Atari 5200 vs. CelecoVision

[Bryan]

Well, for what it is worth, I am interest now in both again, I have the CV and the 5200 and a bunch of games. The talk here makes me want to hook them both up again.

 

This thread makes me want to BUY a Colecovision; something I know very little about. I remember pickng up titbits about needing to replace electrolytic caps, etc in them. Sounds like I'd be diving into a ball of wax. On the other hand, $100 worth of controller rebuilding is necessary on any 5200. Ha ha. I guess it's no wonder I don't have either one, but play emulator for Coleco and Atari-8 or emulator for 5200 fix.

The CV is a fun system to own. If the crash hadn't happened I think Coleco would have remained a force to be reckoned with for some time. Although I like Atari from an engineering standpoint, the Warner Communications crew was really making poor decisions and was ripe for the picking.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Bryan

[atariksi]

What games have been ported from the MSX1 to ColecoVision and vice versa? What are the considerations involved.

...

Looks like someone forgot to answer this. I know they have this 2600 expansion (hardware add-on) for Colecovision, but it seems it won't expand Colecovision's capability like colors to 128.

 

>In the case of porting from 5200 to A8 one has to remap the graphics registers, replace the paddle based controls with stick based controls, redesign for any memory banking used, and possibly redo some OS calls though I don't know how much the contents of the 5200 rom are used in the games proper.

...

If you use the analog joysticks of Atari 400/800, you could use same source code and compile it again for Atari 5200 (as long as it fits within 32K ROM/16K RAM-- most games are <=32K). Only joystick issues cause problems as they removed the PIA chip to make Atari 5200.

 

>In any case, once the porting is complete the games should play just as fast on either. The 5200 is basically a 400 wired up funny.

 

It's somewhat less than the Atari 400 given PIA is missing and no SIO port for peripherals.

[atariksi]

...

In my view it is, as I can port games from MSX to CV and vice-versa....

...

If you add hardware, you can make any system better. Atari 5200 doesn't require extra VRAM in order to show the full capabilities of its system-- just software.

 

>You see, you seem to have a problem with scroll and sprite flickering on the MSX, I have a problem with 160 pixels and 5 colors/scanline, that reminds me of the 70s... It's all a matter of personal opinion... You can express your aversion for block scroll and sprite flickering, still nobody is calling you childish here...

 

It's not opinion. You have been refuted many times that it's more than 5 colors/scanline and it's not 160*192 but 192*240. Here's way to get 16+ colors in 320*200:

 

10 PRINT "Atari BASIC program to show Player/PF ORing w/GPRIOR colors in 320*200"

20 PRINT "By Krishna Software Inc."

30 GRAPHICS 8

40 POKE 704,16:POKE 705,32:POKE 706,130:POKE 707,132:POKE 623,32+16

50 POKE 710,136:POKE 711,232

60 COLOR 1:PLOT 256,0:DR. 256,159:PLOT 258,0:DR. 258,159

70 PLOT 265,0:DR. 265,159:PLOT 267,0:DR. 267,159:PLOT 0,0:DR.319,159

80 FOR T=53256 TO 53265:POKE T,255:N.T

90 POKE 53248,108:POKE 53249,124:POKE 53250,160:POKE 53251,176

100 POKE 53252,168:POKE 53253,184:POKE 53254,200:POKE 53255,152

RUN

 

>The CV can show all 16 colors/scanline in 256 mode, it can produce 64 pixels worth of sprites/scanline, still nobody wants to admit that.

 

You can't admit you are biased when making that claim. It's restricted how you can use the 16 colors just as Atari is restricted in how it uses the 23 colors. Atari can show all 256 colors in any mode using DLIs/sprites/GPRIOR/etc. I hope you know that when you zoom the sprites and are in GPRIOR mode, the ORing to produce colors takes place at color clock resolution. And sprite replication aside, you get 8*248 sprites which is more coverage, more collision detection in hardware, multicolor sprite mode, etc.

 

>You see, you come here and post your personal opinions as fact, show games that aren't 5200, highlight the strong points of the 5200 while at the same time call all the machine's weaknesses irrelevant.

 

If they are software compatible with A5200, it's just a matter of getting source code and recompiling-- you don't have to put special chips in the cartridge or do hardware mods.

 

>However if I do the same I am labeled childish, ignorant, dumb and more. We are all in the same boat, pal. You aren't better than me...

 

You were labeled "dumb" for claiming width on sprites is better than all other sprite hardware features on Atari. I can fill entire 160*240 screen with sprite backdrop without using a single cycle of CPU. When you lose a argument, then you demand to see games rather than accept that Colecovision hardware is INFERIOR to Atari 8-bit.

[atariksi]

Actually I counted 10 colours on a single line in crownland .. black / yellow / red / turq / green ( in background ) + brown / tan / pink ( Main char ) + 3 pinks ( snail enemy - but one same pink as main char )

 

brown / tan / pink ( Main char ) + 3 pinks ( snail enemy - but one same pink as main char ) = sprites...

 

Well, yes in standard (non-GTIA) modes there are only two ways to get more than 5 colors in a playfield line:

 

1. Add Players in some way.

 

2. Use the CPU in mid-line.

 

Or use artifacting in ANTIC mode F.

[atariksi]

I and others already gave you enough proof in the other thread so you speaking against it seems suprising.

 

Which proof? So far no proof of games using more than 5 colors/scanline...

BTW, Crownland is very impressive. Shows how good an A800 game can look. And you see, it's still limited to 5 colors/scanline, 160 pixels horizontally. Not bad at all...

 

He knows what I'm talking about. You are ignorant of the other thread from the way you are making blind claims here.

 

You have again took my post seriously when i said it used 23 colors by scanline but 23 times the same yellow???

 

I know 23 colors by scanline is possible on a Atari 8 . No doubt about that.

 

The issue is that it is never used in game. So we can suppose that it is not usable for a "solid" game . So that hardware feature as good it is ,is simply irrelevant for a comparison between colecovision and Atari 5200 which are BOTH GAME CONSOLE. Therefore it could be relevent if you compare MSX and A800 but it is not the topic.

 

And please show me a simple picture where you have 23 pixel side by side having each a different color.(in a resolution with minimum 160 pixel horizontally of course...)

 

It is relevant to compare even if very few games use the 23 pixels/scanline because I am more interested which system is the better hardware. I know some games suck even on modern PCs, but that doesn't allow me to conclude the PC is bad. Here's break-down of the 23 colors/scanline in 160*240 mode:

 

Colors from P0, P1, P2, P3 (4)

Colors from P0|P1, P2|P3 (2)

Colors from PF0, PF1, PF2, and PF3 (4)

Colors from P0|PF0, P0|PF1, P1|PF0, P1|PF1 (4)

Colors from P2|PF2, P2|PF3, P3|PF2, P3|PF3 (4)

Colors from P0|P1|PF0, P0|P1|PF1, P2|P3|PF2, P2|P3|PF3 (4)

Background color (1)

--------------------------

23 colors/scanline (no CPU-based color re-use).

[opcode]

To prove that I am a fan of both system, here is a picture of me with my sealed CV and its companion sealed Atari 800XL. I have two more sealed Atari 8-bit system (600XL and 128XE), but they were left in Brazil... And I also have two sealed Atari 2600s, a wood grain and a "darth vader". Unfortunately my 5200 was also left behind in Brazil...

[opcode]

On the other hand those MSX shots are a great point of discussion - I have a reasonable MSX collection so have plenty of love for the system, especially those Konami carts, with the extra soundchip like Gradius.

Gradius doesn't have a sound chip... Wrong game...

Actually, Gradius/Nemesis was rereleased with the SCC chip, so he's kinda right there.

 

Actually it wasn't. Gradius was never released in cartridge with SCC chip... The SCC version of Nemesis (not Gradius) was released as part of a game collection in disk, and to get SCC sound you would need to have the Snatcher sound cartridge...

[atariksi]

The topic was 5200 vs ColecoVision until some people decided the 5200 didn’t have good enough games and started to include Atari computer games.

Ha! Exactly. This thread is a joke and has strayed far beyond the original discussion.

 

Funny how all this technical bile that atariksi keeps spewing doesn't translate into better games on the Atari 5200 or 8-bits. Regardless of any random technical specs, the simple fact is that most games look, sound, and play better on the Commodore 64 and ColecoVision. If he ever actually played a game, he might realize that.

...

Perhaps, if you read the thread before blurting out whatever came to the top of your head, you would have realized how A8 is superior. It's not RANDOM technical specs-- it's REAL and well-defined. There are many reasons people don't use all the hardware features of a machine when making a game-- like they are trying to fit into less RAM, they are porting from another platform and don't want to rewrite, it's easier to simply code it without investing more time in using advanced techniques, etc. I don't see how you can draw a conclusion of which hardware is superior based on playing a few games. It's like saying-- I only see people with blue eyes so all people have blue eyes. You are spewing out your bias that's all in order to try to suppress the facts that are presented.

 

>You're like some clown who goes around talking about how fast and badass his car is, but if someone asks you to race you say "no, I can't go above the speed limit!". I say put up or shut up.

 

I already gave example of picture that is UNDOABLE on C64, Colecovision, MSX, and all other 8-bit systems of early 80s. You missed that or biased enough to skip over anything that's advantageous to Atari.

[youki]

I and others already gave you enough proof in the other thread so you speaking against it seems suprising.

 

Which proof? So far no proof of games using more than 5 colors/scanline...

BTW, Crownland is very impressive. Shows how good an A800 game can look. And you see, it's still limited to 5 colors/scanline, 160 pixels horizontally. Not bad at all...

 

He knows what I'm talking about. You are ignorant of the other thread from the way you are making blind claims here.

 

You have again took my post seriously when i said it used 23 colors by scanline but 23 times the same yellow???

 

I know 23 colors by scanline is possible on a Atari 8 . No doubt about that.

 

The issue is that it is never used in game. So we can suppose that it is not usable for a "solid" game . So that hardware feature as good it is ,is simply irrelevant for a comparison between colecovision and Atari 5200 which are BOTH GAME CONSOLE. Therefore it could be relevent if you compare MSX and A800 but it is not the topic.

 

And please show me a simple picture where you have 23 pixel side by side having each a different color.(in a resolution with minimum 160 pixel horizontally of course...)

 

It is relevant to compare even if very few games use the 23 pixels/scanline because I am more interested which system is the better hardware. I know some games suck even on modern PCs, but that doesn't allow me to conclude the PC is bad. Here's break-down of the 23 colors/scanline in 160*240 mode:

 

Colors from P0, P1, P2, P3 (4)

Colors from P0|P1, P2|P3 (2)

Colors from PF0, PF1, PF2, and PF3 (4)

Colors from P0|PF0, P0|PF1, P1|PF0, P1|PF1 (4)

Colors from P2|PF2, P2|PF3, P3|PF2, P3|PF3 (4)

Colors from P0|P1|PF0, P0|P1|PF1, P2|P3|PF2, P2|P3|PF3 (4)

Background color (1)

--------------------------

23 colors/scanline (no CPU-based color re-use).

 

And without using Player/Missile or PlayField , can you?

 

Because if you use all your player/missile and play field to simply do a nice picture , how do you use it as well for the game itself?

[atariksi]

It's a subjective remark.

Of course these impressions are subjective, at least in some degree! Having said that, I'm trying to make a good-faith effort to quantify exactly what it is about the 5200 vs. the CV that I'm noticing. What Supercat said above about artifacting may well have something to do with it, though as a long-time CoCo user, I give thanks for artifacting every time I play a hi-res title.

...

You can get hi-res colors w/o artifacting as well.

 

>Since I owned a 5200 and played it for many years, and have never owned a CV, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first part. I hope your comment about brightness/contrast wasn't meant to be as condescending as it might sound.

 

I just hooked up several different systems to same Amiga monitor and Atari 5200 nice and bright looking as the Amiga and Atari ST, Atari 400/800.

 

If you mean 40 column text mode, you can set the luminance (0..7) and chrominance of the text is the chrominance of it's background color (0..15). Still a lot of choices although not as many as graphics pixel.

>That reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) quote attributed to Henry Ford -- "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."

 

It's not that restricted. The luminance is set for the text foreground and the chrominance it takes on is chrominance of whatever sprite/playfield color the text is on. I gave link to someone's image in 320*200 using many many colors.

 

>Yup, and Pitfall looks better on the A5200, whereas Mr. Do's Castle and Zaxxon look better on the ColecoVision, IMHO (though the scrolling on the 5200 version is better, IIRC). And those are two games I played the hell out of as a kid, so I know whereof I speak!

 

Goes to prove my point-- can't just the system hardware by a few games.

 

>But the point of that article is that each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and that they're surprisingly difficult to compare. Certainly, they seem like very different beasts to program. And even though the ultimate verdict is that the 5200 is the more powerful machine, taking advantage of that full power requires some pretty careful programming -- scanline counting and such -- just as the 2600 isn't at its best if you only make it do what it's "supposed" to do. It doesn't sound like it requires as much trickery to get the CV performing close to its full potential, even if that machine would have no chance of driving a game like Rescue on Fractalus or Blaster. (And Blaster's damn amazing, I must say.)

 

Good point.

 

>Also, I have to ask: did you even read the article I linked, or did you just scan it until you got to a screenshot that showed you what you wanted to see? >There's a lot of "meat" in there, and a lot of it comes out in favor of the 5200, so if you did read the article, I'm surprised that your only reaction was a one-line response.

 

I did read the article. It's good summary of standard features of A8. It's not complete. It doesn't go into enhancing graphics modes w/GPRIOR, sprite replication/zooming, overscanning, etc.

[opcode]

The CV is a fun system to own. If the crash hadn't happened I think Coleco would have remained a force to be reckoned with for some time. Although I like Atari from an engineering standpoint, the Warner Communications crew was really making poor decisions and was ripe for the picking.

 

That is what I was saying a few pages ago. I cannot believe how a company that made 2 billions in 1982 couldn't put together an engineering team to create their next video game, or to update the Atari 800. Coleco was the underdog, with its machine made of off-the-shelf parts, still they managed to create a machine that would become the base for several other platforms. And an easier to program system also meant more and better games in less time. The other problem I see is that while GCC was doing magic with the 2600, they didn't seem to master the 5200 as well (another problem with Atari, no good internal development team)... Coleco wasn't perfect either, they also didn't have an internal software team, and games suffered from quality inconsistencies because of that... On the other hand Nintendo was very small and they created the Famicom in 83...

[opcode]

I did read the article. It's good summary of standard features of A8. It's not complete. It doesn't go into enhancing graphics modes w/GPRIOR, sprite replication/zooming, overscanning, etc.

 

Holly s**t! This guy cannot be serious...

I must admit, you are very persistent.... However.... still no game with 23 colors/scanline...

[atariksi]

All I'm trying to say is that, to my eyes, a lot of games for the CV seem brighter and crisper. I understand that the 5200 offers a much broader palette overall, and that it had capabilities that exceed the CV in some departments (and vice versa).

 

One difference is that on the Atari machines output 228 color clocks per line and 262 lines/frame, while the TI outputs 227.5 color clocks per line and 263 lines/frame. This may not sound like much of a difference, but it means that certain patterns of colors on the Atari will produce consistent color artifacts (for better or for worse); on the CV and other machines with similar chips, such chroma artifacts are so effectively reduced as to be all but non-existent.

 

I don't think the 0.5 color clock would drop the brightness (and I don't see any drop in brightness). In fact, the rounding to 228 color clocks allows better synchronization on Atari since now you get 114 CPU cycles corresponding to 228 color clocks. So horizontal replication of sprites, colors, etc. is aligned with video beam.

[atariksi]

I did read the article. It's good summary of standard features of A8. It's not complete. It doesn't go into enhancing graphics modes w/GPRIOR, sprite replication/zooming, overscanning, etc.

 

Holly s**t! This guy cannot be serious...

I must admit, you are very persistent.... However.... still no game with 23 colors/scanline...

 

Go take your bullcrap elsewhere. I argue logically which is superior to a sample based on limited observation. Go learn some philosophy and go curse yourself for not knowing this.

[atariksi]

Well, for what it is worth, I am interest now in both again, I have the CV and the 5200 and a bunch of games. The talk here makes me want to hook them both up again.

 

This thread makes me want to BUY a Colecovision; something I know very little about. I remember pickng up titbits about needing to replace electrolytic caps, etc in them. Sounds like I'd be diving into a ball of wax. On the other hand, $100 worth of controller rebuilding is necessary on any 5200. Ha ha. I guess it's no wonder I don't have either one, but play emulator for Coleco and Atari-8 or emulator for 5200 fix.

The CV is a fun system to own. If the crash hadn't happened I think Coleco would have remained a force to be reckoned with for some time. Although I like Atari from an engineering standpoint, the Warner Communications crew was really making poor decisions and was ripe for the picking.

 

They did invest in Amiga, but it didn't work out for them. Marketing is a separate field from engineering.

[ApolloBoy]

you would have realized how A8 is superior.

 

...In your opinion. You keep stating that as if it was fact, but it's all subjective. I'm a big A8 fan, but I don't acknowledge it as the "superior" system (nor do I for any system). Honestly, this is getting nowhere real fast.

[opcode]

I did read the article. It's good summary of standard features of A8. It's not complete. It doesn't go into enhancing graphics modes w/GPRIOR, sprite replication/zooming, overscanning, etc.

 

Holly s**t! This guy cannot be serious...

I must admit, you are very persistent.... However.... still no game with 23 colors/scanline...

 

Go take your bullcrap elsewhere. I argue logically which is superior to a sample based on limited observation. Go learn some philosophy and go curse yourself for not knowing this.

 

Enough non-sense, prove me wrong. Show me games with 23 colors/scanline. Otherwise I will be forced to believe they don't exist...

[atariksi]

I did read the article. It's good summary of standard features of A8. It's not complete. It doesn't go into enhancing graphics modes w/GPRIOR, sprite replication/zooming, overscanning, etc.

 

Holly s**t! This guy cannot be serious...

I must admit, you are very persistent.... However.... still no game with 23 colors/scanline...

 

Go take your bullcrap elsewhere. I argue logically which is superior to a sample based on limited observation. Go learn some philosophy and go curse yourself for not knowing this.

 

Enough non-sense, prove me wrong. Show me games with 23 colors/scanline. Otherwise I will be forced to believe they don't exist...

 

Now I know you don't know logic.

I'm not your slave to show you anything. If people can't accept logic, experiments don't help. You never even replied to my simple request to give cycle times.

[atariksi]

you would have realized how A8 is superior.

 

...In your opinion. You keep stating that as if it was fact, but it's all subjective. I'm a big A8 fan, but I don't acknowledge it as the "superior" system (nor do I for any system). Honestly, this is getting nowhere real fast.

 

Then disprove the facts I stated (if you think it's just my opinion that Atari hardware is superior). Your statement above is subjective.

[atariksi]

To the disappointment of some and glee of others, I am kind of busy today, so not a lot of free time for AtariAge...

...

 

Okay.

[ApolloBoy]

you would have realized how A8 is superior.

 

...In your opinion. You keep stating that as if it was fact, but it's all subjective. I'm a big A8 fan, but I don't acknowledge it as the "superior" system (nor do I for any system). Honestly, this is getting nowhere real fast.

 

Then disprove the facts I stated (if you think it's just my opinion that Atari hardware is superior). Your statement above is subjective.

 

I think you missed the point of my statement. I don't see any system as superior over another, I just like them for what they are.

[atariksi]

you would have realized how A8 is superior.

 

...In your opinion. You keep stating that as if it was fact, but it's all subjective. I'm a big A8 fan, but I don't acknowledge it as the "superior" system (nor do I for any system). Honestly, this is getting nowhere real fast.

 

Then disprove the facts I stated (if you think it's just my opinion that Atari hardware is superior). Your statement above is subjective.

 

I think you missed the point of my statement. I don't see any system as superior over another, I just like them for what they are.

 

Yeah, so it's a subjective statement. If you compare a modern PC with an Atari ST, and say "I don't see any system as superior" it's a subjective statement as there is an OBJECTIVE fact (truth) also.

[ApolloBoy]

Yeah, so it's a subjective statement.

Of course it is, apparently you didn't notice the "I don't see" in front of my statement. I was just offering my take on the whole argument. However, you stated the A8 was superior as if it were a fact (i.e. "you would have realized how A8 is superior"). Had you said something along the lines of "I believe that the A8 is the superior system" instead, I wouldn't have a big problem with it.

[+Psionic]

Perhaps, if you read the thread before blurting out whatever came to the top of your head, you would have realized how A8 is superior.

Perhaps if you read the thread, you'd see that it's 'Atari 5200 vs. ColecoVision', not 'Atari 8-bits (and all that they're theoretically capable of) vs. ColecoVision'.

 

It's not RANDOM technical specs-- it's REAL and well-defined. There are many reasons people don't use all the hardware features of a machine when making a game-- like they are trying to fit into less RAM, they are porting from another platform and don't want to rewrite, it's easier to simply code it without investing more time in using advanced techniques, etc. I don't see how you can draw a conclusion of which hardware is superior based on playing a few games.

This is a discussion about game machines, not mainframe computers. There are many factors involved in making good games, and hardware considerations are only one facet of that. I'll repeat again...whether the supposed technical superiority is real or imagined, it didn't make the 5200's games any better. It makes no difference how many colors the 5200 can display or what kind of resolution it's capable of, since not a single title in the 5200's game library of over 100 games utilizes these advanced features. You would've been a great marketing man for Atari, though. You could've told the world that they should buy a 5200 because of what it's technically capable of! (The 5200 port of Galaxian should technically be better than the ColecoVision version...but it's not! Oh dear!)

 

Don't you just love how the Atarisoft versions of most games for other consoles and computers were usually superior to Atari's efforts for their own machines? Strange, isn't it? (considering the overwhelming technical power of the Atari machines)

 

I don't doubt for a second that it's possible to make some amazing original games or arcade perfect ports for the 5200, but so what? Anything is possible. It's possible for me to knock out Lennox Lewis or swim the English Channel...but unless I go out and do it, what's the difference?

 

The 5200 was a limp-dick machine and didn't deliver, which is why it's the least popular Atari system ever (with increasingly shrinking popularity). One reason for the 5200's failure is that despite this incredible technical ability you rave about, most 5200 games were not significant improvements over their 2600 counterparts. Many systems have shortcomings, but with the best machines, programmers learn to work with those limitations and really push the limits (as opcode has recently done with Pac-Man Collection on the CV). The Atari VCS had incredibly limited technical abilites, but programmers learned to push the machine far beyond what was originally thought was possible and produce some great games. The 5200 may have been (and may still be) capable of some great games, but I haven't seen them.

 

I already gave example of picture that is UNDOABLE on C64, Colecovision, MSX, and all other 8-bit systems of early 80s. You missed that or biased enough to skip over anything that's advantageous to Atari.

Again, that hasn't done anything to improve the 5200's game library. Keep trying though.

Edited June 18, 2009 by PingvinBlueJeans

[atariksi]

Yeah, so it's a subjective statement.

Of course it is, apparently you didn't notice the "I don't see" in front of my statement. I was just offering my take on the whole argument. However, you stated the A8 was superior as if it were a fact (i.e. "you would have realized how A8 is superior"). Had you said something along the lines of "I believe that the A8 is the superior system" instead, I wouldn't have a big problem with it.

 

But I am not stating my opinion. You are. Why are juding others? I stated basic facts about both machines. They are NOT my opinion. I say Atari IS superior to colecovision hardware. You can't say everyone's statements are subjective; you are nobody to judge that unless you know the facts about both systems.