Why were a lot of NES games so shitty to the point of being borderline unplayable? I thought Nintendo had strict quality control measures back then?
>>7851708How old are you OP? 14?
Quality control mostly meant the game had to be finished, have a title screen, and had no bugs that would outright cause it to crash or not be completable.
>>7851708>I thought Nintendo had strict quality control measures back then?nope, here's the truth. nintendo only cared about making sure devs paid rigorous fees to release games on their platform. this supplemented by the fact that difficulty was used to pad out length didn't make things better. all of the stuff you're talking about was standard practice
>>7851708Honestly the point where we have the least quality control in history is now with all the shitty indie games.
>>7851708For the times, many games were very playable. Think about other systems at the time and you see the NES and MS both outdoing western consoles and computers in gameplay. As systems with more number storing and crunching abilities came along to free up controls, we got spoiled a bit to the point where now, NES games seem shitty. If you stop judging these games based on standards they can't match, they suddenly become a lot better.
>>7851870>Think about other systems at the time and you see the NES and MS both outdoing western consoles and computers in gameplay>ZX Spectrum Space Harrier is faster and gets in the camera up and down movement which neither console port hasYou tell me.
Why do retards still think the nintendo seal of quality means that the given game is good?Fucking christ
>>7851710Why are you questioning him like its not a honest and reasonable question? For example, I have not nor seen anyone beat TMNT for NES without exploiting the spawning of enemies near the end of the game.
>>7851708If you thought the quality control on the nes was bad, look at everything else that came before. The nes was a huge step up.
>>7851708The NES had a LOT of games and many were shit, but also many were great and you can go to any top 100 list today, pick a game and have fun. The NES blew the competition out of the way at that time (and some say even the SNES).The console that has the most shitty games (not counting the obvious N64, Wii etc here) but is still highly regarded is the PS1, it's all mostly showelware crap with heavily regressed gameplay from the previous generations and it's actually a struggle to fill a top 10 list you could genuinely recommend someone else to play today.The PS2 had a LOT better library with fun and functional gameplay making a return and then the PS3 topped that with having a tons of games adding more depth in their experiences mirroring what was on PC at the time.
Nintendo started the policy of the manufacturer getting a percent in profit from each game sale. When you bought any Nintendo game, like 20% of it goes to Nintendo without them doing anything. This type of business was model was started by the NES and is the norm on all modern systems today. "Nintendo quality" basically means "we approve enough to take money".
>>7852017actually this was partially because of what happened in Japan. Konami, Namco, and other arcade manufacturers just made their own cartridges and Nintendo received basically nothing from sales of their games.
>>7851708Their quality control was fantastic relative to what came before. Being that, it had to be functional. And not blatant false advertising. Enjoyment factor wasn’t really considered
>>7851708Quality control just made sure the game functioned and was possible to complete, NOT that the game waa good or well designed.Games being literal non functional was a huge problem that contributed to the Atari crash.
>>7852063>and was possible to completeThis thing actually can't be finished due to a game breaking bug. Nintendo Q/C fail?
>>7852075that game is from 2001. Nintendo were really only strict about this in the NES era and got more slack later on especially with handheld games.
Grand Master has a bug that will cause it to crash but that was in Japan where they really didn't have any quality control measures.
I'm not sure quality was better per se but NES games were much more expensive to produce than pre-crash ones so that sort of meant you didn't end up with stuff like Warplock.
NES games were still a big step up in quality control from what they were previously.
>>7851869How? All the games today are miles better and creators have to do a very good job or face the negative rep on the internet. There was no other way to find if the game is good or not other than looking at the game mag pictures and trusting the journalist who reviewed it. I remember the papers I followed shat on several good games because they didn't understand the genre or the idea, while shit like FF12 and every MGS got perfect scores.
>>7851884Zx spectrum port is an ugly mess with no music and farty noises.
>>7851708Most of the big titles were ports of arcade games designed to be very difficult so you would need to put more quarters in
>>7852289>all the games today are miles betterActually, no they aren't, especially indie games. I play games from all era's and have high spec PC's to play the newest and most advanced of games, but often I end up playing (much!) older games and indie games that try to emulate that immediate raw core gameplay thrill of 8-bit/16-bit games always tend to feel the worst of all newer stuff. There's a reason "retro games" are still popular even amongst people born decades after they were realesed you know.>only way to know a game was shit or not was looking at magazinesUnless you lived in Japan, everybody just rented games to check them out. Only thing magazines could somewhat reliable convey was what options where out there and what was coming out in a bit, this was especially true if you were a kid in a ESL country flipping through EGM, CVG and etc.
>>7851870>we got spoiled a bit to the point where now, NES games seem shitty.I wonder if it will continue like that. Most C64 and spectrum games have been considered unplayable for quite a while. Maybe SNES games will be next in line after the NES games to be called unplayable by younger generations.
>>7851720>here's the truth>unsubstantiated bullshit opinions>>7851712 has the right idea.
>>7851712This. Do you people even know your vidya history? Atari had no fucking quality control and devs could shit out whatever they want and get it on shelves. Nintendo doing QA like they did was supposed to instill confidence in consumers again, because with the 2600, who knew what the fuck you were getting.
>>7852289If you think what I said is false go on steam, search do a blank search and sort by newest. You look at that list and tell me there's quality assurance. Steam gets 50-70 new games A DAY and most of them are 100% crap. That makes the occasional turdo on the NES same insignificant.
Almost everything prior to the 4th gen is crap and should be treated as a novelty.