Best home console port of Galaga?

[roland p]

I liked the MSX version. It was a solid port.

Edited September 15, 2015 by roland p

[MaximRecoil]

Of course it's a question of taste. That's what "best" means in every internet thread ever created- what's best to you. Which do you like better? The question was not "which version's sprites are closest to the arcade?" If that were the question, then there would be no need for a poll, you could just show a comparison of the sprites and be done with it. One could certainly interpret the question as "which is closest to the arcade version," but again, there'd be no need for a poll - just show some screenshots.

 

The 7800 version is more fun, and that's more important than how accurate the sprites are. Obviously, some people (a majority in fact) think the NES version is more fun, and that's great.

 

The poll question is:

 

"What is the best home console port of Galaga?"

 

The purpose of porting software is to copy the appearance (if applicable), functionality, and audio (if applicable) of a program written for a particular hardware platform, to a different hardware platform. Ideally the port would be indistinguishable from the original from the user's perspective; that would objectively be the best possible port. As differences from the original accumulate, the quality of the port decreases, to the point that eventually it couldn't even be considered a port anymore, much less a good port or best port. A drastically different game which is supposedly a port may be a good game, but it has failed to meet the definition of a port.

 

And no, you can't simply compare screenshots to see which is a better port, because there is more to porting than just copying the graphics. The functionality (gameplay in this case) needs to be copied as well, as does the audio, so that is taken into account. For example, suppose there were three different ports of Pac-Man with "Port A" having more accurate graphics, "Port B" having more accurate sound, and "Port C" having more accurate gameplay. Which would be the better port? It would be hard to say, and might make for a good forum thread, but you certainly couldn't tell which one was the better port just from screenshots.

 

In the case of the 7800 port vs. the NES port of Galaga, it is no contest, because the NES port is more accurate on all three points: graphics, sound, and gameplay (the 7800 port's gameplay got automatically screwed up relative to the arcade version when they decided to alter the aspect ratio of the playfield).

 

As for TG-16's Galaga '90, it isn't a valid answer to the poll question, because it isn't a Galaga port in the first place.

 

The OP may have intended to ask which port is more fun, but the question as written, simply asks which is the better port, which is the same as asking which is better at being a port. It is the same thing as asking which of several items is a better copy. The one closest to the original is the better copy by definition, regardless of personal preference.

Edited September 15, 2015 by MaximRecoil

[jetset]

NES easily. the 7800 version is respectable graphic-wise, but the sound is borderline horrible. It's not bad when playing up close on a small TV but when playing at a distance you need the volume just a *smidge* louder. It seems like even from a distance once the volume hits a certain level there's a part of the pitch that just bores into your skull and makes your fillings rattle. Such a shame Atari sacrificed sound just so you could play games from 2 systems/generations prior.

[gamecat80]

The NES version has better graphics than the 7800 version; they are practically identical to the arcade graphics, while it doesn't look like they even tried to duplicate the arcade graphics with the 7800 version. The NES version also has far superior sound, which is also very close to the arcade sound, while the 7800 version is stuck with 1977 Atari 2600 sound. The NES version also more or less preserves the vertical screen orientation of the arcade version, while the 7800 stretches it out to fill a horizontal screen.

 

 

 

While the NES version has better/closer graphics & sound to the arcade than the Atari 7800 version, I still wouldn't call it "practically identical" to the arcade version. The NES version also seems to have somewhat choppy sprite movement, while the 7800 is smoother.

 

I have been critical of the 7800 sound. But 7800 Galaga isn't that bad for TIA sound, and is fun to play. Listen to 7800 Mario Bros. or Donkey Kong for real crude, primitive sound....

[MaximRecoil]

 

 

While the NES version has better/closer graphics & sound to the arcade than the Atari 7800 version, I still wouldn't call it "practically identical" to the arcade version.

 

I would. In fact, aside from color palette differences, the NES version's graphics are identical to the arcade version's for most, if not all, of the graphical elements:

 

 

That is a screenshot of the NES version, and the sprites / graphical elements with a red box outline around them are from the arcade version (click on it to enlarge).

 

As for the sound, I never said that the sound was practically identical to the arcade version, I said that it is very close.

 

The NES version also seems to have somewhat choppy sprite movement, while the 7800 is smoother.

 

They both look equally smooth to me. Do you have data which supports this, such as the number of frames of animation for a given segment for each version?

Edited September 15, 2015 by MaximRecoil

[+Defender_2600]

Compared to the Arcade version, the 7800 playfield is wider viceversa the NES playfield is narrower, therefore the sprites equal to the Arcade version are too wide than to the aspect ratio of the NES version.

 

Here some comparisons.

 

 

 

 

[+Defender_2600]

About TIA, I would just add that this '1977 Atari 2600 sound' can really to surprise:

 

 

 

 

 

[+Defender_2600]

7800 Galaga: Level Expert set with high score saving:

 

 

[+Defender_2600]

 

I would. In fact, aside from color palette differences, the NES version's graphics are identical to the arcade version's for most, if not all, of the graphical elements:

 

 

That is a screenshot of the NES version, and the sprites / graphical elements with a red box outline around them are from the arcade version (click on it to enlarge).

 

Not exactly, I used some Nestopia screenshots but the NES with 256 horizontal pixels by 240 vertical pixels display wide pixels and therefore wide sprites/tiles compared to arcade graphics (or 7800 320 mode). Same goes for ColecoVision, Sega Master System, CoCo 3, etc., for these systems the pixel aspect ratio is approximately 1.2 NTSC and 1.4 PAL.

Only the 7800 320 mode shows square pixels (pixel aspect ratio: 0.9 NTSC and 1.0 PAL) and can replicate the correct aspect ratio of the arcade graphics.

 

7800 Galaga is made in 160 mode (1.7 NTSC pixel aspect ratio ).

 

 

 

[MaximRecoil]

Not exactly, I used some Nestopia screenshots but the NES with 256 horizontal pixels by 240 vertical pixels display wide pixels and therefore wide sprites/tiles compared to arcade graphics (or 7800 320 mode). Same goes for ColecoVision, Sega Master System, CoCo 3, etc., for these systems the pixel aspect ratio is approximately 1.2 NTSC and 1.4 PAL.

Only the 7800 320 mode shows square pixels (pixel aspect ratio: 0.9 NTSC and 1.0 PAL) and can replicate the correct aspect ratio of the arcade graphics.

 

7800 Galaga is made in 160 mode (1.7 NTSC pixel aspect ratio ).

 

It's still the same graphics (pixel structure) regardless of the PAR. The PAR doesn't even necessarily determine the final appearance on a display. All you have to do is adjust your horizontal width coil (on older CRTs; or do it through the electronic controls on newer displays) and voila, the PAR can appear however you want it to appear.

Edited September 16, 2015 by MaximRecoil

[+Defender_2600]

 

It's still the same graphics (pixel structure) regardless of the PAR. The PAR doesn't even necessarily determine the final appearance on a display. All you have to do is adjust your horizontal width coil (on older CRTs; or do it through the electronic controls on newer displays) and voila, the PAR can appear however you want it to appear.

 

It is not a small adjustment. At best, It would get a geometry compromised.

[MaximRecoil]

 

It is not a small adjustment. At best, It would get a geometry compromised.

 

It doesn't compromise the geometry, unless you prefer short and wide pixels, in which case, you can just leave it alone. Here is an illustration of what adjusting the H-width does:

 

 

I.e., you can make it look exactly like the arcade sprites. The point is: the graphics are the same regardless of the PAR, because they have the same pixel structure. PAR only determines a default view on a monitor, i.e., it makes something like 256 x 240, which is a 1.07:1 AR if square pixels (1:1 PAR) are used, fill a 1.33:1 screen by default. However, if you want to adjust things, all bets are off. And it doesn't matter whether it is a small adjustment or not; it only takes a few seconds with modern displays because of their easily accessible electronic screen geometry controls. Most people wouldn't bother though, because it isn't a big deal.

[+FujiSkunk]

The OP may have intended to ask which port is more fun, but the question as written, simply asks which is the better port, which is the same as asking which is better at being a port. It is the same thing as asking which of several items is a better copy. The one closest to the original is the better copy by definition, regardless of personal preference.

 

Some people choose to define "best" as "the one I like the most", which is a perfectly valid definition of "best" in my opinion. Sometimes people ask questions like, "What's the best flavor of ice cream?" like so, and it is still quite clear what they mean. You can choose to let your head explode if you really want to, but... why?

 

As for me, as much as I'd like to give the edge to the 7800 port, I got more enjoyment out of the NES port. The 7800 port starts off too slowly and doesn't really get interesting until the Level 10 speed-up. Even then the enemy movements are just a little too predictable for my tastes.

 

I also agree it's not really fair to throw Galaga '90 into the mix, particularly since that was intended as a port of the arcade game Galaga '88, not the original.

[Rick Dangerous]

I really likes the MS DOS port back in the day...but for console i'd go with Wii U Virtual console all the way!

 

http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/buajdzlu66pixgqyknkcyrb61xju1oit

[+Defender_2600]

 

It doesn't compromise the geometry, unless you prefer short and wide pixels, in which case, you can just leave it alone. Here is an illustration of what adjusting the H-width does:

 

 

I.e., you can make it look exactly like the arcade sprites. The point is: the graphics are the same regardless of the PAR, because they have the same pixel structure. PAR only determines a default view on a monitor, i.e., it makes something like 256 x 240, which is a 1.07:1 AR if square pixels (1:1 PAR) are used, fill a 1.33:1 screen by default. However, if you want to adjust things, all bets are off. And it doesn't matter whether it is a small adjustment or not; it only takes a few seconds with modern displays because of their easily accessible electronic screen geometry controls. Most people wouldn't bother though, because it isn't a big deal.

 

Obviously, I was referring to NES real hardware on classic 'analog' cathode ray tube television (you talked about 'overscan area' previously ...).

 

Frankly, digital video processing on classical systems does not make much sense to me.

 

 

[MaximRecoil]

 

Some people choose to define "best" as "the one I like the most", which is a perfectly valid definition of "best" in my opinion. Sometimes people ask questions like, "What's the best flavor of ice cream?" like so, and it is still quite clear what they mean. You can choose to let your head explode if you really want to, but... why?

 

As for me, as much as I'd like to give the edge to the 7800 port, I got more enjoyment out of the NES port. The 7800 port starts off too slowly and doesn't really get interesting until the Level 10 speed-up. Even then the enemy movements are just a little too predictable for my tastes.

 

I also agree it's not really fair to throw Galaga '90 into the mix, particularly since that was intended as a port of the arcade game

 

Flavor is inherently subjective; porting is not. Porting has a clearly defined goal, given that it is just a specific form of copying. If there are too many differences it becomes something that can no longer be called a port or a copy. Simply asking "What is the best port" is the same as asking, "What is best at being a port?" The answer is determined by accuracy relative to the original, which is objective. Likewise, asking "What is the best flavor?" is the same as asking, "What is the best at being flavorful?" In this case, however, the answer is determined by individual preferences/senses, which are inherently subjective.

 

 

Obviously, I was referring to NES real hardware on classic 'analog' cathode ray tube television (you talked about 'overscan area' previously ...).

 

Frankly, digital video processing on classical systems does not make much sense to me.

 

All CRT displays are analog in nature, i.e., with regard to how they display raster, but that doesn't mean they can't have electronic controls. Practically all CRT displays since the 1980s have had some degree of electronic controls, with the better ones having electronic geometry controls. This is especially true of CRT PC monitors, but there are plenty of TVs that have them as well. Even without electronic geometry controls, you sometimes have an H-width potentiometer, which eliminates the hassle of sticking a plastic allen wrench into the H-width coil. The Happ Vision Pro CRT arcade monitors that I have in 3 of my arcade machines have H-width pots, which is nice, because when swapping boardsets, you almost always have to adjust the H- and V-width to get the raster to fit the screen. The original Technos/Taito Double Dragon boardset, for example, is notorious for being "narrow", and older arcade monitors which rely on turning the H-width coil with an allen wrench usually don't have enough adjustment to fill the screen side-to-side. My HVP monitors with their H-width pot have enough adjustment to fill the screen with Double Dragon, but just barely.

Edited September 16, 2015 by MaximRecoil

[+FujiSkunk]

Flavor is inherently subjective; porting is not. Porting has a clearly defined goal, given that it is just a specific form of copying. If there are too many differences it becomes something that can no longer be called a port or a copy. Simply asking "What is the best port" is the same as asking, "What is best at being a port?" The answer is determined by accuracy relative to the original, which is objective.

Agree to disagree then, because I believe it is perfectly acceptable to call a port the "best" based on subjective measurements like "favorite" and "fun".

 

Would you feel better if we had a separate poll asking what is the "most accurate" port?

[MaximRecoil]

Agree to disagree then, because I believe it is perfectly acceptable to call a port the "best" based on subjective measurements like "favorite" and "fun".

 

It is, as long as the question is actually asking for such a thing. The poll question in this thread however, is simply asking:

 

"What is the best home console port of Galaga?"

 

For anything which is determined objectively, the determination of "best" will also be determined objectively. For example, the best copy, the best performance, the best time, the best speed, the best gas mileage, etc. If you change the word "port" to "version", then any answer is valid, because "version" doesn't denote any sort of objective goal, while "port" denotes the goal of copying the functionality and audio/visual elements of a piece of software written for hardware "Platform A", to hardware "Platform B".

 

Would you feel better if we had a separate poll asking what is the "most accurate" port?

 

"Feel better"? I don't have any emotions regarding the matter in the first place. Also, the question, as written, already carries the same meaning as asking what is the most accurate port (just like asking what is the best gas mileage = asking what is the highest gas mileage), which is the point I've been making.

Edited September 16, 2015 by MaximRecoil

[+FujiSkunk]

I get your point. I just don't agree with it. Outside of any other context, I say it's fair to factor subjective taste into a "best" question such as, "What is the best home console port of Galaga?"

 

However I do apologize for saying "feel better". I was going to rephrase that, but then left it since I figured you'd see the original in your email alert anyway. I honestly wasn't trying to be that snarky.

[+Defender_2600]

 

All CRT displays are analog in nature, i.e., with regard to how they display raster, but that doesn't mean they can't have electronic controls. Practically all CRT displays since the 1980s have had some degree of electronic controls, with the better ones having electronic geometry controls. This is especially true of CRT PC monitors, but there are plenty of TVs that have them as well. Even without electronic geometry controls, you sometimes have an H-width potentiometer, which eliminates the hassle of sticking a plastic allen wrench into the H-width coil. The Happ Vision Pro CRT arcade monitors that I have in 3 of my arcade machines have H-width pots, which is nice, because when swapping boardsets, you almost always have to adjust the H- and V-width to get the raster to fit the screen. The original Technos/Taito Double Dragon boardset, for example, is notorious for being "narrow", and older arcade monitors which rely on turning the H-width coil with an allen wrench usually don't have enough adjustment to fill the screen side-to-side. My HVP monitors with their H-width pot have enough adjustment to fill the screen with Double Dragon, but just barely.

 

..adjust the geometry of a CRT TV is a delicate operation and even with the electronic controls the margin of adjustment is very limited.

Certainly the Arcade monitors are more versatile even if not exactly a plug and play solution for a home system...

 

Among other, I also have a Sony 20-inch CRT monitor (MultiSync) but, regardless, I really prefer to preserve the NES pixel aspect ratio in his native value (1.14 - 5.37 MHz on NTSC).

 

[MaximRecoil]

 

..adjust the geometry of a CRT TV is a delicate operation and even with the electronic controls the margin of adjustment is very limited.

Certainly the Arcade monitors are more versatile even if not exactly a plug and play solution for a home system...

 

Adjusting horizontal width isn't a delicate operation. You turn a pot or push a button; at worst you have to turn the horizontal width coil with a plastic allen wrench, if you have a decades-old TV or monitor. There is plenty of range of adjustment, especially if you have a pot or electronic control. There are no geometry adjustments which are delicate operations. There are some which are tricky, if you don't have a control for it, such as manually eliminating trapezoidal or keystone shaped raster, or jogs/wiggles, by gluing magnets to the backside of the tube in precisely the right position. This level of geometry adjustment might as well be an art form. Purity and convergence can be tricky to adjust too, but those have nothing to do with geometry.

[+Defender_2600]

 

There are no geometry adjustments which are delicate operations. There are some which are tricky, if you don't have a control for it, such as manually eliminating trapezoidal or keystone shaped raster, or jogs/wiggles, by gluing magnets to the backside of the tube in precisely the right position. This level of geometry adjustment might as well be an art form. Purity and convergence can be tricky to adjust too, but those have nothing to do with geometry.

 

A delicate operation in the sense of work that must be done with finesse, attention, accuracy...but of course it depends on the result you want to achieve. I have spent many hours playing with geometry.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

Flavor is inherently subjective; porting is not. Porting has a clearly defined goal, given that it is just a specific form of copying. If there are too many differences it becomes something that can no longer be called a port or a copy. Simply asking "What is the best port" is the same as asking, "What is best at being a port?" The answer is determined by accuracy relative to the original, which is objective. Likewise, asking "What is the best flavor?" is the same as asking, "What is the best at being flavorful?" In this case, however, the answer is determined by individual preferences/senses, which are inherently subjective.

 

 

All CRT displays are analog in nature, i.e., with regard to how they display raster, but that doesn't mean they can't have electronic controls. Practically all CRT displays since the 1980s have had some degree of electronic controls, with the better ones having electronic geometry controls. This is especially true of CRT PC monitors, but there are plenty of TVs that have them as well. Even without electronic geometry controls, you sometimes have an H-width potentiometer, which eliminates the hassle of sticking a plastic allen wrench into the H-width coil. The Happ Vision Pro CRT arcade monitors that I have in 3 of my arcade machines have H-width pots, which is nice, because when swapping boardsets, you almost always have to adjust the H- and V-width to get the raster to fit the screen. The original Technos/Taito Double Dragon boardset, for example, is notorious for being "narrow", and older arcade monitors which rely on turning the H-width coil with an allen wrench usually don't have enough adjustment to fill the screen side-to-side. My HVP monitors with their H-width pot have enough adjustment to fill the screen with Double Dragon, but just barely.

 

 

 

It is, as long as the question is actually asking for such a thing. The poll question in this thread however, is simply asking:

 

"What is the best home console port of Galaga?"

 

For anything which is determined objectively, the determination of "best" will also be determined objectively. For example, the best copy, the best performance, the best time, the best speed, the best gas mileage, etc. If you change the word "port" to "version", then any answer is valid, because "version" doesn't denote any sort of objective goal, while "port" denotes the goal of copying the functionality and audio/visual elements of a piece of software written for hardware "Platform A", to hardware "Platform B".

 

 

"Feel better"? I don't have any emotions regarding the matter in the first place. Also, the question, as written, already carries the same meaning as asking what is the most accurate port (just like asking what is the best gas mileage = asking what is the highest gas mileage), which is the point I've been making.

You guys are arguing over semantics. Maybe "favorite" is a better term. For some reason even though the NES port is more accurate, the 7800 port pulls me in in a way the NES version didn't. Not sure why that is.

[+FujiSkunk]

You guys are arguing over semantics.

 

I think we were done, actually.

[Great Hierophant]

The programmers behind the Atari 7800 port did a good job, this is no half-baked poor-man's version. However, all they probably had was a license to port the program and access to an arcade cabinet. Namco appears to have done its port of Galaga for the Famicom and NES in-house. That may have allowed them access to schematics, source code, design documents, hardware, binary files, essentially everything they could have to make the best recreation given the hardware they had.