The marked difference in 7800 games

[DracIsBack]

I have to say, after playing PLUTOS and SIRIUS (thanks again guys), I'm again floored by the difference in quality between some 7800 developers vs. others.

 

I firmly believe that the 7800 was really hurt by the lack of investment in game production which includes:

 

• Development time
  
• Available storage space
  
• Cartridge extras (RAM, mappers, battery saves)
  
• The quality of developer given the assignment
  

I also belief it was hurt by the fact that developers didn't "learn the tricks of the trade and apply to later releases" because the system was dead "later".

 

I mean - Plutos and Sirius were the first games these guys did on the 7800. Midnight Mutants was the first game that Radioactive did on the 7800. Ken Grant's first game (as far as I know) was Alien Brigade.

 

Compare those releases to Ibid Inc's releases ... Choplifter and Karateka. There's a world of difference. Ibid Inc, on the other hand, had limited dev time, limited storage space and obviously some dev issues (observing Karateka).

 

Now imagine what would have happened had Plutos and Sirius's developers come back for "round two"?

 

Shame Jack didn't want to invest. I don't believe the world saw what the 7800 could do.

[aftermac]

I believe if the 7800 had been given a proper launch and promotion in 1984 then Nintendo might never have gotten a foothold in the U.S. market.

[supercat]

Shame Jack didn't want to invest. I don't believe the world saw what the 7800 could do.

 

It's also a shame the MARIA seems to have been pushed out without developers having a chance to thrash out a prototype and have some changes incorporated. The chip has some serious limitations which could have been fixed with very little cost if the hardware designers realized they would pose problems.

• Kangaroo mode really needs to be changeable within a display list. If the flag for a 'long' display-list item were a width >24 rather than just a width of 32, there would have been enough bits in a 5-byte display list entry to accomplish that (holey DMA could also be set there, if desired).
  
• Having pixels in write mode 2 be non-transparent if any data bit was set would have made the 320 modes much more useful, but would have also helped in 160 mode (since it would allow an opaque pixel to show the background color)
  
• A read mode which would allow each 160-mode pixel to either display as one full-width 12-color pixel or a pair of 3-color pixels would have been extremely helpful, and not hard to implement in hardware.
  
• Especially given that Laserdisc support was anticipated, line length should have been selectable as 227.5 or 228 chroma clocks, and frame length as 262, 262.5, or 263 lines. Synchronization with a CAV Laserdisc would require 227.5/262.5; optimal display without using artifacting would be achieved with 227.5/263. Optimal display with artifacting would probably use either 228/262 or 227.5/262.
  
• Not being able to tell anything about where the beam is (other than at the start of each frame) is a real pain. Being able to read out the current scan counter or display-list address would have been very helpful. I don't see much need for reading out palette registers, so address space should not have been a problem.
  
• Having a read of address $3F return the LSB of the address of the current display-list item would have been very handy, especially if the byte before would always read $4C. Point the interrupt vector at $003E, store the MSB of a vector-table address at $40, and interrupts could be dispatched directly where they need to go with minimal cost.
  
• IRQ would have been nicer than NMI. If the above approach were used, address $3E could serve to clear the IRQ latch.
  

With those changes, the 7800 could have really given the NES a run for its money. As things are, it's sorta weak.

[DracIsBack]

Shame Jack didn't want to invest. I don't believe the world saw what the 7800 could do.

 

It's also a shame the MARIA seems to have been pushed out without developers having a chance to thrash out a prototype and have some changes incorporated. The chip has some serious limitations which could have been fixed with very little cost if the hardware designers realized they would pose problems.

• Kangaroo mode really needs to be changeable within a display list. If the flag for a 'long' display-list item were a width >24 rather than just a width of 32, there would have been enough bits in a 5-byte display list entry to accomplish that (holey DMA could also be set there, if desired).
  
• Having pixels in write mode 2 be non-transparent if any data bit was set would have made the 320 modes much more useful, but would have also helped in 160 mode (since it would allow an opaque pixel to show the background color)
  
• A read mode which would allow each 160-mode pixel to either display as one full-width 12-color pixel or a pair of 3-color pixels would have been extremely helpful, and not hard to implement in hardware.
  
• Especially given that Laserdisc support was anticipated, line length should have been selectable as 227.5 or 228 chroma clocks, and frame length as 262, 262.5, or 263 lines. Synchronization with a CAV Laserdisc would require 227.5/262.5; optimal display without using artifacting would be achieved with 227.5/263. Optimal display with artifacting would probably use either 228/262 or 227.5/262.
  
• Not being able to tell anything about where the beam is (other than at the start of each frame) is a real pain. Being able to read out the current scan counter or display-list address would have been very helpful. I don't see much need for reading out palette registers, so address space should not have been a problem.
  
• Having a read of address $3F return the LSB of the address of the current display-list item would have been very handy, especially if the byte before would always read $4C. Point the interrupt vector at $003E, store the MSB of a vector-table address at $40, and interrupts could be dispatched directly where they need to go with minimal cost.
  
• IRQ would have been nicer than NMI. If the above approach were used, address $3E could serve to clear the IRQ latch.
  

With those changes, the 7800 could have really given the NES a run for its money. As things are, it's sorta weak.

 

Yes ... you've mentioned these things a few times.

[Rik]

Bad decisions screwed over the 7800 pretty good,something only Atari did so well.Very unique games for this system,i love it.If only it had better sound hardware,it would be so damn sweet!

[guyjin]

I believe if the 7800 had been given a proper launch and promotion in 1984 then Nintendo might never have gotten a foothold in the U.S. market.

 

Pardon my saying so, but that is unlikely. by 1984, most of Atari's cohorts (3rd party software devs) were dying or dead; Nintendo's were just getting started. Assuming the Exclusivity agreements remained in place, Atari would still have struggled to get good software out the door.

 

as long as we're playing "what if", I think the only way the 7800 could have succeded, is if A) the tramiels bugger off AND B) Nintendo doesn't pull exclusivity AND C) the Master System doesn't kick both their butts.

[Gregory DG]

I believe if the 7800 had been given a proper launch and promotion in 1984 then Nintendo might never have gotten a foothold in the U.S. market.

Pardon my saying so, but that is unlikely. by 1984, most of Atari's cohorts (3rd party software devs) were dying or dead; Nintendo's were just getting started. Assuming the Exclusivity agreements remained in place, Atari would still have struggled to get good software out the door.

Not to mention that the retailers HATED Atari after getting stuck with all that product. They wouldn't have carried Nintendo either if they hadn't marketed the NES as a toy rather than a video game.

[DracIsBack]

I believe if the 7800 had been given a proper launch and promotion in 1984 then Nintendo might never have gotten a foothold in the U.S. market.

 

Pardon my saying so, but that is unlikely. by 1984, most of Atari's cohorts (3rd party software devs) were dying or dead; Nintendo's were just getting started. Assuming the Exclusivity agreements remained in place, Atari would still have struggled to get good software out the door.

 

as long as we're playing "what if", I think the only way the 7800 could have succeded, is if A) the tramiels bugger off AND B) Nintendo doesn't pull exclusivity AND C) the Master System doesn't kick both their butts.

 

Agree. it's not as simple as Atari "releasing on time" as the whole channel hated video games and villified Atari for the crash. Nintendo had to go to great lengths to restore it and I thing Atari would have had a harder time with the Atari name on it.

 

Sega would have their own issues with Tonka though. Master System was great, but geez Tonka did an awful job with it.

[aftermac]

I believe if the 7800 had been given a proper launch and promotion in 1984 then Nintendo might never have gotten a foothold in the U.S. market.

 

Pardon my saying so, but that is unlikely. by 1984, most of Atari's cohorts (3rd party software devs) were dying or dead; Nintendo's were just getting started. Assuming the Exclusivity agreements remained in place, Atari would still have struggled to get good software out the door.

 

as long as we're playing "what if", I think the only way the 7800 could have succeded, is if A) the tramiels bugger off AND B) Nintendo doesn't pull exclusivity AND C) the Master System doesn't kick both their butts.

 

Agree. it's not as simple as Atari "releasing on time" as the whole channel hated video games and villified Atari for the crash. Nintendo had to go to great lengths to restore it and I thing Atari would have had a harder time with the Atari name on it.

 

Sega would have their own issues with Tonka though. Master System was great, but geez Tonka did an awful job with it.

 

I also agree that it wouldn't have been as simple as releasing it on time. That's why I qualified my statement by saying with a "proper launch and promotion". It would have taken work on Atari's part to mend fences, but the 7800 bundled with say, Ms. Pac Man would have gotten the console off to a good start.

 

Of course the 3rd party developers were dead or dying. When the maker of the console you develop for says they're done with video games, that's kinda what happens. Perhaps if Atari had stuck it out instead of taking 3 years off, some of the 3rd party NES developers would have developed for the 7800 also.

 

We can "what if" and speculate all day long, but my main point is that a 3 year hiatus from video games did nothing good for Atari.

[Mord]

I believe if the 7800 had been given a proper launch and promotion in 1984 then Nintendo might never have gotten a foothold in the U.S. market.

Pardon my saying so, but that is unlikely. by 1984, most of Atari's cohorts (3rd party software devs) were dying or dead; Nintendo's were just getting started. Assuming the Exclusivity agreements remained in place, Atari would still have struggled to get good software out the door.

Not to mention that the retailers HATED Atari after getting stuck with all that product. They wouldn't have carried Nintendo either if they hadn't marketed the NES as a toy rather than a video game.

 

Even then, Nintendo had trouble selling the NES to stores until they took the plunge and offered a return guarantee on unsold product. After that the stores started picking it up since they wouldn't get stuck with crap again like what happened with Atari.

 

--

Mord

[Dr. Morbis]

Perhaps if Atari had stuck it out instead of taking 3 years off, some of the 3rd party NES developers would have developed for the 7800 also.

I think you're forgetting the fact that most of Nintendo's third party developers were Japanese (rather than the same tired American ones who had gone around the block with Atari) and Japanese companies are *very* loyal to their own, if you know what I mean

 

I hate to say it, but there is no easy way for the 7800 to have succeeded. It just wasn't as simple as releasing it early or whatever else; all those old arcade games were tired and the system lacked INNOVATION, while the NES and its games were new and fresh and had innovation in spades. It would have taken Jesus himself to make the 7800 trump Nintendo

Edited April 3, 2008 by Dr. Morbis

[Atarifever]

It would have taken Jesus himself to make the 7800 trump Nintendo

And even Wisdom Tree was on the side of the NES, so no help there.

[aftermac]

Perhaps if Atari had stuck it out instead of taking 3 years off, some of the 3rd party NES developers would have developed for the 7800 also.

I think you're forgetting the fact that most of Nintendo's third party developers were Japanese (rather than the same tired American ones who had gone around the block with Atari) and Japanese companies are *very* loyal to their own, if you know what I mean

 

I hate to say it, but there is no easy way for the 7800 to have succeeded. It just wasn't as simple as releasing it early or whatever else; all those old arcade games were tired and the system lacked INNOVATION, while the NES and its games were new and fresh and had innovation in spades. It would have taken Jesus himself to make the 7800 trump Nintendo

 

All good points, so let me ask this: Do you think the 7800 would have been more or less successful had it been released in 1984 instead of 1987?

 

I think we can all agree that the 7800 had it's short comings, but so did the 2600 and it held off CV and INTV. Nintendo itself was worried about competing with Atari in the US market, hence the deal to slap an Atari brand on the NES that fell through (another Atari mistake).

 

Even if the 7800 could have maintained a 25% market share in the US after the NES was released, it could have maintained the Atari brand enough to segue to a new console... whether that be the XEGS or something else. By 1987, Atari was so far removed from the public mindset that there was no chance for a new console to succeed... especially one that was underpowered.

 

An even better scenario would have been to develop the 7800 instead of the 5200 and release it in 1982, because other than the controllers the big knock against the 5200 was a lack of 2600 compatibility, but I digress...

[DracIsBack]

All good points, so let me ask this: Do you think the 7800 would have been more or less successful had it been released in 1984 instead of 1987?

 

Maybe. If:

- Warner's ad plan had continued instead of Jack's wimpy little chump change plan. At least then, there would be more awareness.

- Atari had changed development course immediately when they saw what Nintendo's games were like. Instead of waiting until 1989/90 for the likes of Alien Brigade, Scrapyard Dog, Commando, Midnight Mutants, Sirius etc, games of that ilk would have been a pile more helpful in 1986 when the 7800 was on shelves.

 

By 1987, Atari was so far removed from the public mindset that there was no chance for a new console to succeed... especially one that was underpowered.

 

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It's not "underpowered" I'm so sick of this black-or-white explanation. It's also no "out of date". Both the 7800 and NES are 6502 based systems with equivilant RAM memory. Processing power has nothing to do with this. the 7800 was designed in 1983/4. The NES was out in Japan in 1983 as the Famicom.

 

What has been established is that the NES has some specific advantages that make it very efficient in generating graphics that were used in popular tile-based side scrollers. The 7800 has a different methods of creating graphics which give it advantages at different kinds of games. However, this is not the same thing as "cannot play NES type games". It's saying it is more work to get that result. And with the developers Atari had in their roster, there wasn't time, money, talent or will to do that work. If I get one more person saying "I hear it can't do side-scrollers" or "I hear it can't vertically scroll" or "I hear it can't move around a bunch of objects and have a background at the same time", I'm going to blow up.

 

And as I said in my original point (which got hijacked by yet another dissection into a technical analysis), the right talent wasn't on the system. Regardless of what the system's strengths and weaknesses were, there is a very marked difference between the work of some developers vs. others on that same chipset.

[aftermac]

By 1987, Atari was so far removed from the public mindset that there was no chance for a new console to succeed... especially one that was underpowered.

 

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It's not "underpowered" I'm so sick of this black-or-white explanation. It's also no "out of date". Both the 7800 and NES are 6502 based systems with equivilant RAM memory. Processing power has nothing to do with this. the 7800 was designed in 1983/4. The NES was out in Japan in 1983 as the Famicom.

 

What has been established is that the NES has some specific advantages that make it very efficient in generating graphics that were used in popular tile-based side scrollers. The 7800 has a different methods of creating graphics which give it advantages at different kinds of games. However, this is not the same thing as "cannot play NES type games". It's saying it is more work to get that result. And with the developers Atari had in their roster, there wasn't time, money, talent or will to do that work. If I get one more person saying "I hear it can't do side-scrollers" or "I hear it can't vertically scroll" or "I hear it can't move around a bunch of objects and have a background at the same time", I'm going to blow up.

 

And as I said in my original point (which got hijacked by yet another dissection into a technical analysis), the right talent wasn't on the system. Regardless of what the system's strengths and weaknesses were, there is a very marked difference between the work of some developers vs. others on that same chipset.

 

Underpowered, was probably the wrong wording... and wasn't was directed toward the processor, memory, or even a direct comparison with the NES... I understand the hardware... However, releasing 1983/4 technology in 1987 might not have been the best course of action.

 

I didn't mean to hijack your thread, my original comment was just wishful thinking that if the 7800 was released earlier, so might have been games of this quality, and the 7800 might have been a competitive gaming console. Since then, I've been defending my comment.

[DracIsBack]

Underpowered, was probably the wrong wording... and wasn't was directed toward the processor, memory, or even a direct comparison with the NES... I understand the hardware... However, releasing 1983/4 technology in 1987 might not have been the best course of action.

 

I think it has little relevance actually ... at least in that time in the market.

 

 

Remember:

 

- you've got the NES, which was released in North America in 1985, but was in market in Japan in 1983.

 

- You've got the 7800, which was ready to go in 1984, but held back until 1986.

 

- You've got the Sega Master system, which was in market (albeit in a slightly earlier form) in 1983 in Japan and not released until 1986/7.

 

So in short, the three systems were all 1983/4 technology that all got delayed because of "the crash".

[aftermac]

Remember:

 

- you've got the NES, which was released in North America in 1985, but was in market in Japan in 1983.

 

- You've got the 7800, which was ready to go in 1984, but held back until 1986.

 

- You've got the Sega Master system, which was in market (albeit in a slightly earlier form) in 1983 in Japan and not released until 1986/7.

 

So in short, the three systems were all 1983/4 technology that all got delayed because of "the crash".

 

So as I was saying, the NES was first to launch, thus giving it 100% US market share and a healthy head start on the Master System and 7800.

 

After this Sega regrouped and beat the SNES to market by two years with the Genesis. Even though the SNES eventually won, it was a hard fought battle. If the SNES had been first to market, the Genesis probably would have been just another Master System. Atari, simply chose not to compete in the 16 or 32-bit generation. Being first to market does matter.

 

Essentially, there is no way of knowing what would have happened, but it's been fun discussing it.

Edited April 3, 2008 by aftermac

[DracIsBack]

So as I was saying, the NES was first to launch, thus giving it 100% US market share and a healthy head start on the Master System and 7800.

 

True (though marketshare was more like 80% when all three systems were going at it full force).

 

 

After this Sega regrouped and beat the SNES to market by two years with the Genesis. Even though the SNES eventually won, it was a hard fought battle.

 

It was an awesome fight. I can't think of another quite like it. Even though I like Nintendo now, I was so glad that Sega looked at them sitting smuggly on their pedistal and kicked them square in the crotch. They totally deserved to be taken down about three pegs and they were. They had to fight to win and, in North America, they barely pulled it off after Sega lost focus.

 

 

If the SNES had been first to market, the Genesis probably would have been just another Master System. Atari, simply chose not to compete in the 16 or 32-bit generation. Being first to market does matter.

 

It does, though Sega might have had an easier time than they did with the Master System.

 

First, Nintendo had a couple of real zingers on the competition which did they in beyond being first to market and having killer games. There was also the more questionable side of the business: they locked in the developers with exclusitivity clauses and also threatened retailers who carried competitors' products.

 

By the time of the Genesis launch, the US trade commission had a big eye on Nintendo and they were really laxing the policy. As such, the Genesis would still have been able to get games that the Master System hadn't (the Master System did have great third party support in Europe) and they would have received more placement.

[Dr. Morbis]

I'm so sick of this black-or-white explanation. It's also no "out of date".

Although I'm not the one that said the 7800's design was "out of date" I think it's quite obvious that it was if you think about it from the perspective of what gamers were wanting and expecting in the mid-to-late 80's. Single screen, "for high score"-type arcade games were out, more engrossing hop and bop type adventure games were in. From that perspective, the 7800's design scheme was truly "out of date." And I don't mean this as a knock on the system; I'm just calling a spade a spade

 

Of all the things that killed the 7800's chances, most of them were out of their hands and couldn't be helped either way. HOWEVER, the decision to keep the VCS alive (in junior form) along with the XEGS and whatever else put them in a situation where they were competing with themselves for what was left of the quickly dwindling "Atari-loyal" marketshare. The 7800 may have done somewhat respectfully (ie: competed with the SMS for a distant second place) if Tramiel had focused all of their resources on that one system alone. (For the record, though, I'm glad he didn't, as some of the later red-label VCS releases kick ass!)

 

Finally, sorry for straying so far from the original intent of this thread.

[DracIsBack]

Although I'm not the one that said the 7800's design was "out of date" I think it's quite obvious that it was if you think about it from the perspective of what gamers were wanting and expecting in the mid-to-late 80's. Single screen, "for high score"-type arcade games were out, more engrossing hop and bop type adventure games were in. From that perspective, the 7800's design scheme was truly "out of date."

 

It certainly had disadvantages in this area. However, I find that some take this to the extreme in assuming it can't play those kinds of games and that it can only do single screen games.

 

Certainly, there are enough examples in the library showing that it can indeed play games like that when programmed appropriately. Unless someone wants to tell me SCRAPYARD DOG and COMMANDO are single screen, high score type games. Heck, Plutos seems to scroll vertically pretty well for a system that supposedly can't "scroll vertically".

 

HOWEVER, the decision to keep the VCS alive (in junior form) along with the XEGS and whatever else put them in a situation where they were competing with themselves for what was left of the quickly dwindling "Atari-loyal" marketshare. The 7800 may have done somewhat respectfully (ie: competed with the SMS for a distant second place) if Tramiel had focused all of their resources on that one system alone. (For the record, though, I'm glad he didn't, as some of the later red-label VCS releases kick ass!)

 

The 7800 did compete with the SMS for a distant second place and did generate profit. I agree with your points though about too many systems at once. I think that if all things were working right, both the SMS and 7800 might have had more of a dent in Nintendo's dominance, though I do feel Nintendo would have reigned due to the games they had.

[gdement]

Although I'm not the one that said the 7800's design was "out of date" I think it's quite obvious that it was if you think about it from the perspective of what gamers were wanting and expecting in the mid-to-late 80's. Single screen, "for high score"-type arcade games were out, more engrossing hop and bop type adventure games were in. From that perspective, the 7800's design scheme was truly "out of date."

 

It certainly had disadvantages in this area. However, I find that some take this to the extreme in assuming it can't play those kinds of games and that it can only do single screen games.

 

Certainly, there are enough examples in the library showing that it can indeed play games like that when programmed appropriately. Unless someone wants to tell me SCRAPYARD DOG and COMMANDO are single screen, high score type games. Heck, Plutos seems to scroll vertically pretty well for a system that supposedly can't "scroll vertically".

 

Even if it couldn't scroll, that wouldn't have to be such a crippling handicap. From what I've seen of MSX videos, that system apparently can't scroll worth a damn, but that doesn't keep it from having some good games in the same style as what was popular on the NES.

If all else fails, you can just move 1 screen at a time, like Atari Adventure, or Pitfall, or the MSX version of "Vampire Killer".

Anyway, the 7800 can scroll well enough, far better than the MSX does.

 

I'm not sure why it's believed the 7800 can't scroll vertically. It seems to me that vertical scrolling should be faster than horizontal. For vertical scrolling, all you'd need to do is change a few bytes in the DLL. That can have the effect of making everything shift vertically on the screen. In other words, you don't move the objects, you move the zones that contain them instead.

 

The only expensive operation would be altering the vertical position of objects that aren't supposed to be scrolled (enemies). But the background shouldn't be a problem at all.

 

With horizontal scrolling, you have to change the position of every object, including the background graphics, so I'd expect it to be slower than working vertically.

[HARMIK]

I believe if the 7800 had been given a proper launch and promotion in 1984 then Nintendo might never have gotten a foothold in the U.S. market.

 

I totally agree with that i mean back then most people had never herd of Nintendo.