Talk:Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Old discussion

Added some more history, more R.O.B info, and the "NES past 1995" section. Hopefully, I got most of that info right - the NES came back in a very nebulous way, and it's emulation scene is not given to posting historical accounts. Any technical specifics of those clunky early days of emulation (esp. pre-iNES) would be greatly appreciated. - Tzaquiel 17:47 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

You've added quite a bit of good stuff! This article is getting better and better. I'm afraid I haven't followed the emulation scene for very long (I entered it around the time that NESticle was already quite robust and mature), so I wouldn't have much to offer on its early history. I'd be interested in digging up some research, though - I know of a few developments as of a couple years ago, including some geniuses who managed to put the entire NES on a single chip, and another guy who does case mods that would custom-build you a NES with a ROM-dump interface, built-in games, and other capabilities (he also built an Atari 2600 with all of the games built into it!). We should probably try to limit the discussion of emulation on the NES page itself, though, and make a separate article for NES emulation and related stuff if it gets extra-long. -- Wapcaplet

Here, check this out: BlueTech. Some very cool stuff there! -- Wapcaplet

Added sound info about the tone generators (2 square, 1 triangle, 1 noise) and corrected an error with "Maximum number of sprite pixels on one scanline". This originally said 64, but the correct number per scanline is 8.

Looks good, though are you sure about the sprite pixels per scanline? I interpreted the original number (64) as meaning the maximum number of pixels in a single scanline that were part of any sprite; in other words, one scanline can be drawing parts of 8 different sprites (at 8 pixels apiece). Unless that is wrong... perhaps it should be rephrased for clarity. -- Wapcaplet 17:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The NES can display eight OBJs (sprites) on each scanline. The hardware scans the OAM (sprite attribute RAM) in order from OBJ 0 to OBJ 63, and any OBJs in range after the first eight will be dropped, and a flag set to indicate this. This has been experimentally verified on actual NES/Famicom hardware by various contributors to the NES development scene. This document by Brad Taylor describes the NES PPU (graphics chip) in detail. There are a handful of minor errors, but this is 95% accurate. Firebug 22:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quick minor update

'Such clones continue to be sold even now in 2005'. Should be changed to 2006. I am sure they are still selling, I saw a clone for sale in a mall a few months ago. However, I still havent litterally seen it with my own eyes. Surely someone can quickly confirm this for me? I am considering this page as a candidate for Spoken Wikipedia. -William Morgan Jan 10th 2006

Cleanup

I marked this as needing cleanup because it isn't written like a encyclopedia article. For example: Nintendo saw firsthand how successful videogames were in the late 1970s. could be changed to Videogames were very successful in the late 1970s. This is just an example.

There's no reason for that to be changed. Andre (talk) 21:43, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Can we add some information that was missing from the article? What was the launch price of the NES bundle? What were the launch titles?

Moving "Nintendo Entertainment System" to "Nintendo Entertainment System/Family Computer"

I have moved this article from Nintendo Entertainment System/Family Computer back to Nintendo Entertainment System for the following reasons.

1. The person who moved the article did not explain their reasoning on the talk page.
2. It will interfere with the featured article canadacy. Any move of this nature should be done after this process is complete
3. The name change seemed longer and redundant. Possibley, they were worried about people looking for the famicom. If this is the case a REDIRECT page would be more applicable.

before moving again please discuss. --The_stuart 01:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PAL NES AV?

My PAL NES has no AV outs. Is this normal? If so, I figure it should be mentioned in the article. If not, does that mean my NES is rare and thereby worth something? Heh heh. Have a good one. - Vague | Rant 12:38, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is odd. Every NES I have seen in Ireland and the UK (the PAL-I version - there's a specific model number but I can't remember it) has PAL composite video out on the right side of the console in the form of RCA sockets, just like the NTSC NES. Do you know what period this console was made in, and are you sure it's not one of the new model "NES 2" consoles (which appear to have existed in PAL form in Australia and possibly New Zealand). Where did you purchase this console? --Zilog Jones 17:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dendy

The Dendy is not a licensed NES clone, so I stated that the "Dendy" clone is played in Russia - NOT that the NES is Dendy. WhisperToMe 01:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Famicom

I think the Famicom should be a separate article from the NES. The amount of material for the Famicom is enough to make a good, coherent article. Also, the article seems US-centric as it only describes what is going on in the US in a large detail. Also, in other wikis, NES and Famicom are separate articles. WhisperToMe 02:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They were separate articles. The problem was that there was way too much duplication: there simply are not enough differences between the NES and the Famicom to justify a different article, and splitting the two winds up being arbitrary and even damaging the usefulness of the article. If we have two articles, where do we put in material about emulation? Or hardware clones? Does the history of the console go in the Famicom article, or the NES article? As for being US-centric, there's several reasons for that: most of the people editing the article are likely from/most familiar with US, and there's far more English language material on the NES than on the Famicom. Recreating the old Famicom article isn't going to fix that. While specific information relating to the Famicom/NES abroad is certainly welcome, it should go here, not in some other article which would, at best, only duplicate the effort that went into this page. In short, it's likely to hurt more than it would help. –Seancdaug 03:35, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Andre (talk) 05:05, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

For the "English language" material, can't one just ask a Japanese person to translate material? We have several Japanese contributors who can help do this. The only things that I know must be duplicated in a Famicom article would be the History (to an extent) and the technical specifications. WhisperToMe 05:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which is really the bulk of the article, all things considered. They are the same system, barring a few extremely minor aesthetic changes, and it doesn't make a great deal of sense to split them up. I'm a bit lost as to what you think would be gained by doing so. There's just far too much crossover information to justify it, in my mind. -Seancdaug 05:31, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

This is my thinking as well: a separate article is needed. The Famicom was very different from the NES in many ways, and I feel that we need to get some more information about it in this article or just create another one, even if it's short. Oklonia 17:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is a pretty vague reason for creating a new article: so far, any information regarding the Famicom has very comfortably fit within the confines of this article. There have been no complaints about flow, or content, or anything like that. You're trying to head off a problem that, quite simply, does not exist. Later on, if we introduce new information to the article that does present a problem, then I personally would reconsider my view, but until then this is very academic. That being said, I do agree about one thing: more information about the Famicom elsewhere in the world (Japan, but also the NES in Europe and Australia) would be a very welcome addition. But that information should come first, before we split the article, rather than trying to split the article in anticipation of information that may not actually be on its way. There is nothing stopping people from adding Famicom-centric information to the current article. That they are not doing so indicates that such information may not be all that easy to come by (in English, at least), which is a problem that has nothing to do with whether or not we have a seperate Famicom article.

Once more, I feel there is far too much crossover of information to make this practical: trying to keep two seperate Famicom and NES articles roughly aligned in terms of content and information is an extremely daunting task that doesn't seem like it would yield a great deal of practical benefit. In addition, it's easier to create subsections of an existing article than it is to find what to do with sections that only make sense in a combined article (if we moved all the information about the Famicom to another article, we'd need to figure out where the "Differences between the Famicom and the NES" section would best fit, not to mention redrafting the entire history section, and probably losing a good deal of information about the international scope of the system). It's also worth pointing out that it was partly the "tightening up" of the article when the old Famicom article was merged that led to its feature article candidacy, IMO. – Seancdaug 23:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it could probably stay as one article as long as their is a section on the affect the console had on society and the consoles culture in each region. As it stand it is a very US centrict article. In Japan the Famicom was marketted as a Family Computer with keyboard and non gameing software and tape drives to compete with the MSX and the Japanese computers it literally was considered a computer. However in the US, they completedly changed it's culture because most computer platforms didnt do so well like the Amstrad CPC, Spectrum, BBC Micro, but Atari/Intellivision was really successful in America, so the NES was released as a console oriented device. Plus in the US they did same insane marketting, Nintendo Cartoons, breakfast serials, it just didnt happen that way in Japan. However in Europe the computer platforms where more popular then Consoles, so when the NES was released their it didnt do so well, plus it really didnt get a full release until 1990 so it was a mild success with Sega not being far behind. That being said, that would make the article quite large though, so it may be better to split them anyway. At least one article could focus on the history of the Famicom and the History of the NES and not get confused, plus we could go into more detail about the role the peripherals played, dammit I have convinced myself it should be split now. :) - UnlimitedAccess 05:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has come up, but I still think we should work from what we have now, as opposed to what we might have in the future. There is no reason information on the NES/Famicom on the international scene cannot be integrated into this article. The problem is that this information is not particularly easy to come by (in English, at least). If we split the article on the basis that there should be more information about the Japanese Famicom (or the UK NES, or whatever), we're just as likely, if not more likely, to end up with numerous dispersed stubs than we are to end up with substantial new information. And I still maintain that with several satelite articles already (Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones, History of the Nintendo Entertainment System, et al.) it would be a mistake to subdivide further, lest we wind up duplicating information and ending up with a unmaintainable mess. – Seancdaug 07:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I vote to seperate them, there are too many differences between the systems, and for background information that may be repeated, just state the information more briefly in the article that it has less relation to, linking to the article that has more. Shadic July 5, 2006

Introduction expansion request

Could someone please expand the intro. I'd like to put this article on the main page, but as-is, the introduction is simply too short. →Raul654 02:37, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

"NES Version" vs. "Mattel Version"

There appears to be two different PAL-I versions of the NES from my experience in car-boot sales and whatnot. Most of them seem to say "NES Version" on the cartridge slot door (under the other text), however I have also come across a few that say "Mattel Version" instead. I believe Mattel distributed Nintendo products for a period of time in Europe, but when was this? Is there any actual difference to the two versions of the NES?

Here's the only picture of a Mattel NES I could find from Googling. Could anyone enlighten me on this subject? --Zilog Jones 17:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See this link for some information. TerokNor 18:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting - thanks for the link! So it also appears from this that UK/Ireland/Italy/Australia NESes were a totally different region to the rest of the PAL NES, regarding the lockout chips anyway.

There is one confusing thing about all this, though. I have a copy of Super Mario Bros. 2, which has the ID code "NES-MW-FRA" on the label - suggesting the cartridge is for the French market. But it plays fine on my NES, which it isn't supposed to if it is a French game (mine is a UK/Ireland model), and also the label on the back of the catridge is in English and Italian and bears the "EAI" code (which suggests it's a UK/Italy cart according to that guide you linked). The cartridge doesn't look like it's been tampered with at all, either. I bought this game second-hand in England a few years ago (unboxed), so I don't know where the hell it came from. Maybe there was some mess-up with the labels? This is really weird... --Zilog Jones 23:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Australian NES's say Mattel Version and do not have any RCA ports, I believe the same goes for New Zealand. - UnlimitedAccess 04:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mattel initially distributed the NES in the UK, Italy, Australia, and New Zealand. These consoles were marked as the "Mattel Version." Nintendo eventually retained distribution rights, and subsequently sold "NES Version" consoles in these markets. Those markets had a different lockout region than the rest of Europe (to protect Mattel's distribution rights). But not all carts made use of the regional lockout.

Following is a list of the official international versions of the NES: (Versions are marked on the consoles unless noted)

• European version (not marked on the console)
• "Europa Version" (European version)
• "Version Española" / "Spanish Version" (European version distributed in Spain by Spaco, S.A.)
• "Mattel Version" (Australia, New Zealand, UK, Italy, possibly Ireland; distributed by Mattel)
• "NES Version" (newer name for the Mattel Version; distributed by Nintendo)
• "Asian Version" (Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand)
• "Comboy" (Korean version distributed by Hyundai Electronics; the consoles have "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Comboy" markings)
• "Family Computer" / "Famicom" (Japanese original)
• US/Canada version (not marked on the consoles)

Brazil got an official release of the NES in the holiday season of 1993. But famiclones had been dominant since their introduction in May 1989. Gradiente and Estrela formed a joint-venture called Playtronics to officially distribute Nintendo products. Ironically, Gradiente had been involved in the manufacture and marketing of famiclones and pirated games (as well as officially-licensed games) in earlier years.

I added some information on this that I got from here: http://nindb.classicgaming.gamespy.com/nes/nes_eu.shtml I couldn't find anything on the "Spaco" version. --LordVader717 16:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Developers' exclusivity, and tools

If I recall correctly, in the earlier days of the NES, in order to get a license to be a Nintendo developer, the developer had to promise exclusivity to Nintendo. You couldn't make both NES and Genesis games. Then Nintendo backed off from this. Can anyone verify this vague memory of mine?

An interesting section to add would be developer tools (by which I mean hardware). Tempshill 00:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to post about this. The entire article about Nintendo manipulating the market is missing the point completely. The thing that was corrupt about this period of history was NOT that Nintendo had a lock-out system (all consoles do today), it was purely that Nintendo forced developers to only release for the NES. Third party developers who would have loved to support the Sega Master System were prevented from doing so by Nintendo, something that would possibly be illegal today.

Imagine if Sony said that PS2 developers wouldn't be allowed to develop for Xbox or GameCube, there'd be an absolute storm and Sony would have anti-trust lawsuits slapped on it by every lawyer in Microsoft and Nintendo. (Actually it might be rather fun to see a Microsoft lawyer preaching about the dangers of monopolies... ;-) ).

Could there be a section about this abuse of monopoly by Nintendo? --Krisse 14:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a different time, the model wasnt in place, Atari tried to not allow any 3rd party developers so they would get 100% profits, hell Atari didnt even allow credits to appear in their own game, they just wanted to push the Atari brand, much like business do with products like Cars. Nintendo actively sought after developers and encouraged acknowledgement of their creators, then signing exclusivity contracts so their software is only released on "their" platform isnt dissimilar to recruiting a director to a specific Movie company or an actor to a TV channel or a Musician to a specific music label, exclusivity contracts are the norm for Artists. Both didnt work, the economic model for Artists didnt work and neither did the assembly line bussines model, it was several years later that the current one would evolve, where Nintendo/Sega/Sony/Microsoft would pay gobs of money to developers to be exclusive. Perhaps in a different world where Nintendo and Sega were equally successful and neither were considered a monopoly we would still have exclusive software contracts as the norm. - UnlimitedAccess 16:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather see such a section as part of the Nintendo company article, as I think it would going a little far afield from the NES itself. – Seancdaug 22:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It was all that and worse. Nintendo had FULL control of cartridge production and forbid developers from porting to other consoles for TWO years after the NES version. By having full control of cartridge production, Nintendo could control how much money a developer could make (as one developer said, they could destroy them). Stores that carried competitors products or lowered prices were stiffed in distribution. Finally the FTC started an investigation and just before they completed it, Nintendo made changes to their developer terms (like eliminating their two year wait) and agreed to settle with the FTC. The April 1991 settlement was for Nintendo to send $5 vouchers to people who bought NES titles from June 1998 to December 1990! Talk about a slap on the wrist!!! [1] —Pelladon 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some would say that the procedures Nintendo put in place during the Famicom years were neccesary to preventing another crash... The public was skeptical and needed assurances that the mistakes wouldn't be made again... -- Daniel Davis 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dendy Junior II

"Dendy Junior II" redirects here, but there's absolutely no information on this page about it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I redirected it to Dendy, that seems to be the proper article about it. TerokNor 09:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The redirect was an artifact of a previous version of the page, which did have more information regarding the system. That information was subsequently moved around, and eventually wound up at Dendy, where TerokNor has kindly redirected it. – Seancdaug 22:24, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Killer app vs. killer game?

There seems to be a small degree of controversy of which term is more appropriate for the introductory paragraph. Both would seem to apply, technically speaking, although, personally, it seems like "killer game" is more specific, and therefore more appropriate. IIRC, I was the one who originally stuck the killer app link there, but only because it never occurred to me to check for "killer game." What does everyone else think? – Seancdaug 20:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on the subject are that app brings to mind more along the lines of computer games and programs, whereas a game is a specific entity more applicable to this article. — THOR 21:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Killer game" doesn't sound right to me, and I hear "killer app" a lot when referring to games in magazines and stuff - it's a rather general phrase, but it is a well-known phrase - "killer game" is just two words stuck together. --193.1.100.105 15:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want to argue that "killer game" should not be included on Wikipedia, then that's another discussion (and one which doesn't really belong here). But, as things currently stand, "killer game" is pretty clearly more useful for these circumstances, whether or not it "sounds right" or not: video game specific information is more likely to be at the "killer game" article than the "killer app" article. – Seancdaug 22:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

To me, "killer game" seems to hint at it's content, i.e. a violent "killing" game. I don't know, as I haven't had too much experience with the usage. But it might cause confusion. --LordVader717 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sound Capabilities?

Could anybody add some notes on the sound capabilities of the NES? Jontce 29 June 2005 12:59 (UTC)

WORLD'S LARGEST (and SMALLEST) AMERICAN NES CONTROLLERS

On Attack of the Show. You may watch it at any time on the G4 website on their media player. Cool thing is that THEY ACTUALLY WORK!

• AOTS 'Nintendo REX' - Gigantic NES controller (click the link)
• AOTS 'NES Micro' - Micro NES controller (redirect?)

NES (disambiguation)

I think NES should not be redirected to Nintendo Entertainment System, NES can be all sorts of things, and disambiguation does take a while to type, what makes this article so special, that NES redirects to Nintendo Entertainment System, instead of a disambiguation pagethat has a link to Nintendo Entertainment System page in the first place?

Because this is the most notable thing called NES. Andre (talk) 22:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hmph... Just because it's the most notable doesn't mean anything, there are many things that mean NES, We should not naturally assume that anyone who types NES should mean this game system...

Yes we should, because that is how we do things. Andre (talk) 22:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

We do it like this because there is a much higher probability that people are looking for this compared to the other things, since that saves on clicks for the average user looking up NES, making it more user-friendly (same goes for Firefox).

Had the probability of two different meanings been fairly close to one another, we would have a disambiguation page on NES, since we would not be able to determine what the best option would be. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

72 pin cartridges

In the differences section, the comparison of 60 to 72 pin cartridges is incorrect. The lockout chip uses 4 pins. The 2 external audio pins that allows Famicom game cartridges to provide their own sound expansion chips were removed. The NES has 10 pins on the cartridge port that go directly to the expansion port on the bottom. 60 + 4 + 10 - 2 = 72. -- Myria 03:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Finicky Button

I think my NES has a busted/no 10NES chip. It is the US model w/power light, and it never had the finicky button. (At least as long as I've had it) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.128.199.222 (talk • contribs) .

New sentence with bad information

Tinkerers at home in later years discovered that disassembling the NES and cutting the fourth pin of the lockout chip (a process now legal with the expiration of the NES patent) would cut power to the chip, removing all effects and severely improving the console's ability to play legal games, as well as bootlegs and converted imports.

This was added today by 141.154.244.65. The problem with this statement is that it is NOT legal to do this, even though the 10NES patent has expired. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act takes effect until the copyright expires, not the patent. Thanks to Sonny Bono, that will happen in 2080. -- Myria 05:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's FamicoM, NOT FamicoN, yo!

mispellings all over the place!! OK, I undid changes by 24.49.56.153

Wow... Well, technically if you go by the katakana spelling, it is famikon (I'm sorry, but I disagree with any romanization that uses c instead of k, and si instead of Shi... Tu, I don't have a problem with) but since it's an abbreviation of the English words "Family Computer" Famicom would be correct. WhateverTS 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Trimming external links

The external links section was getting to be a bit overwhelming, IMO. In keeping with the suggestions of "What Wikipedia is not", I added a link to the dmoz NES directory, and trimmed out all of the links that were contained therein. I also removed a number of other links which didn't seem to have any real relevance: the main Nintendo page, for instance, has very little information regarding the long-discontinued NES. Finally, I removed one or two more links which, while interesting, were either too nuanced or too technical for the average reader: Kevin Horton's FPGA console project is a fascinating read for the initiated, but there's little context or technical background to make it comprehensible to non-hackers. Any arguments? – Seancdaug 17:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

None from me. And you don't know what link abuse is until you have seen this ;) -- ReyBrujo 18:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Add

Someone add this info to the right places (like most expensive NES cart): http://gizmodo.com/5377306/strange-one+of+a+kind-nintendo-cartridge-fetches-highest-price-yet

Telephone jack in the game? New highest EVER price? 71.90.42.59 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured status?

In regards to my edit of adding a 'Reception' and 'Legacy' headings on the article, I would just like to say that I am questioning the featured status of this article. There are parts, specifically presentation, organisation and sections such as the ones I added that need to be added and improved. At its current state, I do not think it is of featured status. JTBX (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Better, closer out game controller image

We've only got one image of the game controller used in NA, EU etc. etc. and it's zoomed in. Do you think we can get another with it's wire in the background so it's not so close in. And of cause from a distance. That's my message really.--213.83.125.225 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate citations

Citation 29 (Mattel company information) is hosted under "YourNewFragrance.com". Is this appropriate? (188.222.50.66 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

Lead section

The lead section of this article contains some unverified and dubious claims pertaining to various NES "clones". Please consider providing additional references to such information and/or moving it to a new section within the article's subject. theNHJG 02:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the reference to "Pegasus" taken out, or at least un-linked. A red link in an article as important as this one really shouldn't have things like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.4.136 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle Kid and the Fortress of Peril

This would be the most recently released NES game. it even says so on the Sunday Funday page, I'd fix it myself but I wouldn't know how to cite correctly. 204.10.222.30 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Noodles the bored.

cartridge memory space and the power of bank switching

It current reads: "The system supports up to 32 KB of program ROM at a time, but this can be expanded by orders of magnitude by the process of bank switching." What was the most that could be done, or was done by any game? Also, did some game cartridges have more memory in them than others? What was the most you could store on any of them at any time? Dream Focus 20:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a Nintendo office building?

building resembles an NES console — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowloonese (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm pretty sure that's CG (i.e. not real). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nintoaster

This should be in this article. Help me find references:

• IGN:Modder Builds Nintoaster
  • "Here at IGN we love retro mods, but we typically don't have the time to highlight every classic system retrofitting that comes across the wire. Every so often, however, one surfaces that is worth noting; the Nintoaster is just such a case..."

• The Nintoaster: Breakfast of Champions, gizmodo

• Nintoaster mod makes NES games tastier than ever, engadget

• Super Nintoaster!, escapist magazine

This is probably the most common NES mod. It has inspired numerous derivatives such as the above mentioned Super Nintoaster and the Nintoaster 64, etc. Numerous instructional videos for how to create one have been produced and they are also sold. The Angry Video Game Nerd also has been playing on a Nintoaster that his friend built him ever since the 90th episode when it first appeared. Does anyone else see any other glaring mentions of the Nintoaster that I missed?AerobicFox (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

European "Mattel" and "NES" Versions

"The differences between the two are the text on the front flap, a smoother finish on the top and bottom of the "MATTEL Version" console and being compatible with US and Canadian NES systems."

On the last portion, does the author mean US and Canadian "cartridges"? The systems really do not interact with each other, so the statement makes no sense. --Timbudtwo (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably; I would imagine it means "compatible with cartridges designed/made for US and Canadian NES systems". If this is the case, it should probably be reworded to "compatible with North American NES cartridges" or something similar, since there is no real reason to list the US and Canada when simply NA will do (+ the ambiguity you mentioned). I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject myself, so I can't really say whether your assessment is correct, but that's how I read it. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mattel was in charge of manufacturing and distribution in Europe before Nintendo made their EU headquarters and then later released to the rest of Europe. UK, Ita, Aus exclusively share Pal A (Pal B is most of the rest of EU), the Mattel version was Pal A. When Nintendo made their headquarters they took over manufactoring and therefore the only difference is the text on the flap. The Mattel versions are rare for their scarcity (only produced for short while) but nothing alse. 92.233.71.47 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The "MATTEL Version", at least the European version, do have a smoother finish to both top and bottom of the unit. Saying that the only difference is that of the text on the flap, is rather misleading. As an owner of both NES and MATTEL versions, I can confirm that MATTEL used a smoother casing (The same smoothness as on the front and sides of any NES unit). But also note that early North American NES units will also have this smooth finish aswell, changed to the textured finish around late 1986 to mid 87. The reason for changing the finish of the case would have been due to the fact that it was easily scratched. Also the original text says "being compatible with US and Canadian NES systems", that is not true since these units had the region lockout chip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.235.121 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that while MATTEL versions were similar, NES versions had different texts on the front: like "EUROPEAN version" in Germany, "VERSIONE ITALIANA" in Italy or "NES VERSION" in the UK...--Aytrus (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

finding a model #

Hi, I saw on one of those pawn shows that an original nes can be valuable and was wondering how to determine if your could be one of those Francine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.254.209 (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Korean release

I noticed that the page says South Korea calls the NES the Honda Tomboy, when it should be Hyundai Comboy. If you could fix this, it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolofamicom22 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The System Also Known As Nintendo?

The system is not and never was called "Nintendo". I agree people incorrectly called it that, but is just that a slang, I even remember people saying "What Nintendo Tapes do you have?" but it doesn't mean it should be put in the article. Aside from websites like Vimm's Lair I don't see anyone calling it "Nintendo" anymore and don't think it should be used in the article as "the system was also known as Nintendo..." no it was never known as that officially or otherwise. Carts were never known as Tapes, it was just ignorance plain and simple. Tyros1972 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you fail to undestand that Wikipedia often lists the most common names used of something. When the system was new and relevant most people simply called it 'Nintendo', the same way people commonly referred to the 2600 simply as 'the Atari'. This made sense to people considering it was followed by the 'Super Nintendo'. In fact, 'Nintendo' was more or less synonymous with video games in general in the late 80s, the same way the Atari was in the early 80s. The fact that you somehow perceive giving a common (nick)name to something as erronous seems to indicate that you are too young to remember this time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.246.133 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hardware design flaws

The phrase "design flaws" indicates a POV that there was something wrong with the design. I feel that a more neutral phrase should be used. --75.140.157.105 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There WAS something wrong with the design. Nintendo addressed it themselves by later using standard card edge connectors and releasing the top loading NES model. I've removed your tags. Forteblast (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The poor connectors and Nes lock-out chip and the quirky "front loader" to market it not as a game console was a "design flaw" plain and simple. There is plenty of RS to support that as stated above.

I don't like the words "design flaw" since it was made that way on purpose. But, standard card edge connectors could get dirty and stop working too. I certainly remember our Snes and N64 getting like this after some time. Like the nes, I've heard of people blowing into the carts, etc. But a good alcohol cleaning got them like new again. Of course, standard card edge connectors were a tighter fit, so this sort of thing happened less, but it did happen. So were standard card edge connectors a "design flaw" too?

I'd like to add that today I have a Nes and as long as I keep the carts neatly stored when not in use, the Nes woks the first time. Once in a great while the dreaded oxide builds up so what I do is rub the Nes's connector with paper. Believe it or not, just dry. And if course, no blowing into the carts! I suspect cart-blowing increases corrosion so my "dry" cleaning method wouldn't work. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Plastic Yellowing

Perhaps this should include a bit of depth on what causes some of the systems to yellow. I've looked this up before, it has something to do with flame retardant chemicals or the plastic being exposed to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pie-jacker875 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

is missing that NES games are STILL PLAYED TODAY for various reasons (e.g. challenge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.122.35 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there's an error in this section. "Redesigned the system so it would give the appearance of a child's toy". Weren't they designing the NES so that it didn't look like a child's toy? --Pie-jacker875 (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

New article

Make famicom a seperate article since it's not a nes --94.197.201.88 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's basically the same thing. By your logic we should make the PAL and NTSC NES have different articles.--Pie-jacker875 (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Competition with the Atari 7800

Added from sources of sales and the effects that Nintendos policies had on competition: "=== Competition with the Atari 7800 in North America === The NES was originally in fierce competition with the Atari 7800 in NA when it launched nation wide in 1986. Both consoles were massive success's at launch with some retailers selling out of Atari 7800's with NES's still on the shelves.

The NES and Atari 7800 battled and brought back a then dead industry. However, Atari did not have the money for major advertising to get media attention, and also remained silent about sales most of the time with few exceptions. The NES however did, which gave the NES a huge adavantage over them and all other competitors in the market. The NES for better or worse, had the media spotlight.

The NES policies could be the reason that the NES was Nintendos best selling console till 2006. After the NES business practices were deemed illegal, developers started dropping Nintendos third-party support more and more and jumping on the competition. The Sega Master System suffered even more so for this in NA, where Sega almost had to rely entirely on first party for a lot of years after its launch in 1986.

Nintendo still has issues with third-party in NA to the current day with their Wii U 8th generation console. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

information on voice support?

shouldnt there be some info on how the nes was able to support voices in certain games,especially considering the hardware limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.115.89.11 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Original research

This edit is a textbook example of original research and I urge those watching this page to revert it, at least until Jakandsig can provide a reliable source to support his assertions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

subsequent consoles

There is a portion of this article that says "set the standard for subsequent consoles of its generation" I had attempted to change this to "After" its generation because that's when the actual influence happened. However the (talk) seems to have some information that may prove this wrong or so I assume. My argument is that the Atari 7800, and Intellivision 3, and what not don't show any influence from the NES to say that it set standards. Even after the NES in the same generation, you had A laserdisc system, XEGS (which uses a joystick), and the wonder max (which uses everything but a joystick or gamepad). So of its generation does not seem to make sense unless you are taking about the Mark III Sega.

But look at the 4th generation and you will see the Genesis with a similar crossed D-pad (although the similarities end there) and the TG-16, which one could argue is an NES just reverse and had two turbo switches in the controller. Even the Lynx went and used a crossed D-pad 4th generation, the first for an Atari console (outside limited ones released with the 7800 in the UK, which I think had more to do with Sega.)

Now I am open to all arguments, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut I don't think one would see the full influence of the NES until the 4th generation. Just like I don't believe you would find the full influence of the PSX or Xbox until the 6th and 7th generations respectively. John Mayor ERS (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would agree with this. The 7800 was developed during the same time frame as the Famicom/NES, the XEGS is an evolution of the Atari 8-bit computer line, and the Sega Master System is a further evolution of a console, the SG-1000, that launched the same say as the Famicom. Certainly the redesigned controller of the Mark III/Master System must have been influenced by the design of the NES controller, but influencing one design facet of one system hardly seems like "setting a standard" for a generation. There is also no source for that statement. If anything, the ColecoVision was the system that set the standard for the console generation, as it had a direct influence on both the NES and the SMS. I have no objections to this statement being removed. Indrian (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was going to reword it but we can remove it too I guess. Indrian, do you have a source of the Colecovision influencing the SMS? It could be useful on another page. I was able to find one for the NES but I have not found anything on the SMS. John Mayor ERS (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• No direct source unfortunately, so it cannot really be added, but it cannot be a coincidence that the SMS uses the exact same CPU and sound chip as the ColecoVision, especially since Sega had a close relationship with Coleco as one of the first companies to license its arcade properties for the ColecoVision. Indrian (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, afraid that won't be enough to put on the CV and SMS pages sadly. John Mayor ERS (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Famicom VS. Famicon

Should Famicom really be used? Since the linguistically correct translation of ファミコン would be Famicon, since it ends with a 'n' (see below).

For example, 'lolita complex'　(Kana: 'ロリータ・コンプレックス', Rômaji: 'rorîta/rori-ta kompurekkusu/konpurekkusu') gets abbreviated to 'lolicon'(Kana: 'ロリコン', Rômaji: 'rorikon'). Since Japanese doesn't differ between 'r'- and 'l'-based syllables, the 'r'-to/from-'l' interchangeability is natural. They do, however, differentiate between 'm'- and 'n'-based syllables, with the exception being kana's only single consonant, 'n' (Kana: 'ン' and 'ん' in katakana respectively hiragana), which either: A) Always takes the form of 'n'. (i.e: '先輩'　→　'せんぱい'　→　'senpai') B) Takes the form of 'm' whenever followed by a 'm'-, 'b'-, or 'p'-based syllable, which for the record, Famicon does not. (i.e: '先輩'　→　'せんぱい'　→　'sempai')

Whether B or A is used depends on which romanisation one uses. Such as ヘボン式ローマ字 ('Hebon-shiki Rômaji'/'Hepburn-style romanisation') which is focused on typing words as an American would pronounce them, 日本式ローマ字 ('Nihon-shiki Rômaji'/'Japanese-style Romanisation') which is focused on tranliterating the word as (almost) close to Japanese as possible, 訓令式ローマ字 ('Kunrei-shiki Rômaji'/Directive Style Romanisation') which is basically a revision of the former but even more similar to Japanese, etc. The only one one (as far as I know, besides outdated romanisations) that uses above B-scenario is the Modified Hepburn (which is the American National Standard System), however, Nihon-shiki and Kunrei-shiki are both standard according to International Organisation for Standardisation (with the former being the strict standard), and the latter is also the standard chosen by the Japanese government.

And since English wikipedia is very internationally inclined (Australia, Canada, UK, US, etc. have English as it's first language, after all. And many with English as their second or third language use it as well, myself included.), I personally think that the international standard should be used, especially since it's a non-American article. And if not that, then I think that atleast the modern and correct transliteration should be used. That is, no 'm' unless followed by one of the aforementioned syllables. I think it should be mentioned though that it is often (incorrectly, by todays standards) transliterated to 'famicom', however. In the case someone unsure of the nomer decides to google for more info -- in which case, Famicom would yield more results. (Kinda like with Beijing/Peking. Where one is an outdated transliteration, yet both are used. And they mention both in the article here on wikipedia.) 82.182.171.126 (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo officially romanises ファミコン as Famicom. Worldwide, including Japan. If it has been officially romanised as Famicon by Nintendo in the past, please provide a reliable source. --Grandy02 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also since Fasmicom is a cotraction of the English words Family and Computer is would make little sense to use Con over Com.--76.71.208.147 (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Famicon? Are you kidding me? The Super Famicom has the word "Famicom" printed right on the console. I can't believe you wasted time to write that whole discussion up. It's not Famicon. End of discussion. WAT (talk • contributions) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're really using 1983 Romaji? It's clearly FamicoM on the system, the games, and the manuals, despite having katkana reading famicon.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:48FA:544A:C85E:38B4 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Power Set

According to Nintendo Power, September/October, 1988 (Volume 2) issue, on page 92, the new Power Set will debut in September, 1988. This being right from Nintendo, which anyone who has this issue can verify, why is the date that the Power Set debuted on this article December, 1988? It should say September, 1988.

It was 1988. I had one for one, but I also have all Nintendo Power issues, and it is listed not only on the Sep/Oct, but also on the Nov/Dec issue (back page) as "Christmas gifts"- all 3 sets, Power, Action, Base. Yes, it is 1988, 1989.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:48FA:544A:C85E:38B4 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

2003?

I'm pretty sure they stopped production in Japan before 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.77.111 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the gamecube came out in 2003 and the n64 was already out in japan in 1994. Yea some stuff on wiki is biased --94.197.201.88 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC) No the GameCube came out in 2001 and the n64 came out in 1996 Jacob Steven Smith (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No, actually they didn't. In Japan, it continued to be produced until 2004. Their financial reports verify this.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:48FA:544A:C85E:38B4 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Release Section seems confusingly contradictory

I am by no means a Wikipedia power user, so maybe I'm missing the reason for this, but the section on the 1985 NYC release seems strangely contradictory. It provides Nintendo's official list of 18 launch titles, but then precedes to reference note h, which essentially states that this list is incorrect and should only contain 17 titles, some of which are different. Why does the main article text still have the incorrect information? Couldn't we fix the list, remove the footnote, and cite the NYT Macy's ad and/or the LAT Target ad mentioned in Dayton's piece as primary sources? Brideck (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A NES or an NES?

So should it be a NES or an NES? Both appear in the article (and references), 3 and 6 times respectively. Naturally it depends whether you read it as "a nes" or "an en-ee-es" (or "a Nintendo Entertainment System"), but I think the same indefinite article should be used consistently throughout. Apoyon (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be a NES unless unless there is something else like the that is used instead. I would not say I bought DVD player.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There are some cases where a is not needed. For example and food items adorned with NES-themed imagery would not need to use the term a neither would The packaging of the launch lineup of NES games. It's a case of context.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be an NES, since "en" starts with a vowel.98.243.94.83 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. NES is short for Nintendo Entertainment System so it does not start with a vowel.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, but it's pronounced "en-EE-ess" so "an" would be used instead of "a". An LCD, an SQL injection, and an FPS are other examples. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Depends where you are. I've only ever heard it referred to as a NES - pronounced "Ness". Maybe it's an Australian thing, we also referred to the follow up console as a SNES (sness). Acepilot87

Family Computer logo

I took the liberty of replacing the Famicom Family mark with the actual Family Computer logo used on the side portions of the game boxes. The Famicom Family mark was just a Japanese equivalent of the Nintendo Seal of Approval to let consumers know which games and peripherals were officially licensed by Nintendo. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationwide Release Date Inconsistencies

The article has a couple of contradictory statements as to when the console was originally released nationwide:

"Nintendo seeded these first systems to limited American test markets starting in New York City on October 18, 1985, following up with a full-fledged North American release of the console in February of the following year.[18]"

"...the system was test-marketed further beginning in February 1986, with the nationwide release occurring in September 1986."

I'm leaning toward the second statement to be more accurate (especially if the test market release in New York "failed miserably" according to the Philly.com article), but someone should verify this. The reference from the first statement is from a 14 year-old book that I've never read; it's possible that the author mis-interpreted Feb. 1986 to be a nationwide release when it reality it was just another test market release.

• Yes, the second statement is accurate. The first test did not fail miserably (even though only about half the systems were sold, the point was to interest retailers in stocking the system, which they were able to do), but it was a really limited release and they did not have inventory to go nationally until late in 1986. Therefore, they expanded to Los Angeles in February and a few more cities in the months after that before a full nationwide release in the Fall. Indrian (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Technology was not in need of heavy exaggeration"

"By stark contrast, Nintendo's marketing strategy aimed to regain consumer and retailer confidence, by delivering a singular platform whose technology was not in need of heavy exaggeration and whose qualities were clearly defined."

This is clearly an opinion and doesn't belong in Wikipedia: "singular platform" (the three most popular platforms before the NES were singular platforms in their own rights), "technology was not in need of heavy exaggeration" and "qualities were clearly defined". You'll find many games in the NES library which had Nintendo's Seal of Quality and whose covers were exaggerated or lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJaap (talk • contribs) 10:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mjaap: It's a fact (not an opinion) that this was Nintendo's strategy and aim (or corporate opinion). — Smuckola(talk) 13:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola: Then you should have no problems adding sources and quotations to the article, with links. Otherwise it's still an opinion, corporate or otherwise.

Mini NES Redirect: Where to?

Quick question: NES Classic Edition currently redirects here to the bit about it under Legacy. Should it redirect here or to the bit about it here: Nintendo#Future: Mobile, NX, and NES? -- Gestrid (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I would think here would be the better target. If anything, that content could be pared down a bit at Nintendo - its a bit detailed to have that much on something announced today in a 40+ year spanning history section - and put here it here instead. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)