Console that most people really like but you don't care for

Reserved for classic gaming discussions.
Posts: 806
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 6:11 pm

Console that most people really like but you don't care for

Postby matmico399 » April 8th, 2021, 12:50 pm

All right I may get shot for saying this. In some areas they may even be considered heresy. But let me explain.

My first console ever was the Atari 2600. As the years passed I got a C64. I was used to machines with one button. After those I moved on. I skipped the generation and went immediately to the Sega Genesis. It was several years back before I got an NES.

Outside the PS2 and the 2600 the Genesis got the majority of my play time.

When I tried to go back and play the NES, it's very hard for me to get into. As a young man I was spoiled by the three buttons. Trying to play a complicated game with only two buttons just is very unappealing to me. Sure the 2600 only had one button but those games were very rudimentary but good. But I've just never cared for a two button controller on a more advanced console. Just can't get into it.

Posts: 84
Joined: April 8th, 2015, 7:04 pm

Re: Console that most people really like but you don't care for

Postby SpiceWare » April 8th, 2021, 1:51 pm

Similar with me - I went from an Atari VCS to the C= VIC-20 at the end of '81 (the rebranding of the VCS as 2600 occurred a year later).

From then on I gamed on computers until I saw Spyro the Dragon and bought a Playstation. Around the same time I also bought a Sega Nomad (the handheld Genesis).

I have tried NES games, but never got into them.

Posts: 706
Joined: April 29th, 2015, 9:06 pm

Re: Console that most people really like but you don't care for

Postby ThePixelatedGenocide » April 9th, 2021, 10:50 am

Every single one that needs to replaced soon after the purchase. Especially, when the library is better than the hardware.

For example, how many NES and PSone owners were forced to buy a spare? And the 360 was inexcusable. Not to mention, the Switch joycons.

But the worst - at least for me - have been the Sony handhelds. Between bad batteries, bad screens, and the Vita just refusing to work one day? I don't care to remember how many problems I've had.

Especially since the PSPs are all as fragile as glass hand grenades. And their UMDs can be destroyed by just getting dirty, if anything manages to get under that plastic and scratch things up.

If you've got pets or children, you'd better guard those things with your life.

It's no wonder why Nintendo has dominated the handheld market...

And I haven't even talked about the worst analog controls ever made.

Still, none of these horrors are as bad as gaming on the C64. If you were including computers in this question, it would have won in a landslide. Most of the action library is like playing Silver Surfer or Batman vs. Radioactive Man on the NES. And those are just the good games!

Now imagine trying to control them all with only one button.

Also, every color was carefully chosen by serial killers, and then strangled to death and buried. No other platform has ever had a palette this depressing.

But the worst part are the load times. If you want to game on this thing, you need to make an appointment in advance.

It's so bad that some of the loading screens are more popular than the games themselves.

I mean, at least the Spectrum had an excuse. It was designed to be affordable above every other consideration. And it overperforms magnificently. Chase HQ was the closest you could get to the arcade game at home, even if it looked like Tiger Electronic's first Super Scaler.

But the C64? Can you imagine all the poor children who waited patiently for Golden Axe to load, only for their descendants to discover there's only one enemy on screen at a time? Or that time when Robocop was literally impossible to beat, because Ocean's ocean was made from the tears of the innocent?

Nothing on consoles can prepare you for the C64.

Buyer beware.

Return to “Classic Gaming”