How come a lot getting into retro games skip Atari?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

There are small pockets of collectors and historians out there but many people if polled couldn't name a single film.

I just watched Buster Keaton's The General with an 8 yo. And e.g. Metropolis is an absolute classic.

[Buyatari]

I just watched Buster Keaton's The General with an 8 yo. And e.g. Metropolis is an absolute classic.

If someone asked me I couldn't name a single silent film. While I may have seen small bits that were used in modern films etc I've never watched one start to finish.

[The Usotsuki]

Which half of the 80s? Coke II didn't come out until 1986.

[Schizophretard]

I think I rather take Passover or Mexican Coke over 80's Coke

 

80's Coke Wins!

 

[Thomas Jentzsch]

If someone asked me I couldn't name a single silent film. While I may have seen small bits that were used in modern films etc I've never watched one start to finish.

You are missing about as much as you would miss by not playing Atari 2600 games.

[Schizophretard]

I don't think I agree with the silent films analogy. I think Atari compared to modern games would be more like comparing the special effects in Star Wars(1977) to Star Wars: The Force Awakens(2015) because that is the same time frame. The gaming comparison as far back as silent films would be actual sports, card games, Chess, etc. People go pretty far back with other forms of media like books, movies, music, etc. but we don't equate going back to the 70's and 80's with those to going back to silent films. So, I don't see why video games would be the exception by being compared to films from 100 years ago. What would Pong be with that analogy? Going back to Shakespeare's plays?

[ledzep]

I don't think I agree with the silent films analogy. I think Atari compared to modern games would be more like comparing the special effects in Star Wars(1977) to Star Wars: The Force Awakens(2015) because that is the same time frame. The gaming comparison as far back as silent films would be actual sports, card games, Chess, etc. People go pretty far back with other forms of media like books, movies, music, etc. but we don't equate going back to the 70's and 80's with those to going back to silent films. So, I don't see why video games would be the exception by being compared to films from 100 years ago. What would Pong be with that analogy? Going back to Shakespeare's plays?

 

Ya, that's a better comparison - optical effects to modern CG effects, stop-motion to 3D computer animation. And the middle systems between the Atari 2600 and the modern consoles would be like those movies with the dated CG that is easy to pick out or not as realistic ("Dragonheart", "The Mask", "Independence Day", etc.) compared to the best recent effects movies.

 

And the comparison goes beyond that. Consider remake movies. They many times are made from old '70s-'80s movies (or TV shows). The original movies are usually of a slower pace, with far less effects (if any), more acting and more plot. The remakes are usually an orgy of action sequences and "beats", lots more CG and many times used for no reason other than to 'wow' the audience. Many times those efforts are considered stale and inferior to the original movies while the visuals might be considered much improved.

 

That's how I see old Atari games compared to modern/recent video games. The new ones have so much, so much more to offer. And require way more memory and CPU and time to complete. People who are used to those games many times will have no patience for old Atari games that are so simple, so basic and crude, that really have no point beyond achieving a high score. At a certain point you can only go back so far. It is a similar experience with the older movies. If you grew up with those movies and saw them when they were new, they were great. As movie-making slowly progressed and improved (at least visually, I don't believe most movies have improved in terms of plot or acting in general) there was gradual acceptance and appreciation of more, of bigger, of faster. But to start with the more recent, to start with much bigger, much faster, much more, and then try to backtrack and watch movies that are by comparison boring and slow, it's too much to ask of some of those viewers who have no appreciation for the differences or the art of how movies were done back then.

 

Just compare something like the original "The Longest Yard" and its shitty, miserable remake. The remake has "more" but in all other ways is inferior. But I bet there are people out there who prefer the newer Sandler movie to the original Reynolds version (definitely not me). Then you have some that are actually in some ways better yet fans of the older version still like the older version more, even if they also like the newer version. I'd suggest "Payback" compared to "Point Blank" (both are good but Lee Marvin is better in the older one) or the Richard Chamberlain "The Count Of Monte Cristo" to the newer Jim Caviezel version (I like both but prefer the more book-accurate Chamberlain mini-series version even though the Caviezel version is more spectacular).

 

In a way that's how I view something like Tempest vs. Tempest 3000, all the extra music and added colors and sound effects, they're all unnecessary and distracting from what makes that game so great, so perfect. It doesn't need any of that extra shit. Yet I know there are lots of people who like the newer version. Adds nothing to the gameplay but some people like that the game tubes move around and that they see "Yes" and "Bonus" and other extra garbage, the game does "more".

[Andromeda Stardust]

I don't think I agree with the silent films analogy. I think Atari compared to modern games would be more like comparing the special effects in Star Wars(1977) to Star Wars: The Force Awakens(2015) because that is the same time frame. The gaming comparison as far back as silent films would be actual sports, card games, Chess, etc. People go pretty far back with other forms of media like books, movies, music, etc. but we don't equate going back to the 70's and 80's with those to going back to silent films. So, I don't see why video games would be the exception by being compared to films from 100 years ago. What would Pong be with that analogy? Going back to Shakespeare's plays?

Cinematography was in it's infancy during the silent era. Video games were in their infancy during the Pong era.

 

Cinema was definitely a mature medium in the 1970s. Technology has improved yes, and special effects are light years ahead compared to then, but whether digital or analog medium, the basic fundamentals remain the same.

 

Video games are at a crossroads right now where digital distribution and DLC / updates are changing the dynamics of how games are marketed and distributed. Mobile gaming and digital distribution is creating a similar shakeup in the gaming industry that VHS caused in the film industry.

 

So comparing 70s movies to 70s games argument really doesn't hold up. The early 80s was the wild, wild west of video games, much like silent era was for films. People didn't know what worked, so they tried to produce anything imaginable and cram it on a cart or film reel.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I don't think I agree with the silent films analogy. I think Atari compared to modern games would be more like comparing the special effects in Star Wars(1977) to Star Wars: The Force Awakens(2015) because that is the same time frame. The gaming comparison as far back as silent films would be actual sports, card games, Chess, etc. People go pretty far back with other forms of media like books, movies, music, etc. but we don't equate going back to the 70's and 80's with those to going back to silent films. So, I don't see why video games would be the exception by being compared to films from 100 years ago. What would Pong be with that analogy? Going back to Shakespeare's plays?

History of different things has a different time line.

 

Film is developing at some pace, but computer technology and video gaming is developing much faster. The first popular video game showed up just 43 years ago (1972). Film started with the Phenakistoscope (1829) or a Flip book. And it took until 1895, until it became popular. That's a history of 120 years. So 30 years in film are about 10 years in video gaming.

[Buyatari]

Ya, that's a better comparison - optical effects to modern CG effects, stop-motion to 3D computer animation. And the middle systems between the Atari 2600 and the modern consoles would be like those movies with the dated CG that is easy to pick out or not as realistic ("Dragonheart", "The Mask", "Independence Day", etc.) compared to the best recent effects movies.

 

And the comparison goes beyond that. Consider remake movies. They many times are made from old '70s-'80s movies (or TV shows). The original movies are usually of a slower pace, with far less effects (if any), more acting and more plot. The remakes are usually an orgy of action sequences and "beats", lots more CG and many times used for no reason other than to 'wow' the audience. Many times those efforts are considered stale and inferior to the original movies while the visuals might be considered much improved.

 

That's how I see old Atari games compared to modern/recent video games. The new ones have so much, so much more to offer. And require way more memory and CPU and time to complete. People who are used to those games many times will have no patience for old Atari games that are so simple, so basic and crude, that really have no point beyond achieving a high score. At a certain point you can only go back so far. It is a similar experience with the older movies. If you grew up with those movies and saw them when they were new, they were great. As movie-making slowly progressed and improved (at least visually, I don't believe most movies have improved in terms of plot or acting in general) there was gradual acceptance and appreciation of more, of bigger, of faster. But to start with the more recent, to start with much bigger, much faster, much more, and then try to backtrack and watch movies that are by comparison boring and slow, it's too much to ask of some of those viewers who have no appreciation for the differences or the art of how movies were done back then.

 

Just compare something like the original "The Longest Yard" and its shitty, miserable remake. The remake has "more" but in all other ways is inferior. But I bet there are people out there who prefer the newer Sandler movie to the original Reynolds version (definitely not me). Then you have some that are actually in some ways better yet fans of the older version still like the older version more, even if they also like the newer version. I'd suggest "Payback" compared to "Point Blank" (both are good but Lee Marvin is better in the older one) or the Richard Chamberlain "The Count Of Monte Cristo" to the newer Jim Caviezel version (I like both but prefer the more book-accurate Chamberlain mini-series version even though the Caviezel version is more spectacular).

 

In a way that's how I view something like Tempest vs. Tempest 3000, all the extra music and added colors and sound effects, they're all unnecessary and distracting from what makes that game so great, so perfect. It doesn't need any of that extra shit. Yet I know there are lots of people who like the newer version. Adds nothing to the gameplay but some people like that the game tubes move around and that they see "Yes" and "Bonus" and other extra garbage, the game does "more".

You are looking way too deeply into this. Early films vs early video gaming is a good comparison because the analogy works in theory and in practice. New generations ARE skipping over early video games just as they do with early films. This isn't a theory about what will happen so much as why what is happening right before our eyes is happening.

 

Few people accept 2600 and not pong. They are for most practice purposes in the same group.

 

The original Star Wars is not being skipped over. It falls into the cool accepted retro movie era just as well as Nintendo does with video games.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Buyatari

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I know a few (ignorant) people who do not even watch black-and-white movies. Those would probably not even bother with a PS1.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Thomas Jentzsch

[+KaeruYojimbo]

I wonder what retro gaming will be like in 30-40 years. Digital distribution will mean no physical media to collect. And most of the games that come on disc now have DLC extras that won't be available in the future. Instead of looking for cartridges, will collectors be looking for consoles with hard drives full of the games they want?

 

Will anyone even care about current games when they are old? It seems like most of the A-list releases any more are just the latest in a series (Madden, Call of Duty, Forza, whatever). I know there are exceptions, but how many people are really going to be playing Madden 16 in 2046?

[ledzep]

History of different things has a different time line.

 

Film is developing at some pace, but computer technology and video gaming is developing much faster. The first popular video game showed up just 43 years ago (1972). Film started with the Phenakistoscope (1829) or a Flip book. And it took until 1895, until it became popular. That's a history of 120 years. So 30 years in film are about 10 years in video gaming.

 

That's a flawed comparison. If you're going to start the film timeline at flip books then you have to start the computer technology timeline at difference engines and vacuum tubes.

 

On the other hand, if you're going to start the video gaming timeline at "popular video game" then you have to start the film timeline at the first popular movie (with sound), whatever that might be considered (I have no idea what that is).

Edited December 10, 2015 by ledzep

[Thomas Jentzsch]

That's what I did by comparing 1972 (Pong) with 1895/96 (Auguste and Louis Lumière) (except for sound)

Edited December 10, 2015 by Thomas Jentzsch

[toiletunes]

the future of retro gaming (20 years from now) will be mame, or some equivalent.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

That's a flawed comparison. If you're going to start the film timeline at flip books then you have to start the computer technology timeline at difference engines and vacuum tubes.

 

On the other hand, if you're going to start the video gaming timeline at "popular video game" then you have to start the film timeline at the first popular movie (with sound), whatever that might be considered (I have no idea what that is).

Let us not forget electromechanical games. Pinball existed for decades as well as other electromechanical entertainment novelties, before video games took over. It's like how the internal combustion engine took over steam engine.

[ledzep]

That's what I did by comparing 1972 (Pong) with 1895/96 (Auguste and Louis Lumière) (except for sound)

 

Yes, but for better or worse I'd say that "retro gaming" would have a separation point at where a console could play multiple games. A dedicated Pong or motocross which had built-in games and no way to swap out to more games (cartridges) is before what would be considered modern gaming, even if some retro gamers also love those dedicated video games.

 

In the same way a comparison to modern retro games (cartridge-based) would have to be with something like "modern" films which would mean with sound, in a movie theater. So, not silent movies, not loops that could be viewed individually, but movies that the general public were aware of and went to theaters to watch.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I am not sure why you insist on sound, IMO silent movies are movies. just like black-and-white movies are movies too.

But regarding movie theaters I would suggest e.g. Birth of a Nation (1915). Others came even earlier, but where rather short, e.g. A Trip to the Moon (1902) or The Great Train Robbery (1903).

Edited December 10, 2015 by Thomas Jentzsch

[ledzep]

Let us not forget electromechanical games. Pinball existed for decades as well as other electromechanical entertainment novelties, before video games took over. It's like how the internal combustion engine took over steam engine.

 

Yes, and let's not forget plays and books, either, in terms of being taken over by movies in theaters. You can go back as far as you like but that's really muddying up the comparison.

 

Video games, it can be argued, started earlier than what most people think if you include PDP-11 mainframe games, yes? But who ever played those or collects them now? Nobody. Pinball is another area, mostly unrelated, as is stage plays, even considering that some movies are adaptations of those plays. Video games, playable at home, with individual games that could be swapped out, that's as far back as this comparison should go, along with movies that included special effects (starting with optical). Not sure what the first video game consoles would be, would the Magnavox Odyssey count with those odd game cards? The Fairchild Channel F? But stop before the dedicated Pong type games that had a few built-in games and that's it.

[Andromeda Stardust]

I am not sure why you insist on sound, IMO silent movies are movies. just like black-and-white movies are movies too.

 

But regarding movie theaters I would suggest e.g. Birth of a Nation (1915). Others came even earlier, but where rather short, e.g. A Trip to the Moon (1902) or The Great Train Robbery (1903).

The moon movie, or Le Voyage dans la Lune, as it is known in France. I have watched both the English and French dubs. The English cuts that have survived are an abridged shortened version. The full length uncut French take has a few extra minutes of footage. I've watched both online. Considered to be the first scifi movie ever made.

[ledzep]

I am not sure why you insist on sound, IMO silent movies are movies. just like black-and-white movies are movies too.

 

But regarding movie theaters I would suggest e.g. Birth of a Nation (1915). Others came even earlier, but where rather short, e.g. A Trip to the Moon (1902) or The Great Train Robbery (1903).

 

Because the original comparison was not for all movies, it was for movies with "old school" special effects vs. more modern ones (if I have that correct).

 

Silent movies had that irritating piano player or small band adding music to the experience (can you imagine an actual silent movie watching experience?) which nobody is going to have access to now. Ya, silent movies are movies, and PDP-11 mainframe video games are video games. But we're talking about the mindset shift for younger people. For video games, that is comparing modern games to earlier video games. Not all games, not all games that run on electricity, just all video games that used a monitor and can be played with friends and the rest with swappable game programs that define the Atari 2600/Fairchild Channel F/etc. on up to now. For movies, that is comparing earlier '70-'80s movies with optical effects to more modern mostly/all digital effects movies (and now shot digitally). It's a subset.

 

No need to try to out-clever everyone else on AtariAge by trying the be the first to mention the most obscure elements that did in fact exist or occur at the beginning of the respective timelines but adds nothing to the specific comparison, ok? Yay flip books, yay pachinko machines, bonus points for every first recorded Who Gives A Shit event that pre-dates the stuff being compared here.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Wax cylinders is where it's at. Screw vinyl 78s, 45s, and LPs. Screw reels, 8-tracks, and cassettes. Screw CD, Screw mp3s.

 

Ditto for "flip books." The very first motion pictures were either flip books or those little looped wheels you spun around. Screw film reels, VHS, Laser Disc, DVD, Blu-Ray, and Mpeg-anything.

 

If it ain't the very first original medium that existed, it ain't worth discussing. So thAt early mainframe game, Computer Space, which apparently predates PONG, is all that exists. No screw dat. Electromechanical games that predate the use of a monitor. If it came later, it ain't retro enough.

[Keatah]

the future of retro gaming (20 years from now) will be mame, or some equivalent.

 

..and rightfully so!

[bretthorror]

..and rightfully so!

Yeah and the dinosaurs in the nursing homes won't be able to figure out file folders.

[Keatah]

Ehh.. just like the people of today.