Atari Vs. nintendo

[Mr.bomb]

CompanyController DescriptionSmall ImageAtariAtari JoystickAtari's famous black joystick that was originally included with the system. While it may not be the fanciest controller, it gets the job done.AtariAtari KeypadSold in pairs, functionally identical to the Kid's Controller and the Video Touch Pad. Included overlays with commands, meant to be used with Basic Programming.AtariAtari PaddlesStandard paddle controllers for use with games such as Breakout and Warlords. One pair of controller per connector (allows for 4-player Warlords).AtariAtari Space Age JoystickMarketed as an advanced controller, features a pistol grip and trigger button, with the controller and an additional button above the grip.CBS ElectronicsBooster GripThe Booster Grip is a controller add-in that plugs directly into the joystick port and provides a pass-through for the joystick. In doing so, it provides the two independant buttons necessary for Omega Race. If you want to play Omega Race and you don't have a Booster Grip, you can substitute a 500/Race.Milton BradleyFlight CommanderPackaged with Spitfire Attack, an elaborate joystick meant to look like a fighter plane gun mount. Similar button/handle configuration to the Cosmic Commander, still functions like a regular controller. Not sold separately from the game.ExusFoot CrazThe Foot Craz was sold with Video Jogger and Video Reflex, and is sort of a precursor to Nintendo's Power Pad. Intended to get lazy video game players off their rear's and engaging in physical activity, I'll bet most owner's reverted to the good

then you have remote joysticks:
































Track and Field controller (even if that game was boring. Well, now anyway.):

A fraking VIDEO TOUCHPAD!:

And a kick ass gUN!(AND MORE!):

How could anyone say the Nintendo system is superior? That freaking doesn't make sense.

[boffo]

Originally Posted by Mr.bomb

How could anyone say the Nintendo system is superior? That freaking doesn't make sense.

Most people judge consoles on things that matter more than how many controllers it had.

[dz06lt]

as stated nintendo is the correct answer

[Mr.bomb]

Atari is the better SYSTEM had more hardware and a long lasting life. Oh, and some software. Nintendo could handle and had better looking GAMES

Atari however had everything except LOOKS So as said the Atari is a better SYSTEM Like the dreamcast was a better SYSTEM Then PS2.

[downphoenix]

the atari and NES weren't even in the same class.

Early NES games looked better than anything atari had.

Now something like the Colecovision, that could be considered a Dreamcast to the NES being a PS2. That system had pretty good graphical capability for its time, but the NES was better, though the early games could have suggested both systems were around the same power (Coleco's port of Donkey Kong was very similar to the NES graphically)

[MasterSword]

NES was smaller, had better graphics, better sound, better games, and a better controller. The NES is so far out of the 2600's league I don't even know why you're comparing them.

[boffo]

The controllers for both systems suck since none of them could properly play Super Mario World. If a controller can't be used to play SMW it's not worth the plastic it's made from.

[lol_pc]

As long as the controller can play Contra i'm happy

[MasterSword]

Originally Posted by boffo

The controllers for both systems suck since none of them could properly play Super Mario World. If a controller can't be used to play SMW it's not worth the plastic it's made from.

The NES controller could play SMW if you mapped the Spin Jump to up+A. Except that "scroll screen with L/R" function that about 0.31% of players knew existed, and even fewer used.

[AkaneJones]

Originally Posted by MasterSword

The NES controller could play SMW if you mapped the Spin Jump to down+A. Except that "scroll screen with L/R" function that about 0.31% of players knew existed, and even fewer used.

Fixed it for you, well at leased that's how SML2 did Spin Jump so for consistency in Mario games.