Intellivision: closer to Atari 2600 or Colecovision?

[rhindlethereddragon]

We know that the Intellivision is more powerful than the Atari 2600. And we know that the Intellivision is less powerful than the Colecovision.

 

Would you say the intellivision (graphics wise) is closer to the Atari 2600, or to the Colecovision in overall power?

[chrisbid]

2600 easily

 

the intellivision is weird because it was designed as a game console/home computer hybrid. consoles were supposed to fade away as home computers took over. the coleco was released into a market that wanted more and better home versions of arcade games.

[edintv]

We know that the Intellivision is more powerful than the Atari 2600. And we know that the Intellivision is less powerful than the Colecovision.

 

Would you say the intellivision (graphics wise) is closer to the Atari 2600, or to the Colecovision in overall power?

 

I will say Coleco, Intellivision get a Market share to provide what the 2600 lacks, better graphics, Coleco who was released years later did the same, Better Graphics, also have a keypad, a innovation of the Intellivision.

[Rev]

I was going to say closer to colecovision.

[catsfolly]

In terms of basic design setup, the Intellivision and Colecovision are similar, and the Atari 2600 is a different beast all together. The Intellivision and Colecovision both have a background defined by character graphics, and then there are sprites that overlay the character graphics. The Colecovision has higher resolution graphics and more sprites, while the Intellivision has smooth scrolling.

 

The Atari 2600 has only enough memory to store half a horizontal line of background graphics, and a few 1 bit tall sprites. If the processor does nothing, every horizontal line of the display will look the same. The game program must alter the graphics memory after it is displayed on the current line, but before it is displayed on the next line, in order to get different looking horizontal lines on the screen. This is called "chasing the video beam". On the Intellivision and Collecovison chasing the beam is not necessary.

[SlowCoder]

Closer to Coleco in performance, capabilities (expandability) and physical design. But the Intv can't be confused with either the Coleco or the 2600, because it is its own beast.

[+thegoldenband]

Other similarities between the Intellivision and CV: fixed 16-color palettes, similar sound chips (AY-3-8910 vs. SN76489), BIOS routines that help save ROM space, the controllers...there are lots of parallels, really.

[chrisbid]

in terms of game libraries, the early intellivision stuff can almost be matched up title for title with early atari games.

 

the bulk of colecos library were arcade ports, which was also the focus of atari at the end of the crash, and intellivision tried to go that route, but lacked licensing deals with most arcade game companies.

 

 

i will say that after the intellivision, it seemed everyone assumed 12 digit keypad controllers were the future.

[JacobZu7zu7]

A couple years ago, I thought Intellivision was made around the same time as Colecovision 1982. Maybe because they shared a similar name.

 

I was wrong Intellivision was first and it's from 1979!

 

Intellivision was ahead of it's time in all ways

with it's advanced controllers, voice, graphics, games and

the strategies involved in playing them.

 

Examples =

Bomb Squad, B-17 Bomber, Microsurgeon, Locomotion, Dungeons and Dragons,

Sub Hunt, Thunder Castle.

 

These type of games noone had made before... these were out even before

Personal Computers did them.

 

Also it's the first pad controller, and that is also vertical and uses number keypad and overlays!

 

Aren't these all firsts too?

[RedRaider]

I was going to say closer to colecovision.

 

I agree with this statement ^^^^

[cparsley]

Games - closer to the VCS

Abilities - Closer to the Coleco

[Intymike]

We know that the Intellivision is more powerful than the Atari 2600. And we know that the Intellivision is less powerful than the Colecovision.

 

Would you say the intellivision (graphics wise) is closer to the Atari 2600, or to the Colecovision in overall power?

 

I will say Coleco, Intellivision get a Market share to provide what the 2600 lacks, better graphics, Coleco who was released years later did the same, Better Graphics, also have a keypad, a innovation of the Intellivision.

 

The Intellivision was not the first game console with keypad and even overlays.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC_4000

Edited April 16, 2012 by Intymike

[+DZ-Jay]

In terms of basic design setup, the Intellivision and Colecovision are similar, and the Atari 2600 is a different beast all together. The Intellivision and Colecovision both have a background defined by character graphics, and then there are sprites that overlay the character graphics. The Colecovision has higher resolution graphics and more sprites, while the Intellivision has smooth scrolling.

 

The Atari 2600 has only enough memory to store half a horizontal line of background graphics, and a few 1 bit tall sprites. If the processor does nothing, every horizontal line of the display will look the same. The game program must alter the graphics memory after it is displayed on the current line, but before it is displayed on the next line, in order to get different looking horizontal lines on the screen. This is called "chasing the video beam". On the Intellivision and Collecovison chasing the beam is not necessary.

 

Very good explanation and comparison. I completely agree.

 

However, I would add one point: in the case of the Intellivision, "chasing the beam" is not only unnecessary, but impossible: without some rather invasive physical hardware modifications, the machine gives you no access to the horizontal synchronization of the video signal.

 

-dZ.

[sqoon]

Sad thing is that I get the distinct feel that Intellivision and Colecovision were never maxed out to their full potential, much like the 2600 did over its lifespan. So many great games that could have been for both systems, but we will never know.

[+DZ-Jay]

Sad thing is that I get the distinct feel that Intellivision and Colecovision were never maxed out to their full potential, much like the 2600 did over its lifespan. So many great games that could have been for both systems, but we will never know.

 

You will. That's the job of the Home-brew community. We have the collective experience of 40 years of research into the potential of the little machines.

 

-dZ.

[+cmart604]

Sad thing is that I get the distinct feel that Intellivision and Colecovision were never maxed out to their full potential, much like the 2600 did over its lifespan. So many great games that could have been for both systems, but we will never know.

 

You will. That's the job of the Home-brew community. We have the collective experience of 40 years of research into the potential of the little machines.

 

-dZ.

 

Yep! While we might not get the exact vapor ware games from back then, we're getting some of them plus some great new ones from guys like dZ.

 

I'm really torn on my answer to this thread which I somehow missed last year. I'm going to sit right on the fence for this one and say both! Lol.

[Rev]

Here are some intellivision vs Atari 2600 game play screen shot comparisons.

 

http://www.intellivisionrevolution.com/entries/intellivision-history/graphics-atari-2600-vs-intellivision

[Carl Mueller Jr]

Each of the three systems mentioned have their own strengths and weaknesses. As far as how the hardware works, the Intellivision is much more like the Colecovision.

 

The Intellivision is superior in at least some respects:

 

– A more sophisticated PSG with a broader range of frequencies and a hardware envelope generator

– Scalable sprites with no dropout

– Greater color capability, as far as which combinations can be specified on a "per tile" basis. I.e., one pattern can be put down in many different foreground and background colors, whereas with the Coleco's VDP a pattern's foreground and background colors can only be specified once

– Disc able to detect 16 different directions

 

Of course, the Intellivision can't compete with the Colecovision's greater resolution, which is what really made it stand out.

 

As to the Atari, I would say the Intellivision stands out as being generally more sophisticated, in terms of gameplay (more RAM and more time available to the CPU), and in background detail. The Atari could do some really neat graphical effects, however, and clever programmers seem to always be finding new ways to create new ones.

 

Carl

[oldjd]

As someone who was there when these systems came out,I can tell you that back then

not many of the buyers were not concerned about all the technical feats these represented

All they were concerned about was the games that were available and cost factors

When I bought my first system,it was the 2600,and my decision was based on the games

Intellivisions reputation was being built on sports games,and Atari on the "shoot

em up"

So,I got the Atari and after playing combat and Space Invaders to death,I felt like

well,guess thats it!

One of my friends had got the Intellivision,and we use to switch off playing

and had the same thing happen to him....

Then the Coleco came out.and my little brother bought one.Went to his place and watched him playing Burgertime,and I was hooked!

As has been mentioned a bazillion times,the graphics,game play,etc was awesome

Got Mr Do and played that game to death

And then Niintendo came out,and it was game over!

But even now almost 30 years later,I think all 3 had unique ideas for thier systems,and thats what made them good in thier own right

[thegamezmaster]

Hard to say. Graphically the 2600, controller wise the CV. IMHO.

[Skylark68]

I'd say hardware wise the Colecovision, but in my opinion, the Intellivision had much better games overall. The Colecovision relied too heavily on arcade translations (although that was part of its appeal back in the '80s).

[atari5200dude82]

I'd say hardware wise the Colecovision, but in my opinion, the Intellivision had much better games overall. The Colecovision relied too heavily on arcade translations (although that was part of its appeal back in the '80s).

I totally agree. But there all very unique in there own way.

[Walter Ives]

On 4/17/2012 at 12:35 AM, Carl Mueller Jr said:

The Intellivision is superior in at least some respects:

 

– A more sophisticated PSG with a broader range of frequencies and a hardware envelope generator

– Scalable sprites with no dropout

– Greater color capability, as far as which combinations can be specified on a "per tile" basis. I.e., one pattern can be put down in many different foreground and background colors, whereas with the Coleco's VDP a pattern's foreground and background colors can only be specified once

– Disc able to detect 16 different directions

 

Of course, the Intellivision can't compete with the Colecovision's greater resolution, which is what really made it stand out.

You missed the two Intellivision features that really blew ColecoVision away: (1) you could buy an Intellivision in December of 1979 and (2) you could implement a compelling game in a 4K cartridge.

GI could have doubled the vertical resolution of the STIC by moving a trace on the chip, but that would have required doubling the sizes of BACKTAB and GRAM and increasing the cartridge size to hold the graphics data to feed them. In 1979 that would have been a bridge too far: the MSRPs of $299 per console and $30 per game were already pushing it.

 

It can be hard to appreciate the timescale of the past. As Gordon Moore of Intel observed, the number of transistors one could put in an integrated circuit was doubling every two years (Moore's Law). Atari's home Pong game went on sale at the end of 1975, so it's hardly surprising that the Intellivision, introduced four years later, was somewhat more capable. Since ColecoVision hit store shelves three years after the Intellivision, one could reasonably expect it to have exhibited a similarly large step forward.