2600 Battlezone is terrible

[zylon]

IBTL

[Jinks]

Whats next yars revenge sucks thread? River Raid blows? Dig dug? Like c'mon this bzone 2600 game I think was a fn masterpiece for its time. Look at the graphics? No glitching or flicker? Geez it can't be that bad. For real. Run N tell that.

[sloth-machine]

It's ok not to like the game. But calling it 'terrible' is straight up trolling. The game is very well programmed and uses the strengths of the hardware. The game has a very impressive 3D environment where you can dodge shots and see them pass right by you in first person. Also enemy fire comes from all direction. It can get quite intense unlike the peekaboo gameplay of Robot Tank, but I can understand how it's not for everyone.

 

It's personally one of my favorites. Battlezone is up there with Yars, Pitfall, Asteroids, Space Invaders and Missile Command.

[ClintTX]

IBTL

Is it legit or did you save state in the emulator after every safe tank spawn?

[+LS650]

I'm okay with Battlezone 2600. Sure it pales in comparison to the arcade version... but what doesn't??

[Feralstorm]

It's OK, 2600 Battlezone isn't for everyone, and the differences from the arcade version require a different approach. No reason anyone has to like...

 

I encourage every else to blacklist this game as well as there is really no reason people should be playing this game, when the awesome arcade version is available to play in MAME or even other much better later ports of the game.

 

Yeesh, just shut up.

[ClintTX]

Ya'll are making it out like I'm just not good enough to handle it or something when I point out the flaws in the way the spawns work ya'll act like Battlezone on the 2600 is the end all be all of gaming in 1983. I don't know if the dump I'm playing is bugged or corrupt or something, but I am getting 2 tanks spawning very close and behind me that fire after a 1 sec delay and there is nothing you can do you have nothing to hide behind and you move so slowly. I've made it to 65k points, but these 100k+ that people are posting have to be tool assisted at best or people are just getting top 10 Twin Galaxies scores like nothing.

Edited September 16, 2015 by ClintTX

[ZylonBane]

What kind of Texan doesn't even know how to spell "y'all"?

[Atariboy]

Doesn't even sound like you played long enough to see the super tanks.

 

Sorry, but this is an amazing conversion and a fun game in its own right. The challenge is beneficial to the title, not detrimental. While not a 1:1 recreation, it's amazing what they pulled off and it has a strategy all its own.

 

And I can pretty reliably get in the high 5 digits after a long time away. I've never invested enough time to take it well past the 100k mark (Although I can now break it on good games), but there are some that can basically play this as long as they want. It's not an impossible game that's based all on luck.

 

In fact, I find the guided missile much more easily handled here than in the arcade where there's an attack maneuver they do from time to time that I usually die from and find difficult to counter. And you'll never get stuck backing up on an obstacle that's out of sight and invisible to your radar since they simply don't exist here. So I'd say that the arcade game is more luck based than this one.

Echoing an earlier post in this thread, for me the perfect 2600 tank game would be the gameplay of this title matched with the weather effects and damage from the Activision rival.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Atariboy

[VectorGamer]

It's ok not to like the game. But calling it 'terrible' is straight up trolling.

 

C'mon...any game by Mythicon sucks...does that mean I'm trolling?

[+FujiSkunk]

Is it legit or did you save state in the emulator after every safe tank spawn?

 

I'd say it's legit. I've cleared 150,000 several times in 2600 Battlezone and I am nowhere near the world's greatest game player.

[BassGuitari]

Ya'll are making it out like I'm just not good enough to handle it or something when I point out the flaws in the way the spawns work

 

Well...maybe you aren't. I'm bad at Missile Command, doesn't mean it's a bad game.

 

ya'll act like Battlezone on the 2600 is the end all be all of gaming in 1983.

No, only that your opinion that it's an awful, worthless game is unfounded and unjustified. If you don't like the game, fine. Just stop crying to the world about how we shouldn't play it or insinuate that anyone who's fairly good at the game must be cheating somehow.

 

Besides, the end all, be all of gaming in 1983 was Space Dungeon for Atari 5200.

 

C'mon...any game by Mythicon sucks...does that mean I'm trolling?

It's not trolling if it's true. Who's going to argue with you?

 

(Although your example is akin to "water is wet." )

[sloth-machine]

 

C'mon...any game by Mythicon sucks...does that mean I'm trolling?

No, I meant calling 'Battlezone' terrible is trolling. There are games that definitely deserve terrible status.

[doctorclu]

Hey it's better than the Jaguar version.

[zylon]

Is it legit or did you save state in the emulator after every safe tank spawn?

 

That was played on a real 2600 4sw Sears system and a real cx-40 stick with rubber boot missing.

I bought my copy new in mid 80's for about $32

Edited September 16, 2015 by zylon

[AtariLeaf]

I'm definitely in the Robot Tank camp. Just fun and fast action. Battlezone just seems slow and floaty (hard to describe)

[Jinks]

Robot tank is very jerky(hard to describe) and if the bullets are not on the screen can not be killed is the worst part of the game. If that was made so tanks bullets could be fired from any angle like on battlezone it would be way better.

But the view you get with your tank on 2600 battlezone and the graphics were second to none. Actually about 15 years ago I mentioned atari at work and one guy said yeah I had battlezone played it all the time. He thought it was the best game ever made on the system. I just think it was one of the best.

[p.opus]

While I like the different weather depictions and an actual damage system. I have to agree with the If you can't see the enemy they don't exist argument.

 

The same problem exists with Starmaster, but since Starmaster doesn't have a radar screen showing the enemies relative position to you, it doesn't stand out. In fact I hadn't even noticed that issue in Starmaster until it was brought to my attention, that's how well it was disguised.

 

Robot Tank is another story. You see the enemy on your radar, he's right there, and the manual even suggests that you put the enemy behind you to avoid enemy fire. Had they eliminated the radar and simply given you visual clues (left or right) then the fact that you can SEE the enemy is behind you and not firing would not have been so distracting. The 360 Radar was a necessity, it was one of the "cool bits" from battlezone, so the developers had to include it. But the fact that they don't have the AI fire when they are not in your field of view just really blows the illusion.

 

I believe Robot Tank is technically superior to Battlezone in almost EVERY way. However it's this one thing that really breaks your suspension of disbelief and for me makes it unenjoyable. It's like a huge zit on that cheerleader you liked in high school.. She was beautiful but you just can't get over that zit....

[Rodrigo]

Well, I never had tought before about the fact that the enemy can't shoot you when he is behind you in Robot Tank. Now it made the game ilusion less convincing to me . But I like all the other strategic stuff, like the weather and the tank systems. And think that Battlezone gets harder sooner just because it's more "real". However, this doesn't make the game terrible, they are just two different approaches to the same subject, Battlezone trying to use more realistic physics (because it's origins?) and Robot Tank more fast action.

[Skippy B. Coyote]

I like both Battlezone and Robot Tank on the 2600 quite a bit, and while they both have their shortcomings I think they're still very solid and enjoyable games.

In the case of Robot Tank, the shortcoming is that if an enemy bullet is not in your field of view it can't hit you. While this does take away a bit of realism from the game, for me it also leads to a more relaxed and strategic gaming experience. That doesn't mean the game doesn't get challenging though, since the enemies will continually try their hardest to maneuver into your field of view to get off a shot; and the varying weather conditions often make it difficult to prevent them from doing so. Even with the knowledge that I can't be hit if the enemy or their bullet is outside of my field of view I've still never managed to rack up the the 60 kills necessary to earn the Cross of Excellence patch or the 72 needed for the Star of Honor patch, and I have spent a whole lot of time playing this game.

As far as Battlezone goes, the fact that the enemy can shoot you from behind creates it's own set of issues. Randomized enemy spawn locations combined with your limited turning and maneuvering speed often leads to you getting killed simply because you couldn't turn fast enough to shoot an enemy before they shoot you. This makes Battlezone more reliant on luck than Robot Tank, but it also leads to a more frantic and fast paced arcade style experience when playing it. The variety of enemies in Battlezone also makes up for the lack of day/night cycles and weather conditions pretty nicely, giving the gameplay a distinctly different feel.

Ultimately both games have their pros and cons, and if you find the ability to avoid enemy fire in Robot Tank by maneuvering the enemy tank or their shots out of your field of view to be a con then you'll probably enjoy Battlezone more. On the flip side, if you don't like the luck factor in Battlezone of having enemies that will sometimes spawn behind you and shoot you before you can turn and fire back then you'll probably have more fun playing Robot Tank instead.

Personally, I like both games. Robot Tank is great when I want to play a longer and more strategically intensive game, and Battlezone is fun when I just have a few minutes to kill and want to get in a fast and frantic arcade style gaming session.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Jin

[Airsoftman819]

Robot Tank by Activision is a better game on the 2600. I like Battlezone on the C64.

I like Robot Tank. But I absolutely hate the fact it lacks a traditional scoring system. I own Robot Tank and Battlezone. Battlezone isn't bad. But I do agree the difficulty makes it a bit frustrating.

[p.opus]

I like Robot Tank. But I absolutely hate the fact it lacks a traditional scoring system. I own Robot Tank and Battlezone. Battlezone isn't bad. But I do agree the difficulty makes it a bit frustrating.

I just try to remember that all these games were designed to shake you down faster than a mob enforcer. They're just staying true to their roots.

[AW127]

...and the PAL version of Battlezone has its own charm!

 

Battlezone_PAL2.png

Original PAL version looks really bad. But there are now different PAL60 versions of the game, which looks really good. Look here: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/193459-pal60-roms/page-12

[Chris++]

I like Battle Zone a lot more than Robot Tank. The latter gives you the only tank in the world with guided shells. It's a neat idea on paper, but it's goofy to steer your projectile into the enemy, in what's masquerading as a 3-D environment game. Amazing graphics and sound, but repetitious, shooting-gallery game play.

 

Battle Zone actually provides a consistent area. Trying to compare it with the arcade game is a matter of apples and oranges, though. They're quite different games. I like them both. Of course, the conversion doesn't cheat as often! Sometimes, in the original, there's nothing you can do to keep from getting blasted. Kinda cheap, but what an admirable endeavor for 1980, overall. Rotberg was a vector pioneer.