Is there any PROOF that the 7800 was test marketed in 1984?

[Greg2600]

Jumping in here... the Atari 7800 was never the successor to the 5200 - was not the quantum leap forward, as say the 5200 over the 2600 system.

 

When Electronic Games magazine previewed the 7800 (forgot the year - 1984? maybe..) it said the 7800 Joust graphics were amazing quality - but to date I have seen the 7800 hardware running where I am (Dunedin, New Zealand) - although I knew of someone devoted to Atari who had it. Sadly he died prematurely, so I never got around to seeing it...

 

Anyways - a Atari 520ST games console would have been financial suicide against the likes of the MegaDrive/Genesis and SNES hardware/software competition. That Sega did amazingly well in the 16-bit console wars - only shot themselves in the foot with their 32X and 32XCD upgrades - let down by their Dreamcast venture - and under rated Saturn.

The NES won out - not by it's hardware (although this was sufficiently competent) but by it's quality software - but the best of the best of it's software - bet out it's competition. But not all NES software was great - of course. Games have to be designed for it's target hardware in mind - and within it's target (this goes for any hardware system) it does it's job well. New consoles showcase new hardware - to new trends. Look at Streetfighter II - this revived the coin-op market - but what home systems could bring this coin-op home? Not any 8-bit system for sure - and only at the time - could 16-bit consoles do a decent job with it.

 

Atari failed to bring out decent hardware - at the time of the 7800. This hardware are not amazing at it's time (the magazine coverage lied - about it's potential etc) - as evidenced by it's sound quality, and lack of decent playfield graphics. Likewise the Jaguar was a failure too - it did not have a 64-bit quality to it overall. Tempest 2000 was great - but look at it's simple graphics. While Alien vs Predator had the great graphics - it's frame rate was just bearable - had it been a lot faster - it would have made a world of difference. Whereas the Playstation was able to deliver decent frame rates - and therefore won over all the competition.

 

The XEGame system was far too late when it debuted because it still had it's main graphics dating back to 1979/1980. And only now it's full graphics potential is being shown working - as in AtariBLAST! - which should hopefully make an appearance at the Atari Party in June... plug, plug... This game demo also runs on the Atari 400 (16k), Atari 5200 and extended memory Atari 400/800 etc computers using a flash cart - using the GTIA modes and Antic modes 2 and 4.

 

Harvey

 

The 7800 had capabilities for sure, but there was cost cutting that essentially left the buying public with an inferior product to SMS and NES. FWIW, the NES (Famicom) itself was designed with a good deal of cost cutting in mind as well. That's what required the 2nd (1986+) wave of titles to start using expanded cartridge hardware to beef it up. Nintendo was very concerned with spending too much on hardware, something they've always done. That being said, the NES/FC barebone still had decent sound, while the 7800 had Atari 2600 sound. Even with a 1984 release, way too many of its games would still have been released with substandard sound. Graphically the arcade ports were fine. However, whether it was POKEY or GUMBY, I have a feeling the cheapskates would still have produced way too many games without either of them.

 

I of course agree on the software statement. When the dust settled, the NES simply had the competition destroyed by the software library. Sure there were tons of garbage, but there was a core 25-30 games that 80% of NES owners had, that were tremendous, better than anything that was offered on the 7800 or SMS, or even TG-16.

 

The release of an Atari ST game system, by Tramiel's Atari, would have been another disaster. Again, what games would they have had? They wouldn't have had anything by SEGA, Nintendo, or Hudson Soft, and that would have been a mountain of desired titles. Not to mention it's doubtful such a system would have been sold at $150-$200 without taking big losses on them. And yes, the XEGS was abysmal for the time period in which it was sold.

[kiwilove]

I never got around to checking out the Sega Master System - but did see it's predecessor going with Star Jacker - and it did not impress me at the time. A premier title that could have convinced me of any SMS hardware capability - would have been Zaxxon - but no worthwhile SMS version appeared. Of course it would have been too much to ask of it's hardware.

I still remain unconvinced about the 7800 hardware - I'll say it's playfield graphics are severely limited going by game titles. It's Xexious is severely lacking in it's landscape department. It's only plus seems to be the hardware sprites - say over the A8 sprites.

 

It is a bit of irony that it is only about now, long after the marketing of the Atari 400/800/etc hardware has died - that it's full graphics potential is being explored - say in AtariBLAST! Atari 5200 owners should be particularly pleased - confirming what can be done on it - can indeed be special.

 

I did check out a Japanese famicom - with disk drive, and at the time the hardware did impress me. I checked out Castlevania on floppy, with carts of a Twinbee vertical shooter, Super Mario Brothers and Duck Hunt (with it's gun).

 

In the UK during the 80s - a lot of coin-op conversions to home computers were sold to the public - but most of these would have been very disappointing - I'd guess. These would have been for the C-64, Spectrum, Amstrad - and not Atari 8-bit. There were Atari ST conversions - few of which brought the arcade experience home. I think only the Star Wars game did that (because the ST hardware could handle this type of game - 3D vector graphics competently).

[Jinks]

I see a huge jump from blocky 5200 to 7800. One looks like the 70s computer that it is and one looks more 80s. Yeah the sound and the game library lacking. But thats the consoles fault?

Ever play plutos? BB crystal quest? I dont see the 5200 doing anything like it..

If the 7800 had the same a8 5200 computer support for development it would be more evident.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Jinks

[kiwilove]

If someone was wanting to move onto a new console for retrogames development, say after the Atari 5200 - then instead of the 7800 - I would suggest moving onto the Nintendo SNES instead - which was the next significant leap ahead, while still being 6502 assembler based.

I really don't understand people still being keen on 2600 development, when it would be done better on the Atari 5200. And if you can't do it adequately on the Atari 5200 - move onto the SNES? No problems with too few multicoloured sprites, colours for backgrounds, etc.

Though it does mean starting from scratch all over again...

For gamers who have not experienced SNES games - there is a varied library of games there waiting to be explored - and you may be surprised at the quality? Though there are enough dud titles around too..

[Jetboot Jack]

I see a huge jump from blocky 5200 to 7800. One looks like the 70s computer that it is and one looks more 80s. Yeah the sound and the game library lacking. But thats the consoles fault?

Ever play plutos? BB crystal quest? I dont see the 5200 doing anything like it..

If the 7800 had the same a8 5200 computer support for development it would be more evident.

 

Really?

 

Given the 5200 was just a cut down Atari 800 it can do games like this:

 

http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-last-guardian-_2922.html

 

http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-mirax-force_6722.html

 

http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-zybex_5954.html

 

Which are not far off those unreleased 7800 games!

 

sTeVE

[Trebor]

 

Really?

 

Given the 5200 was just a cut down Atari 800 it can do games like this:

 

http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-last-guardian-_2922.html

 

http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-mirax-force_6722.html

 

http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-zybex_5954.html

 

Which are not far off those unreleased 7800 games!

 

sTeVE

 

Sure, but that would be a huge factor though - "the 5200 is a cut-down 800". Adding (memory) chips to to any system, things may start looking differently.

 

A better (granted, not best though) comparison is to take a console with its 'base usage' only and compare the same game across platforms.

 

For the NES/Famicom, 7800, and 5200/8-bit let's take two examples: Dig Dug and Donkey Kong - All three 'platforms' share those game ports among them. Clearly both the 7800 and NES are better and similar to each other graphically than what the 5200/8-bit (conversion) offers.

 

If we're continuing with a "not far off" reasoning, a 2600 can be viewed as "not far off" from 5200/8-bit and C64 quality, taking Boulder Dash as an example.

 

Regardless, "not far off" is still off the mark. Even with comparisons (and memory additions) to the 8-bit/5200 line, those systems are not getting near 7800 Alien Brigade, Commando, Midnight Mutants, Ninja Golf, or the new homebrew Bentley Bear's Crystal Quest, in terms of an actual game being playable on the aforementioned systems while maintaining that same level of graphical quality/presentation/animation throughout. Along those lines, what the heck happened with Atari 8-bit Food Fight? It's a choppy mess to play.

 

Nonetheless, much like beauty, for many the line of reasoning/reasonableness, will fall upon the eye of the beholder.

 

Understandably with a name like "Jetboot Jack", it may imply being somewhat of an (Atari) 8-bit computer fan/lover.

 

The Atari 8-bit platform indeed has its share of great games; however, try not to throw stones if you're more of a Atari 8-bit supporter when I state I am more of a C64 fan/lover myself.

[Lynxpro]

Depends on the developers too. And Atari Inc developed games were considered better than GCC's work. GCC could've diminished the ports to the 5200 they did just to hype to Warner the need to transition to their 7800 project.

 

The NES receives an artificial leg up due to the MMC chips added inside their cartridges . Without them, the NES can't match the 7800's abilities.

[Jetboot Jack]

 

Sure, but that would be a huge factor though - "the 5200 is a cut-down 800". Adding (memory) chips to to any system, things may start looking differently.

 

 

Not at all - the base RAM is 100% sufficient to do those games - the carts would need to be much bigger in ROM space, but the 5200/A8 architecture is capable of supporting VERY large carts.

 

The bottom line is that the 7800 has significant graphical capabilities ahead of the 5200 - and whilst doing things exactly like Plutos would be impossible on the 5200, the 5200 is capable of better games than the existing library demonstrates - is all I am saying.

[Trebor]

The bottom line is that the 7800 has significant graphical capabilities ahead of the 5200 - and whilst doing things exactly like Plutos would be impossible on the 5200, the 5200 is capable of better games than the existing library demonstrates - is all I am saying.

100% agree.

 

While I would have to give the edge to the 7800 on which system was short-changed more, both console systems have much untapped potential. Thankfully, for the 5200, it is a tad bit easier to tap that potential somewhat with the conversions from the 8-bit line brought over. Sort of similar to how the ColecoVision has benefited from MSX conversion titles.

 

The 7800 has seen some great development tools strides relatively recently thanks to folks like RevEng and CPUWIZ. Having a greater pool of new developers on board, along with our beloved 'veterans', helps increase the likelihood of the 7800's potential being tapped some more.

[DracIsBack]

 

he bottom line is that the 7800 has significant graphical capabilities ahead of the 5200 - and whilst doing things exactly like Plutos would be impossible on the 5200, the 5200 is capable of better games than the existing library demonstrates - is all I am saying.

 

To be fair to the 5200, it also comes from the "Programmer art" era that typified the early 1980s. One person often did everything - graphics, music, level design and programming. Some programmers are better at all those things than others.

 

In the case of the NES era, game development tended to have more teams with specific experts working together - the artist, the musician, the producer, the developer to come up with the games that looked and sounded better, even on hardware that wasn't radically different.

 

To use a comment I've made before, if you took Nintendo's top team, and tasked them to create a game on the 5200 (or 7800) using the budget that Nintendo allocated on a cartridge size typical to what Nintendo would have manufactured, the end result is likely a lot better than what you might normally get from the existing library for those systems.

Edited June 5, 2014 by DracIsBack

[high voltage]

Nintendo only releases the same games over and over and over and over.....Mario Kart 8, 9 10, 11, 1256

[DracIsBack]

Nintendo only releases the same games over and over and over and over.....Mario Kart 8, 9 10, 11, 1256

 

they release franchise titles, but the games themselves are sufficiently different to draw people in.

[Jetboot Jack]

Nintendo only releases the same games over and over and over and over.....Mario Kart 8, 9 10, 11, 1256

 

That is a GROSS oversimplification - play Mariokart 8 - it is sublime, it might be a "franchise", but it is a work of gameplay and game design art!

 

1080P 60fps, wonderful track design (and lovingly re-imagined favourite tracks from as far back as the original SMK on the SNES) - the control and vehicle dynamics are just amazing; to play it is to realise just how good Nintendo are at making joyous, playable games!

 

sTeVE

[Jetboot Jack]

 

To be fair to the 5200, it also comes from the "Programmer art" era that typified the early 1980s. One person often did everything - graphics, music, level design and programming. Some programmers are better at all those things than others.

 

In the case of the NES era, game development tended to have more teams with specific experts working together - the artist, the musician, the producer, the developer to come up with the games that looked and sounded better, even on hardware that wasn't radically different.

 

To use a comment I've made before, if you took Nintendo's top team, and tasked them to create a game on the 5200 (or 7800) using the budget that Nintendo allocated on a cartridge size typical to what Nintendo would have manufactured, the end result is likely a lot better than what you might normally get from the existing library for those systems.

 

Hmm - by 1984 artists were joint developers of titles across the board - my good friend Michael Becker was the first artist hired by Imagic - he did in game artwork from Atlantis onwards..

 

However I totally agree - if the same talent were to produce a game on a 5200 instead of a NES we would have seen amazing games - good games design is rarely constrained by hardware limitations!

 

sTeVE

Edited June 6, 2014 by Jetboot Jack