Talk:New-Style NES

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you could simulate the current picture, minus the blur, that would be superb. --Thaddius 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv image replacement 

message: I see someone has tagged the article with a  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)
replies: text: If we had a picture of the NES 2, that might help.  --myselfalso 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge from AV Family Computer

message: Does anyone know if the AV Famicom was still compatible with the Famicom Disk System?--78.105.127.237 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How Hard is it taking out the game cartriage? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Someone Please Rewrite this Article 

message: 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. 81.225.91.222 (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: lack of lockout chip 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Game Genie? 

message: The references for this article are unprofessional and insufficiant.
Web forums such as atariage, Lost Levels, and random pages from http://maru-chang.com/ that could be anything. 
Seriously?
81.186.253.47 (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refimprove 

message: Keep Seperate: I do not want this to be merged. I hate merging. 198.228.228.31 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep 

message: 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)
thread_title:  a clarification on jailbar interference 

message: This thing was discontinued about 2 years after launch (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2019/11/28/nes-console-was-discontinued-these-developers-are-still-making-games-it/), making it one of Nintendo's console failures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:57C:287B:F4EB:19E9 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Duration of the release doesn't indicate a commercial failure. The Mini NES and Mini SNES had notorious short lifecycles and were huge successes. -- ferret (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial failure