VB v. Atari 2600: Battle for the worst console.

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]How the hell did Atari 2600 get in this? I can understand 3DO, Jaguar, Lynx, hell, even the Master System if you want to be an a-hole, but the 2600? No, not at all.Video_Game_King

Because TC is a misinformed child that believes everything he reads in Wiki and harbors belief that the 2600 prominantly caused the Videogame Crash. He seems to have trouble coming to grips with the reality that some of us actually lived through the era and know the 2600 can't be blamed for the oversaturation of the market and poor business choices Warner Brothers made after aquiring Atari...

ET was merely the final straw. That game was anticipated, and Atari rushed it to the market and created a confusing fetch quest. The idea could've worked on a console with more buttons, but the Atari 2600 only had 1 button, so your powers changed at random.

There was a major difference within the company before WB aquired it. It was WB and their incompotence that caused a lot of these poor choices. That's why Bushnell left. I gave another example, a print ad that showed 2600 Pacman saying 'this is Pacman on the Colecovision' followed by 5200 Pacman. What company in their right mind would belittle their own product to sell another one?

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"][QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]How the hell did Atari 2600 get in this? I can understand 3DO, Jaguar, Lynx, hell, even the Master System if you want to be an a-hole, but the 2600? No, not at all.DXGreat1_HGL

Because TC is a misinformed child that believes everything he reads in Wiki and harbors belief that the 2600 prominantly caused the Videogame Crash. He seems to have trouble coming to grips with the reality that some of us actually lived through the era and know the 2600 can't be blamed for the oversaturation of the market and poor business choices Warner Brothers made after aquiring Atari...

ET was merely the final straw. That game was anticipated, and Atari rushed it to the market and created a confusing fetch quest. The idea could've worked on a console with more buttons, but the Atari 2600 only had 1 button, so your powers changed at random.

There was a major difference within the company before WB aquired it. It was WB and their incompotence that caused a lot of these poor choices. That's why Bushnell left. I gave another example, a print ad that showed 2600 Pacman saying 'this is Pacman on the Colecovision' followed by 5200 Pacman. What company in their right mind would belittle their own product to sell another one?

Warner treated the company like a money printing machine. Rodney Dangerfield has something to say about that (and you may know what that'd be). Does anybody think things are kinda becoming like that now? Companies rushing games out to the market for more cash, bland crap after bland crap, waning respect for the developers, its not a pretty picture.

I couldn't believe seeing the 2600 in the running for worst console. Why? Because it was a failure? It wasn't, it sold for over fourteen years! ALL consoles fail EVENTUALLY.

Because it caused the video-game crash in '84? The industry WAS the 2600 for a while! Are you saying that the system was SO GREAT that it single-handedly caused an entire industry to crash? How does such a great machine get put into a battle for worst console?

If you mean worst as in just crappy, back then it was crazy fun to play. If you mean it's the worst console compared to today's consoles, then you might have an argument because if someone offered me a 2600 or a Wii, I'll take the Wii. Probably.

Warner treated the company like a money printing machine. Rodney Dangerfield has something to say about that (and you may know what that'd be). Does anybody think things are kinda becoming like that now? Companies rushing games out to the market for more cash, bland crap after bland crap, waning respect for the developers, its not a pretty picture.

Video_Game_King

I understand, but you asked why TC put the 2600 as one of worst consoles because it attributed to the Videogame Crash and I've continued to argue that it wasn't the console, just the people that marketed it and other factors. Plus I see a lot of parellel to the crash then and now.

Maybe the Atari was the overall most successful console, but it was mostly due to games like pac-man that most people thought was abysmal after they bought it and discovered how different from the original it was. Pac-man sold over 7 million copies, but only because of the arcade game, and it contributed to the crash of '83Ultimate__Gamer

umm, no. Atari 2600 is the reason your playing a PS3, Wii, or 360 right now, videogame crash or no crash. without Atari's previous success, the NES would have never found a foothold with US audiences.

How was the Atari 2600 the worst console? For somebody who was around during it's dominance that doesn't even make sense. There was a time when there was no system war and almost everyone who owned a console had a 2600. It had a lot of very good games for the time

Asteroids, Missle Command, Combat, Star Command, River Raid, Warlords, etc.

and even supported multiple controllers so not all games merely relied on a single button and joystick.

The crash was caused by lack of quality control on the part of WB. They let anyone bring any title to the console which led to all the truly great games being buried under mounds of badly developed and rushed trash. This in turn gave many people the false impression that video game developers were running out of ideas and the industry was merely a fad. This caused the market to quickly lose consumer support.

To blame the crash on the Atari 2600 system itself just shows how little you understand what really happened.

The apple pippin

The Atari VCS/2600? Calling that console the worst ever because of post-Warner acquisition Atari's mistakes is like saying the Sega Saturn was a horrible console because Sega of America(and perhaps Europe)botched the launch and marketing badly(though the console did fairly well in Japan), or that the Commodore Amiga was a horrible computer because the Commodore executives made a lot of bad decisions that ultimately resulted in the downfall of a very ahead-of-its-time platform. In all of those cases, it wasn't the console itself that was horrible so much as the company behind it. (Also, let's not forget that the Atari 2600 is one of the very things that made the video game industry what it is today.) As for other bad consoles: 3DO-It DID have some noteworthy titles, but it was just TOO EXPENSIVE. I bet that it would have been received much better if it was only priced at 300 or 400 US$ rather than 700(and you thought the PS3 was expensive!). Atari Jaguar-It had maybe one or two good games. Too bad just about everything else sucked. Apple Pippin-It sold the worst, and is practically unknown. However, it didn't bastardize any great gaming franchises like the... Philips CD-i-Not only was it expensive(even more than the 3DO IIRC), but it doesn't seem to have ANY good games...and let's say nothing of the three horrible Zelda titles that easily make this console the worst of all time in my opinion.NamelessPlayer

MAH BOI!

Which console was the worst of all time? VB, Atari 2600, or "other."Ultimate__Gamer

Um the Atari 2600 was the first great console with many innovations.

It is only a false myth that there were more ETs made than Atari's sold. And here is more proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Game_Crash

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

[QUOTE="Ultimate__Gamer"]It's just a poll. And the Atari caused the "videogame crash of 1983," so I'm considering it to be a bad console.Ultimate__Gamer

You don't know your history at all. You should change your name. The Atari 2600 did not cause the crash, Warner Brothers did. Their totally incompotent running of Atari caused the crash. Want a few examples? Producing more copies of ET then sold 2600, thinking the name would sell the game and my fav, using the 2600 version of a game, stating it was for Coleco, to compare it to the 5200 to try to sell it...

It is only a myth that there were more ETs made than Ataris, and here more proof of the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Game_Crash

wait, did you just quote wikipedia... twice as a source for facts? awesome... you should have called yourself an idiot, you wouldn't have sounded so dumb.

[QUOTE="Ultimate__Gamer"]

It is only a false myth that there were more ETs made than Atari's sold. And here is more proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Game_Crash

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

[QUOTE="Ultimate__Gamer"]It's just a poll. And the Atari caused the "videogame crash of 1983," so I'm considering it to be a bad console.obsolete2k1

You don't know your history at all. You should change your name. The Atari 2600 did not cause the crash, Warner Brothers did. Their totally incompotent running of Atari caused the crash. Want a few examples? Producing more copies of ET then sold 2600, thinking the name would sell the game and my fav, using the 2600 version of a game, stating it was for Coleco, to compare it to the 5200 to try to sell it...

It is only a myth that there were more ETs made than Ataris, and here more proof of the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Game_Crash

wait, did you just quote wikipedia... twice as a source for facts? awesome... you should have called yourself an idiot, you wouldn't have sounded so dumb.

I believe it was pacman that was manufactured in greater numbers then there were 2600's at the time. According to Guiness book world records gamers edition anyway. 12 million made, 10 million 2600's at the time.