Gyruss on 5200 vs Colecovision

[Jess Ragan]

That one is really divisive. I love it, but many others are offended by what was essentially a sequel to the arcade game.

[Kjmann]

Was the 5200 version just a lazy port of the A8 version? If so, then that probably explains the differences. The CV version was just made later and more effort was put into it.

 

 

The 5200/A800 versions were identical. only the controller routines were changed (For obvious Reasons).

 

Colecos version looks better because Coleco had a higher resolution, 256x256 sprites available, and a Z80 Processor running at 3.58 Mhz. Colecos major down fall in my opinion is the controller signals. unlike the Atari (Which used a 5 volt DC signal to indicate a movement/button press) the Coleco used a Pulse Signal (Kind of like an old rotary telephone) to send signals on movement/button presses. This cause the controllers to be rather unresponsive as it had to wait for the pulse signals next pulse to send before it could react.

 

This is why the Atari versions have better playability.

[Lynxpro]

Anthony Weber was originally coding Gyruss for parker brothers (His version is what you see on the back of the box) then at the last minute parker bros decided to release their own in house version. I Don't know why they decided this. Anthony Weber (Who I've chatted with in email several times) Doesn't know either.

 

 

-Kjmann

 

Does his source code still exist?

[Kjmann]

I don't know. He said he would send me what he finds.

 

one way or another I'll figure it out. =)

Edited March 25, 2014 by Kjmann

[Lynxpro]

 

 

The 5200/A800 versions were identical. only the controller routines were changed (For obvious Reasons).

 

Colecos version looks better because Coleco had a higher resolution, 256x256 sprites available, and a Z80 Processor running at 3.58 Mhz. Colecos major down fall in my opinion is the controller signals. unlike the Atari (Which used a 5 volt DC signal to indicate a movement/button press) the Coleco used a Pulse Signal (Kind of like an old rotary telephone) to send signals on movement/button presses. This cause the controllers to be rather unresponsive as it had to wait for the pulse signals next pulse to send before it could react.

 

This is why the Atari versions have better playability.

The Z80 isn't a valid reason why the Colecovision version looks better. The 1.79 MHz 6502 does twice as much processing as a Z80 at the same clock speed. Now the TI graphics chip in the Colecovision has 16K devoted to it. However, the 5200 has 16K in system RAM and it's graphics chips can do overscan so a properly coded port should probably be a wash between the two consoles, not counting extra RAM and ROM space available on a 5200 cart.

 

I absolutely hate the NES version. HATE it!

[Nebulon]

The Z80 isn't a valid reason why the Colecovision version looks better. The 1.79 MHz 6502 does twice as much processing as a Z80 at the same clock speed. Now the TI graphics chip in the Colecovision has 16K devoted to it. However, the 5200 has 16K in system RAM and it's graphics chips can do overscan so a properly coded port should probably be a wash between the two consoles, not counting extra RAM and ROM space available on a 5200 cart.

 

I absolutely hate the NES version. HATE it!

Yeah, the NES version sure is weird. It's like they tried to 'modernize' it and make it play more like other NES games (level bosses, etc...). I could accept all the changes they made if they gave it a different name or maybe called it Gyruss II.

[MrMaddog]

Yeah, the NES version sure is weird. It's like they tried to 'modernize' it and make it play more like other NES games (level bosses, etc...). I could accept all the changes they made if they gave it a different name or maybe called it Gyruss II.

Honestly, I did not like the NES version of Gyruss. Oh yeah the ship graphics are nicer, but the tenticle bosses really ruin the coin-op experience. (Especially the one on Level 9) Even the screen shot of one on the back put me off renting it. Now that's what we call a Nintendoized game...

 

As the Gyruss on the 5200 & CV, the differences are due to the hardware of both systems. ColecoVision uses a TI video chip that supports sprites and tile graphics, just like on a NES & SMS. This means that the resolution is higher and best suited for the arcade games of the era. However you're limited to only using sprites & tile graphics just like on a NES.

 

The Atari 5200 (and other 8-bit computers) don't have tile graphics and uses a very crude sprite system from the 70's. If the only choices of either using low rez graphic modes and/or redefined character based graphics, the Atari games look more chunkier in comparison. BUT...because you can mix and match different graphic modes on the same screen and produce more on screen colors with some lcever programming tricks. So in that respect the Atari is a more versitile machine.

 

TR;DL Each console has their own unique style which comes down to personal preference. Me? I prefer the Atari 8-bit version of Gyruss simply because I can play it with a trackball controller

[kamakazi]

I have the NES version of this game and, while I do prefer ports closer to the arcade originals, it's not entirely bad. However, like most NES games, I feel that Konami got carried away with the port. I also believe that Nintendo might have been a huge reason why Konami did something different with the NES port of Gyruss. Let's face it, Atari did have a habit of running great arcade games into the ground. Nintendo, on the other, seems like they wanted to avoid this. It would explain why the Famicom got more arcade ports than the NES did. The NES did get a few arcade ports like Millipede and Joust that were not unchanged but Atari developed those games for the Famicom which were then brought overseas by Hal and other publishers. In some ways I find it painfully uneasy that Atari could develop those Famicom games to perfection while trying to develop 2600 and 5200 games at the same time. I would have loved to have the Galaxian the Famicom received for my NES.

 

The only way I've played Gyruss on the 5200 is through emulation and I always thought the graphics issues were due to emulation errors. I guess I'm just going to have to get the real cartridge. It is possible that Parker Bros. might have had two developers making the same game at the same time. The first one to completely finish the game first got their game published. It's possible. As long as the game retained its arcade game play I'm OK with it. I would, however, love to see the prototype that never got finished.

[Lynxpro]

Honestly, I did not like the NES version of Gyruss. Oh yeah the ship graphics are nicer, but the tenticle bosses really ruin the coin-op experience. (Especially the one on Level 9) Even the screen shot of one on the back put me off renting it. Now that's what we call a Nintendoized game...

 

As the Gyruss on the 5200 & CV, the differences are due to the hardware of both systems. ColecoVision uses a TI video chip that supports sprites and tile graphics, just like on a NES & SMS. This means that the resolution is higher and best suited for the arcade games of the era. However you're limited to only using sprites & tile graphics just like on a NES.

 

The Atari 5200 (and other 8-bit computers) don't have tile graphics and uses a very crude sprite system from the 70's. If the only choices of either using low rez graphic modes and/or redefined character based graphics, the Atari games look more chunkier in comparison. BUT...because you can mix and match different graphic modes on the same screen and produce more on screen colors with some lcever programming tricks. So in that respect the Atari is a more versitile machine.

 

TR;DL Each console has their own unique style which comes down to personal preference. Me? I prefer the Atari 8-bit version of Gyruss simply because I can play it with a trackball controller

 

 

I don't see how tile graphics helps a game like Gyruss. The background is a star field barely different than Star Raiders on the A8 circa 1979. The higher res and sprites would be valid but as I mentioned, the A8/5200 can do overscan and additional software sprites so I think this is the case of Parker Bros not going the extra mile for the port. The C64 has more hardware based sprites than the A8/5200 but it doesn't appear to be any better. I'm starting to think Coleco may have paid Parker Bros to make their Colecovision ports look the best.

[Bill Loguidice]

I'm starting to think Coleco may have paid Parker Bros to make their Colecovision ports look the best.

Which is of course completely ridiculous. The differences came down to programmer skill and hardware, which is what was already stated.

[Lynxpro]

Which is of course completely ridiculous. The differences came down to programmer skill and hardware, which is what was already stated.

 

Why is it ridiculous to assume Coleco paid Parker Bros to put extra effort into their Colecovision ports at the expense of the other platforms? After all, Coleco gimped their own ports to the 2600 on purpose. Sounds like a valid Michael Katz strategy to me.

[jetset]

Why is it ridiculous to assume Coleco paid Parker Bros to put extra effort into their Colecovision ports at the expense of the other platforms? After all, Coleco gimped their own ports to the 2600 on purpose. Sounds like a valid Michael Katz strategy to me.

 

Considering most of the like platform ports are better graphically on the 5200/A8 than the CV it makes little sense. Frogger, Popeye, Q*Bert...pretty much all of them except Gyruss are graphically better on the 5200 so if what you're saying is true they didn't do their job very well.

[Christophero Sly]

After all, Coleco gimped their own ports to the 2600 on purpose.

Source?