In defense of the original Flashback...

[toiletunes]

...An exercise in creative thinking.

 

The FB1 (or whatever you call it) seems to have a bad rep- it's emulation, there's not many games, etc. and somehow it always reminded me of how some people treat the 5200. I had a chance to pick up a FB1 pretty cheap, and it's not that bad! Sure, there are better options out there, but these plug&play consoles had to start somewhere, right? Plus, this is the only FB to offer some 7800 titles, including Planet Smashers! I never had that cart, so it was fun to finally try it out.

 

What else- well, it comes with a pair of door stoppers, and it never hurts to have a spare 9V power supply lying around, and

did I mention it was inexpensive?

 

um, without the FB1, we wouldn't have gotten to the FB2, and...

 

hmm...

 

if you count P&P devices as consoles, you can geek out the competition by saying you have more game consoles...

 

It doesn't take up much space...

 

it's better than not playing anything...

 

He-Man action figures can use it as a conference table,

 

you could probably re-wire the controllers for something else...

 

meh,

that's all I got.

[atarilovesyou]

FB1 was a turd. To refer to it as otherwise exposes bad taste. Thank God for FB2

[PacManPlus]

I need to find one to see if I can fit my Raspberry Pi in it

[AlecRob]

FB1 = NOAC

[RickR]

It actually produces anger when you play it. Anger is no good.

[jaybird3rd]

I still wish that a schematic for the FB1 circuit board had been made available, so an NES cartridge slot could have been added to it. That's the only use I'd have for mine.

 

In fairness, the FB1 was reportedly designed on a very tight schedule, and all of the games in it had to be reprogrammed for the NOAC chipset that it used (specifically, the Novatek 6578). Some of them turned out better than others. I don't know how feasible it would have been, but I would have preferred to see the original game code ported to the new hardware, or perhaps even a partial 2600 emulator. This is the approach that Digital Eclipse evidently used in the Jakks Pacific Atari 13-in-1 Paddle, and in my opinion, it turned out extremely well. I posted a review of that unit years ago, and it's still one of my favorites: it proves that, with clever programming, a NOAC-based system doesn't have to be cheap junk.

 

My only plans for my FB1 are to reuse its case as an enclosure for another system. I don't recall who it was, but someone here on AtariAge once put a Pico-ITX board inside theirs. Now, with the Raspberry Pi and even smaller single-board computers, there are even better options. Mine will almost surely be some sort of Android-based system with a healthy collection of emulators.

[AtariLeaf]

 

it's better than not playing anything...

 

 

 

No it's not. That's like saying it's better to eat dog shit than not eat anything.

[onmode-ky]

The FB1 (or whatever you call it) seems to have a bad rep- it's emulation, there's not many games, etc.

Actually, the FB1 is not emulation. As mentioned by others, the games on it are ports to the new hardware--and ports (newly programmed code that runs on a different hardware architecture from the original) are not the same thing as emulation (existing code that runs through a translation program on a different hardware architecture from the original). As far as faithfully reproducing original look and behavior, both techniques can be done well and both can also be done poorly, but they are fundamentally different.

 

The Flashbacks that do utilize emulation are the AtGames-produced models, i.e., from FB3 onward.

 

Sure, there are better options out there, but these plug&play consoles had to start somewhere, right?

Being the first is not an excuse that the FB1 can fall back on, because it wasn't the first plug-n-play system to attempt to recreate the 2600 experience. Bootlegs aside, the first were the 2001 Activision TV Game from Toymax and the 2002 Atari TV Game from Toymax purchaser Jakks Pacific--both of which systems have their own unhappy reputation among retro gamers--but the excellent 2004 Atari Paddles TV Game that jaybird3rd mentioned also predates the FB1, having beaten it to market by a few months (summer vs. fall).

 

Again, as mentioned before, the FB1's excuse is that it is the product Atari decreed had to be developed within a short time frame before they would give the green light to the system which Legacy Engineering really wanted to make. So, as with many other examples in gaming history, its flaws stem largely from being rushed.

 

[the Jakks Pacific Atari 13-in-1 Paddle] proves that, with clever programming, a NOAC-based system doesn't have to be cheap junk.

Well, technically, it didn't prove that. I get what you mean, and I certainly agree that the Atari Paddle TV Game was very well executed, but it was not a NOAC, so it doesn't entirely support the statement. My research a few years ago indicated it was most likely built on a 65C816-compatible 16-bit microcontroller from Winbond (presumably the same as the other early TV Games systems, including the Atari joystick model), possibly the one mentioned in this AtariAge post. I'm not a game programmer myself, but it does at least seem like a chip that's more akin to the SNES than the NES would have an easier time doing, well, most things. So, not using a NOAC in that case may have been an advantage as far as mimicking the 2600 successfully. Again, I don't disagree with your basic statement, just that the Paddle TV Game may have had an easier path to travel than a NOAC-based system would have had.

 

onmode-ky

[jaybird3rd]

Well, technically, it didn't prove that. I get what you mean, and I certainly agree that the Atari Paddle TV Game was very well executed, but it was not a NOAC, so it doesn't entirely support the statement. My research a few years ago indicated it was most likely built on a 65C816-compatible 16-bit microcontroller from Winbond (presumably the same as the other early TV Games systems, including the Atari joystick model), possibly the one mentioned in this AtariAge post. I'm not a game programmer myself, but it does at least seem like a chip that's more akin to the SNES than the NES would have an easier time doing, well, most things. So, not using a NOAC in that case may have been an advantage as far as mimicking the 2600 successfully. Again, I don't disagree with your basic statement, just that the Paddle TV Game may have had an easier path to travel than a NOAC-based system would have had.

Interesting! I was under the impression all this time that it was a plain old NOAC, but perhaps I was mistaken.

 

My main point was that the development approach was what really differentiated the Jakks paddle from the FB1, and I still believe that, even though I now know that the hardware might also have been different. Jeff Vavasour's description of the creation of the Jakks paddle is very interesting reading, by the way: the games in the paddle are indeed running the original 2600 code (and arcade code, in the case of Warlords), adapted for the new hardware. I don't see any evidence that a similar approach was taken with the FB1: the games looked to me like they were hastily executed reconstructions, created entirely from scratch, which is why they lack whatever detail and polish the originals had. If you use the original code, you get the benefit of all the fine-tuning and bug-fixing that went into it, but starting from scratch means doing all that over again yourself. According to Wikipedia, Legacy Engineering had only ten weeks(?!) to put the FB1 together, so it's very possible that there simply wasn't time to take the same approach that Digital Eclipse did, in whatever way would have made sense on their target hardware. I still think it would have made for a more authentic product, even on such limited hardware as a NOAC.

[TrekkiELO]

Well, I do enjoy the Atari Flashback's 7800 console and joystick looking similar to their originals along with its games, Asteroids, Centipede, Desert Falcon, Charley Chuck's Food Fight and Planet Smashers, but that's about it!

Edited April 23, 2014 by TrekkiELO

[almightytodd]

 

um, without the FB1, we wouldn't have gotten to the FB2, and...

 

 

To me, that's really the point. Call the FB1 a "proof of concept" to allow Curt to move ahead with the FB2 project and "do it right". The FB1 had fewer games and cost more than the FB2... ...but it sold enough units to prove that this genre was a viable commercial product.

[Hydro Thunder]

The version of Charley Chuck's Food Fight was reasonably fun on the FB1. But everything else stunk, esp the controllers. And so mine went to goodwill (got it brand new for $9.99 free ship off ebay) once I got Food Fight for 7800.

[atarilovesyou]

 

To me, that's really the point. Call the FB1 a "proof of concept" to allow Curt to move ahead with the FB2 project and "do it right". The FB1 had fewer games and cost more than the FB2... ...but it sold enough units to prove that this genre was a viable commercial product.

 

...only to have them drop the beauty that Curt created and went with a cheaper product. Why do they do this? They could have IMPROVED the product....included MORE licensed games, maybe some new paddles like they have now....but no, they just went ahead with a cheaper product thinking that, "Hey, nobody cares about this stuff enough anyway!".

 

I mean, FB1 proved the market. FB2 gave us a gem. And after that? Well...all downhill after that. Is it all bad news? No...depending on how you look at it. But why didn't they at least try to improve the FB2? I guess the money wasn't there, but then why re-release the newer versions that are guaranteed going to piss off the retro crowd with their cheaper quality?

 

Frustrating. I'm glad I have my FB2s, and even more glad I have my original gear.

[almightytodd]

... But why didn't they at least try to improve the FB2? I guess the money wasn't there, but then why re-release the newer versions that are guaranteed going to piss off the retro crowd with their cheaper quality?

 

Well, as I stated in this thread, there are some new features in the FB4 that make it arguably an improvement over the FB2 - there are almost twice as many games, a simplified alphabetically sorted game selection menu, and wireless controllers that allow you to reset and return to the game selection menu without having to turn the console unit off then on... ...all for a lower cost than the original FB1. For the less enthusiastic retro game fan who may have passed on all of the earlier iterations of the Flashback, 75 games and wireless controllers may have been the tipping point to get them to buy. And then there are people like me, who bought both, along with having original gear (I have two 7800's and our family's original 1977 Heavy Sixer), and being heavily into the emulation scene.

 

I don't want to speak for Curt, but my recollection was that after creating the epitome of VCS replication accuracy, he was ready to move on to other projects (...a hand-held? ...the 7800 XM project? ...some kind of Atari 800 Flashback?), plus, he and Marty did the Taco Bell CDs (which I have); Curt developed an Atari USB stick (I have one of those); they were working on their book (I also have that) and to top it all off, Curt ended up in the hospital and almost died, partly due to how much work he was putting into so many projects.

 

So in the context of all that, I'm perfectly satisfied with how things worked out. The success that AtGames had with the FB3 and FB4 have given them the opportunity to do Sega and Colecovision units, and I believe I've heard something about an Intellivision FB in the works? That being said, there isn't a single retro-gaming product that I would rather have, than the knowledge that Curt Vendel is alive and well. That's my perspective...

[onmode-ky]

But why didn't they at least try to improve the FB2? I guess the money wasn't there, but then why re-release the newer versions that are guaranteed going to piss off the retro crowd with their cheaper quality?

It sounds like you're under the impression that Atari actively shaped how the Flashback line developed across the various iterations of the series. This is not the case. For no iteration of the series was Atari the primary driving force. Even when they were the ones providing the funding (i.e., FB1 and FB2), they were not the ones in the driver's seat:

 

FB1 - "Hmm, so you Legacy Engineering guys want to make a 2600 mini-console that's fully Atari-branded? I dunno. It sounds awfully risky, an untested market. How about you make something similar but quick for this holiday season--yes, this holiday season--and if that goes over well, you can do the 'real thing' next year?"

 

FB2 - "Good news, Legacy, we'll go ahead with funding your project! I know you'll do a great job!"

 

[post-FB2, Atari corporate seems to have chosen to move their focus away from retro gaming, until a cereal company knocked on their door . . .]

 

FB2+ - "You're saying General Mills wants to commission a special run of Flashbacks? Well, hey, if they're paying for it, sure!"

 

FB3 and beyond - "So you AtGames guys want to make a new Flashback system of your own? That sounds pretty good. Now, you're going to develop and make it, but Atari still gets sign-off, right? Okay, great, let's do that."

 

It was always someone else coming to Atari with the idea. The differences between the Legacy productions and the AtGames productions came about because different people worked on them, and Atari just gave their approval to the final products. For them, it wasn't about pushing the Flashback series forward, making it even better for the hardcore retro gamer audience; instead, it was someone else's idea that just sounded good for the company. Did Atari want them to make a good product? Presumably yes. Did they want to make sure it was better than what came before? Well, yes, but their only metric for "better" was "more games." All the other details were in Legacy/AtGames' court, however they wanted to handle it. To put it simply, Atari was never proactive when it came to the Flashback line. They owned the name, but it wasn't their baby.

 

The success that AtGames had with the FB3 and FB4 have given them the opportunity to do Sega and Colecovision units, and I believe I've heard something about an Intellivision FB in the works?

Just some timeline rearrangements: AtGames has been doing Sega stuff since ~2005, long before they ever got their Atari license, and while you're right about them now working on both ColecoVision and Intellivision products, your ordering is a bit unusual--the Intellivision one was actually known about for something like a month prior to the ColecoVision one and seems to have much more buzz here at AtariAge than its CV sibling. Both should be coming sometime this year (along with new editions in the Atari and Sega lines).

 

onmode-ky

[wiseguyusa]

In theory shouldn't a superior NES platform be capable of emulation an older inferior platform (ie: the 2600) ??

 

I realize that is not what the NOAC does, it is ported code, but wouldn't emulation also be possible?

[Atariboy]

[+bcombee]

To emulate a platform, you really need to be running a CPU that's at least 50 times faster than the original to account for all the emulation overhead. The NES hardware was more powerful, but it was still running a 6502 CPU core, and the graphics hardware was limited. The first console that was powerful enough to really emulate 2600 games acceptable was the Sony PlayStation which was around 60 times the CPU speed (33MHZ 32-bit MIPS R3000 vs 1.1MHz 6507).

 

There are 2600 games that use TIA tricks that could never be done in the NES hardware -- it only has 52 colors, while the TIA could output 128, for example. Many 2600 games can be reimplemented fairly faithfully on a NES, but you're looking at a complete rewrite, not emulation.

[wiseguyusa]

Simple concise answer that makes sense, is tangible, and I understand it!!

To emulate a platform, you really need to be running a CPU that's at least 50 times faster than the original to account for all the emulation overhead.

[CRV]

I'll say this much: The original Flashback is better than the Intellivision NOAC controllers.

[TrekkiELO]

I don't want to speak for Curt, but my recollection was that after creating the epitome of VCS replication accuracy, he was ready to move on to other projects (...a hand-held? ...the 7800 XM project? ...some kind of Atari 800 Flashback?), plus, he and Marty did the Taco Bell CDs (which I have); Curt developed an Atari USB stick (I have one of those); they were working on their book (I also have that) and to top it all off, Curt ended up in the hospital and almost died, partly due to how much work he was putting into so many projects.

 

Curt and Marty were also working on plans for two other projects, an Intellivision and ColecoVision on-a-chip, like the Atari Flashback 2/2+!

 

Edited January 12, 2015 by TrekkiELO

[Flojomojo]

I liked the idea of having Solaris on a plug and play. That's a great game, even if the FB1 implementation isn't.

[+CXK]

...

He-Man action figures can use it as a conference table,

 

If only I still had my He-Man action figures. ..

[doctorclu]

When the original Flashback came out I played the games on it for hours. Was fun, played friends on some two player games. Seemed a bit off at times but not enough to make me not like it.

 

Eventually I got the Flashback 2 and passed on the Flashback to some friends to let them play it.

 

And I agree with the proof of concept statement. It showed there were a market, they sold the Flashback 2-7 and eventually got the most important model, the Flash Portable, to us. So, thanks!