Atari 5200 vs. CelecoVision

[Mirage]

I should say that BITD, I wanted a CV more than a 5200. A friend had one (the only one I ever saw outside a store back then), and the graphics were impressive, so I wanted it. My dad (who was always wrong about technology) said the 5200 was just a 2600 repackaged with the same games. He saw Asteroids, Pac-Man, etc and said we already had them. True, in a way I guess. Anyway, but now, today, when I can have nearly any system I want... I prefer the 5200, but back then, the CV had my imagination!

[VectorGamer]

What's so interesting to me though is that other than Donkey Kong and Zaxxon, the CV didn't have ports of any popular arcade games. Atari had tons of popular arcade games. Yet the CV became the hot system to own. There's a business/marketing lesson in there somewhere I think.

 

On a personal level, though, I'd loved both Venture and Lady Bug at the arcade, so I was just blown away when I saw that I could play them at home with the CV. That was when it became a "must have" for me. I was terrible at DK and didn't waste quarters on it (I'm still terrible at jumping games to this day), and Zaxxon never interested me. So having those less popular but still strong games was what brought me to the CV. I wonder how many other kids felt the same way at the time?

 

I wouldn't say that Donkey Kong and Zaxxon were the only popular ones - Defender is one along with Galaxian, Frogger, Mouse Trap, Carnival, Turbo and Burger Time. There are others, but I don't want to waste the bandwidth.

 

The 5200 has an awesome lineup in their library (although I cannot personally comment on the quality of most of those titles), but the bane of that system is the stock controllers. I have limited exposure to the system but I have seen enough to understand why there is such an outrage over these controllers.

 

I have never had any problems using the Colecovision controllers, incidentally. The most problems I have had with that system are the sprites caused by the power supply and that can be a pain in the arse.

 

I am finding myself playing less and less of the carts in the 2600 library. Of late I've played mostly the Colecovision, 7800 and just the last few days the 5200 as I now prefer to play the carts that are the most faithful to their respective arcade counterpart. I find it easy to pick up 2600 carts like Space Invaders, Galaxian Arcade and Circus Atari because in those cases the game play exceeds the graphic quality.

 

But, the question being Colecovision vs 5200 the answer for me is Colecovision. Although, I am happy to also own the 26, 52 and 7800 systems.

[Ransom]

I wouldn't say that Donkey Kong and Zaxxon were the only popular ones - Defender is one along with Galaxian, Frogger, Mouse Trap, Carnival, Turbo and Burger Time. There are others, but I don't want to waste the bandwidth.

 

I wasn't clear in my post, but I meant at launch when it had all the buzz. Didn't Defender, Galaxian, Turbo, and so on come out later? Carnival was there at the beginning, but I don't recall it being very popular at the arcade. Could be wrong though.

 

 

The 5200 has an awesome lineup in their library (although I cannot personally comment on the quality of most of those titles), but the bane of that system is the stock controllers. I have limited exposure to the system but I have seen enough to understand why there is such an outrage over these controllers.

 

I have never had any problems using the Colecovision controllers, incidentally. The most problems I have had with that system are the sprites caused by the power supply and that can be a pain in the arse.

 

I am finding myself playing less and less of the carts in the 2600 library. Of late I've played mostly the Colecovision, 7800 and just the last few days the 5200 as I now prefer to play the carts that are the most faithful to their respective arcade counterpart. I find it easy to pick up 2600 carts like Space Invaders, Galaxian Arcade and Circus Atari because in those cases the game play exceeds the graphic quality.

 

But, the question being Colecovision vs 5200 the answer for me is Colecovision. Although, I am happy to also own the 26, 52 and 7800 systems.

 

Collect 'em all seems to be the best policy.

[cybercylon]

I remember the colecovision from my youth. I had friend who owned one and we played with it quite a bit. I remember wanting my own badly, but since I could only fund my game collection from my paper route money, I was more interested in expanding my 2600 library. I also remember wanting the 5200 as well. Both had some arcade ports the other didn't.

 

Fast forward to today, I ended up getting a 5200 first because I was able to barter for one (someone wanted a 360 game I didn't care about anymore). I'd like to get a colecovision too, but like many, I've had to scale way back on expanding my collection until things "settle down".

 

What I remember about controllers: Intellivision, Colecovision, 7800 Proline, original US Saturn pad are the worst as far as the comfort level goes. The 5200 controller don't fit in that group because at least my hands don't feel like bleeding after two minutes.

[VectorGamer]

I wouldn't say that Donkey Kong and Zaxxon were the only popular ones - Defender is one along with Galaxian, Frogger, Mouse Trap, Carnival, Turbo and Burger Time. There are others, but I don't want to waste the bandwidth.

 

I wasn't clear in my post, but I meant at launch when it had all the buzz. Didn't Defender, Galaxian, Turbo, and so on come out later? Carnival was there at the beginning, but I don't recall it being very popular at the arcade. Could be wrong though.

 

 

Collect 'em all seems to be the best policy.

 

Carnival wasn't a sexy video game in its day but I suspect it may have done "alright." Does anyone have records of how these games did, financially, whether it was in the arcade or the home console? I have seen bits here and there of how many cabinets of game X were produced in a given year but that's about it.

 

Collect 'em all is the best way to go.

[BuddyBuddies]

i actually liked those Coleco contollers...

[Tempest]

It honestly depends on the game. Some games looked better on one system, but not all. Many of the Colecovision games suffered from the same problem TI-99/4a games did, odd single colored pastel graphics. I have no idea why (maybe it was due to the graphics chip) but many Colecovision games have single colored graphics in an odd pastel shade. I think Frogger II shows this off best:

 

5200

 

 

Colecovision:

 

Tempest

[Mazerati]

It honestly depends on the game. Some games looked better on one system, but not all. The Colecovision suffered from the same problem the TI-99/4a did, odd single colored pastel graphics. I have no idea why (maybe it was due to the graphics chip) but many Colecovision games have single colored graphics in an odd pastel shade. I think Frogger II shows this off best:

 

5200

 

 

Colecovision:

 

Tempest

 

see that screenshot right there is a perfect example on why i dont like the graphics on the colecovision

same with the Spectrum computer

[Gorf]

but many Colecovision games have single colored graphics in an odd pastel shade. I think Frogger II shows this off best

Tempest

 

It is because of the limitations of the chip. Unfortunately, the sprites are not mutlicolor without doubling/tripling up

on them per game character. The back drop has a little more hope but the 5200/A8 is all around better except for

the resolution. However, I'll take lower color resolution over high res single color anyday.

[TwiliteZoner]

I wouldn't say that Donkey Kong and Zaxxon were the only popular ones - Defender is one along with Galaxian, Frogger, Mouse Trap, Carnival, Turbo and Burger Time. There are others, but I don't want to waste the bandwidth.

 

I wasn't clear in my post, but I meant at launch when it had all the buzz. Didn't Defender, Galaxian, Turbo, and so on come out later? Carnival was there at the beginning, but I don't recall it being very popular at the arcade. Could be wrong though.

 

 

Collect 'em all seems to be the best policy.

 

Carnival wasn't a sexy video game in its day but I suspect it may have done "alright." Does anyone have records of how these games did, financially, whether it was in the arcade or the home console? I have seen bits here and there of how many cabinets of game X were produced in a given year but that's about it.

 

Collect 'em all is the best way to go.

 

Coleco did have a knack at licensing games that you may not have heard of at the time, but were pretty solid games like Carnival or Mouse Trap.

[slampam]

...the 5200/A8 is all around better except for the resolution. However, I'll take lower color resolution over high res single color anyday.

With that said...does anyone have a 5200 example in "hi-res" (Antic 8, is it?)?

[Gorf]

I should say that BITD, I wanted a CV more than a 5200. A friend had one (the only one I ever saw outside a store back then), and the graphics were impressive, so I wanted it. My dad (who was always wrong about technology) said the 5200 was just a 2600 repackaged with the same games. He saw Asteroids, Pac-Man, etc and said we already had them. True, in a way I guess. Anyway, but now, today, when I can have nearly any system I want... I prefer the 5200, but back then, the CV had my imagination!

 

 

I went with the CV because,

 

A ) I was disapointed by the 5200 seeing that it was nothing more than a A8 in console clothing.

 

B ) The A8 already had most of the same titles and more.

The CV had great titles like the mentioned Zaxxon, as well as Time Pilot, Cosmic Avenger and many not available on any Atari system.

(...at the time anyway, as eventually Atari and Coleco 'shared' titles.)

 

C ) The controller. This was the bottom line deciding point for me. Had it been self centering, It might have changed my mind as

my heart was with Atari, in spite of the other two reasons. However those other two reasons were a pretty strong selling point.

 

 

Hardware wise, I still think the A8 based chipset was more flexible. I'd rather code the A8 chips anyday.

Ah I miss the good old 8 bit days.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Gorf

[Gorf]

...the 5200/A8 is all around better except for the resolution. However, I'll take lower color resolution over high res single color anyday.

With that said...does anyone have a 5200 example in "hi-res" (Antic 8, is it?)?

 

 

That's a good question. I only have a handful of carts for my 5200 and none of those are.

Not hard to figure out though as it would probably look the same as any A8 hi-res screen,

artifacts and all.

[slampam]

Is there a trade off with either going for higher resolution vs. more colors or is this just both systems cheaping out on certain components?

Edited April 3, 2009 by slampam

[Ransom]

Is there a trade off with either going for higher resolution vs. more colors or is this just both systems cheaping out on certain components?

 

The cost of memory was a big concern at the time they were designed. Less so by the time they came out, though!

[Artlover]

I was wondering which was better. The 5200 or the CelecoVision.

It's subjective, Just have them both.

If only everyone would follow that advice in the Atari vs Commodore thread.

 

Anywho, yeah. Different machines, different capabilities, both have their good games & bad. Get 'em both, or in lieu of that, get the one that has the most games that interest you.

[frogstar_robot]

It honestly depends on the game. Some games looked better on one system, but not all. Many of the Colecovision games suffered from the same problem TI-99/4a games did, odd single colored pastel graphics. I have no idea why (maybe it was due to the graphics chip) but many Colecovision games have single colored graphics in an odd pastel shade. I think Frogger II shows this off best:

 

Both machines had very similar TI graphics and sound chips. The major difference between the two other than one being a console and the other a home computer is that the ColecoVision has a Z-80 CPU and the TI has a TMS9900 CPU. Both have the same amount of video memory but the TI can potentially have more non-dedicated RAM.

 

I'd be interested to know how many titles were directly ported between the two. The machine code would be very different but could have very similar results in the end. I also wonder which of the two processors have more power to drive the sound and and video hardware and how much of a difference can it make to have 48K or more of RAM to play with. Actually, I think that would be a more interesting comparison thread. Rather than having two sets of sound and video hardware with very different strengths and weaknesses we have two machines with very different CPUs and RAM available.

[Tempest]

It honestly depends on the game. Some games looked better on one system, but not all. Many of the Colecovision games suffered from the same problem TI-99/4a games did, odd single colored pastel graphics. I have no idea why (maybe it was due to the graphics chip) but many Colecovision games have single colored graphics in an odd pastel shade. I think Frogger II shows this off best:

 

Both machines had very similar TI graphics and sound chips. The major difference between the two other than one being a console and the other a home computer is that the ColecoVision has a Z-80 CPU and the TI has a TMS9900 CPU. Both have the same amount of video memory but the TI can potentially have more non-dedicated RAM.

 

I'd be interested to know how many titles were directly ported between the two. The machine code would be very different but could have very similar results in the end. I also wonder which of the two processors have more power to drive the sound and and video hardware and how much of a difference can it make to have 48K or more of RAM to play with. Actually, I think that would be a more interesting comparison thread. Rather than having two sets of sound and video hardware with very different strengths and weaknesses we have two machines with very different CPUs and RAM available.

I'm pretty sure Moon Patrol was. I work with one of the guys who ported it to the TI. He said they did it over a weekend by using another versions code and I'm pretty sure he said that it was the Colecovision (which would make sense).

 

Tempest

[+Psionic]

I'd be interested to know how many titles were directly ported between the two.

I'm pretty sure Moon Patrol was. I work with one of the guys who ported it to the TI. He said they did it over a weekend by using another versions code and I'm pretty sure he said that it was the Colecovision (which would make sense).

The original Frogger was as well. Both ports were done by Wickstead Design, likely by the same person(s).

[opeygon]

first...this topic will never get old. it's a timeless question, and one that i still ponder on from time to time.

 

ok, i have both systems. i'd like to say they are both worth buying, and they both have pros and cons unique to each system. but after much thought and gameplay, i feel the better system is....the atari 5200. i'm not going to explain why becasue my fingers are tired, but thats what i think

[Ransom]

I found definitive proof that the Colecovision is better!

 

After battering each console with the other's transformer, the result was the 5200 in itty bitty bits and the Colecovision relatively unscathed.

 

Afterward, he 5200 wouldn't turn on.

 

Neither would the Colecovision. (Of course, the Colecovision hadn't been able to switch on for years now...)

 

[fiddlepaddle]

They both take up too much shelf space, neither one fits in a bankers box made to hold file folders, they both will play 2600 games with a kludgy attachment, they both have weird power supplies, and they both have controller storage compartments that don't really work very well if you want to store the cords under the controllers. If THAT's not enough to make you want both systems, then I'm sorry, but you're just not a real collector.

[+wood_jl]

I figure there are some 5200 purists who will disagree, but of course this is a matter of opinion!!

 

You could just get an Atari 800XL and as many game cartridges as you can find/afford. [if you're hardcore enough, you can put together your own multi-cart from Atarimax- but that's another discussion]

 

You'll get the 5200 experience WITHOUT the controller headaches, using cheap ol' Atari joysticks. You'll get composite video output with a monitor cable, as opposed to modding on the 5200.

 

By the time you spend enough money buying a 5200 and repairing or replacing the controllers (likely cost more than the system), you could just get an 800XL from Ebay (make sure it says it's tested and working!!) and just use it as a video game......for a FRACTION of the price. Losing the shoddy controllers and gaining video-out are bonuses.

 

Oh, and you get DONKEY KONG (not available on 5200) in a version that Colecovision owners would have "creamed in their pants" over. [sick reference, but I just saw "The Cable Guy" with Jim Carrey and that's how he described his THX sound system vis-a-vis George Lucas's hypothetical reaction to it]

 

Shouldn't a discussion of "to go 5200" or "not to" include discussion of the A8 computer as a practical, affordable alternative?

[Mirage]

Shouldn't a discussion of "to go 5200" or "not to" include discussion of the A8 computer as a practical, affordable alternative?

 

It has been discussed, many times. The 5200 analog controllers are often actually an advantage for many of the games. It takes a little experience with the 5200 to realize that. The 5200 controllers aren't always shoddy controllers. For some games, they're necessary, for others, they're not, but are kinda cool, for a few they're pointless at best or horrible at worst. Either way, the 5200 controllers have 2 buttons, which is a pretty big deal sometimes. It makes the game Qix for example, which is completely different on the 5200 than on the A8. There's other reasons I won't even go into, but the 5200 and A8 are different experiences, and I'll leave it at that.

[Gorf]

Shouldn't a discussion of "to go 5200" or "not to" include discussion of the A8 computer as a practical, affordable alternative?

 

It has been discussed, many times. The 5200 analog controllers are often actually an advantage for many of the games. It takes a little experience with the 5200 to realize that. The 5200 controllers aren't always shoddy controllers. For some games, they're necessary, for others, they're not, but are kinda cool, for a few they're pointless at best or horrible at worst. Either way, the 5200 controllers have 2 buttons, which is a pretty big deal sometimes. It makes the game Qix for example, which is completely different on the 5200 than on the A8. There's other reasons I won't even go into, but the 5200 and A8 are different experiences, and I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Funny, I have these controllers for years and I still can't stand them.