Re: The NES was crap!

33 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Skwisgaar Skwigelf

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 4:35:20 AM9/17/07
to

"Sonic the Hedgehog" <so...@sega.hedgehog> wrote in message
news:fcl3qj$sl3$1...@aioe.org...
> X-No-Archive:yes
>
> C'mon, the NES was technically inferior to a Commodore 64 !
>
> The Sega Master system was so much better. Even the ATARI
> 7800 was soooo much better than the NES.
>
> The NES' success can only be explained by Nintendo's ruthless
> policy, not by its quality.
>
> NES games suck. Crappy graphics, terrible sound.Remember
> the SID in the C64 which was even present in the old Commodore
> 6xx machines, long before the NES. Heck, even ATARI's ancient
> POKEY is much better than the NES' soundchip.
>
> And let's not talk about the flickering sprites.
>
> The NES was crap. Period.

That explains why all Sonic games have sucked since Sonic 3 (remember, that
was the one they actually advertised as being a bomb.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETpAJgbuQQ8


RJB

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 5:54:50 AM9/17/07
to
Your mom is crap. :-P


Didimo

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 11:55:03 AM9/17/07
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:36:44 +0200, "Sonic the Hedgehog"
<so...@sega.hedgehog> wrote:

>X-No-Archive:yes
>
>C'mon, the NES was technically inferior to a Commodore 64 !

Not in terms of graphic chip. However, that's not the point.
Historically, it's been proven that the "mine is bigger than yours" is
NOT what makes a gaming machine successful. Rather, it's the quality
of its games.

>The Sega Master system was so much better.

In terms of specs, YES. In terms of games, the SMS had some excellent
ones, but overall too many of them were "me too-yet-not-quite-as-good"
games (see Golvellius vs. Zelda). I love my SMS and I actually bought
one before the NES (in Europe we got it in 1986, while the NES came in
1987). Still, the NES game library was overall superior. Yes, there
were tons of crap games (especially by the end of its life span), but
still plenty of excellent ones.

>Even the ATARI
>7800 was soooo much better than the NES.

Debatable in terms of specs. However, a sound NOT in terms of game
library. Recycling 1979-1983 arcade hits in 1987? I don't THINK so!

>The NES' success can only be explained by Nintendo's ruthless
>policy, not by its quality.

BULLS#$T!

>NES games suck. Crappy graphics, terrible sound.

Super Mario Bros, Zelda, RC Pro AM, even Excitebike... They sucked?
What poor taste..

>Remember
>the SID in the C64 which was even present in the old Commodore
>6xx machines, long before the NES. Heck, even ATARI's ancient
>POKEY is much better than the NES' soundchip.

Grating sound. Good for syth music, poor sound effects. BESIDES (and
back to MY POINT): C64 GAMES sucked ass. With a few exceptions, they
lacked the sheer playability of NES games. And, granted, of many SMS
games.

>And let's not talk about the flickering sprites.

Why, no flickering sprites on the SMS? Come on... Flickering was a
common problem with ANY 8-bit machine.

>The NES was crap. Period.

Your opinion. I don't have a very good one of your flame either, you
see.

Simon

BelPowerslave

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 12:44:10 PM9/17/07
to
Jesus people, are you *really* falling for that trolling? It was the
weakest attempt I've seen in quite a while, yet it now has three replies
from people seriously discussing it? Sad...

The jerkoff OP even made it so that his post wouldn't be archived:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.sega/browse_thread/thread/de00c55e8c4fa6cc/ae101af6ebe84820?hl=en#ae101af6ebe84820

Why do you suppose he did that? Think about it, before you just run off
and reply to it.

Bel
--
Whip Ass Gaming: http://www.whipassgaming.com/

"Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream...whoa, I think my dingy
hanging out!"
- Lo Wang, Shadow Warrior

AirRaid Mach 2.5

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 3:49:15 PM9/17/07
to
The NES sucked in many ways. but lets not forget that it was OLD by
the time it came to the U.S. in late 1985.

The hardware was already 2 1/2 years old in late '85 since the
Japanese version, the Famicom, came out in mid '83. that also means
the hardware was probably designed in '81-'82.

The base NES was weak compared to the Master System, everyone knows
this. however because the Famicom/NES was so immensely popular,
developers supported it and pushed the system to the limit and beyond
-- especially with some of the more powerful mapper chips in some
games. the MMC5 and especially Konami's VRC4 and VRC6, made the
Famicom do things normally seen on 16-bit systems. some of the games
were spectacular with hundreds of shit games in between. but I did
enjoy some of the better games.

I say that from what I played after the NES was long since obsolete.
back in the day, I had an Atari 7800 and a
Master System with the SegaScope 3D glasses and Light Phaser. never
got the NES. naturally I prefered the Master System over the NES
which I only played at a buddy's house. a few of the "better" kids had
Sega and they were really proud of it. this one dude had a Sega
promotional flyer hanging in his locker. he wasn't a geek either but a
"jock". most of the "geeks" had NES and the cool kids had Master
System. they loved Double Dragon, Shinobi and Phantasy Star. when
TurboGrafx and Genesis came out, most of the kids then went for the
Turbo since it enjoyed a brief period of popularity over the Genesis
before Sega thrashed NEC with better games, more of them, and
devastating advertizing.


On Sep 17, 12:36 am, "Sonic the Hedgehog" <so...@sega.hedgehog> wrote:
> X-No-Archive:yes
>
> C'mon, the NES was technically inferior to a Commodore 64 !
>

> The Sega Master system was so much better. Even the ATARI


> 7800 was soooo much better than the NES.
>

> The NES' success can only be explained by Nintendo's ruthless
> policy, not by its quality.
>

> NES games suck. Crappy graphics, terrible sound.Remember


> the SID in the C64 which was even present in the old Commodore
> 6xx machines, long before the NES. Heck, even ATARI's ancient
> POKEY is much better than the NES' soundchip.
>

> And let's not talk about the flickering sprites.
>

jt august

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 8:31:41 PM9/17/07
to
In article <fcl3qj$sl3$1...@aioe.org>,

"Sonic the Hedgehog" <so...@sega.hedgehog> wrote:

> X No Archive:yes

Anotehr worthless shit wanting his comments hidden from the future. His
entire message is thus quoted to thwart that plan.

> C'mon, the NES was technically inferior to a Commodore 64 !

Agreed.

> The Sega Master system was so much better. Even the ATARI
> 7800 was soooo much better than the NES.

SMS - about the same, all in all. 7800, graphically and accoustically
superior, memory structure inferior.

> The NES' success can only be explained by Nintendo's ruthless
> policy, not by its quality.

No, by its agressive and successful marketing.

> NES games suck. Crappy graphics, terrible sound.Remember
> the SID in the C64 which was even present in the old Commodore
> 6xx machines, long before the NES. Heck, even ATARI's ancient
> POKEY is much better than the NES' soundchip.

But there were a lot more games for the NES, and among those were
several very fun games. I have over 120 games I really enjoy on the
NES, which is more than the total library of the 7800, and I think more
than the SMS total library, but I am not entirely sure on that.

> And let's not talk about the flickering sprites.

C=64 had some games with flickering sprites, as did SMS.

> The NES was crap. Period.

No, the NES had is place, and I still enjoy many of its games.

Your post is crap, which is why you wanted it not archived.

jt

Bruce Tomlin

unread,
Sep 18, 2007, 12:05:59 PM9/18/07
to
In article <starsabre-66458...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net>,
jt august <star...@net.att> wrote:

> SMS - about the same, all in all. 7800, graphically and accoustically
> superior, memory structure inferior.

Huh? 7800 acoustically superior? Does "sound chip at extra cost, only in
two games" mean anything to you? The 7800 did worse in the sound
department than it did in the bus architecture department.

And even though they didn't make NES carts with sound chips (mostly
because they didn't need to!), the Famicom had one or two carts with a
sound chip, and the SMS added an FM chip in the Japanese version that
was only used by a very few games.

Bruce Tomlin

unread,
Sep 18, 2007, 12:19:09 PM9/18/07
to
In article <1190058555.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,

"AirRaid Mach 2.5" <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I say that from what I played after the NES was long since obsolete.
> back in the day, I had an Atari 7800 and a
> Master System with the SegaScope 3D glasses and Light Phaser. never
> got the NES. naturally I prefered the Master System over the NES
> which I only played at a buddy's house. a few of the "better" kids had
> Sega and they were really proud of it. this one dude had a Sega
> promotional flyer hanging in his locker. he wasn't a geek either but a
> "jock". most of the "geeks" had NES and the cool kids had Master
> System. they loved Double Dragon, Shinobi and Phantasy Star. when
> TurboGrafx and Genesis came out, most of the kids then went for the
> Turbo since it enjoyed a brief period of popularity over the Genesis
> before Sega thrashed NEC with better games, more of them, and
> devastating advertizing.

That does bring up a point, that of "jock" systems. The systems that
were known for their sports games, and being favored by the jock types.

Intellivision - Atari 2600 sports games were pathetic. Mattel didn't
just try, they were serious about making decent (for the day) sports
games. Having a keypad to let you choose games was important too.

NES/SMS - that was mostly a toss-up. The NES had Tecmo Super Bowl, but
the SMS had such a lower profile that it never really had a chance.

Genesis - damn right it was the jock system of the day! One word:
Madden. Anyone who collects Genesis stuff these days knows that this was
the origin of the annual sports game, and it shows in the piles of
sports games that nobody wants any more.

Playstation - both a hardcore gamer and a jock gamer system

Dreamcast? - well, maybe... Sega wanted to be the jock system again with
both the Saturn and Dreamcast, but I think they failed

Xbox - the hardcore gamers were on the PS2, and the jocks and FPS gamers
(who I consider pretty close to jock-ness) were all over the Xbox, and
it shows. Once I got an Xbox hacked, I had to admit that its main
failing was that I still couldn't play PS2 games on it.

360 - currently both the hardcore and jock system of choice... the PS3
is just too expensive. People would rather have this unreliable piece of
junk, not because it's cheaper, but because it actually has the games
they want to play

Does the Wii have a chance to become the next jock system? Maybe, if
sports games can be made to use the Wiimote well enough.

crymad

unread,
Sep 18, 2007, 12:51:04 PM9/18/07
to
Bruce Tomlin wrote:
> Xbox - the hardcore gamers were on the PS2, and the jocks and FPS gamers
> (who I consider pretty close to jock-ness) were all over the Xbox, and
> it shows. Once I got an Xbox hacked, I had to admit that its main
> failing was that I still couldn't play PS2 games on it.

Explain this one. Though I'm a great fan of Twisted Metal
Black, Siren, and RE4, when I think of PS2 exclusives, it's
Japanese RPGs that come to mind. And since these rarely make
any demands on reflexes or hand-eye coordination, how do
they qualify as hardcore?

--crymad

Vidar Olavesen

unread,
Sep 18, 2007, 4:53:45 PM9/18/07
to
> Intellivision - Atari 2600 sports games were pathetic. Mattel didn't
> just try, they were serious about making decent (for the day) sports
> games. Having a keypad to let you choose games was important too.

Oh, yeah. I remember playing Hockey on Inty and it rocked, but damn, the
controller got to your hands after a while. Did like Atari better though, my
neighbour got the Inty. I have one (or rather 4) now myself.


jt august

unread,
Sep 18, 2007, 5:51:43 PM9/18/07
to
In article
<bruce#fanboy.net-FBB80...@news.newsreader.com>,
Bruce Tomlin <bruce#fanbo...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Huh? 7800 acoustically superior? Does "sound chip at extra cost, only in
> two games" mean anything to you? The 7800 did worse in the sound
> department than it did in the bus architecture department.

I base my judgement in Robotron for the 7800. Arcade perfect. Nothing
on the NES sounded as good, IMO. Xevious was also better sounding on
the 7800, and the 7800's SID was based on the 400/800's SID (maybe the
same SID, I'm not sure), and the sound range of those machines is better
than the NES's.

Now, i will grant you that programmers in later games worked within the
NES's confines better to make games sound as good as possible, but the
sound was still stilted.

jt

Bruce Tomlin

unread,
Sep 18, 2007, 8:05:12 PM9/18/07
to
In article <starsabre-52E36...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net>,
jt august <star...@net.att> wrote:

> I base my judgement in Robotron for the 7800. Arcade perfect. Nothing
> on the NES sounded as good, IMO. Xevious was also better sounding on
> the 7800, and the 7800's SID was based on the 400/800's SID (maybe the
> same SID, I'm not sure), and the sound range of those machines is better
> than the NES's.

That's pretty impressive when you consider that those two are NOT the
games that had an extra sound chip. They both used the sound hardware
from the original Atari 2600.

I would consider that to be more due to dedication on the part of
whoever programmed the sound, rather than anything inherent in the sound
hardware.

Bruce Tomlin

unread,
Sep 18, 2007, 8:05:56 PM9/18/07
to
In article
<bruce#fanboy.net-12A4E...@news.newsreader.com>,
Bruce Tomlin <bruce#fanbo...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Intellivision - Atari 2600 sports games were pathetic. Mattel didn't
> just try, they were serious about making decent (for the day) sports
> games. Having a keypad to let you choose games was important too.

Argh. "Having a keypad to let you choose PLAYS was important too."

Message has been deleted

jt august

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 12:06:25 AM9/19/07
to
In article <1190170751.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
The Space Boss <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote:

> AND YET YOU AGREED WITH DAMNED NEAR EVERYTHING HE SAID POINT-BY-
> POINT...

Temper, temper, oh limited IQed one. I agreed with several points, but
not with the assessment. But I have never judged a system by its specs,
but by its software. And on that critical point, I pointed out the
volume of worthy titles.

I noticed you didn't show my entire quote. You accused me of agreeing
with him almost fully, which I didn't, only somewhat and not
conclusively. But to protect your trolling ass from being proven wrong,
you hid the quoted text, hoping I would not remember what I posted.

learn to read, and by that, I mean to take the words on the screen, and
actually consider their meanings. You'd be a far more palatable debater
if you were to do so. But judging by your posting history, which is
archived, I doubt you'll learn or change.

jt

The Space Boss

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 12:17:49 AM9/19/07
to
On Sep 18, 10:06 pm, jt august <starsa...@net.att> wrote:
> In article <1190170751.823378.319...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,

Aw, come on.. you agreed with a majority of what he said - I'm a very
busy man, ok, but IF YOU INSIST upon it, I will go over your post with
a fine tooth comb, I just didn't want to waste everyone's time when
they could scroll up and see for themselves what I was saying was
accurate. Why don't you guys just admit this could be a legitimate
poster? Right away, if something disagrees with what the majority
thinks he is labeled a troll. And everyone's getting mad because
people are responding to them, I mean what is that about?? Sure it
"could" be a troll, but again, my good man, you agreed with a vast
majority of his statements is all I was saying ok?

The Space Boss

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 12:19:35 AM9/19/07
to

And by saying that "specs mean nothing only games do", you could argue
that the Sega Genesis was a superior system to the Playstation 3
because it has such a vast library of classics while the PS3 doesn't
have much to showcase yet.

jt august

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 12:29:51 AM9/19/07
to
In article <1190175469....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

The Space Boss <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote:

> Aw, come on.. you agreed with a majority of what he said - I'm a very
> busy man, ok, but IF YOU INSIST upon it, I will go over your post with
> a fine tooth comb, I just didn't want to waste everyone's time when
> they could scroll up and see for themselves what I was saying was
> accurate.

First, you show your lack of understanding of how news readers work.
There are many, none of which mimic each other identically. Some
readers are set so that once a message is read, after that newsgroup is
closed for the session, the next time it is opened, it cannot be found
without some work. So for some (like me), we can't just scroll up to
see the previous post.

As to what you said being accurate, see my previous post. <grin>

Actually, to save some trouble, I will again capitulate that I agreed on
several points at least partially, but I did not agree with the
assessment.

> Why don't you guys just admit this could be a legitimate
> poster? Right away, if something disagrees with what the majority
> thinks he is labeled a troll.

His style of post is the classic troll for, go in saying something
controversial to get people all riled up, and do not return to back his
position. This happens so often, thus the term. Disagreement itself is
not trolling, shit disturbing is.

> And everyone's getting mad because
> people are responding to them, I mean what is that about?? Sure it
> "could" be a troll, but again, my good man, you agreed with a vast
> majority of his statements is all I was saying ok?

I don't know that I called him a troll, although I know I thought he was
when I read his post. But I found a response and discussion could be
entertaining. Sometimes, trolls do spark debate. But they're still
trolls.

jt

The Space Boss

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 6:15:42 AM9/19/07
to
On Sep 18, 10:29 pm, jt august <starsa...@net.att> wrote:

>
> First, you show your lack of understanding of how news readers work.
> There are many, none of which mimic each other identically. Some
> readers are set so that once a message is read, after that newsgroup is
> closed for the session, the next time it is opened, it cannot be found
> without some work. So for some (like me), we can't just scroll up to
> see the previous post.
>

I understand that some newsreaders have these "quirks", but that's not
really my fault. They should use a "real" service, like Google Groups.
It's free, and, I imagine, just about the best.

godsl...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 8:50:09 AM9/19/07
to

Hey, you said it, not me.

--


Aaron J. Bossig


http://www.GodsLabRat.com

Chuck Whitby

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 12:28:45 PM9/19/07
to
Know what I remember the most about the NES as a kid? Games. Remember
those? When bits and bytes and processors didn't matter? Just the fucking
games. When I plugged in Mike Tyson's Punch Out or Kabuki Quantum Fighter
I wasn't worried about if there was another system more powerful or capable
than the NES, I just enjoyed myself.

Let's not get into a "my dick is bigger than yours" argument here people.
We're grown men playing with toys. Let's just fucking enjoy our hobby.

Also, the original post was a troll, let's not feed the trolls.

--
__
Chuck Whitby
Too Many Games
"Let us Play"
www.toomanygames.com

jt august

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 8:31:24 PM9/19/07
to
In article <1190175575.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,

The Space Boss <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote:

> Sega Genesis was a superior system to the Playstation 3
> because it has such a vast library of classics while the PS3 doesn't
> have much to showcase

Well said.

jt

jt august

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 8:34:13 PM9/19/07
to
In article <Xns99B07EF5B5519ch...@130.81.64.196>,
Chuck Whitby <ch...@toomanygames.com> wrote:

> Know what I remember the most about the NES as a kid? Games.

That is what I keep saying over and over, it's the games that count the
most. Many games. Fun games. Playable games.

Games. Games. Games.

> We're grown men playing with toys.

I know. Don't you just love it?

jt

jt august

unread,
Sep 19, 2007, 8:42:58 PM9/19/07
to
In article <1190196942....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,

The Space Boss <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote:

Oh, please. "Use Google groups, and turn the gallant entity the
newsgroups into another web forum." Usenet has been a forum of end user
customizability. You can choose your own news reader to suit your OS
and taste. You can set the preferences to how you read news posts.

But you, Dr. Space Guitar 666, want us to use one of the clumsiest web
based forum systems as our access point for this perennial service just
because you want us to read usenet the way you do. That sir (and I use
this term liberally), is another example of why we don't generally care
for your pathetic nature.

> It's free, and, I imagine, just about the best.

I use MT-Newswatcher for Mac OS X. It's free, and having tried Google
Groups to access this newsgroup, and can say I find MT-Newswatcher far
superior.

jt

Ekul Namsob

unread,
Sep 20, 2007, 3:13:39 PM9/20/07
to
The Space Boss <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote:

Absolutely. A console without good games isn't much fun for anyone.

As the PS3 gets a larger library of good games, opinions will be
revised. Currently, the Nintendo DS looks a more tempting prospect to me
than a PS3.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob

unread,
Sep 20, 2007, 3:13:39 PM9/20/07
to
The Space Boss <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote:

Considering that your imagination has stretched so far as to make the
points of disagreement below into agreement, I can see how you could
imagine that Google Groups is the best newsreader.

I have used Google Groups now and then but never when I'm using a
computer with a decent Usenet client.

> > The NES' success can only be explained by Nintendo's ruthless
> > policy, not by its quality.
>
> No, by its agressive and successful marketing.

> ...

> But there were a lot more games for the NES, and among those were
> several very fun games. I have over 120 games I really enjoy on the
> NES, which is more than the total library of the 7800, and I think more
> than the SMS total library, but I am not entirely sure on that.

> > The NES was crap. Period.
>
> No, the NES had is place, and I still enjoy many of its games.

Cheers,

Casey J Parker

unread,
Dec 27, 2021, 9:21:15 PM12/27/21
to
I'll bite.

The NES was built using cheap parts to great effect. It wasn't inferior
to the C64 or SMS, for a few reasons. The big one is hardware scrolling.

I'm not sure if you know at all what the environment was at the time. It
wasn't a technological arms race, it was a quest to create a fun and
affordable home videogame system.

So do the ultimate true comparison. Play the games. The NES resurrected
the market after the endless flood of shovelware on C64, Atari machines,
Coleco, etc. totally tanked it. The solution was good games.

The NES is why you have consoles in the US at all.

On 9/16/07 10:36 PM, Sonic the Hedgehog wrote:
> X-No-Archive:yes
>
> C'mon, the NES was technically inferior to a Commodore 64 !
>
> The Sega Master system was so much better. Even the ATARI
> 7800 was soooo much better than the NES.
>
> The NES' success can only be explained by Nintendo's ruthless
> policy, not by its quality.
>
> NES games suck. Crappy graphics, terrible sound.Remember
> the SID in the C64 which was even present in the old Commodore
> 6xx machines, long before the NES. Heck, even ATARI's ancient
> POKEY is much better than the NES' soundchip.
>
> And let's not talk about the flickering sprites.
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages