Not to kick around a dead skunk here, but there's something I have to resurface. I didn't know much about the Atari. I never had one, and so I wouldn't really argue whether or not Computer games and Atari games had been separate before Nintendo. I, unlike yourself, don't manifest facts in my head and argue things which I know nothing about. So I did some research.
http://www.atariage.com/2600/?SystemID=2600
That place has practically the whole history of video games up until the release of the NES. It explains the many other vendors that competed with the Atari 2600. I know Raziel will be reading with excitment and an erection as he gets to the part that talks about how, in 1986, after an oversupply of systems, and as sales slowed for Atari, the NES was brought over from Japan. Credit to Nintendo, good marketing move, but they definitely didn't save an industry. If NES hadn't come from Japan,
then one of Atari's competitors would have stepped into their place. That, and one key element you conveniently forgot, was the
Sega Master System. That's one I do know about, and have actually played. It was technically better than the NES, and if the NES had never existed, probably would have been the leading developer for the next decade.
Atari was more successful than PC computers. I doubt the NES(released in 1986) brought a separation between consoles and the PC . Especially seeing as in
1981, IBM introduced the IBM PC. That was just the first computer with a microprocessor, they came in many varieties before that. The Apple comes to mind. Do you still think that Nintendo saved something Raziel? Japan is on list 1, you can move there if you like. If you read the history you'll realize there was much difference between the IBM Portable PC(unit with keyboard, operating system, programmable interface, media and printer ports, and attached screen), and the Atari 2600(cartridge fed, game machine).
If these aren't pure gaming consoles, let me know.
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/40/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6422/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6423/
I can only guess the whole time you've been saying 5800, you mean 7800.
I finally had time to read all the crap and write a response. Raziel if you read those two largest articles in my sources, you'll realize that you couldn't have been further from the truth with your "guessing." If you actually read them, instead of your ADD taking control, resulting in the creation of facts. I know you won't admit that you're wrong, so I'm curious to see how you'll lie your way out of this one.
Sources:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story071.htm
http://www.atariage.com/2600/?SystemID=2600
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/40/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6422/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6423/
Raziel said:
You're missing one key element though, Titus. At the time when Atari was in the midst of their heydey, the term videogame "console" didn't really even exist. The terms "computer game system" and "TV game system" were the standard nomenclature for home videogames at the time. The 2600 and 5800 were, in essence, percieved as home computer systems designed primarily for the purpose of gaming. They were lumped right together with conventional computers simply because people didn't know how else to define them. As a result, people saw that they could afford to buy real computers for much cheaper, and gave up on a type of machine heretofore seen as a shallow toy.
Then Nintendo came along, bringing with it the definition of a "videogame console". They introduced a device that, unlike Atari's hardware, strove to present a pure videogame experience without trying to also be a diet-PC at the same time. Nintendo created the rift between consoles and computers, allowing people to distinguish between the two, saving the industry from Atari's bumbling hands. Witout the introduction of the NES, the console videogames industry would be in a very different place today.
|
Raziel said:
|
Not a chance. Atari firmly rooted the public concept of videogames being trite, pointless and juvenile with the 2600 and 5800 systems. If it hadn't been for Nintendo, they would have continued to be seen in that light and would have died in the mid-80's. Nintendo turned a throwaway timewaster into a bonafide industry. Nobody else cared enough to try and revive videogames after Atari so spectacularly fucked them up. If it hadn't been for the Big N, videogames would be a dead laughable fad, like Pogs.
|
Raziel said:
|
It's not the same thing, Titus. The videogames industry was in a state of steep decline as a result of Atari's buffonery. Developers were making nothing back on their games, hardware sales were slumping and the general public concensus was that console videogames would be dead in a few short years if the industry continued to progress in that manner.
|
Raziel said:
|
I couldn't disagree more. Home computers had much to do with the downfall of the console industry, simply because Atari wasn't willing to build a machine dedicated solely to idea of games. Nintendo took that chance and it saved console videogames as we know them.
|