 2600 sold in more markets the NES and the 2600 would barely be apart most likely. It was not until the 4th gen that gaming started heading in the mainstream direction, which multi-media devices started to do 5th gen + till now, which is ironic since people used to hate multimedia consoles.Byshop

You're correct. It was 60 million, I had misread the page I was looking at. Still, that's double the Atari. My point was that I remember when these were out and I remember how the public received them. The 8-bit NES was the first one that really started to gain mainstream acceptance. This is the first console that I really saw marketed heavily. TV commericials, magazine ads, etc.

-Byshop 

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

I think he believes the Atari 7800 came out before the NES. He mentioned something similar in another thread. While the Atari 7800 was indeed designed before the NES, it didn't come out before the NES because it sat in a warehouse for a few years while Jack Tramiel who bought out Atari by that time focused on Atari's computer line instead.

Byshop

How about you look it up and put it in your original post? It's not our job to support your arguments for you. :P

-Byshop

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] There are tons of devices with D-pads, they just aren't the same shape as Nintendos. Milton Bradley Epoch Atari And technically, the intellivision has a 16-way D-pad, but people don't count that so if you don't than just pay attention to the first three.ImJESUS-PROam

Are you talking about the MicroVision when you say Milton Bradley? I own one, it doesn't have a D-pad, it has a turnable nob like an Atari 2600 paddle controller.

I don't need to research something that I physically own. I can just look at it.

But just for you, here's a pic I found online:

[QUOTE="Byshop"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] Your history is a bit screwed not sure where you got it from, but that's not even what I am talking about so it doesn't matter. There was an atari product that had a D-pad in 76. Look it up.ImJESUS-PROam

How about you look it up and put it in your original post? It's not our job to support your arguments for you. :P

-Byshop

Well I did say "I think he means", meaning that it was an assumption. Never said it was a fact you meant that. And that assumption wasn't based on "nothing", you had mentioned the Atari 7800 being before the NES in another thread.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]No it was not the firs tone to gain mainstream acceptance, you were most likely bron during the NES times, the 2600 and the NES were just as popular as eachother, the difference is that the NEs was released in more territories, so the NES had a bigger area of popularity. Both the NES and 2600 had clothes, franchises that had tvshows, people muching at arcade and buying them for ports, outpacing the competition terribly, tons of games, tons of imitations, tons of (failed) competition, etc. If the Atari 2600 was released i the same regions the NES, they would probably be not far from eachother at all. Byshop

If you think I was "bron" in "NES times" then your math is way off (hint: if I'm 36 years old then that would mean I was born in the 70s). Atari -did- have massive brand recognition, but that was all about their arcade footprint, which was huge. I saw a lot more c64s and early Apple computers in people's homes than Atari 2600s, and every subsequent attempt that Atari made to recapture what gold they had with the 2600 (before they completely screwed it up) failed miserably. I had two 2600s (the original and the later "jr" model), and Atari 7800 and two Atari Lynxes (orignial and extra crispy). I loved everyone one of these consoles, but goddamn did Atari drop the ball on them badly.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Byshop"]

How about you look it up and put it in your original post? It's not our job to support your arguments for you. :P

-Byshop

Emerald_Warrior

Well I did say "I think he means", meaning that it was an assumption. Never said it was a fact you meant that. And that assumption wasn't based on "nothing", you had mentioned the Atari 7800 being before the NES in another thread.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] Profit and sales are not the same, that sounds like talk just to try to hide the fact you have no clue how business works. Success is not determined by numbers (Xbox, gamecube Ps2 anyone?) Also, the 7800, combined with the re-releases sold nearly 4 million, with a release in the united states only, and not nation wide, it used a TG-16 type of market release. That is pretty darn good and you have to be insane otherwise, especially for hardware that was made in 1983, and was made cheaply on purpose (7800 has things cut from the 5200 for a reason.)ImJESUS-PROam

And out of those 4 million, how many were after the re-release after NES was released, and how much was during that very limited 1984 release that you keep claiming meant home industry wasn't dead?

Not even 500,000 I'd be willing to bet.

The video crash of the 80s in the U.S. is a well documented event that isn't even a point of debate. The Atari 7800 didn't save it, not even freaking close. The NES did. I can't believe this has even been this big of a debate. There are entire books and websites dedicted to the crash.

Just because it was made then, doesn't mean the market wasn't dead. If stores don't want to carry your product, and video games are being sold for a fraction of the cost of their actual worth, then that's a dead market. And the Atari 7800 did nothing to help it. The NES on the other hand...

Okay, you're right. All the countless documentation regarding it, Ultimate Gaming History book, Game Over, Wikipedia, G4 Icons, and countless other sources are all wrong. The market wasn't dead in the U.S. and was flourishing. You're points have proven decades of documented gaming history wrong. :roll:

No, you didn't specifically say the words "the Atari 7800 saved the market". But you pointed it out as a reason why the market wasn't dead. If that wasn't an insuation to it, I don't know what is.

And yes, some developers were doing okay. Most of them were also making PC games, though, which that market wasn't dead. The market also never died in Europe or Japan, so those that were international could sell in those regions. On the other hand, several more went under. Far, FAR more developers and console makers went under than survived. There's probably 3 times as many that went under than survived.

And you're really going to say the NES didn't do well until 3 years later? But at the same time claim that Atari 7800's 3.7 million and Atari Lynx's under 500,000 is impressive (or Colecovision's "succesful" 2 million)? So in Nintendo's case, they have to pull in huge numbers to be successful, but in Atari's case as long as they don't go under you consider it a success? Besides that: Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Mega Man, Castlevania, Rad Racer, Metroid. These are genre defining games that re-established the way we play games for years and were all very successful. Super Mario Bros. alone sold millions of NES consoles.

And I don't know in what world you think $100 million is a good number for the video game industry. It went from that number to billions of dollars because of the NES. And before the crash happened it was making billions of dollars.

I mean come on, the NES was a cultural phenomenon. Video games went from something people considered a dead-fad, to becoming a household name. Mario became a household name overnight. Stores went from a glut of unsold game cartridges for pre-NES consoles, to consoles and NES games flying off the shelves. Before the NES, some retailers started refusing to carry video games altogether even. The NES is STILL a part of our culture. You see it all over the place on T-shirts, belt-buckles, posters, etc. still being sold to this day.

Again, like I've pointed out. This is a well documented, and well known part of gaming history. The home console market was, without a shadow of a doubt, dead in the U.S. before the NES came out and completely owned the home gaming industry until Sega could give them a run for their money. No matter how many random numbers you pull out, it doesn't change well-documented history. You could give me a list of 200 developers that were making games before the NES came out, and it just wouldn't matter because too many people back then just didn't care after the crash (especially retailers) until the NES came out. I was gaming when the NES was a brand-new system. There was a tangible excitement and sense of amazement with gamers back then when the NES came out.

Watch this video for some insight (G4 Icons was such a good show, wish it was still on); or even better, read "The Ultimate History of Gaming", it is a fantastic read I highly recommend if you're into the history of the game industry, so much insight in that book straight from developers and industry insider's mouths:

G4 Icon's video for the Video Game Crash:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHbRPoOEEA

Ultimate History of Gaming Book Link:http://www.amazon.com/The-Ultimate-History-Video-Games/dp/0761536434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366944488&sr=8-1&keywords=ultimate+history+of+gaming