Why do some people prefer 8-bit games to 16-bit? I always thought that the 4th generation is just the 3rd, but improved? I'm curious because I've never got really into the NES, or other 8-bit systems and I'd like to explore that generations library more.
>Why do some people prefer 8-bit games to 16-bit?
Imprinting
Other than SMB and Mario 3 I never played anything else on that POS system, only Americans are really fond of it.
Lol yeah go play your “games”
>1983
While the famikeks were still stuck with 9 shitty arcade clones, us SPECCHADS were already gifted with hundreds of better and more complex games, like this fully open world sandbox driving game, a true pioneer of gaming. Or would you like a shmup? Try Harrier Attack, Jetpac, Lunar Jetman, and Blue Max. Or an RPG adventure game? Might want to look into Valhalla, Black Crystal, The Orb, and The Hobbit. Feels good to be a spekky masterrace.
aussie-kun~
>shitting on Barmy Burgers
get a load of this homosexual
that game is from 1983, m8. have some mercy.
Every system will have its own fanbase niche. It just happened that NES went most mainstream as opposed to other systems.
Come on. There is at least few dozen of good games on that. True that a huge portion of games are mediocre at best.
I know some people that like the extreme simplicity of it. Story, cutscenes, and introductions are kept to an absolute minimum and its all "press start to play". The games are easy to pick up and play too with only 2 buttons to work with you don't have to mess around with any control setup learning.
The games are fun, NES had lots of fun games
Early 80's arcade games were simple and pure. Nobody cared about stories. Only high scores or to see what stage you can make it to. The 6809 was still 8-bit but a major upgrade from the Z80. Take a look at Splatterhouse and Rolling Thunder. You also have the PC Engine which is 8-bit. The NES had a stranglehold on the market like we will never see again. Every company in the biz had games on the NES. Even Sega had ports of their games done by other companies. I'd say its to 2d what PlayStation was to 3d.
>I'd say its to 2d what PlayStation 2 was to 3d.
ftfy
The VCS was the PlayStation
The 2600 was a terrible machine. C64 was a different market, but still worse from a gamer's perspective. Your nostalgia googles bull can't change this fact.
>The 2600 was a terrible machine
So? Doesn’t change the fact that it dominated it’s gen like the NES after it. So the comparison to the PSX / PS2 is valid.
Yes, the VCS is like the PS1 of 2D games, it wasn't the first 2D home console but it popularised the 2D game genres that aren't pong. The NES is more like Steam or Tencent. It wasn't really groundbreaking, it didn't do anything first, 2D games were already popular for years when it was launched, but it took over the video game market by storm regardless because Nintendo monopolised the industry.
>Nintendo monopolised the industry.
not even the console market
They owned 90% of the console market at one point.
>They owned 90% of the console market at one point.
Wrong
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/08/business/waiting-for-the-zapping-of-nintendo.html
>Of every dollar Americans spent on toys last year, 16 cents went to Nintendo. That was $2.7 billion out of a total $16.8 billion that Mom and Dad did not spend on Barbie dolls, Hulk Hogan "action figures," licensed merchandise like Batman soap or Scattergories board games.
>While Nintendo's rivals, like Sega of America and NEC Technologies , say their sales are better than expected, they remain tiny blips on the radar screen of Nintendo, which has more than 90 percent of the game market.
Cope.
Note this was the same year a judge threw out their exclusivity contracts for violating anti-trust statutes.
>QUI?yorktimes
>muttland
>no sources
literally fake news
>which has more than 90 percent of the game market.
the QUI? ass of A is not the game market.
And sales in 1990 is not the game market in general.
>Cope.
Lie better next time
>They owned 90% of the console market at one point.
This is what zoomers actually believe.
>The 2600 was a terrible machine
How? It was launched in 1977 and served its purpose to bring arcade games of the era into your home.
>a gamer's perspective
Sounds like an objective and relevant perspective.
>nostalgia googles
The C64 possibly got more than 10,000 softwares throughout its lifetime, more than 10 times of the NES library. It's not nostalgia, it's statistics.
Outside Japan, no. The C64 had vastly more games from both Europe and the US. Even Japanese companies licensed their ports for the system too. It had even more movie tie-ins than the NES.
>Even Sega had ports of their games done by other companies.
until the Genny actually became a clear hit in the US, that wasn't a big deal at all, in the Saturn era they even went back on porting their shit to PCs on their own.
Sega used to license ports of their games on other systems because their consoles didn't sell that well in Japan and it was a way to earn some extra revenue. The sudden success of the Mega Drive in the West caused them to suspend this policy for a few years but it was revived again due to the Saturn's lack of success.
NES is better if you just want some quick fast arcade action without cutscenes and pretentious 2deep4u plots.
Depends on the game I guess. SMB3 does have some unfortunate changes... But I can't think of any other game offhandedly that is better on NES.