Jump to content
IGNORED

How come a lot getting into retro games skip Atari?


Recommended Posts

 

[edit] Apparently Sega still exists, ha ha. Thought they went bust. Edited my post.

 

Only as a software company. And Sonic games for the past ten years or so have been mediocre at best... ;-)

I think a lot of the people who got into Retro gaming but did not have any nostalgia (because they were born after that time) might find NES games have more in common with modern titles they are familiar with than those twitch based single screen arcade action games on Atari. (these kids have never even set foot in an arcade, and the idea of playing a game for a high score is an alien concept).

  • Like 2

Along with all the reasons mentioned above, I've often wondered if the physical hardware itself is somehow off-putting to unfamiliar players. The 3rd Gen systems set a sort of physical uniformity to consoles for years to follow -- 2 all-in-one controllers coming out the front and a console box that (usually) outputs composite video with a startup menu screen, etc.. While the VCS isn't that different, the interface of big shiny levers and manual-required numbered game variations has just enough quirkiness to scare some people and intrigue others. I feel like it's a big, sexy, old-school-mechanical aesthetic, like you're throwing switches in some mad, primitive computing experiment. I feel in a place like this, some of you may agree with me. But friends who've come over to my place and seen our setup are afraid to try it, even if they've got experience with other older systems.

 

In addition to the "How do I use that?" factor, there's an array of peripherals (paddle controllers, driving controllers, keypad controllers, 3rd party stuff) and "same-tech, different-look" console variations (6-switch, 4-switch, Vader, Jr) even within the 2600 line that it could be daunting to someone who only has a passing interest.

 

As time pushes us further from that era, many people don't realize that there were three different major Atari systems, and that not all of them are compatible with each other. I had a friend just this weekend get excited to tell me about her dad's "Atari" and how she wanted to play mine when she came to visit... it wasn't 'til we were talking about controllers that I deduced she was talking about a 5200.

 

And on top of that, it seems like a crap shoot as to whether a given CX-40 will work, and I've been burned enough times on crapped-out controllers that "Pfft, it probably won't even work." isn't an out-of-the-question mindset.

 

Thanks to a place like AA, the information is there to be had, but there can definitely be a higher barrier to entry if you're coming in cold.

Edited by mikey.shake
  • Like 2

The switch in game design is an interesting rabbit hole.

 

In an NES game, you're trying to reach the ending. Do you remember your high score in Castlevania?

 

Probably not, you just remember if you've completed it.

 

Atari games are mostly about high scores. This is a generalization, but you get the point.

 

Score based games still do eat up a huge chunk of the modern game market though, look at the first person shooter market. Most players care more about their online kill/death ratio or win/loss ratio then they do about finishing the tacked on story mode.

 

Games with endings kind of make their own trophies once you're done with them. You finished it! Hooray for you. Now you can move on to another game. I wonder if this also feeds into the collector mentality that seems to go hand in hand with retro gaming.

  • Like 2

I think a lot of the people who got into Retro gaming but did not have any nostalgia (because they were born after that time) might find NES games have more in common with modern titles they are familiar with than those twitch based single screen arcade action games on Atari. (these kids have never even set foot in an arcade, and the idea of playing a game for a high score is an alien concept).

I agree. If you weren't around in Atari times you'll have a very hard time enjoying a game like "Superman". I tried to play it a while ago w/ a friend of mine. We weren't exactly sober at the time... So we got the giggles over the fact that except for Superman himself we could not figure out what all the other colored squares and rectangles were supposed to be, let lone how to play the game. A game like Phoenix however I find more addictive than it's arcade counterpart. Same thing goes for a game of Astroids: you can go on for hours trying to get the points counter past 99999 to 0000 again.

 

Ye olde arcade games however do have a recognizable theme and characters. But they are so darn hard to master. I myself have to get used all over again sometimes to fighting for every little part of the screen. In modern games (even Mario games) one screen is "nothing": you run past it and its gone. I find it very amusing that my little 12 year old nephew likes Mappy, Ms. Pac Man and Donkey Kong. Don't think he'll like Pong though... ;)

Ye olde arcade games however do have a recognizable theme and characters. But they are so darn hard to master. I myself have to get used all over again sometimes to fighting for every little part of the screen. In modern games (even Mario games) one screen is "nothing": you run past it and its gone. I find it very amusing that my little 12 year old nephew likes Mappy, Ms. Pac Man and Donkey Kong. Don't think he'll like Pong though... ;)

You know, there is a generational gap between Atari VCS and Nintendo, however if you look at some of the earlier NROM games for NES and especially Famicom (Famicom was released in Japan in 1983 for those not in the know), they are really just arcade ports or games with single screen arcade like gameplay. Except the graphics are bright and vibrant and fresh and you don't have to use your imagination that that rectangle on screen is really some kind of space ship like you do with Atari games. No, Atari doesn't "suck," but the graphics and sound have a very raw quality to it that is hard for modern gamers to appreciate. ;-)

Thanks for all the input in this topic. Very informative and I'm glad I'm talking mostly to people who grew up in that generation. By the time I was born, Sonic The Hedgehog was about 8 months away from launching on Genesis :P

  • Like 4

To me the limitations of the system yield appreciation and mad respect. I also find the game creation aspect of early Atari games fascinating and reminiscent of the birth of all great technological advances . The more I learn about the birth of the video game industry the more I believe nostalgia for Atari is about more than fond memories. The roots of the video game industry didn't start in Japan. It started in the U.S.A.

I think they skip Atari mainly because they havent done there homework.

Edited by adamchevy
  • Like 4

Sometimes it's simply "old". Old as in old-man crusty old. And that isn't appealing.

 

Back in the era of mechanical typewriters and the newfangled $200 4-function electronic calculators with VFD and LED.. You could look into the VFD and see wires and grids support brackets and other mechanical filament-like things. But numbers on a calculator didn't really move or animate, they just turned on or off.

 

So as a kid I thought there were mechanics inside calculators and videogame consoles to do the thinking part. At least inside the big black squares. Tiny little watch-like machines with moving parts and stuff. Levers and valves, pipes and pumps. Motors and gears and pulleys. That sort of thing.

  • Like 1

Thanks for all the input in this topic. Very informative and I'm glad I'm talking mostly to people who grew up in that generation. By the time I was born, Sonic The Hedgehog was about 8 months away from launching on Genesis :P

I was born during the peak and heyday of the Atari 2600 era (Summer 1981). That was the first gaming console I played when I was a child as the family had a Light Sixer model VCS system. And my second system was of course the NES which I received in Christmas of 1988. I enjoy the NES a lot and that is in my top 5 favorite systems of all time. But the 2600 is my favorite of all time. NES games I enjoy is the Mario, Zelda, Mega Man, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, and others like Punch Out, and some black box games.

Because the internet says it sucks. I think that really is a big part of it. All the kids who grew up after the VCS hear that E.T. was the worst game ever and Pac-Man caused the crash and see youtube videos of other kids their age calling Realsports Baseball crap because they can't figure out how to throw a strike, and they just parrot that. (Yes, Realsports Baseball is kind of crap, for but other reasons.)

 

I'm on the younger end of the Atari generation. My first console was a Colecovision, and after that we got a Commodore 64, but I was definitely aware of Atari, played a few games at other people's houses, was very thankful we had a Colecovision after seeing 2600 Donkey Kong as part of a store display. As a 6-7 year old, Atari was the joke system to me. I definitely remember making fun of Pac-Man because he couldn't look up or down.

 

In college I really started getting back into the arcade games I'd played as a kid and started discovering emulators. As an extension of that, I downloaded an Atari emulator and discovered that while there were definitely a lot of games that were crap, there were also a lot of games that I loved for the same reasons I loved those old arcade games.

 

Maybe there's not enough appreciation for what's old anymore. I remember as a kid loving to get baseball cards from the 50's and 60's just because they were old, it didn't matter who the players were (but it was especially cool if they played for a team that didn't exist anymore). I seriously doubt there are a lot of kids out there now seeking out cards from the 80's just for the sake of having a 30 year old baseball card.

Sometimes it's simply "old". Old as in old-man crusty old. And that isn't appealing.

 

Back in the era of mechanical typewriters and the newfangled $200 4-function electronic calculators with VFD and LED.. You could look into the VFD and see wires and grids support brackets and other mechanical filament-like things. But numbers on a calculator didn't really move or animate, they just turned on or off.

 

So as a kid I thought there were mechanics inside calculators and videogame consoles to do the thinking part. At least inside the big black squares. Tiny little watch-like machines with moving parts and stuff. Levers and valves, pipes and pumps. Motors and gears and pulleys. That sort of thing.

But there are billions of little men running around inside your console doing all those monotonous calculations. They're called electrons! :D

I can't wait till we start building chips that use other particles such as Orbitons, Spinons, Leptons, Quarks, Holons, Bosons.. And many many others. Not forgetting more exotic ones like the Tau Antineutrino. Such technology would make make the fastest computers look like gassy out-of-repair steam engines and buggy prototype mechanical difference engines.

 

All this reminds me of a short story I wrote about a fictional Spingrav computational engine. Where cryptography and radio communications built around such technology are essential navigational equipment for flying in Sidespace.

 

I have no doubt such things will eventually happen Maybe they already have, just not here on Earth. Who's to say for certain?

  • Like 3

I actually created a monster. Have a friend who was only all about NES and SNES. Had him borrow one of my 2600 systems and some good games for it. Fast forward 3 weeks later....he had bought a 2600 for himself and today he texted me a pic of a 7800 that he bought. Winning the hearts and minds......one at a time.

  • Like 7

Thanks for all the input in this topic. Very informative and I'm glad I'm talking mostly to people who grew up in that generation. By the time I was born, Sonic The Hedgehog was about 8 months away from launching on Genesis :P

You talking about the evolution of the systems reminded me of something else Atari suffers from, just like other systems. But it's so much clearer with the Atari.

 

When a system is "born" programmers do not yet have the experience to get everything out of it, programming wise, nor do additional hardware "tricks" exist yet. Aforementioned 'Superman' Atari game and 'The Empire Strikes Back' are a good example of that (i.e. they look bad). When the programmers for Atari "discovered" how to make use of a sort of unique feature of the Atari that makes colors vary from the top to the bottom of an object they looked light years ahead of the old ones. Have a look at 'Phoenix', 'Cosmic Ark' and the beginning of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' w/ table where the Ark is on. And compare 'Star Wars - The Empire Strikes Back' (1982) to 'Star Wars - Death Star' (1983).

 

Another leap forward was when they stopped being cheap ass and used two banks of memory in a cart instead of one. A technique known as "bank switching" made that possible. Hence the enormously big difference between 'Pac Man' and 'Ms. Pac Man' for the Atari. The mother of all Atari games, 'Pitfall 2', took that to whole new level. If I'm not mistaken it used three banks. One dedicated to the background music alone.

 

For the Atari all those tricks and experience came too late. The computer and console world in the 80's changed a whole lot from one year to another. Hence games like 'Star Wars Death Star' (1983) being too late to mean something for the system. The best Atari games are from after 1982 but the crash was around Christmas 1983. Compare this to the Playstation 3 which has been around for 9 years and some kids still do not cast it aside (I think...., or do thy only want to play PS 4 games now-a-days...?).

 

Systems like the SNES had such trickery and programming learning curve too. But they lived a lot longer than systems in the late 70's and early 80's. Take the ultimate SNES game for instance: 'Donkey Kong Country'. When I saw that I thought that I'd seen the future of gaming. As a matter of fact the game was such a quantum leap forward that it was made into a coin op Arcade cabinet. I saw the game first in a restaurant at the beach in it's coin op form. Years and years after the arcade halls disappeared because nobody's gonna pay for a computer game! There even was a game w/ a sort of 3D chip or something like that in the cart ('Star Fox' wikipedia link). Same thing goes for a game like 'Rogue Squadron' for the N64. Not all emulators can emulate games like that well because of the extra emulated hardware needed for them. In the Atari emulator (Stella if I'm not mistaken) there is a special mode/category for only one game: 'Pitfall 2'.

 

With Atari it's looking for gems like 'Yar's Revenge' or laughing at 'Superman'. Have fun everybody! :)

  • Like 1

You talking about the evolution of the systems reminded me of something else Atari suffers from, just like other systems. But it's so much clearer with the Atari.

 

When a system is "born" programmers do not yet have the experience to get everything out of it, programming wise, nor do additional hardware "tricks" exist yet. Aforementioned 'Superman' Atari game and 'The Empire Strikes Back' are a good example of that (i.e. they look bad). When the programmers for Atari "discovered" how to make use of a sort of unique feature of the Atari that makes colors vary from the top to the bottom of an object they looked light years ahead of the old ones. Have a look at 'Phoenix', 'Cosmic Ark' and the beginning of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' w/ table where the Ark is on. And compare 'Star Wars - The Empire Strikes Back' (1982) to 'Star Wars - Death Star' (1983).

 

Another leap forward was when they stopped being cheap ass and used two banks of memory in a cart instead of one. A technique known as "bank switching" made that possible. Hence the enormously big difference between 'Pac Man' and 'Ms. Pac Man' for the Atari. The mother of all Atari games, 'Pitfall 2', took that to whole new level. If I'm not mistaken it used three banks. One dedicated to the background music alone.

 

For the Atari all those tricks and experience came too late. The computer and console world in the 80's changed a whole lot from one year to another. Hence games like 'Star Wars Death Star' (1983) being too late to mean something for the system. The best Atari games are from after 1982 but the crash was around Christmas 1983. Compare this to the Playstation 3 which has been around for 9 years and some kids still do not cast it aside (I think...., or do thy only want to play PS 4 games now-a-days...?).

 

Systems like the SNES had such trickery and programming learning curve too. But they lived a lot longer than systems in the late 70's and early 80's. Take the ultimate SNES game for instance: 'Donkey Kong Country'. When I saw that I thought that I'd seen the future of gaming. As a matter of fact the game was such a quantum leap forward that it was made into a coin op Arcade cabinet. I saw the game first in a restaurant at the beach in it's coin op form. Years and years after the arcade halls disappeared because nobody's gonna pay for a computer game! There even was a game w/ a sort of 3D chip or something like that in the cart ('Star Fox' wikipedia link). Same thing goes for a game like 'Rogue Squadron' for the N64. Not all emulators can emulate games like that well because of the extra emulated hardware needed for them. In the Atari emulator (Stella if I'm not mistaken) there is a special mode/category for only one game: 'Pitfall 2'.

 

With Atari it's looking for gems like 'Yar's Revenge' or laughing at 'Superman'. Have fun everybody! :)

I just wanted to point out that the at least two atari systems(2600 and 8-bit computer line) actually lived longer in retail shelves than the Super Nintendo. I do agree with what you are trying to say though. I grew up with Atari and appreciate and respect what it contributed to the industry. Atari and its game systems and computers provided some amazing games, and unfortunate that it is often misunderstood or boiled down to an "Atari sucks" quote.

You talking about the evolution of the systems reminded me of something else Atari suffers from, just like other systems. But it's so much clearer with the Atari.

 

When a system is "born" programmers do not yet have the experience to get everything out of it, programming wise, nor do additional hardware "tricks" exist yet. Aforementioned 'Superman' Atari game and 'The Empire Strikes Back' are a good example of that (i.e. they look bad). When the programmers for Atari "discovered" how to make use of a sort of unique feature of the Atari that makes colors vary from the top to the bottom of an object they looked light years ahead of the old ones. Have a look at 'Phoenix', 'Cosmic Ark' and the beginning of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' w/ table where the Ark is on. And compare 'Star Wars - The Empire Strikes Back' (1982) to 'Star Wars - Death Star' (1983).

 

Another leap forward was when they stopped being cheap ass and used two banks of memory in a cart instead of one. A technique known as "bank switching" made that possible. Hence the enormously big difference between 'Pac Man' and 'Ms. Pac Man' for the Atari. The mother of all Atari games, 'Pitfall 2', took that to whole new level. If I'm not mistaken it used three banks. One dedicated to the background music alone.

 

For the Atari all those tricks and experience came too late. The computer and console world in the 80's changed a whole lot from one year to another. Hence games like 'Star Wars Death Star' (1983) being too late to mean something for the system. The best Atari games are from after 1982 but the crash was around Christmas 1983. Compare this to the Playstation 3 which has been around for 9 years and some kids still do not cast it aside (I think...., or do thy only want to play PS 4 games now-a-days...?).

 

Systems like the SNES had such trickery and programming learning curve too. But they lived a lot longer than systems in the late 70's and early 80's. Take the ultimate SNES game for instance: 'Donkey Kong Country'. When I saw that I thought that I'd seen the future of gaming. As a matter of fact the game was such a quantum leap forward that it was made into a coin op Arcade cabinet. I saw the game first in a restaurant at the beach in it's coin op form. Years and years after the arcade halls disappeared because nobody's gonna pay for a computer game! There even was a game w/ a sort of 3D chip or something like that in the cart ('Star Fox' wikipedia link). Same thing goes for a game like 'Rogue Squadron' for the N64. Not all emulators can emulate games like that well because of the extra emulated hardware needed for them. In the Atari emulator (Stella if I'm not mistaken) there is a special mode/category for only one game: 'Pitfall 2'.

 

With Atari it's looking for gems like 'Yar's Revenge' or laughing at 'Superman'. Have fun everybody! :)

 

Don't forget that Pitfall 2 also included the DPC chip inside of it to improve graphics and sound above the 2600's capabilities. That probably predates Nintendo's efforts with their famous MMC mapper chips. Sure, Activision did this but it was ex-Atari employees at Activision who were responsible so that counts!

  • Like 1

When my cousins were younger, I would have been 15 or 17, we'd go camping for a weekend every year and just play video games. They were like 8-10 and 11-13ish and we always ended up playing Activision Anthology because you just couldn't beat it for simple multiplayer. Fishing Derby, Decathlon, Boxing, Ice Hockey, were easy enough that they could pick up the damn game and go at it, kind of like Wii. There's a certain magic in that. The last thing the Atari detractors want is for the game to have things in it you don't know what they are even supposed to be and you don't know what to do. I also think the arcade style games the 2600 is best known for, in addition to them not looking so hot, that most common NES retro gamer isn't even familiar with. They love their RPGs and played Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat in arcades, not Berzerk. So you old timers (hah) that were there in 1980 and me who was playing older arcade games in 1990 have a lot in common, but we definitely don't have as much in common with the fighter arcade years.

 

A lot of the first NES games are very similar to Atari with better graphics and much better sound, like someone said. Why try to get someone to like Atari by showing them games their precious NES has better ports of? And that's exactly what most 2600 top games lists look like, maybe rightfully so, but this does nothing to show off what Atari has to offer that no one else does. Youtubers and gaming websites are trying to put cash in their pockets, so it's no surprise they stick to the most basic 2600 stuff and plug the NES so much, because the NES is what people want. People might laugh at the 2600's graphics, but the sound might play a greater role subconsciously. Most great video games have great background music to listen to for hours of play, 2600 fart noises aren't the most fun thing to hear. I'd turn some tunes on in the background, so I'm ok with it, but if you're getting acquainted with Atari with Snoopy and the Red Baron, you can make out the colorful graphics, but there's nothing fun about the rumbling engine sounds with no cute musical notes in the background. Put fun Game Boy music in Snoopy and the Red Baron and the game is 10 times more entertaining.

 

That, and the 2600's controller isn't exactly the best, especially if you're used to d-pads.

  • Like 2

[snip]

People might laugh at the 2600's graphics, but the sound might play a greater role subconsciously. Most great video games have great background music to listen to for hours of play, 2600 fart noises aren't the most fun thing to hear. I'd turn some tunes on in the background, so I'm ok with it, but if you're getting acquainted with Atari with Snoopy and the Red Baron, you can make out the colorful graphics, but there's nothing fun about the rumbling engine sounds with no cute musical notes in the background. Put fun Game Boy music in Snoopy and the Red Baron and the game is 10 times more entertaining.

 

That, and the 2600's controller isn't exactly the best, especially if you're used to d-pads.

I agree w/ you on the sound. The Atari was too primitive to feature background music. See the reply by Lynxpro about Pitfall II above. You're feelings towards the Atari controller is very interesting to me. I'm from the generation that grew up w/ the controller of the Atari, the Kingston from the C64 and the joysticks from the Arcade cabinets. When i first saw a D-pad I was disappointed to say the least, ha ha. Fascinating how one's opinion is formed in one's forming years. I ques that's why they call it ...

  • Like 2

I agree w/ you on the sound. The Atari was too primitive to feature background music. See the reply by Lynxpro about Pitfall II above. You're feelings towards the Atari controller is very interesting to me. I'm from the generation that grew up w/ the controller of the Atari, the Kingston from the C64 and the joysticks from the Arcade cabinets. When i first saw a D-pad I was disappointed to say the least, ha ha. Fascinating how one's opinion is formed in one's forming years. I ques that's why they call it ...

 

Yeah, I can't do anything too well with the 2600 stick. I have an alternate one that I use that is basically the same size, but easier to move. D-pads just rule for me haha. Love 'em.

 

I love the 2600, I can look past most of its technical shortcomings and know how amazing it still must have been at the time. I just can see exactly why a lot of people would have no interest in a screen with a few colors, on it that features stickmen like pixels and often poor sound 40 years later with thousands of other games that could be played instead. In the ultimate sign of fairness to even the fanboys, no one wants to play the original Mario Bros. on NES either.

I can't seem stop talking 'bout the Atari 2600. Must be the fond childhood memories...

 

Anyway, want to discuss it w/ a NES lover? Don't: NES was much more powerful and, therefore, better. But there is a reason other than beer, cafe's and what have you not that my interest as a teenager diminished for consoles and computer games. I was used to the Atari with is crappy graphics and, like somebody said, fart sounds. Still the NES didn't interest me a single bit. Why? Because all Atari games were different and original (the hundreds of shitty rip offs by small companies excluded). All NES games went from left to right. To me the gameplay and the levels were so repetitive and boring looking that hey'd have to let Mario leave a screen very fast. Same thing goes for smup's and, especially, the fighting games. Fighting games were all like rip offs from Way of the Exploding Fist for the C64 to me. That is: bash buttons like crazy with out knowing what so ever what they actually do and win from your friend or the computer. Now a days I can appreciate a game of Mortal Kombat, especially if I succeed in doing a special move. But it is too tempting to just bash buttons and win faster than by using a "strategy".

 

The Atari games were different. Take a game like Pitfall. Never seen anything like it until I discovered the gem called Flashback - The Search for Identity (Sega Genesis). A game like Junglebook (Sega, and SNES too?) has that freedom of movement too. That is: you can go up, down left and right. Not just from left to right with out ever getting higher or anywhere at all. Yes, I'm one of those people that think that Prince of Persia 2 is the best games ever made and that it's not too difficult to master (except slicing the floating heads which is damn near impossible). I got addicted to (2D) games again w/ PC games. Only the FPS gave me that feeling of adventure, puzzling and freedom to walk around that I experienced for the first time in Pitfall II.

 

The games that one may advice to have a look at to people who are curious for the Atari are, in my opinion:

  • Yar's Revenge: original gameplay, not often imitated or achieved by others.
  • Raiders of the Lost Ark: one of the first adventure games and one of the few movie games that actually follows the movie story/plot.
  • Both games above were made by the man who, in a rushed attempt, made E.T. (Howard Scott Warshaw). He's my hero, not he one who brought the Atari down: he made the Atari.
  • Asteroids: brainless shooting but it actually takes a bit of practice to master it. I think it's better than its arcade counterpart because it's easier. You can play it for 24 hours.
  • Combat: a better game to play against your mates has never ever been made. In almost all multi-player games you play in turns or in a split screen. This game is like Stratego or checkers: you're both on the same board. The amount of fun we've had sitting next to each other saying: "See this red button here on my controller? I'm gonna press it now. And after it you're dead meat. Boom!".
  • Hero. Ported to the C64 which added lots of better looks, but the Atari version is just as playable. And, again, it's not as linear as a Mario game.
  • Phoenix: more addictive that its arcade counterpart.
  • Pitfall II: pointless to explain why this is such a good game. If you say you don't like this game more than any NES game you're lying.
  • Star Wars - Death Star: looks good, plays well. And very original: the gameplay is not copied from another game.
  • Vanguard: need I say more? Nice variation in levels.

 

What the Atari actually appears to be capable of (homebrews):

  • Donkey Kong (see this topic on AtariAge): it is unbelievable what the maker of this home brew achieved. Almost brought tears to my eyes. I'd given my right arm (I'm left handed) as a 11 y.o. for this cart way back when: D. Kong (arcade) is one my favorite games of all time.
  • Ladybug: great port of a great game that is more strategically challenging than you'd expect from the theme/graphics. Download from here.
  • Pac-Man 4k: even if it's after more than 30 years: revenge is sweat! It is possible to have a good port of Pac Man for the Atari 2600. Download from here.
  • Space Raid: by this forum's own Mr. Nanochess. Where they failed in creating a game like Zaxxon for he Atari in the 80's (forget the official port) Nanochess succeeded! See this forum topic.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...