Do you like any 2600 ports better than the arcade original?

[Tinman]

However, definitely NOT Space Invaders. There's just zero chance the 2600 version matches the arcade. And if you think it does you might as well play Intellivision Space Armada because it's about the same as the arcade as the VCS version is and maybe it will be better for you.

 

I, for one, never claimed that the 2600 version of Space Invaders matched the arcade, only that I like it better. In fact, it's the differences that make me prefer it.

[Lentzquest]

Funny how as soon as a post mentioned crotch juice, NE146 and his avatar showed up

 

Anyway, I prefer a bunch of 2600 titles to their original arcade counterparts. Space Invaders, Ms. Pac-Man, Dig Dug, Berzerk, and especially Defender (Though I know I'm in the minority on that last one). I'd even say I find myself playing 2600 Pac-Man more than the arcade perfect versions, though it's not my favorite port. That honor goes to the NES Tengen version.

 

But I was very young when first playing the colecovision/2600. Too young to have gone to arcades on my own, so these home releases were what I knew best at the time and are still more endearing to me now.

[Cynicaster]

To each their own, but I really don't understand how anybody could actively prefer a 2600 game to its arcade counterpart.

 

Jeez, I can think of a bunch of possible reasons:

 

- Better-balanced difficulty (not necessarily easier or harder per se)

- Difficulty options not available to end-users in the arcade

- Retooled gameplay designed to reward sustained interest, rather than 3-minute sessions

 

 

I'm pretty sure you could have replaced these three points by a single one: "The 2600 versions are easier." Come on, we can talk around the fact all day, but let's face it--that's what it boils down to.

 

- Retooled gameplay that fixes bugs or shortcomings in the original

 

Eh? Care to name some examples?

 

- Superior graphics and/or sound (it's been known to happen, especially with homebrews)

 

You've got to be joking.

 

- Simplified gameplay strips game down to its bare essentials, getting rid of aspects of the original that a particular player might not like

 

What, like having only one base in Missile Command rather than three? Like the omission of the pink gorilla in Kangaroo? Like the omission of full levels in Donkey Kong and Gorf? Like the omission of intermissions in Ms. Pac-Man? Or the omission of the red bucket in Popeye?

 

These are all things that were only left out because of deficiencies in the hardware, the programmer's abilities, or both--they were not left out in an attempt to improve the game experience. If you find that you prefer watered down versions of certain games to their originals I guess I can't tell you you're wrong in feeling that way, but personally, I can't think of a single instance where omitting aspects of a game worked in favor of making a port better. To the contrary, I remember it being a pretty big let down any time I saw things that were missing from a home version of a game, and if said home version was actually entertaining, it was definitely in spite of the omissions and not because of them.

 

 

I mean, the list goes on and on, really! I don't see how the arcade versions of Space Invaders and Circus have an edge over the VCS versions -- at worst it's a draw. And personally I've always found VCS Frogger more fun than the arcade game, even if the latter is prettier.

 

Of course there are ports on the 2600 that stand out as markedly better than the typical fare. But arcade games continued to be made and desired by home gamers long after 1980. Primitive stuff like Space Invaders and Circus are one thing, but bear in mind that with each day you move ahead into the 80's you see the technical gap widening between arcade games and their 2600 counterparts. Anybody up for a rousing game of 2600 Rampage? I think I'd rather put a campfire out with my face.

 

I agree with you on the gameplay variations offered on some 2600 games being a strong point, I didn't think of that at first.

[Cynicaster]

To each their own, but I really don't understand how anybody could actively prefer a 2600 game to its arcade counterpart.

 

Have you played the arcade version of Solar Fox?

 

Another reason to love good quality Atari 2600 versions more than most arcade originals is because you can stay home and play as much as you want, pretty much whenever you want, and you don't need any quarters. You also don't have to go out and breathe in the stench of other teens or touch controls they have contaminated with their slimy hands that are covered in rancid food grease, pimple pus, boogers, eyeball goo, and crotch juice.

 

Heh, crotch juice. More elegant prose from RT.

 

Yes, Solar Fox on the 2600 is fun, and in my opinion a standout port. But the arcade version is still tops, come on.

[Tempest]

Personally I like Tutankham more on the 2600 than the arcade version, but to be fair it's almost a completely different game.

 

I think Front Line works better on the 2600 as well, mainly due to the single joystick control scheme (I always hated that dial in the arcade version).

 

Beyond those two (and Solar Fox as has already been mentioned), I can't think of any others.

[VectorGamer]

 

Another reason to love good quality Atari 2600 versions more than most arcade originals is because you can stay home and play as much as you want, pretty much whenever you want, and you don't need any quarters. You also don't have to go out and breathe in the stench of other teens or touch controls they have contaminated with their slimy hands that are covered in rancid food grease, pimple pus, boogers, eyeball goo, and crotch juice.

 

That's strictly environmental.

 

On the flip-side, you can argue that arcades provide a social atmosphere where you can meat (misspelling intentional) chicks versus sitting in your Underoos playing Circus Atari.

 

 

To each their own, but I really don't understand how anybody could actively prefer a 2600 game to its arcade counterpart.

 

Jeez, I can think of a bunch of possible reasons:

 

- Better-balanced difficulty (not necessarily easier or harder per se)

- Difficulty options not available to end-users in the arcade

- Retooled gameplay designed to reward sustained interest, rather than 3-minute sessions

 

 

I'm pretty sure you could have replaced these three points by a single one: "The 2600 versions are easier." Come on, we can talk around the fact all day, but let's face it--that's what it boils down to.

 

- Retooled gameplay that fixes bugs or shortcomings in the original

 

Eh? Care to name some examples?

 

- Superior graphics and/or sound (it's been known to happen, especially with homebrews)

 

You've got to be joking.

 

- Simplified gameplay strips game down to its bare essentials, getting rid of aspects of the original that a particular player might not like

 

What, like having only one base in Missile Command rather than three? Like the omission of the pink gorilla in Kangaroo? Like the omission of full levels in Donkey Kong and Gorf? Like the omission of intermissions in Ms. Pac-Man? Or the omission of the red bucket in Popeye?

 

I mean, the list goes on and on, really! I don't see how the arcade versions of Space Invaders and Circus have an edge over the VCS versions -- at worst it's a draw. And personally I've always found VCS Frogger more fun than the arcade game, even if the latter is prettier.

 

Of course there are ports on the 2600 that stand out as markedly better than the typical fare. But arcade games continued to be made and desired by home gamers long after 1980. Primitive stuff like Space Invaders and Circus are one thing, but bear in mind that with each day you move ahead into the 80's you see the technical gap widening between arcade games and their 2600 counterparts. Anybody up for a rousing game of 2600 Rampage? I think I'd rather put a campfire out with my face.

 

 

I'm with Cynicaster on this.

 

Someone mentioned Crystal Castles being better on the VCS - are there warps on the VCS version?

 

There are great games on the 2600 but a lot of them suffer from the "sins of omission": Gorf (this is pretty much across the board on all consoles), Missile Command, Crystal, Amidar, Reactor, Donkey Kong and I'm sure there are many others to list.

 

Since classic arcades are rare nowadays, many people can only play the classics in MAME. So, if you play Sea Wolf in MAME you are missing out on the arcade experience of using the periscope which was really cool.

 

I think to be fair you have to imagine a side by side comparison: for example in front of you is Sea Wolf on the VCS using a joystick viewed on a TV vs. Sea Wolf the arcade game using a periscope and viewed on a b/w monitor.

[Hatta]

I prefer the 2600 port of Star Castle.

[Emehr]

The topic isn't about how the 2600 ports compare to the arcade games. It's about whether you like the ports over the arcade version.

</topic nazi>

 

I haven't even touched on the awesome homebrew ports and conversions. I prefer Medieval Mayhem or 2600 Warlords over arcade Warlords. Crazy Balloon and Gunfight are also preferable on the 2600. This may be because of the sub-optimal experience of playing emulated arcade games or maybe it's because I played the 2600 port first.

[NE146]

However, definitely NOT Space Invaders. There's just zero chance the 2600 version matches the arcade. And if you think it does you might as well play Intellivision Space Armada because it's about the same as the arcade as the VCS version is and maybe it will be better for you.

 

I, for one, never claimed that the 2600 version of Space Invaders matched the arcade, only that I like it better. In fact, it's the differences that make me prefer it.

 

Exactly. And I'm just saying you should try out Space Armada which has ever more (and progressively changing) differences which make it even more juicy. And of course it's fine that you prefer it, I also was just saying why I don't (although it is one of my all time favorite 2600 games).

Edited December 19, 2011 by NE146

[Rex Dart]

No, don't prefer any 2600 ports over the original arcade games.

There's one that comes close, however, due to simplified controls: Defender II / Stargate. Trying to play that game is more like learning to type than shooting mofos.

[Cynicaster]

The topic isn't about how the 2600 ports compare to the arcade games. It's about whether you like the ports over the arcade version.

</topic nazi>

 

I haven't even touched on the awesome homebrew ports and conversions. I prefer Medieval Mayhem or 2600 Warlords over arcade Warlords. Crazy Balloon and Gunfight are also preferable on the 2600. This may be because of the sub-optimal experience of playing emulated arcade games or maybe it's because I played the 2600 port first.

 

Yeah, playing an emulated version of an arcade game at home with a basic joystick and buttons is not likely to provide a very faithful version of the original experience in cases where the original arcade game:

 

- had a fancy/custom control panel (e.g. Star Wars, Paper Boy, Sinistar, Tron, Pole Position, Operation Wolf)

- employed screen overlays (Night Driver)

- incorporated "environmental" designs (Battlezone)

 

As for which one you played first influencing what you like, I haven't found that to matter. I can't think of a single "golden age" arcade game that was ported to the VCS where I didn't play the VCS version first, and aside from maybe Space Invaders, I don't find any of the VCS versions as fun and downright addictive as the arcade versions. In many cases, I only liked the game at all after finally playing the arcade version. For example, I've known of Centipede, Pac-Man, and Gyruss since being a little kid, but only started "liking" them in the last few years thanks to MAME.

[Tinman]

Exactly. And I'm just saying you should try out Space Armada which has ever more (and progressively changing) differences which make it even more juicy. And of course it's fine that you prefer it, I also was just saying why I don't (although it is one of my all time favorite 2600 games).

 

Point taken. Although I've never been as big a fan of Space Armada. The sprites always seemed too large. Besides which, was that one ever released for the 2600? I only remember it being on the Intellivision.

[mtshark7]

I personally enjoy Space Invaders on 2600 over the arcade port

[NE146]

Exactly. And I'm just saying you should try out Space Armada which has ever more (and progressively changing) differences which make it even more juicy. And of course it's fine that you prefer it, I also was just saying why I don't (although it is one of my all time favorite 2600 games).

 

Point taken. Although I've never been as big a fan of Space Armada. The sprites always seemed too large. Besides which, was that one ever released for the 2600? I only remember it being on the Intellivision.

 

 

 

And if you think it does you might as well play Intellivision Space Armada

[Tempest]

Oh heck I forgot about Crystal Castles. I love the 2600 port, but I don't care for the arcade version. This is mainly because I find the arcade version to be rather difficult, especially with the trackball. The 2600 version on the other hand plays really well with the joystick and the lack of 3D structures makes it much easier. This is another case of the home port being almost a completely different game, but in this case that works out better for me.

[+Random Terrain]

Heh, crotch juice. More elegant prose from RT.

 

Elegant and multifaceted. It could be yellow drippage, creamy filling, sack sweat, or muff moisture.

 

 

 

 

Yes, Solar Fox on the 2600 is fun, and in my opinion a standout port. But the arcade version is still tops, come on.

 

This is what the arcade graphics look like:

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tOji4eR8MY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tOji4eR8MY

 

I think the Atari 2600 graphics look better. Not all jittery and weird. Nice and smooth.

[VectorGamer]

 

I think the Atari 2600 graphics look better. Not all jittery and weird. Nice and smooth.

 

But again, another port that is simplified given that the arcade game is two buttons (speed and fire).

[maiki]

This is what the arcade graphics look like:

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tOji4eR8MY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tOji4eR8MY

 

I think the Atari 2600 graphics look better. Not all jittery and weird. Nice and smooth.

 

That video itself is rubbish. First the game is vertical oriented, second it runs at 60 Hz so YT encoder obviously messed up the smoothness... And no, it is not better on 2600, technically or graphically...

[+Random Terrain]

That video itself is rubbish. First the game is vertical oriented, second it runs at 60 Hz so YT encoder obviously messed up the smoothness... And no, it is not better on 2600, technically or graphically...

 

I'm not talking about the orientation or encoder problems. That's just a random video I grabbed. I'm talking about the weird animations they used in the game. The ship looks like a variation of NE146's avatar and the things shooting at you look like they are having an epileptic seizure.

[jjsonique]

In terms of enjoyment:

 

Space Invaders - even as a kid in the late 70's, early 80's I never liked the arcade version that much - it's essential video game history, but as for the fun to be had from it, other arcade games were eclipsing it pretty quickly. The 2600 version, then and now, is just more fun for me. Part of it is the lower-fi stomp-stomp-stomp sound and rigid march of the 2600 invaders making the ratcheting up of the tension work better.

Defender and Defender II - as others mentioned, the multiple buttons on the stand-up arcade versions made playing those an insane typing fest - the simplified controls on the Atari make them much more enjoyable

Missile Command - despite a lack of a trackball (outside of the hack I don't have the controller for), the Atari 2600 version retains the fluidity of the arcade version's gameplay and manages to escalate the tension at its own but still challenging pace. I rarely chose to play the original in arcades but always play the 2600 version when my attention turns back to the 2600.

Bezerk - the arcade version is definitely cooler, but the 2600 port has an addictiveness I never felt strongly with the arcade version (and with the nifty voice hack you get 'Chicken, fight like a robot!' etc. back )

 

Like Tinman said for Space Invaders, in these cases it's actually the differences of the Atari 2600 ports that make me enjoy them more as games. Judged strictly as ports, of course they're lacking, but judged but how much fun I have with them, they totally win.

Edited December 19, 2011 by jjsonique

[tremoloman2006]

You also don't have to go out and breathe in the stench of other teens or touch controls they have contaminated with their slimy hands that are covered in rancid food grease, pimple pus, boogers, eyeball goo, and crotch juice.

 

Thanks... I was hungry before reading that tasty tidbit

[Lord Helmet]

I suck so badly at arcade Space Invaders that it's no fun to play. On the other hand, I love 2600 Space Invaders.

[+SpiceWare]

I'm pretty sure you could have replaced these three points by a single one: "The 2600 versions are easier." Come on, we can talk around the fact all day, but let's face it--that's what it boils down to.

Harder does not mean better.

 

- Superior graphics and/or sound (it's been known to happen, especially with homebrews)

You've got to be joking.

 

I'd put espire8's graphics for Frantic up against Stern's graphics for Berzerk any day.

 

[+Random Terrain]

Harder does not mean better.

 

That's not what she said.

[+thegoldenband]

- Better-balanced difficulty (not necessarily easier or harder per se)

- Difficulty options not available to end-users in the arcade

- Retooled gameplay designed to reward sustained interest, rather than 3-minute sessions

 

I'm pretty sure you could have replaced these three points by a single one: "The 2600 versions are easier." Come on, we can talk around the fact all day, but let's face it--that's what it boils down to.

 

Except, of course, that that wasn't my point. Yes, part of it is that the 2600 versions can be made easier, but many of them can also be made harder than the arcade's default settings. And if you're playing on the VCS, you have control over those settings, rather than the arcade operator who can crank everything up so as to maximize quarter-eating.

 

- Retooled gameplay that fixes bugs or shortcomings in the original

 

Eh? Care to name some examples?

 

Not especially, because I'm not interested in going through and doing a game-by-game comparison -- and more to the point, I'm not arguing for any of these points in the case of a particular game, but arguing that they can be true, and that they're valid opinions for a particular person to hold. Certainly there are examples on other systems, and other people have mentioned that e.g. they dislike the controls for Defender or Crystal Castles, and prefer the VCS versions for that reason.

 

- Superior graphics and/or sound (it's been known to happen, especially with homebrews)

 

You've got to be joking.

 

Hardly: have you looked at Exidy's Circus lately? It's fugly. Circus Atari may not be the world's prettiest game, but it's easier on the ears and eyes IMHO.

 

- Simplified gameplay strips game down to its bare essentials, getting rid of aspects of the original that a particular player might not like

 

Like the omission of full levels in Donkey Kong and Gorf?

 

Personally, I never liked the missing level in Gorf, so that's no skin off my back. Again, I'm not interested in arguing it game-by-game.

 

These are all things that were only left out because of deficiencies in the hardware, the programmer's abilities, or both

 

Actually, I think a third reason is more common: ROM space, and the desire to save money.

 

If you find that you prefer watered down versions of certain games to their originals I guess I can't tell you you're wrong in feeling that way

 

And here's the rub: you seem to be arguing from the stance that the job of a home port is to represent the arcade original as faithfully as possible, and every deviation tends to be a form of "watering down". I can understand that point of view, but the problem is that I don't agree: not every change is "watering down", and not every change is going to be for the worse. Some ports are super-faithful, and are great because of it; others change the gameplay dramatically, and are actually pretty cool in their own right -- maybe even better than the original.

 

But if your attitude is "It has to be arcade-perfect or it's crap" from the get-go, then there's really no conversation to be had: no port will ever live up to that standard, because the arcade game itself is perfection by your definition.

 

But arcade games continued to be made and desired by home gamers long after 1980. Primitive stuff like Space Invaders and Circus are one thing, but bear in mind that with each day you move ahead into the 80's you see the technical gap widening between arcade games and their 2600 counterparts. Anybody up for a rousing game of 2600 Rampage? I think I'd rather put a campfire out with my face.

 

How is that relevant, though? You're moving the goalposts here, by now implying that early arcade games are irrelevant, and that the real arena is games like Rampage. But I don't see any justification for doing that.

 

(If you want to move the discussion to late 1980s hardware, easy enough: I prefer the NES ports of Rygar, Double Dragon, and many other games to the arcade originals. I even prefer the Mega Drive version of Marble Madness -- a game I love in the arcade, and have beaten on the highest difficulty settings -- because truth be told, the game controls better with a good D-pad than with a trackball.)

 

Actually, Rampage is a perfect example of a game that I might rather play at home -- not on the Atari 2600, mind you, but I'd be happy to trade downgraded graphics for a password system, or some other way of making one's progress through the game more meaningful (and allow for breaks from the super-repetitive gameplay). As it stands, the arcade game is fun for 5-10 minutes, but gets old real fast.