Stores weren't stocking video game consoles in Japan either. I really don't think people would equate all video game consoles as being the same. Technology was moving fast at this time, and when a kid gets a taste of a game like Super Mario Bros, they will want the console since there is software they want to play with. There was practically a guarantee of market demand, and the software demoed well with American kids. I don't believe the perception was that much of an actual roadblock to shipping the famicom. I feel like if you were to ask kids if they wanted a NES because it looked like a VCR they would look at you funny. They would want it for the games.

That’s the standard story, yes.

What’s always been missing from it for me is whether it actually mattered.

The NES wasn’t cheap. It didn’t do anything but play video games. Did its looking kinda (but not really) like some other piece of AV equipment (but having no other actual capabilities) contribute meaningfully to its success? Were a lot of its buyers, who weren’t exactly making an impulse purchase, swayed by the appearance?

I kinda doubt it. Meanwhile, the redesign did make it less-reliable than its Japanese counterpart.

The only thing anyone needed to aid their perception and reboot the video game market in north America was 15-20 minutes with super mario bros. I knew a lot of people with an NES and not one of them could care less about how front-loading or VCR-like it was. Everyone, including the adults, knew a fun time when they saw it.

Nintendo already had an answer to the problem of people being afraid of the low quality games that gave Atari a bad name, and that was their "Seal of Quality" which ultimately didn't end up meaning much since shovelware has always been an issue with Nintendo (especially when it came to their handhelds). Still, their first party games were good enough that Nintendo could keep selling consoles even when there were few other games worth buying for them.