Game documentary on TLC

[Technosphile]

Originally posted by Jeremy
Man, it seems like you're comparing the Atari systems to today's with the expectations for games.

Not at all. The expectations for games in the mid-1980s were apparently quite low, and then Nintendo came along and blew Atari out of the water with the quality software available on the NES. Super Mario Bros. ALONE outclasses everything on both the 2600 and the 7800. Nintendo just did it better.

-Technosphile

[Diff-chan]

Originally posted by Technosphile
Not at all. The expectations for games in the mid-1980s were apparently quite low, and then Nintendo came along and blew Atari out of the water with the quality software available on the NES. Super Mario Bros. ALONE outclasses everything on both the 2600 and the 7800. Nintendo just did it better.

-Technosphile

You're an idiot. The Atari 2600 was released in 1977 and was pretty much outdated by 1980 (its 256 BYTES of RAM really packed a punch, though!). Hell, I would fucking hope that the NES would outclass that system. However, for what its worth, the 2600 was pretty damn popular back in the day (ie like 1982). A game industry did exist before Nintendo, and Atari spawned it from nothing (there's the "contribution to gaming" that you seem to think Atari lacks).

Atari created the videogame industry man. If you like console games, you owe Atari cheers. If you like arcade games, you owe Atari cheers*. Shit man, even Atari computers had some great innovations for their day.

You can ask AgentX, who posts infrequently here, if you don't believe me, but Im no Atari fan. I dont own any of their systems, and none of their games. I would sooner go blind from a laser gone astray in the Virtual Boy than play the Jaguar. HOWEVER, Atari created all this shit, they're the big guys, no doubt about it. Steve Russell/MIT did nothing with SpaceWar!. Atari, and Nolan Bushnell took Computer Space and Pong and turned it into an industry. For this reason alone they DEMAND your respect. The only reason why Nintendo started making videogames was because they saw how much money Atari was making with it!

*Atari arcade games are really among the best the industry have ever seen, and ever will see. Tempest, Marble Madness, Missile Command, Battlezone, Centipede, Millipede, Gauntlet, Asteroids, the first game with polygons (I, Robot - and its damn good, too), Star Wars, Warlords, etc. - you'd be hard pressed to find a peer in the world of arcade game developers.

[Regus]

I don't care about Atari's history either, and after reading Game Over, I especially do not care about Nintendo's history as well.

That by no means deminishes they're importance, but it doesn't change the fact that I have very little interest in learning about their pasts.

Nintendo's history is so damn boring!

[NeoZeedeater]

Technosphile, it's hard to determine if Atari made any money in Japan but it seems unlikely. Some of the earliest arcade games in Japan were Atari games licensed to Taito. This is probably the only area Atari might have made any money in Japan since Atari had no real console or computer presence there.

The Japanese got into console gaming much later than North Americans. Home pong-type machines never took off and American-made consoles were so jacked up in price that no one bought them. Japanese-made consoles like Sega's SG-1000 weren't popular either. The Famicom was the first popular console in Japan.

Also, in terms of Atari systems with the best games, I wouldn't focus so much on the 2600 and 7800. Atari's arcade games and computers are where most of the quality stuff lies. I hate to sound like a broken record but console-centrism is evil.

Diffusionx, whether Atari, Nintendo or Sega contributed most to gaming depends what aspect you're looking at. Atari and Nintendo certainly did the most to popularize video games. Sega's contributions have generally been less popular to the general public but they still have possibly made more good games than any other company.

[Technosphile]

Originally posted by diffusionx
You're an idiot. The Atari 2600 was released in 1977 and was pretty much outdated by 1980 (its 256 BYTES of RAM really packed a punch, though!). Hell, I would fucking hope that the NES would outclass that system.

What point are you trying to make here? I made reference to one game vs. a console's entire library, and Super Mario Bros. still spanks all the crap on the 2600. Everything on the 7800 falls short of SMB as well. One little game.

This isn't about console specs, all that means nothing if there are no games to back it up.

However, that's not the point. Atari created the videogame industry. If you like console games, you owe Atari cheers. If you like arcade games, you owe Atari cheers*. Shit man, even Atari computers had some great innovations for their day.

Atari created all this shit, they're the big guys, no doubt about it. Steve Russell/MIT did nothing with SpaceWar!. Atari, and Nolan Bushnell took Computer Space and Pong and turned it into an industry. For this reason alone they DEMAND your respect. The only reason why Nintendo started making videogames was because they saw how much money Atari was making with it!

"Making" money? According to legend, Atari was losing 2 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY during the crash of 1983. It got so bad that they pulled out of the console market. When that happened, Nintendo came along and took the world by storm with the NES, and Atari was left limping by the roadside, eventually trying to hawk the 7800 to an uncaring public in '86. The moral of this story? ATARI CREATED THE HOME CONSOLE MARKET AND THEN ABANDONED IT. WHEN THEY RETURNED, THEY GOT THEIR ASS KICKED. What respect does that deserve?!?! Have you ever considered that maybe the game industry crashed partly because of lousy Atari games? It sure as hell picked up when Nintendo released some quality stuff!

*Atari arcade games are really among the best the industry have ever seen, and ever will see. Tempest, Marble Madness, Missile Command, Battlezone, Centipede, Millipede, Gauntlet, Asteroids, the first game with polygons (I, Robot - and its damn good, too), Star Wars, Warlords, etc. - you'd be hard pressed to find a peer in the world of arcade game developers.

I won't deny that Atari had their moments. Star Wars is one of my all time favorite arcade games. But in my opinion, the idea of giving Atari as much respect as Nintendo is just ludicrous.

-Technosphile

[Drewbacca]

Interesting thread. I wish people would give some good sources, though. Not because their arguements aren't credible, but because I want to read about Atari. (I know Nintendos card history and such)

[NeoZeedeater]

Super Mario Bros. does spank the crap out of anything on the 2600 just like Sonic The Hedgehog spanks the crap out of anything on the NES. Comparing two different eras is silly.

The 2600 and NES aren't two hardware generations apart either, they are at least three. Like diff said, the 2600 came out in 1977. It was popular in 1982 but it was very outdated technology by then. Atari's best games were made by their arcade team, which broke off to become Atari Games. The early '80's were all about arcade gaming and console gaming was about arcade ports.

Far too often people look at video game history as a simple jump from 2600 to crash to NES and naturally they see this huge gap. If you take into consideration everything else - consoles from Coleco and GCE that were well beyond 2600 technology, computers like the Atari 800 and Commodore 64, and all the arcade games from 1983-1985, the change is a continuous flow of evolution with the arcades leading the way. In 1985, Nintendo was just one of many great arcade developers.

Andrew, Atari's history is well documented in these books: Scott Cohen's Zap! The Rise and Fall of Atari, Leonard Herman's Phoenix, and Steven Kent's The Ultimate History of Video Games.

[Technosphile]

Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Super Mario Bros. does spank the crap out of anything on the 2600 just like Sonic The Hedgehog spanks the crap out of anything on the NES. Comparing two different eras is silly.

No, thats not true. Neo, this is not a graphics issue. I'm talking about quality of games, playability of games.

Good points (and point taken) otherwise.

-Technosphile

[sleeve]

Technosphile, judging by what you've said in this thread you have no basis whatsoever to judge Atari's place in videogame history.

As neo points out, it's not fair to judge Atari without giving due consideration to its prolific arcade output and its outstanding lineup of home computer software, to say nothing of all the excellent third party software available for the Atari 800 series.

[Melf]

Originally posted by Technosphile
No, thats not true. Neo, this is not a graphics issue. I'm talking about quality of games, playability of games.

I thought he was talking about playability.

If you look at each console during their lifetime, the 2600 was a great system. I think it's unfair to judge it by something that came out years later. It's not the same thing.