Atari 5200 vs. CelecoVision

[DracIsBack]

The 5200 was a limp-dick machine and didn't deliver

 

And the saga of people expressing their "opinions" as though they are "facts" continues ...

[Bryan]

The 5200 was a limp-dick machine and didn't deliver

 

And the saga of people expressing their "opinions" as though they are "facts" continues ...

Maybe he was referring to the non-centering joysticks...

[+Allan]

This thread reminds me of the Never-Ending Story. What a crappy movie.

 

Well I know one thing. We'll never see a better version of Donkey Kong on the Colecovision because Opcode is spending all his time on this thread boring.

 

Allan

[atariksi]

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'.

...

The picture I posted and examples I gave I can put on A5200 cartridge within a day.

 

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.

 

I was leaving this topic alone if all it was was a subjective thread about what games are better. But machines capabilities were being compared and that's when I entered the thread. Atari 5200 hardware is superior and I can DEFINITELY use examples of Atari 400 since it's the same chipset. Yes, I agree with you many factors are involved in game making not just hardware and I did state some recently.

 

>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!)

 

If people spent the time and used those advanced features all Atari 5200 games would be better than Colecovision (assuming games needed those advanced features). Some games are just good because they are addictive like Tetris. And some games like Pac-man don't need the extra sprites.

 

>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)

 

Did you miss that earlier games were like 4K-8K which cannot even hold a 160*240 screen buffer.

 

>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.

 

No, not anything is possible. What is possible depends on the machine. Nowadays, when people port stuff to A5200 they have more time and it's cheaper to have 32K+ cartridges.

 

I agree that machine's potential wasn't exploited in most of its games.

 

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.

 

I agree that you can have better games on inferior systems. That's one reason why I still play games on Ataris (and you on Colecovision) although PCs are superior machines.

[+wood_jl]

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...

 

That's pretty hillarious. The A8 Donkey Kong is the crown jewel

 

How much (package deal) for everything pictured? (Colecovision, too)

[atariksi]

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...

 

That's pretty hillarious. The A8 Donkey Kong is the crown jewel

 

How much (package deal) for everything pictured? (Colecovision, too)

 

I don't know any atari fans that leave their ataris behind and argue in favor of Coleco and C64. I don't see how taking a picture proves him a fan. Maybe an x-fan.

[+wood_jl]

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.

 

Whoa! Someone doesn't like the 5200!!!

 

I would have to disagree that the games are not significant improvements over the 2600. They most definitely are.

Compare Pac Man, Dig Dug, etc. Come on, they are worlds better than the 2600. Must we link to 2600 and then 5200 versions of the same game on Youtube to prove this? I hope not, but it should only take a few minutes. 5200 graphics and sound are staggering improvements over 2600; how they compare to Colecovision is another matter entirely.

 

Just because you prefer the Colecovision to the 5200 doesn't mean you have to downgrade the 5200's games to "not significant improvement" over 2600 to make your point. It's okay for the 5200 games to be significant improvements over the 2600 and still prefer the Colecovision. If you want to take shots at the 5200 controllers, I'm with you however...ha ha

[+wood_jl]

The 5200 was a limp-dick machine and didn't deliver

 

And the saga of people expressing their "opinions" as though they are "facts" continues ...

Maybe he was referring to the non-centering joysticks...

 

Ha ha. I knew this would be mentioned!

[+Psionic]

The 5200 was a limp-dick machine and didn't deliver

 

And the saga of people expressing their "opinions" as though they are "facts" continues ...

Maybe he was referring to the non-centering joysticks...

Indeed, those silly controllers are a perfect symbol for the machine as a whole.

 

limp-dick = impotent, ineffective, unable to perform, not meeting expectations, etc.

 

Do you really disagree that the 5200 was a huge disappointment overall (to both Atari and the gaming public)?

Do you disagree that most 5200 games were not substantial improvements over their 2600 counterparts?

Do you disagree that the 5200 today is the least liked/popular Atari system of all-time?

 

 

If people spent the time and used those advanced features all Atari 5200 games would be better than Colecovision (assuming games needed those advanced features).

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

If Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix weren't dead, they'd still be alive.

'If' is a word with no meaning.

 

How long and how much effort does it take to use the advanced technical features of the 5200? Obviously longer than would be of any practical use, or programmers in the system's heyday would've used the system's power and we'd have ended up with better games than we did. Even today we don't see 5200 games that have anywhere near the quality one would expect based on the technical marvels you've trumpeted in this thread.

 

Also, I'm quite aware that the CV is far from perfect. But it wasn't supposed to be perfect, which is why it was designed to be expandable.

[atariksi]

The 5200 was a limp-dick machine and didn't deliver

 

And the saga of people expressing their "opinions" as though they are "facts" continues ...

Maybe he was referring to the non-centering joysticks...

Indeed, those silly controllers are a perfect symbol for the machine as a whole.

...

Another subjective statement. There's masterplay interface that works great for the system. I have a digital joystick adapter that works great and costs pennies.

Take your bullcrap elsewhere. You are a biased person with a fanatical attitude toward the Colecovision.

 

>Do you disagree that most 5200 games were not substantial improvements over their 2600 counterparts?

 

Yes.

 

>Do you disagree that the 5200 today is the least liked/popular Atari system of all-time?

 

Yes. It's hard to tell someone fanatical anything factual.

 

If people spent the time and used those advanced features all Atari 5200 games would be better than Colecovision (assuming games needed those advanced features).

>If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

 

Quoting out of context just to try to confuse people or just biased. I gave many reasons-- size of cartridges, porting from other systems, investment of time, etc. etc. You should first realize there are games that do use the advanced features especially those being ported in modern times so it's not just a fantasy. As I said, I can easily put any of my A8 stuff on cartridge within a day.

 

>How long and how much effort does it take to use the advanced technical features of the 5200?

 

Not much if company isn't just trying to port from another platform. Not much if company doesn't mind using bigger ROMs. Not much if game requires it.

 

>Even today we don't see 5200 games that have anywhere near the quality one would expect based on the technical marvels you've trumpeted in this thread.

 

There are some, but many people just get A800 computer rather than waiting for porting over to A5200. Nowadays, you can get an 800XL for $10.

 

>Also, I'm quite aware that the CV is far from perfect. But it wasn't supposed to be perfect, which is why it was designed to be expandable.

 

It's a limp-dick. How do you like that-- label something without any evidence just like you did.

[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).

 

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?

 

First of all, all playfields priorities (which don't even exist on Coleco) can be set on scan-line basis. You can also use sprites for overlays for coloring on parts of the screen if you use a kernel and use sprites on rest of the display normally. Collision detection also can be reset on any part of the screen. Or you can always just use a couple of sprites for adding colors and use the remaining 2 players and 4 missiles for moving objects. GPRIOR 0 mode objects can also move but you have to move appropriate playfield colors in software whereas the sprite portions are moved with hardware registers.

[atariksi]

The 5200 was a limp-dick machine and didn't deliver

 

And the saga of people expressing their "opinions" as though they are "facts" continues ...

Maybe he was referring to the non-centering joysticks...

 

Ha ha. I knew this would be mentioned!

 

It's not that big of a problem given the varous sticks available: Wico/Wicopad, Masterplay, Digital joystick adapter, or gold-pcbs for A5200 sticks, or a good trackball. Trackball is better than A800 version.

[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.

 

I hope you realize by now that the statement "It's all subjective" is self-contradictory and not reflective of reality. Some systems are superior to others like Atari is superior to Colecovision and PCs are superior to Apple Macs. To say "all is subjective" means that statement has to be objectively true and thus it's self contradictory.

[opcode]

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.

 

If I give you the cycle times, do you give me the 23 colors/scanline games?

Here is:

 

6502======

02 LDY #0

NxtY:

05 LDA (203),Y

06 STA (205),Y

04 STA 53272 (playfield 2 clr)

02 INY

03 BNE NxtY

(05+06+04+02+03)*256 = 20*256 = 5120 cycles (I am ignoring the setup times)

 

Z80=====

16 ld hl,(203)

20 ld de,(205)

10 ld bc,256

* ldir

* = 255*21 + 16 = 5371 cycles

===since the z80 has devices mapped to I/O space, here is how you would send your bytes to the playerfield 2 color register

16 ld hl,(205)

7 ld c,XXh (xx=port #, b is already 0)

* otir

* = 255*21 + 16 = 5371 cycles

Total 10,742 cycles.

 

Since the CV Z80 is clocked at exactly twice the Atari speed, we can divide the cycles by 2. So:

6502 - 5120 cycles

Z80 - 5371 cycles

 

Hm, the Z80 is slightly slower (5%).... but wait, we forgot something! We are supposing that all the cycles are available for the 6502, which isn't true. Take 30~40% of the cycles out (for the Antic) and we have a better idea of the 6502 performance on the 5200 in game mode.

 

Now, I am intrigued... why does your routine move data from RAM to RAM and at the same time to the playerfield 2 color register? Is there a good reason for that?

 

For our next comparison, may I suggest heavy 16-bit math...

 

BTW, can I have my 5200 games with 23 colors/scanline now?

Edited June 19, 2009 by opcode

[atarian63]

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 coleco controllers really really suck. The games are decent but yes the units I have had usually need some recap work.

[opcode]

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'.

...

The picture I posted and examples I gave I can put on A5200 cartridge within a day.

 

That's great. We will have all them in less than a week!

Which one are you going to start with?

[atarian63]

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...

Looks like you goofed.. you need to exchange boxes for your poses.

[atariksi]

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'.

...

The picture I posted and examples I gave I can put on A5200 cartridge within a day.

 

That's great. We will have all them in less than a week!

Which one are you going to start with?

 

I don't have the complete library of A5200 stuff but I know its internals as I have written stuff for it. My point was I can prove that this stuff is doable on A5200 by compiling for it. I believe Jetset and Crazyace probably know more about existing games. I have Rescue on Fractulus which uses GTIA mode and if I had source code I could compile any other A8 version that uses 32K-48K into A5200 version.

[+Psionic]

Another subjective statement. There's masterplay interface that works great for the system. I have a digital joystick adapter that works great and costs pennies.

The dislike of the controllers is subjective, which is why I've hardly mentioned it. As I mentioned earlier, some people don't like the CV controllers either...but you can use a 2600 stick on either system, so it's a wash. Although unlike the 5200, an adapter isn't needed to do so on a CV.

 

Take your bullcrap elsewhere. You are a biased person with a fanatical attitude toward the Colecovision.

I know...isn't it great?

 

>Do you disagree that most 5200 games were not substantial improvements over their 2600 counterparts?

 

Yes.

Perhaps I should've said "many" instead of "most".

 

It's hard to tell someone fanatical anything factual.

Indeed it is. The 5200 is the least popular Atari console of all-time, which is why the 5200 forum gets the least amount of activity/attention out of any Atari system forum on AtariAge (except the Lynx), and why the values of 5200 stuff have sunk over the past few years.

 

Quoting out of context just to try to confuse people or just biased. I gave many reasons-- size of cartridges, porting from other systems, investment of time, etc. etc.

I didn't address those issues because they are a given. ColecoVision programmers faced the same limitations circa 1982 that Atari programmers did with regard to cartridge size, difficulties in porting, and lack of time, etc.

 

>Also, I'm quite aware that the CV is far from perfect. But it wasn't supposed to be perfect, which is why it was designed to be expandable.

 

It's a limp-dick. How do you like that-- label something without any evidence just like you did.

Yeah, the ColecoVision was pretty limp-dick, but what do you expect? You have to admit it was a damn fine effort from a relatively small, family-run toy company from Connecticut.

[atarian63]

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.

That's how I generally feel about my colecovision, it's a cheaply made(add insult) system spending it's life in my closet. occasionally hooked up from time to time and again found to be a major disappointment. Just so poorly made I guess I shouldn't expect much from a leather company.

I think I mostly just hang onto it just to have one in my collection.

[opcode]

I don't know any atari fans that leave their ataris behind and argue in favor of Coleco and C64. I don't see how taking a picture proves him a fan. Maybe an x-fan.

 

Come on, I paid a pretty penny for the sealed XL...

[ApolloBoy]

Indeed it is. The 5200 is the least popular Atari console of all-time, which is why the 5200 forum gets the least amount of activity/attention out of any Atari system forum on AtariAge (except the Lynx), and why the values of 5200 stuff have sunk over the past few years.

Any proof? I haven't seen 5200 prices change that much over the years.

 

Honestly, I don't understand all this 5200 vs. CV fanboyism. Can someone please tell me why people need to argue over which 26+ year old system is better?

[atariksi]

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.

 

If I give you the cycle times, do you give me the 23 colors/scanline games?

Here is:

...

Too late. Crazyace already gave the cycle times; if you had been less in "attack" mode, we could have had more intellectual discussion. I gave a complete algorithm how to do 23 colors/scanline. You know earlier games did not use GTIA that much although it's a standard mode (nothing advanced about it).

 

>Hm, the Z80 is slightly slower (5%).... but wait, we forgot something! We are supposing that all the cycles are available for the 6502, which isn't true. Take 30~40% of the cycles out (for the Antic) and we have a better idea of the 6502 performance on the 5200 in game mode.

 

You should leave CPU comparisons to CPU comparisons and not mix with other things as Atari gains a lot of CPU cycles back by being able to do scrolling, zooming, pixel replication, etc. w/ANTIC hardware. And for critical tasks, you get all CPU cycles except refresh cycles.

 

>Now, I am intrigued... why does your routine move data from RAM to RAM and at the same time to the playerfield 2 color register? Is there a good reason for that?

 

I already told you -- it was just an arbitrary example-- top of my head.

[opcode]

The picture I posted and examples I gave I can put on A5200 cartridge within a day.

 

That's great. We will have all them in less than a week!

Which one are you going to start with?

 

I don't have the complete library of A5200 stuff but I know its internals as I have written stuff for it. My point was I can prove that this stuff is doable on A5200 by compiling for it. I believe Jetset and Crazyace probably know more about existing games. I have Rescue on Fractulus which uses GTIA mode and if I had source code I could compile any other A8 version that uses 32K-48K into A5200 version.

 

Now wait a bit... You specifically said that you could put the games you posted on an A5200 cartridge within a day. Are you telling me now that you lied?

How about the 23 colors/scanline games? Was that a lie too? BTW, did you post anything that I can take seriously?

[atarian63]

Indeed it is. The 5200 is the least popular Atari console of all-time, which is why the 5200 forum gets the least amount of activity/attention out of any Atari system forum on AtariAge (except the Lynx), and why the values of 5200 stuff have sunk over the past few years.

Any proof? I haven't seen 5200 prices change that much over the years.

 

Honestly, I don't understand all this 5200 vs. CV fanboyism. Can someone please tell me why people need to argue over which 26+ year old system is better?

Brand loyalty of course. you know..

Atari vs Commodore

Dodge Vs Chevy

Domestics vs imports

Dallas Vs Washington

 

Take your pick, it's human nature