Why is the importance of ColecoVision almost never brought up historically?

[Pixelboy]

Simple 1-way pixel scrolling in either horizontal or vertical direction can be done no problem with coleco vision. It would have to done in software and use a bit more rom cartridge space but it can be done. The NES isn't ideal for multidirectional/diagonal scrolling as well, the NES controller isn't good for selecting diagonal directions anyway. Each system has their strengths, programmers make games that leverage those strengths; must be why the NES ended up with so many side scrollers. Multidirectional scrolling has been around in arcade games since the 1970s, Intellivision even had it.

Okay, now I know you're just talking about stuff you know nothing about.

 

1) Yes, doing 1-way pixel scrolling (or any kind of smooth scrolling) is very difficult on ColecoVision, there is no way in hell that you can say it "can be done no problem".

 

2) The NES can do multi-directional scrolling. Just play Super Mario Bros 3, Blaster Master, or <insert game with multi-directional scrolling here>. It's not only possible, it's built into the hardware.

 

3) Have you ever actually played with a NES? I've played a LOT of NES games, and I never had any kind of problem with diagonals on the stock NES game pads. The ColecoVision's joystick, on the other hand, is terrible with diagonals.

[Tanooki]

You know that is a good point there. Jaguar had the issue too but it never did take off and really never was given much of a chance to.

 

Colecovision I never owned but I got introduced to it through that fantastic DOS based emulator over 20 years ago and I had a lot of fun with that library of games. It felt NES like to me, just a partial step back yet was quite a bit of fun. It landed to me as that one system that was pre-NES that didn't feel too rigid, blocky, basic or rapidly boring that the US got. I've kept an eye out for one for years now but other than a couple true beaters beyond my care to meddle I never have. It looks fun maybe emulation would be worth while again as Nintendo and Konami among other arcade greats had some fantastic gems on it. I think arguing along just US gaming lines alone and ignoring the world as any kid would do in the 80s you can argue there was some importance there, it just looks much less so when you factor in the Japanese market (Famicom) and other global things with the larger picture.

[mbd30]

You know that is a good point there. Jaguar had the issue too but it never did take off and really never was given much of a chance to.

 

Colecovision I never owned but I got introduced to it through that fantastic DOS based emulator over 20 years ago and I had a lot of fun with that library of games. It felt NES like to me, just a partial step back yet was quite a bit of fun. It landed to me as that one system that was pre-NES that didn't feel too rigid, blocky, basic or rapidly boring that the US got. I've kept an eye out for one for years now but other than a couple true beaters beyond my care to meddle I never have. It looks fun maybe emulation would be worth while again as Nintendo and Konami among other arcade greats had some fantastic gems on it. I think arguing along just US gaming lines alone and ignoring the world as any kid would do in the 80s you can argue there was some importance there, it just looks much less so when you factor in the Japanese market (Famicom) and other global things with the larger picture.

 

I used to run a Colecovision emulator on a 486. It was one of the closest things to emulating classic arcade games on a 486.

[Osgeld]

The ColecoVision's joystick, on the other hand, is terrible with diagonals.

 

yea, the colecovision is the reason I hate qbert to this day

[+remowilliams]

The ColecoVision's joystick, on the other hand, is terrible with diagonals.

 

And all the other directions as well

[mutterminder]

I think I have a different take on this whole thing. I have a rather historical perspective on the game console "generation". One thing to remember about how a particular platform was selected by a consumer in those days, it that there was no internet. Information on any platform was limited to very specific channels. My home gaming experience began with the Odyssey 200. It gave me my first exposure to an interactive experience on a TV screen, but it was quite limited. I started researching the state of technology at that time (1976), and the only real source of information was from magazines. I started reading Creative Computing, Radio Electronics, and Byte. I had a real hunger to learn computing and there were a lot of early 8-Bit computers coming out in 1976 and 1977, Most of what was available in 1976 was do it yourself, or kits.

 

It required considerable skill to put together, and cost more than I could afford at the time. However, I kept up with the market through magazines, and by the next year there was practically an explosion of new computers coming out on the market. The Pet 2001 and Apple II were available first, but both were hard to obtain where I lived, I would have had to mail order them. Of the two, the Pet was more affordable as you could get a whole working system with a monitor and storage for only $800. The Apple II was cooler and even had color graphics, but the Computer itself was $1200 for the base model with no monitor and no way to store your programs. But the TRS-80, now that was a different story, you got a computer, a monitor and a tape recorder for program storage for only $599. And you could get it at Radio Shack, which was everywhere. Plus it had a faster, more powerful CPU in the Z-80. Now, around the same time the Atari VCS came out, but very little technical data was available for it and it did not look like a computer. Sure you could get them at any Sears, but the games that were available at the time were not very impressive to me. I wasn't even aware the that the Fairchild Channel F, or RCA Home Studio II were even for sale, and I wouldn't have been interested even if I had known.

 

For the next several years computer and game technology progressed at a very rapid pace. Every year, new game systems and computers were introduced. I stuck with my TRS-80 for 5 or six years, expanding and adding to it as I could. For a system with 128 * 48 graphic resolution and no sound, there were a lot of great arcade games produced, with great animation and sound too. Big Five software made some great arcade ports for the system that were very playable. I would argue they were better than most of the games you could get on the Atari VCS, at least at first. By the early 80's Activision and Imagic were doing things with the Atari that got my attention, and I finally bought a system.

 

I don't want to veer off too much from the topic, But my point is that without the internet, information only came from magazines, advertisements, and perhaps in store promotional material. There were also some books available that consolidated some of the information, but as a savvy consumer, when I decided to purchase a new system, I looked at the price/performance ratio. How much did it cost? What could it do? That's why, when I updated my computer, I went with an Atari 800XL, it already had a large library of software, and most of it's spec's were better than the Commodore 64. The Coleco Adam was interesting, but it only 16 colors? By the time the NES came out, it wasn't even in the running, for a game machine in my book because it was only an 8-bit processor, and only 52 colors. By that time the Atari ST and the Amiga 1000 were out. It was no contest. The only thing running on the NES were older arcade style games, plus it didn't even have a joystick.

 

I have a different perspective now, but back then, it was all about the price/performance ratio.

Edited October 27, 2017 by mutterminder

[Tanooki]

 

I used to run a Colecovision emulator on a 486. It was one of the closest things to emulating classic arcade games on a 486.

COLEM for DOS wasn't it? I think that was the name at least. My earliest finds of emulation outside of Nintendo was going into the Coleco and I found I think that DOS emulator with a (for then) full set of games with it in a zip file. Seemed back then people would just grab whatever emulator existed that worked well enough and jammed a bunch of games with it as I found VGB that way too for Gameboy.

[mr_me]

I can no-death Marble Madness with a NES pad and that game is full of diagonals. It's not that hard to press two direction buttons at the same time to register a diagonal.

 

...

 

What strengths does the Colecovision have over NES? I don't think that it would have been able to compete. SG-1000 games looked much worse than NES, and that is almost the same hardware as Colecovision. Compare Star Force on that system to the NES port.

I never claimed coleco vision has anything over NES. The coleco vision strength was its high resolution over its competition in 1982. They made sure that Donkey Kong and Zaxxon screen shots, at least, looked as good as possible. As has been mentioned before, the SG-1000 (and coleco vision) is based on old tech; Nintendo took that same tech and made significant improvements. I don't think Sega made the effort with SG-1000 games; compare Congo Bongo on the coleco vision with Congo Bongo on the SG-1000. Or maybe the extra RAM in the coleco vision makes a difference.

 

Okay, now I know you're just talking about stuff you know nothing about.

 

1) Yes, doing 1-way pixel scrolling (or any kind of smooth scrolling) is very difficult on ColecoVision, there is no way in hell that you can say it "can be done no problem".

 

2) The NES can do multi-directional scrolling. Just play Super Mario Bros 3, Blaster Master, or <insert game with multi-directional scrolling here>. It's not only possible, it's built into the hardware.

 

3) Have you ever actually played with a NES? I've played a LOT of NES games, and I never had any kind of problem with diagonals on the stock NES game pads. The ColecoVision's joystick, on the other hand, is terrible with diagonals.

Well, I said 1-way smooth scrolling can be done on the coleco vision through software (as opposed to hardware assisted). I expect it is more programming work to implement and swapping all the tiles needed might be tricky. It has been done. Is there a problem here that wasn't solved.

 

I never said the NES can't do multi-directional/diagonal scrolling. My understanding was, like the basic scrolling on the coleco vision, the NES wasn't designed for it but it can be done with more programming; or maybe it's more hardware on the cartridge, or both. If that is not the case, I appreciate your correcting me.

 

With any game system, programmers do what is easier with their early games; and with experience, implement more complex game features in later games. If there is a potential for a million sales, developers will do whatever it takes.

Edited October 27, 2017 by mr_me

[enoofu]

The Famicom/NES distinguishes itself over coleco vision by having more sprites, more colours, some scrolling, multi-coloured sprites. The coleco vision distinguishes itself from the previous generation by more than doubling the graphic resolution as well as having (arguably) more sprites. The high resolution was huge in 1982. Console surface area, cost, poor controls, hookups, game publications, success/failure have nothing to do with it. The coleco vision did have joysticks but so did the third gen Sega SG-1000 (they are essentially the same machine), and the Famicom upon introduction used a similar RF connection. Coleco vision was cheap in 1982. Coleco vision console sales of 2 million in the first two years can no way be considered a failure. The game library, ergonomics, as well as its short life however, should be considered when looking back at the coleco vision's significance.

Colecovision was still a failure as the 2 million sold wasn't enough to support the system doing a downturn.

 

CV joystick wasn't that great and it's default controller was difficult to hold in the hand of kids, much less adults. Console surface area is important since a lot of people don't one machine standing out on the TV Stand especially in the early 80's when most people just had one TV set.

 

 

Coleco vision was cheap in 1982

Only when compared to the Atari 5200, which adjusted to inflation was almost expensive as the Neo Geo AES, just with cheaper games

[Pixelboy]

I don't think Sega made the effort with SG-1000 games; compare Congo Bongo on the coleco vision with Congo Bongo on the SG-1000. Or maybe the extra RAM in the coleco vision makes a difference.

No, it's the qualifications and drive of the programmers that made a difference. Both the SG-1000 and ColecoVision offer 1K of RAM to work with. If anything, it was the extra effort put into Donkey Kong, Zaxxon and Smurfs that set the bar higher for all the other games developed for the ColecoVision afterwards.

 

Well, I said 1-way smooth scrolling can be done on the coleco vision through software (as opposed to hardware assisted). I expect it is more programming work to implement and swapping all the tiles needed might be tricky. It has been done. Is there a problem here that wasn't solved.

Just because a programmer "solves the problem" of scrolling for one ColecoVision game, that doesn't mean that the same solution can be re-applied directly to another CV game. That's the real problem when doing scrolling on a system with no hardware support for it: If you really want to have smooth scrolling in your CV game, you practically have to build up your software around that technical feature, and it's never, NEVER simple even if, as a programmer, you've done it before.

 

I never said the NES can't do multi-directional/diagonal scrolling.

No, you said it wasn't "ideal" for it, and that is simply incorrect.

 

My understanding was, like the basic scrolling on the coleco vision, the NES wasn't designed for it but it can be done with more programming; or maybe it's more hardware on the cartridge, or both. If that is not the case, I appreciate your correcting me.

The graphic chip of the NES was made for it, plain and simple. The programmer can set both a horizontal and vertical offset on the entire screen, simply by setting some registers on the video display processor. Scrolling can be done by moving the display offsets repeatedly via those registers, and by updating the tiles along the edges of the screen when the screen scrolls beyond 8 pixels. This is what hardware scrolling is all about, and it's much simpler to do than updating every tile on the screen to simulate scrolling, which is how it's done on the ColecoVision.

[empsolo]

 

 

 

I never said the NES can't do multi-directional/diagonal scrolling. My understanding was, like the basic scrolling on the coleco vision, the NES wasn't designed for it but it can be done with more programming; or maybe it's more hardware on the cartridge, or both. If that is not the case, I appreciate your correcting me.

This is false. One of the marching orders that Hiroshi Yamauchi gave to Masayuki Uemura on the Famicom project was that the Famicom needed to have smooth scrolling capabilities straight from the hardware.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zzip]

I would like to have more infos on that.

In 1982, Nintendo came to Atari with a NES prototype that they demonstrated to them, and their idea was to work with Atari to sell it in the US, as Nintendo was a bit worried of introducing themselves on the US market.

 

I would then be a very strange move from them to try to make a console of their own and to acquire a console to export in Japan at the same time.

 

http://www.atari.io/atari-nintendo-nes-deal/

 

 

 

It was also strange for Atari to be designing the 7800 while at the same time negotiating with Nintendo to release the NES. I suppose it was about all parties keeping their options open

[mr_me]

This is false. One of the marching orders that Hiroshi Yamauchi gave to Masayuki Uemura on the Famicom project was that the Famicom needed to have smooth scrolling capabilities straight from the hardware.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said the NES doesn't have smooth hardware scrolling. My understanding however was that horizontal or vertical scrolling is there natively but extra cartridge ram was used for diagonal scrolling. The Famicom/NES designers had the foresight to extend the graphics bus to the cartridge to allow for really flexible cartridge upgrades while shipping a very low ram console. Pixelboy has already corrected me on the diagonal scrolling.

 

 

Colecovision was still a failure as the 2 million sold wasn't enough to support the system doing a downturn.

 

CV joystick wasn't that great and it's default controller was difficult to hold in the hand of kids, much less adults. Console surface area is important since a lot of people don't one machine standing out on the TV Stand especially in the early 80's when most people just had one TV set.

Only when compared to the Atari 5200, which adjusted to inflation was almost expensive as the Neo Geo AES, just with cheaper games

We can disagree on the success or failure of the coleco vision. The Coleco company certainly failed. [The 2 million sold was only for the first two years, the coleco vision was being manufactured and promoted well after that report. We don't know what total sales are, some have said 6 million but that seems doubtful. To a developer, the potential of a million cartridge sales is attractive but once coleco abandoned the system, developers look elsewhere.]

 

And yes, the coleco vision controller is not a good design. It has two action buttons but having them on opposite sides like they did was awkward and handheld joysticks were never ideal. You can argue the joystick style can be used to categorise the generation but its not enough. Vectrex and Atari 5200 had analog controls; Intellivision had a 16-way thumb pad, the SG-1000 had 8-way joysticks and the NES had 8-way thumb pads. The number pads was certainly dated, but the size of the console has nothing to do with its generation.

 

At $175 in 1982 the coleco vision was cheap. Compare to the 1977 $200 Atari VCS or the 1980 $300 Intellivision, and you aleady mentioned the 5200. And ram prices were still falling. The NES was more efficient, shipping with less RAM.

Edited October 27, 2017 by mr_me

[zzip]

Just because a programmer "solves the problem" of scrolling for one ColecoVision game, that doesn't mean that the same solution can be re-applied directly to another CV game. That's the real problem when doing scrolling on a system with no hardware support for it: If you really want to have smooth scrolling in your CV game, you practically have to build up your software around that technical feature, and it's never, NEVER simple even if, as a programmer, you've done it before.

 

Look at what the 2600 programmers accomplished. Virtually nothing they were achieving by 82/83 was easy on that system, but they did it anyway. Developers have conferences where they give talks and learn techniques from each other. If a system is has a large enough audience, developers will learn whatever techniques are necessary to keep that audience happy.

[pacman000]

 

 

I can no-death Marble Madness with a NES pad and that game is full of diagonals. It's not that hard to press two direction buttons at the same time to register a diagonal.

 

 

 

What strengths does the Colecovision have over NES? I don't think that it would have been able to compete. SG-1000 games looked much worse than NES, and that is almost the same hardware as Colecovision. Compare Star Force on that system to the NES port.

Wasn't the SG-1000 released the same year as the Famicom?

 

In the US the Colecovision would've had an early-mover advantage; like the PS2 over the X-Box or the Atari 2600 over the Intellivision.

[pacman000]

 

It was also strange for Atari to be designing the 7800 while at the same time negotiating with Nintendo to release the NES. I suppose it was about all parties keeping their options open

Half the business decisions Atari made in the early 80's could be called "strange."

[enoofu]

Don't think in this case if was strange since they did have a hardware team and they probably spent a good deal of their spare time on new prototype development

[zzip]

Wasn't the SG-1000 released the same year as the Famicom?

 

In the US the Colecovision would've had an early-mover advantage; like the PS2 over the X-Box or the Atari 2600 over the Intellivision.

 

Not just early mover advantage, but it was clear from the Atari negotiations that Nintendo did not want to compete with the existing companies in the US market and preferred to sell through them. So if Coleco was a major player, I presume the NES would have been released by Atari or another western company. It's entirely possible that this company would have made different marketing decisions than Nintendo did . (If it was Atari, you can practically picture them bungling the marketing for it!) Maybe they'd see some of Nintendo's hit titles like Zelda as being "too Japanese" for the western market to accept and never bother to release them here. So in the alternate timeline where Coleco is a player, it's entirely possible NES was never as big a hit.

[almightytodd]

Yeah, while we shouldn't exaggerate the ColecoVision's place in history or its influence, we also shouldn't diminish what a big deal it was for the brief time it was on the market. It sold a ton in a very short amount of time and was the hottest system out there. Having lots of fresh arcade conversions was definitely one of its selling points. And even in its brief time on the market, the 1984 software showed a noticeable jump in quality over the 1982 software.

 

Here's the reality... The ColecoVision could have easily survived through the Crash and come out on the other side. The problem was that Coleco went down the Adam computer rabbit hole, flat-out bungled it, and then compounded the issue by grossly overestimating how long the Cabbage Patch Doll frenzy would continue. Crash or no Crash, the ColecoVision would have been sustainable, just not when Coleco itself was no longer financially stable.

 

 

The ColecoVision made the cut in my book, Vintage Game Consoles, so I indeed think it was important in the context of its time and at least somewhat influential, but let's not overstate its significance. Its commercial lifespan was obviously cut criminally short, with other platforms lasting much longer and ultimately able to succeed better with its core technology and concepts.

 

 

I don't think it was the most important game system.

 

-but-

 

It definitely doesn't get the recognition it deserves. For instance when CV and 5200 came out, they were heralded as "3rd wave" games systems. Nowadays they get lumped in with the 2nd Generation systems like Channel F. SERIOUSLY? CV is clearly a generational leap over the Channel F and VCS. It's closer to an NES than it is to the late 70s systems it gets lumped in as.

 

When it comes to retrogaming and the media, there's a tendency to gloss over anything pre-NES, unless it's to talk about how ET allegedly destroyed the entire industry, or how bad the 5200 controllers were

 

I agree with these sentiments. I would expand Bill's comments regarding the Adam computer, to say that you simply cannot talk about the ColecoVision without talking about the Adam. So many of Coleco's ideas about what a home computer should be were dead-on. All of the proponents of "home computers" at the time were pushing the idea of, "get this for your kids' education". But without a letter-quality printer, "your kids" had nothing of substance to bring to school the next day after hours in front of the computer "learning".

 

The idea of applications on ROM cart; user data on a specialized cassette drive was brilliant too. The idea of "faster than regular cassette", "cheaper than floppy" was sound, if it could have been implemented reliably. The balance struck between game machine, word-processor, and general-purpose computer was sound. You have to remember that most "typing" during that era, was done on electric or electronic typewriters.

 

In the end, the Adam that was produced was a couple hundred dollars too expensive, and way too unreliable, compared to the Adam that was promised. And yes, it didn't help that the company that was trying to produce this new technology, was funding the project from the sales of Cabbage Patch dolls. Mattel suffered from this same lack of focus, and to a degree even Atari - with their separate coin-op division.

[mbd30]

Wasn't the SG-1000 released the same year as the Famicom?

 

In the US the Colecovision would've had an early-mover advantage; like the PS2 over the X-Box or the Atari 2600 over the Intellivision.

 

I'm just giving the SG-1000 as an example of what Colecovision games may have looked like had it survived the crash and tried to compete with the NES. People here are trying to put NES and Colecovision in the same console generation. I'd put the Colecovision with the 5200 as the generation after the Atari 2600 and Intellivision, and then the NES, 7800 and Master System as the generation after that with much more advanced graphics and games.

[Skippy B. Coyote]

The Colecovision is arguably the most important console in the world (maybe even more overall than the Channel F) and it's basically a foot note these days.

 

I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but at the end of the day I think it really comes down to sales numbers. The Atari 2600 gets all the recognition for jumpstarting the home gaming market and the NES gets the credit for rejuvenating it, because they both sold a whole butt load of units and became ubiquitous icons of video gaming in their respective times. The ColecoVision did do all sorts of cool stuff (many of which it did first before any other console) but it never sold enough units to reach the iconic cultural status of the Atari 2600 and NES; or the ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64 if you were in the UK at the time.

 

If it makes you feel any better though the very first home game console I ever played as a kid was my older brother's ColecoVision with an Atari 2600 expansion module, so I certainly appreciate the Coleco for the wonderful machine that it was, it just never sold enough units for society as a whole to appreciate it as much in a historical context.

[Flojomojo]

It's so hard to be the middle system. All we hear about is how great the NES is! NES NES NES!

 

[high voltage]

Expansion port, surely the APF Imagination Machine (1979) was the first to have one?

[Schizophretard]

The History Channel doesn't have time for things like the ColecoVision when there are more important things the masses need to know about like Nazi flying saucers, aliens in Nazi flying saucers, Nazis in aliens in Nazi flying saucers, and Bigfoot.

[mr_me]

Expansion port, surely the APF Imagination Machine (1979) was the first to have one?

...

All cartridge ports are expansion ports. Some system cartridge ports have access to more things than others. A game system designer could put everything through one cartridge port or split things up with a seperate expansion port. For example if you wanted to make a voice or enhanced sound coleco vision game cartridge you'd have to make one that fits into the expansion slot rather than the traditional cartridge slot. These companies quickly discovered that expansion peripherals didn't sell as well as expected and it was better to put stuff in each game cartridge even though it was more costly. Developers didn't want to create cartridges for only a subset of the user base. Edited October 28, 2017 by mr_me