A Sprite Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I understand the NES is the more powerful of the two in large tile based sidescrollers, but in 3d, the two seem almost even, and in still picture displays, the 5200 has more colors on tap. What would keep the system from playing something modest like Legend of Zelda or a Final Fantasy? If backgrounds and sprites were simplified, could the 5200 and it's sound chip pull off a Super Mario 3? Also, could 5200 games like 'Rescue On Fractalus!' be done in playable form on the NES hardware? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Ragan Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 It's apples and oranges, man. The two systems have entirely different approaches to creating audiovisuals... the NES uses tiles and sprites, while the 5200 uses bitmapped graphics and player/missiles. I doubt games are going to port well from one system to the other, especially since the 5200's resolution is so low. Having said that, it's worth noting that both systems have 16K of RAM. That surprised the hell out of me, because games like Kirby's Adventure demonstrate a huge improvement over anything available for the Atari 5200. It seems a lot of the later NES games have enhancements in the cartridges themselves, like MMC chips for improved graphics and extra RAM for expanded gameplay. If you were to put these enhancements in a 5200 cartridge, who knows what you could do with the system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phonedork Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 NES kills the Atari 5200! The NES can do anything the Atari 5200 can and better. It would be better to compare the Atari 5200 to the colecovision. NES had only one competition and that was the Sega Master Sytem. Which believe it or not if far superior! Phantasy Star > Final Fantasy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimo Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 It's about 4 times bigger than a NES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atari5200 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 NES kills the Atari 5200! The NES can do anything the Atari 5200 can and better. It would be better to compare the Atari 5200 to the colecovision. NES had only one competition and that was the Sega Master Sytem. Which believe it or not if far superior! Phantasy Star > Final Fantasy! NES also had competition from the TG-16, which is superior to both systems. Just never took off in the states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phonedork Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 NES kills the Atari 5200! The NES can do anything the Atari 5200 can and better. It would be better to compare the Atari 5200 to the colecovision. NES had only one competition and that was the Sega Master Sytem. Which believe it or not if far superior! Phantasy Star > Final Fantasy! NES also had competition from the TG-16, which is superior to both systems. Just never took off in the states. Yea, ..... but it came out right when the genesis came out. Even though the T-graphx 16 was a 8 bit system, it really is catagorized with the likes of the Sega Genesis and Super Nes. The turbographx did have some great games though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 NES kills the Atari 5200! The NES can do anything the Atari 5200 can and better. The NES can't do a 256-color display (it only has a 52-color palette). The NES also needs an extra chip in the cart to do the kind of scrolling that the 5200 can do by default. The biggest strength of the NES over the 5200 is the sprite system. The 5200 can have 4 mono-colored sprites on one line, while the NES supports 8 multi-color sprites on one line. The extra background colors and slightly higher horizontal resolution are just gravy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 The biggest strength of the NES over the 5200 is the sprite system. The 5200 can have 4 mono-colored sprites on one line, while the NES supports 8 multi-color sprites on one line. The extra background colors and slightly higher horizontal resolution are just gravy. Technically it can have 5, but who's counting? Remember that the A8 in all its forms are mid-to-late 70's technology. The chipset holds up pretty well when you consider that the original 400/800 were announced in 1978 (the same time as the inferior VIC-20). When you consider that there's at least 5 years technology difference, it's no wonder most things look better on the NES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuzzed Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 When the 5200 is placed on top of the NES, it squashes it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Climber Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It's not all about graphics, with these two systems controllers are a big part. NES Joypads - excellent! 5200 crapsticks - suck total ass The controllers did the system in if you ask me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+remowilliams Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It's not all about graphics, with these two systems controllers are a big part. NES Joypads - excellent! 5200 crapsticks - suck total ass They both set some pretty long lived standards. Albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phonedork Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I know graphics is not a big part, but the games available are better as well. Plus the controllers are not near as good as the NES. As far as colors go, the NES seems to pull it off better even if there are few colors to choose from. Super Mario 2 for instance is more colorful then any Atari 5200 game. If its an illusion by the NES, it is a good one! I like both systems! But to compare the NES to the Atari 5200 is nonsense. Colecovision is a better comparison to the Atari 5200. Just like Atari 2600 is to Intellivision. Just my un biased opinion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogstar_robot Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 As far as colors go, the NES seems to pull it off better even if there are few colors to choose from. Super Mario 2 for instance is more colorful then any Atari 5200 game. If its an illusion by the NES, it is a good one! I like both systems! But to compare the NES to the Atari 5200 is nonsense. Colecovision is a better comparison to the Atari 5200. Just like Atari 2600 is to Intellivision. Just my un biased opinion! The color palette in most NES games is one of the things that most revolted me about the system. I never had any idea there could be so many shades of beige, mauve, pale pink, and pale green. I'll concede that the NES has all sorts of capabilities that the 5200/A8 doesn't but I'll take the A8's more limited palette as typically used over the NES crungy looking pinky beige anytime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 As far as colors go, the NES seems to pull it off better even if there are few colors to choose from. Super Mario 2 for instance is more colorful then any Atari 5200 game. If its an illusion by the NES, The color palette in most NES games is one of the things that most revolted me about the system. I never had any idea there could be so many shades of beige, mauve, pale pink, and pale green. I'll concede that the NES has all sorts of capabilities that the 5200/A8 doesn't but I'll take the A8's more limited palette as typically used over the NES crungy looking pinky beige anytime. The NES's method of generating the visual output results in really bright colors, but the 2600, 5200, 7800 and XEGS all have many more colors in their palette. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 NES kills the Atari 5200! The NES can do anything the Atari 5200 can and better. It would be better to compare the Atari 5200 to the colecovision. NES had only one competition and that was the Sega Master Sytem. Which believe it or not if far superior! Phantasy Star > Final Fantasy! I love my SMS and NES but you have a very narrow view here. The NES is superior in some respects to the 5200, but not all. The SMS has some advantages over the NES in SOME areas but not all. Nothing is ever so black and white as "X is completely better than Y in every respect". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Having said that, it's worth noting that both systems have 16K of RAM. That surprised the hell out of me, because games like Kirby's Adventure demonstrate a huge improvement over anything available for the Atari 5200. It seems a lot of the later NES games have enhancements in the cartridges themselves, like MMC chips for improved graphics and extra RAM for expanded gameplay. If you were to put these enhancements in a 5200 cartridge, who knows what you could do with the system? In terms of system RAM, the 5200 has more ... 16K, vs. 2K of memory and 2K of video RAM on the NES. The NES has hardware highly dedicated to easily creating games like Kirby's Adventure. It also relies on bankswitched cartridges to provide more storage space than your typically see in 5200 games. The 5200 can have bankwitched games too, but at the time it was in market, this typically wasn't done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfused Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 The 5200 can have bankwitched games too, but at the time it was in market, this typically wasn't done. At the time Atari wouldn't even bother to use the 32K they had. I think most games only use 16K of ROM space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 In terms of system RAM, the 5200 has more ... 16K, vs. 2K of memory and 2K of video RAM on the NES. Yes, but they handle video in different ways. To the NES, everything's a character or a sprite and those are all stored in the cartridge. All you need to create is a list of what goes where (this is also a limitation in some ways). While the Atari can generate graphics in a similar way, many things are still done with a regular bit-mapped screen and that takes RAM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuzaxeman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) different generations. that would be like comparing the nes to the sega genesis. or comparing the 5200 to the intellivision in terms of graphics. nes is probably one the greatest system of all times. however, the 5200 has a great place in gaming history too and is gem if you're a gaming fan. all you people that rip the 5200 for its unreliable controllers better tear the nes for its crappy hardware/carts loading inconsistency. how many times do you have to blow that damn cart to get it to work? how about 800xl vs nes? graphics the nes is better than the 5200/8 bit. but if you really look at games and comparisons to the xl/xe, the 8bit has many games the nes could never do the same (alternate reality, mule, eidolon, koronis rift, 7 cities of gold). also, games like donkey kong and karateka are much better on the atari computers than the nes. i think the xl computer has a lot to offer in terms of games that the nes doesn't have. keep in mind, im a huge fan of the nes and even have it emulated on my htc excaliber phone. Edited January 4, 2008 by phuzaxeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethane Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 The NES was introduced in Japan in 1983, so its hardware design is a few years after where the 5200 came from. There's a huge disparity between the designer's intent on both systems as well. It seems to me that the 5200's designers were thinking that games would move away from the tile and sprite designs that popular arcade games used, and gamers would prefer a more computer-gaming like experience; so the 5200 seems like their way to bridge the gap, what all with only four player characters and 4 "missile" characters and a huge chunk of RAM. The NES on the other hand was designed to cheaply and effeciently mimic the arcade model. It had 64 4-color (one invisible) sprites and an easy time laying out the tiled playfield, which didn't require much RAM at all. The Turbografx is built on the same concept, it's like a superpowered NES but even then it only has 8k of RAM (64kVRAM). All that aside, and in a better world where Atari didn't mess up so bad, I think that the 5200 with the right developers and more time could have competed against the NES. Heck, that goes without saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phonedork Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 different generations. that would be like comparing the nes to the sega genesis. or comparing the 5200 to the intellivision in terms of graphics. nes is probably one the greatest system of all times. however, the 5200 has a great place in gaming history too and is gem if you're a gaming fan. all you people that rip the 5200 for its unreliable controllers better tear the nes for its crappy hardware/carts loading inconsistency. how many times do you have to blow that damn cart to get it to work? how about 800xl vs nes? graphics the nes is better than the 5200/8 bit. but if you really look at games and comparisons to the xl/xe, the 8bit has many games the nes could never do the same (alternate reality, mule, eidolon, koronis rift, 7 cities of gold). also, games like donkey kong and karateka are much better on the atari computers than the nes. i think the xl computer has a lot to offer in terms of games that the nes doesn't have. keep in mind, im a huge fan of the nes and even have it emulated on my htc excaliber phone. Mule and Donkey Kong do look better on the NES! However, I really dont know how to play MULE, so I cant say for the playability. I am pretty sure NES could pull all those games off. But it may have a different graphics engine. But saying that, I doubt Atari 5200 could pull off those wonderful Supermario and Zelda titles! I mean check out that wanna be Zelda title called Irata's Quest. Not even close! Even though its a demo, there just does not appear to be enough sprites to make it NES quality. Plus I think people should not rip on the NES. It was one of the systems that helped define the next generation of games. Imagine the world without Maro and Zelda! Yes I also know that without Atari's Adventure, there would propably not be a Zelda. But the NES still deserves just as much credit as Atari! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BydoEmpire Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I mean check out that wanna be Zelda title called Irata's Quest. Not even close!It's been a few years since I've played Zelda on the NES, but Adventure 2 doesn't seem "that" far off. In some ways - the grass swaying in the breeze, etc - I think it might look better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phonedork Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Maybe the grass swaying thing is more animated on Adventure 2, but Zelda appears to be a far busier game. Alot of things are going on at the same time. Lots of characters on screen and so fourth. Adventure 2 is the best looking game on Atari 5200 and yet its busiest part is when the Dragon and the Goblin is on the same screen which does show flicker. Adventure 2 has more replayability though, and as of right now I prefer Adventure 2 over Zelda. I am just comparing more of what I have seen. I hear all this about more color and ram on the Atari 5200, but I have not seen a game on it that looks better than Adventure 2 or more busier then a game like Robotron. Which is not saying much! Whatever magic Nintendo does works! I love both systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Player Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 One way the 5200 tops the NES: I've never had a problem loading a game on the 5200. I really liked a lot of the games on my NES but I have never collected for the system because of this problem. I've also never touched a Super Nintendo. I do own an N64 and it has worked perfectly for me, so it's nice to see they fixed their problem. It's tough to compare games between the two systems, since the 5200 had such a shorter life and never got any expanded cartridges. I'm assuming that with extra RAM and ROM, the 5200 could run a game like Yoomp? http://yoomp.atari.pl/media.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 It seems to me that the 5200's designers were thinking that games would move away from the tile and sprite designs that popular arcade games used, and gamers would prefer a more computer-gaming like experience No, the 5200's designers were thinking, "How can we can take an Atari 400 and turn it into a game console?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.