Talk:Nintendo Entertainment System (Model NES-101)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

rv image replacement[edit]

The originally-included image (Image:Nes 2.PNG) was blurrier, I agree, but it also shows a better view of the item. The image replacing it (Image:Toploader.jpg) is clearer, but not as well representative of the item in question as the original was in showing the entire product, the controller mechanism, etc. — THOR 14:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a top loading NES and a digital camera, I could try to take some photos if someone thinks they could be used in this article, let me know what you want to see. Stardust8212 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If you could simulate the current picture, minus the blur, that would be superb. --Thaddius 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestion[edit]

I see someone has tagged the article with a {{mergewith}} request. In practice, I'd agree that the information belongs with the main Nintendo Entertainment System article, but the simple fact is that the NES article is already lengthy, and throwing in everything from this page would likely make it far too much to handle. It's a simple issue of practicality, and it's a lot less arbitrary than a number of other ways in which we could split the articles. So I'm going to voice my opposition to the request. – Seancdaug 16:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I also vote to keep it separate. --Shinyplasticbag 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep it seperate. --User: Me.

I think it should definitely be merged with the AV Famicom page, though. The systems are virtually identical, and the NES and Famicom share a page, after all. Merging the articles would also present a good opportunity to change the name of this article. The redesigned NES was never officially named the "NES 2," and considering the very real possibility of the Nintendo Revolution being named the "NES2," it might be a good idea to avoid any confusion by choosing a more accurate name for this article. Roboman 03:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The AV Famicom and NES 2 are fundamentally different in a number of ways, and therefore the pages on the two units should not be merged. Here are the major differences: 1) NES 2 plays NES carts, AV Famicom plays Famicom carts, 2) the top of the NES 2 where you plug in the cartridge is rounded, whereas in the AV Famicom it is flat to accommodate the Famicom Disk System adapter, 3) the AV Famicom has AV plug video only, NES 2 has RF-out video only, and 4) the NES 2 lacks the 15-pin accessory port that the AV Famicom has on its right side (the port was never on any US hardware). -Smiley

If those differences are enough to keep the "NES 2" and AV Famicom, why do the NES and the Famicom share a page? They're entirely different designs! The AV Famicom and "NES 2" are slightly modified versions of the same design. Roboman 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If we had a picture of the NES 2, that might help. --myselfalso 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not merge them, but put each under different sections and call it "NES redesigns"? --Mr Toasty 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seperate I vote seperate because the differences they contain from their originals are vastly different, and there a differences between the actual two products in the first place. However, for what it's worth, I would vote seperating the Famicom and the NES articles, as well. --Shadic 5 July, 2006

Merge Why not? NES ans SNES are combined with Super/Famicom, whats the big deal? There can just be an explination of the differences. Navarro 06:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to merge them, honestly. They look alike, but are very different in a number of respects (entirely different connectors, different purpose and role in their respective markets, etc.). An "NES redesigns" article just doesn't strike me as a particularly strong concept for a page: what's important in both cases is not how the AVF and the NES2 are different from each other, but how they're different from the original NES/Famicom. It just doesn't seem like there's enough overlap between the two to integrate them into one article effectively, and I honestly don't see what's preferable about one article divided into two essentially unrelated sections over just keeping both articles to begin with. I really don't see the problem: neither article is a stub, and there's not really any significant redundancy in the text or information. It seems a lot more sensible to keep them seperate at this point. – Seancdaug 07:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote that the pages merge. They have different names, yes, but they are only different in that way and a slight motherboard modification. Overall, they are the same. (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)iMacLover65

Merge: It should be noted that, despite hardware and name differences, the Famicom and NES share the same article. They should be merged. --Thaddius (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Seperate: I do not think they should be merged, I think as it stands Wiki is a resource for collectors who may wonder what item they have, or how it is different from another model. The differences are significant enought to justify the extra page. To draw an extreme example, should the Wiki pages for the Harry Potter books be combined with the justification that they are similar overall with slight differences in plot? (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep Seperate: It would be inaccurate to merge this article with NES 2 as the two machines are quite different despite bearing cosmetic similarities. The NES 2 was RF-out only, as a cost-saving measure; the AV Famicom had composite video output and was designed specifically to overcome the problem of newer Japanese TV sets lacking RF inputs. the NES2 also featured the 10NES lockout chip system, whilst the AV Famicom did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the NES 2 did NOT feature the 10NES lockout chip as you said. The 10NES lockout chip was removed from all "version 2" models of the NES/Famicom and that was a major benefit of the updated design. WAT (talk contributions) 04:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge from AV Family Computer[edit]

I'm adding a merge request with the "NES 2" article. A "New NES/AV Famicom" page would be ideal, in my opinion. I would like to get rid of using the phrase "NES 2" - it's not an official name of the system, as is suggested. Roboman 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The AV Famicom and NES 2 are fundamentally different in a number of ways, and therefore the pages on the two units should not be merged. Here are the major differences: 1) NES 2 plays NES carts, AV Famicom plays Famicom carts, 2) the top of the NES 2 where you plug in the cartridge is rounded, whereas in the AV Famicom it is flat to accommodate the Famicom Disk System adapter, 3) the AV Famicom has AV plug video only, NES 2 has RF-out video only, and 4) the NES 2 lacks the 15-pin accessory port that the AV Famicom has on its right side (the port was never on any US hardware). -Smiley

If those differences are enough to keep the "NES 2" and AV Famicom from sharing a page, than why do the NES and the Famicom share a page? Roboman 23:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the NES page serves as a general overview of the platform itself, in all of its various release formats. It places an emphasis on the original models, but it also refers to the newer models, hardware clones, and even emulation, with links to the appropriate satellite articles. These two articles expand upon the information presented in the main article. It doesn't need to duplicate the history, the technical specifications, or any of the other information presented in the main article. As it is, the AV Famicom and the NES 2 are not the same system: they share a similar form factor, but have different histories and were produced for very different reasons (the AV Famicom was created to address the problem that older model Famicoms could not be hooked up to newer Japanese TVs). In principle, I could see merging both articles into the main NES article, but I feel that such a solution is inappropriate here, given the length of that article. Merging this and NES 2 implies a relationship between the two systems that, frankly, does not exist. To me, it seems roughly analgous to merging Game Boy Color with Game Boy Advance: they have similarities, and share a common heritage, but they're manifestly not the same thing. – Seancdaug 00:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Your GB Color/Advance comparsion doesn't work. The Advance is a huge upgrade, a 32-bit handheld over the 8-bit Game Boy, as well as having different cartridges and a horitzontal orientation. It is clearly the successor to the Game Boy Color. Yes, the reasons behind the AV Famicom and the NES 2 are different, but I don't believe this alone justifies the article division. - Hbdragon88 04:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the "reasons behind" the systems that are different, though. The only factors uniting the two systems are that they feature a similar (though not identical) form factor and are redesigns of the original NES/Famicom console. Again, different histories, different hardware (connectors), and different role in the marketplace. I can understand wanting to merge both into the main Nintendo Entertainment System article, since that's a logical place to discuss variants and clones of the system. That's not really an acceptable solution in this case, though, because the NES article is already so long. But while I grant you that, ultimately, both the NES 2 and the AV Famicom are intellectually encompassed by the NES/Famicom article, they are different enough from each other that if we're going to deal with them as seperate from the "mother" article at all, we should recognize that they're not the same thing. I don't really see the problem with the current setup, anyway: neither article is a stub, and each links to the other. I also don't quite understand what benefit the researcher would gain from a merger, and suspect it would overemphasize the similarities between the two. Above and beyond the fact that they're both NES derivates, I simply do not see enough common ground between the two for a merger to work. – Seancdaug 06:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone know if the AV Famicom was still compatible with the Famicom Disk System?-- (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How Hard is it taking out the game cartriage?[edit]

After you finish playing a game, you take out the cartriage. Is it easy or hard to take out the game cartriage comparing to one of the Nintendo top loader systems and front loader systems.

It's beyond easy, seriously.Coffee4binky (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of wrong facts.[edit]

I removed the last paragraph due to the "facts" being 100% wrong. It seems like somebody has a anti-NES 2 bias and chose to write a bunch of things about "users" and functions of the machine and components without citing a one damned source. If I did that for a newspaper or a college class, I'd be in trouble for usage of improper citation, lacking of provision for evidence and POV, and improper grammar and English language usage in structure and composition.

The lie about the Game Genie made me laugh, as I've owned a Galoob Game Genie for the NES since 1990 or 1991, whenever the NES model was released originally so long ago. This Game Genie works just fine in my NES 2 as well as in my original NES. The author of the entry lied by informing readers that Galoob made a second model. I know a second model wasn't made, otherwise it would've been in all of the magazines of the times (EGM, Gamepro, Next Generation, Game Players, VideoGames, and Die Hard GameFan, plus some other smaller magazines published by these groups that are console-specific) never reported a "change" in the NES models of the Game Genie.

Also, NES 2 consoles aren't selling for $150 on eBay at all. I bought two before July. One was for $25, plus shipping, that came to about $35 and included five games. The second one I bought for somebody else came in at $15, two controllers, a Game Genie, three games, and a magazine (Nintendo Power, old issue). After shipping, was about $25.

If this site and these articles are so to be "encyclopedic", then this data must be verifiable to the Nth degree, otherwise stupid rumors get started, so forth and so on, etc. (Not just this topic, but all topics.)

I forgot to mention that the NES 2 has no problem playing European PAL games in the American NTSC model. I imported Parodius from Palcom and some other PAL NES games from Germany back in 1994, and all of these played just fine in the NES 2. Also, most unlicensed and pirate NES carts (the few that exist) and FamiCom games with the pin adapter works just fine. I've never had better compatibility with any machine that exists with the NES 2.

Now, don't cite my experience as a fact, because I'm unpublished, and it would be fair to cite an NES worship website who has also done these things.

Coffee4binky (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note - top loaders have a design flaw of their own, which causes lines in the image. I believe it is caused by an RF leak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Coffee4binky, I went back in the logs and read the paragraph that you removed, and I actually disagree with a lot of your reasoning, even though I am not going to revert your change. You say that it had a very "anti-NES 2 bias," but why is it necessary for the article to have a pro-NES 2 bias? There should be no bias at all. Both the good and the bad should be included.
As for the content of that paragraph, I know where about 90% of it originated from. It is pretty much a recap of The Gaming Historian's (aka mcfrosticles or Norman) NES 2 review ( Now I am not saying that his review is the final word on everything NES 2, but the points he raises are valid ones. I also think whoever transcribed that paragraph, lost the original meaning of what the video review was conveying.
I agree about the price figures you gave out, but the paragraph said that they can go for $150 with the original box and manual. A used console without that is clearly going to go for less. You could have added your additional information, as that figure is correct.
Galoob did not release a new version of the Game Genie, I agree. That's not what the paragraph said though. It said that Galoob released an adapter for the Game Genie to help it work with the NES 2. This is true, but I cannot find a source to quote on this.
The part about the RF connector in the paragraph is definitely worth noting also. The NES 2 removed the composite output jacks and only left in a shitty quality RF connector for output. That's a big deal.
Your last paragraph is on point. That should be noted in the article I think.
If I have time, I might slowly inject all these facts back into the article.
WAT (talk contributions) 02:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NES 2 vs. Top-loading NES[edit]

What fucking idiot made the page move from "NES 2" to "Top-loading NES"? The NES 2 is the name that it is officially known by. Also the same fucking idiot that made the page move then decided to not update the article to reflect so. It still mentions NES 2 everywhere. I am going to figure how to move it back to NES 2. lol (talk · contribs) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm it down, sunshine. Can you please point to what reliable source claims that it is "officially" called NES2? Because all "official" materials I've seen refer to this as a "Nintendo Entertainment System Control Deck" and nothing more. As the actual most common name is "Toploader", but that is also an ambiguous title, I moved it to "Top-loading NES". Also, as this isn't /b/, so please try to avoid personal attacks. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, shouldn't of been an asshole about it. Your point in that it really has the same name as the NES is a good one. It's the same machine and product as the NES, different in only the model number and design changes. Maybe it shouldn't have its' own article after all. I don't know. All I know is that I hear people refer to it as the NES 2 way more than the Toploader. A google search for "NES 2" (with quotes) returns 173,000 results, a search for "NES Toploader" (without quotes) returns 28,900 results, and a search for "Nintendo Toploader" returns 55,00 results. These figures are all relative too, they could mean jack shit. WAT (talk contributions) 01:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You just thought I was an idiot, instead of incredibly lazy. That's a common mistake. See, I'm not sure about the title either. I'd have merged it into one of the NES article if I thought there was room and people wouldn't flip. Some people objected enough to the AV Family Computer being merged in. If anyone has some better ideas, feel free. I don't really care what title it's at, as there probably isn't a "right one". ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I am glad that you agree with merging it into the NES article, because that is where it should be in my opinion. They are all the same machine. I think it need to be done like the Casing section of the SNES article. There were multiple versions the SNES too (Super Famicom JR. and SNES 2), similar to history of the NES, and they are all listed under a casing section. It makes sense. I have justification to do it because you agree, I just have to find the time and patience to do so. Since there are so many differences in the different NES models, it is going to have to be done smartly and so it looks clean. Maybe it could be sorted out by model numbers. I know the American versions are NES-001 and NES-101 but I am not sure about the Famicom versions.
WAT (talk contributions) 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no personal interest one way or the other, really. After your first post, I asked at WT:VG about the title, and everyone seems to be onboard for a merge. I think perhaps it should be into History of the Nintendo Entertainment System more than NES, but either way. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
But the not-editing was pure laze on my part. I also could have done more to smooth that merge... ah well. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be incorporated into both articles. WAT (talk contributions) 04:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone Please Rewrite this Article[edit]

It's seriously not very well written. The facts are there, but the style is very unprofessional. Eggness (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: lack of lockout chip[edit]

I'm pretty sure there are some games that expect to be run in PAL format (The europe-only Asterix, for instance IIRC) so it won't work on an NTSC toploader in spite of the absence of a lockout chip. This should probably be mentioned. If someone could help verify this, it could be added. (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Game Genie?[edit]

I read on eBay that the Game Genie won't work with this version. True? Hill of Beans (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


The references for this article are unprofessional and insufficiant.

Web forums such as atariage, Lost Levels, and random pages from that could be anything.

Seriously? (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


Keep Seperate: I do not want this to be merged. I hate merging. (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

a clarification on jailbar interference[edit]

The jailbar interference pattern is not due to poor design of the RF modulator on the Top Loading NES. It is due to the layout of the main printed circuit board, specifically the traces running next to the video output pin of the PPU. This is where the interference occurs, and it is ALSO found on the original 1983 famicom due to a very similar board layout. I have both a famicom and a top loading NES and can confirm this. I feel that the misleading information on the article page should be removed. Wyatt8740 (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)