Which matters more to you as a classic game player - graphics or playability?

[BIGHMW]

This, has been a question that has longed for but yet to have a definitive answer in place to it.

 

That is why I am putting up this poll, so I can get YOUR opinion (or as my old 20-episode political commentary series on my Ray Jackson YouTube channel titled "My 2¢" would suggest) or your 2¢ on what matters to you whenever YOU play Atari.

 

Now currently owning a 2600, a 5200, a 7800, and, an XEGS, I can tell you that I am torn between both good playability and great graphics because it seems like for some goddamn reason I somehow have to compromise one for the other. In the case of the 2600 for instance, there are games that are great for their playability but yet have sucky-sucky graphics, while in the meantime there are those for either the A8/5200 or the 7800 that have spectacular graphics but yet are harder or more difficult to play compared to their "inferior" 2600 counterparts.

 

But if it HAD TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER what would it be and which unit would you choose (if one only) to play them on???

 

Boy I'm glad I don't have to go through the BS of having to decide which one unit I'd keep if it came to it like I had to a couple of years ago, I busted my ass off to reacquire those 2600, 7800, and XEGS units and I'm not about to go into that shit ever again!!! I even went out of my way to get a rep payee to handle my Social Security afterwards to make sure all of my monthly bills are paid by them while only having to deal with fun $$$ I make at work for my Atari fix!!! So unlike 2 months ago when I got that payee let alone 2 years ago when I originally HAD TO sell those units I'm doing fine right about now, getting my paycheck on Tuesday nights through Venmo and a weekly payee allotment of $40.00 on Friday through my TrueLink card. It's all going into plan, soon I'll be back!!!

Edited October 8, 2023 by BIGHMW

[Giles N]

As much as I love good graphics - good in any direction that accentuates the genre of game, no game can make it without good gameplay.

 

Good gameplay doesn’t always need to be perfect responsivity (even though such things are more often than not at the core of whether its going to play well).

But if the framerate cannot be 50 or 60 a second, then the rest of the game must be made in such a manner that the game-objective(s) still feels fair and rewarding to the player.

 

If it never rewards learning the ins- and outs- of the game(play), and everything feels random or fairly random, - or after a very short time there’s nothing more to gets to grips with (of course relative to era or year of publication) -, then why should a player find it fun…?

You don’t know if you can get better even if you focus or concentrate more - it’s all random, or sometimes random… 

‘Unfair’ says the player, leaving the game-session with no feeling that focus or attention is rewarded…

 

Pac Man can still be fun today. Looks simplistic (yet clean and neat), but it’s responsive and you can get better.

Tetris… blocks on a almost blank screen… more minimalistic than that is hard to find. Yet, the concept rewards quick wits as to recognizing shapes so as to stack them the most efficient way (make full lines which then disappears).

 

If frame-rate goes down ot controls must be less responsive, then a game must compensate by making the game-objectives less dependent on nano-second responses, and reward the player for getting on in the game.

 

Without good gameplay - fun, responsive, clever, rewarding … then almost everything else is a waste in proportion to how much invested to make it shine and sparkle or sound awesome.

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Giles N

[+Stephen]

Definitely gameplay.  Pong is still a fun game to this day, and it is literally a few pixels in either black or white.  Your mind is free to fill in the gaps, invent a story, etc.  Not that I don't appreciate amazing graphics on some modern consoles - the latest Flight Simulator in 4K being one stellar example, there still has to be the great gameplay element.

 

Here's a perfect example:

 

That is what I saw, but in my mind, it was more epic than the Peter Jackson L.O.T.R movies.

[BIGHMW]

I've gotta admit as much I'm The Old Guard of everything 5200 I DO like playing 2600 games more and more nowadays considering what @Stephen is hinting in his last reply. That, is why I brought created this thread, because if it DID come down to one unit it'd be indeed the 2600, that considering the vast majority of the almost 1,000+ titles that have been produced for her have improved over the 5 decades she has graced the living rooms/arcade setups/home theaters as THE centerpiece (alongside the VCR and/or DVD player) of millions of households around the world.

 

...and while yes Vanguard, Moon Patrol, and Kangaroo LOOK much better on a 5200 than on a 2600 those are just merely a couple of trade-offs compared to the awesomeness that John Champeau @johnnywc and Champ Games have been able to produce for the 2600 with Gorf Arcade, Galagon, Scramble, and Qyx for instance. Or Venture Reloaded, or @Silvio Mogno's brilliant ruby*Q, or @RaymanC's terrific Lucky Chase, or @splendidnut's Chaotic Grill, or @SpiceWare's Space Rocks, or even @DINTAR816 with his brilliant Pac-Man Arcade. Many others too. It was The homebrew community that brought me to the 2600 in 2016 and made me more serious for a unit I once wrote off for dead back in 1982 when Tod Frye put out the original 2600 Pac-Man BITD.

[+bent_pin]

Playability. I cite Space Invaders for the 2600 vs 5200. 2600 plays better but 5200 looks better. I play space invaders on the 2600 on the regular.

[+Stephen]

I will say, I do like a certain level of graphics.  I love my 2600 for what it is, of course it was our family's first console, we had an original heavy-sixer (sorry, but this was the original Big Sexy).  But I prefer the 8-bit computer as that's what I really grew up with, learned to code on, etc.  Star Raiders in particular, is leagues better on the 8-bits compared to the 2600.  But it's not just a graphical difference.  It is a more complex game.

[+Stephen]

1 minute ago, bent_pin said:

Playability. I cite Space Invaders for the 2600 vs 5200. 2600 plays better but 5200 looks better. I play space invaders on the 2600 on the regular.

That is a good example - 2600 Space Invaders is my favourite version of all, including arcade.  But - it's also the 1st one I remember playing, so that carries a lot of weight.

[BIGHMW]

I liked the A8/5200 version of Pac-Man better than the Tod Frye 2600 Pac-Man 40 years ago, so that's why I ended up growing up on and playing and preferring the more-complex 5200 and A8 lineup of titles.

 

Fast forward to 2016, I discovered Dennis @DEBRO's magnificent Pac-Man 4K done up in the very same 4K of memory that Tod Frye was afforded, much better!!! Then I discovered @DINTAR816's version of Pac-Man Arcade, I have followed the 2600 homebrew community alongside all the other ones in the Atari '80s family ever since.

 

...and of course as I have gotten older (57 as I am posting this) and my overall mental condition and my gameplay abilities have both gone to shit so I have pretty much been (at least skill-wise) relegated to mainly 2600 titles, but I am glad to see that the games nowadays are far better and can at least hold somewhat of a candle to the A8/5200 and 7800 without losing too much charm or simplicity in the process. True there'll never be a version of The Last Starfighter or Space Dungeon for the 2600 but every once in a while I can suck it up and give those titles a run on any of my 4 Atari consoles whenever my ever-so beating vintage gaming gut needs to!!!

[MrTrust]

LThis is a question that almost doesn't apply anymore.  Now that even modest hardware can give you impressive photorealistic effects, "good graphics" doesn't mean what it used to.  And you often have control over how you want to balance prettiness and functionality.  Is 60fps more important to you, or prettier textures?  We can decide those tradeoffs these days.  Now, it's more a matter of art design than a feat of engineering to have good graphics.

 

Sometimes the graphics are bound up in the character of the game.  Say, Okami, Cup head, or The Neverhood.  None of those would be the same game if the graphics were different.  When you get into VR stuff, this is even more true.  I don't know that the two things are as separable as they may have once been.

 

But just the basic would I prefer an ugly game that is good to a pretty one that is not as good?  Sure, by default I would say that, but if a game looks downright unattractive, I probably wouldn't give it a chance in the first place.  Everybody's going to say they care more about gameplay, but if you bought a video game without knowing nothing about it back in the day, what did you base that purchase on?  Looking at the box.  Today you might read some reviews on ngame first, but not until after you've already seen a splash page and some screenshots and thought "Oooh, that looks good."

 

There are exceptions.  I recently got End's Reach based off of word-of-mouth even though the game is uglier than sin and, to me, looked amateurish and bad.  Glad I didn't trust my instincts, because the game is great and there are a thousand prettier ones to which I would prefer it.  That's an outlier case, though; usually the basic laws of attraction still apply.

 

1 hour ago, BIGHMW said:

I even went out of my way to get a rep payee to handle my Social Security afterwards to make sure all of my monthly bills are paid by them while only having to deal with fun $$$ I make at work for my Atari fix!!!

 

If this is true, man, I am really glad to hear it, and I admire you for manning up and admitting you need that help and making sure you're getting it.  Well done.

[Flojomojo]

Can’t play graphics. Gameplay all the way. But it’s nice when good graphics come along too. 

[BIGHMW]

28 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

If this is true, man, I am really glad to hear it, and I admire you for manning up and admitting you need that help and making sure you're getting it.  Well done.

Thanks!

[SIO2]

You forgot the music bro.  Sound is also huge.  Though, I have seen some people turn the sound off and listen to their own music while playing - so there is that.  For me though sound is more important than graphics and the first consideration after how the game plays. 

[Giles N]

2 hours ago, Stephen said:

 

2 hours ago, Stephen said:

Here's a perfect example:

 

That is what I saw, but in my mind, it was more epic than the Peter Jackson L.O.T.R movies.

 

I remember that many early Arcades and C64 games - by letting backdrops sort-of ‘fade out’ into darkness/black - like ghost n goblins, and many such titles, letting just parts of trees, mountain tops, rocks etc, partially stand out from the dark, left so much to my own imagination to be filled out.

 

When you’re between 6-10, goodness even 12, 13… ones own imagination fills in blanks in a way that seemed to fade out more and more as became older and began to meta-think through analytical lenses (often subconsciously) what systems could pull off, what game-companies would bother to spend time, thus money, on getting produced.

 

Some of the inner magic was lost as I thought too much about the professional side of it, and also as I grew older and the distance between what was inside the ‘screen-world’ and the living-room or my boys room became much greater (psychologically).

 

The first home computer we had was a Dragon 64 (welsch thing).

 

Compared to arcades like GnG, DragonBuster, Commando, Jail Break (any here remember it?), - and also loving to draw back then -, the wierd palettes and limited graphics of the Dragon 64 really alienated me. (It had also a dreadful analogue controller). To be fair, we never got many of the good games for it.

 

As we got the C64 when I was 10, home video/computer gaming took on an entirely new dimension.

 

Just hated having to stick with using cassettes contra cartridges.

 

But the atmospheres created by the C64’s graphics and particulary sound-chip m, made for a different game-experience entirely.

 

Some 2600 titles have some ‘magic to them’.

And somehow my mind still can reset itself to play along, enter into game-world, the expectations of imagination adjusting itself knowing the different generations of consoles.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Giles N

[+GoldLeader]

 

Well Gameplay is King so it's no surprise that's what people (myself included) would pick. 

 

Across various systems, there's plenty of odd exceptions where I might wish for better gameplay, but still really have a soft spot for a game based mainly on graphics and music.  For example, Cool World for SNES is not a very playable game,  but I like the look of it;  especially the buildings with faces that move and show emotions or the backgrounds,  like places I want to go that are far off in the distance for some reason, or certain colorful levels like a cartoon candy land,  and the music is amazing to me!  It's very odd and a wonderful kind of strange that very few people like.  (Though I do wish it played better!)

 

Back to playability and graphics,  sometimes you Do get Both.  DARK CAVERN!  Brilliant Gameplay!  Perfect graphics as far as I'm concerned.  Best of all worlds!

 

And not Atari, but a great example for what you're asking,  Look at the graphics for Faxanadu on the NES:  Great I think!   Now look at Dragon's Lair for the NES:  Also Great!  Maybe even Greater!   But Faxanadu is a game built of the highest quality gameplay,  an adventure that unfolds and boggles your very mind!    Dragon's Lair on the other hand looks exceptional but plays like ASS!  In 30 seconds if you last that long,  you will be cursing your very existence and screaming Why?  Why did I buy this?  Complete In Box no less?   (Anybody want to buy a copy?  Cool graphics...Nice looking box, but...It's a terrible game I tell ya...)

 

^Sometimes you really can have it all!!!

 

 

^Looks cool,  Plays even better!

 

 

^Looks cool!  Plays like ASS!!

[Silvio Mogno]

8 hours ago, BIGHMW said:

I've gotta admit as much I'm The Old Guard of everything 5200 I DO like playing 2600 games more and more nowadays considering what @Stephen is hinting in his last reply. That, is why I brought created this thread, because if it DID come down to one unit it'd be indeed the 2600, that considering the vast majority of the almost 1,000+ titles that have been produced for her have improved over the 5 decades she has graced the living rooms/arcade setups/home theaters as THE centerpiece (alongside the VCR and/or DVD player) of millions of households around the world.

 

...and while yes Vanguard, Moon Patrol, and Kangaroo LOOK much better on a 5200 than on a 2600 those are just merely a couple of trade-offs compared to the awesomeness that John Champeau @johnnywc and Champ Games have been able to produce for the 2600 with Gorf Arcade, Galagon, Scramble, and Qyx for instance. Or Venture Reloaded, or @Silvio Mogno's brilliant ruby*Q, or @RaymanC's terrific Lucky Chase, or @splendidnut's Chaotic Grill, or @SpiceWare's Space Rocks, or even @DINTAR816 with his brilliant Pac-Man Arcade. Many others too. It was The homebrew community that brought me to the 2600 in 2016 and made me more serious for a unit I once wrote off for dead back in 1982 when Tod Frye put out the original 2600 Pac-Man BITD.

Thank you for appreciating my game!☺️

[ledzep]

I also choose gameplay over graphics, within limits.  But I think "within limits" would really only apply to the 2600 or similarly graphically limited early consoles.  Once you get to the 5200/8-bits and beyond, the graphics will at least pretend to be what they say they are.

 

But when I think "gameplay" I'm not really thinking 60fps, I don't think I ever played a game (even on the 2600) that was too slow or skipped a lot.  For me gameplay is more about movement around the screen and how the controls react to your input.  I remember a few years ago playing arcade Venture at that Banning arcade convention (now sadly gone because asshole would rather grow weed on that property) and wanting to choke the programmer to death because the joystick acted so odd, like it was a half second delayed or something.  I don't think the home version does that.  Of course, if that's how it's supposed to play (on purpose) then I guess I hate that game.  It could have also been that particular cabinet, but my friend who was really good at the game I think said that's how it is?  Can't remember.

 

So, a game like Missile Command I think is fast enough on all consoles but playing with a digital joystick is the wrong feel, the gameplay is much affected for anyone who knows the trak-ball version.  Playing a spinner game like Tempest at home or wherever and the spinner you have to work with doesn't spin freely, it's more like an appliance dial, that is maddening.  I think I've played a few games where the fire buttons are slow, to the point that I have to keep making myself fire slightly early to get the thing to fire when it's supposed to, and thinking that's not how it played in the arcade (or whatever the original was).  Any Breakout/Kaboom type game with a digital joystick will also suck, but people with paddles will wonder why you complain about it, it's fine.

 

Other games have shitty jump action or the collision detection is trash, you die needlessly.  Not because the game is trying to be hard, but because the actual programming is sketchy.  I think the 2600 E.T. game has that problem with the pits that you can fall into if your head touches the hole from the bottom or something, right?  And then someone mercifully fixed that so you can only fall in from above, which makes all the sense in the world.

 

Obviously the 5200 gets complaints because the analog stick doesn't center.  I got pretty good at centering it myself with my thumb (on top) but for many people trying to play a precise 4-way game like Pac-Man or something, the accidental diagonals got you dead real fast.  The game works fine with the right inputs but can be terrible with the wrong ones.  And if it's programmed wrong for a certain console (joystick input detection takes too long) then it's a frustrating mess.  Major Havoc can/should only be played with the roller controller.  The trak-ball and/or spinner is almost good enough, but feels wrong immediately.

 

A more modern example like this upcoming Berzerk: Recharged changing the run or shoot joystick to twin-stick Robotron mode (and being able to move around much faster) totally changes the gameplay of what was expected.  Adding rapid fire to a game like Space Invaders that is supposed to be only one shot on the screen at a time makes it a very different game, less frustrating and tense trying to kill those invaders faster than they can descend.

 

I love playing Space Duel single player with the tethered ships, the way they whip around each other when you hit thrust is so smooth, feels natural (though idiotic, who would handcuff 2 ships together like that!??) and the button controls are great.  I know back in the day I tried certain arcade games and gave up very quickly because the controls acted funny, probably on purpose, but I couldn't get a handle on how to play well.  And I wasn't alone in that view, those games tended to be not as popular.

[digdugnate]

gameplay, each and every time.  good graphics don't mean anything if the game is a pain in the ass to play.  I played plenty of older games that had really cool graphics but mechanics made it not very fun for me.

 

on the same hand, graphics aren't necessarily needed, either, like in the case of text adventures.  i love firing up an Infocom or Scott Adams adventure when I get the itch

[+bent_pin]

What about great gameplay and graphics, but the game was too darn short? I like Congo Bongo but it only has a couple levels on the 5200. What about Homefront on PC? Beat it in 5 hours, so that's like $9/hour.

[MrTrust]

8 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

Dragon's Lair on the other hand looks exceptional but plays like ASS!  In 30 seconds if you last that long,  you will be cursing your very existence and screaming Why?  Why did I buy this?  Complete In Box no less?   (Anybody want to buy a copy?  Cool graphics...Nice looking box, but...It's a terrible game I tell ya...)

 

Try the PAL version of you haven't already.  It's a lot smoother and more responsive.

 

The game is not as bad as it's mad out to be.  Unfortunately, we got a gimped version here in the states, which didn't help, and it seems it just wasn't what people wanted, which is a Dragon's Lair-themed standard NES action/platformer.

 

I can't exactly recommend the game, but I do prefer that they tried to port the spirit of the arcade game over.  You have to learn the little eccentricities of each scene, figure out what you're supposed to be doing (usually trial and error), memorize the patterns, and then execute exactly.  More like Simon crossed with a puzzle.  That's essentially what DL is.

 

3 hours ago, digdugnate said:

on the same hand, graphics aren't necessarily needed, either, like in the case of text adventures.  i love firing up an Infocom or Scott Adams adventure when I get the itch

 

Why, in the age of ubiquitous podcasting and the resurgence of radio drama, has nobody done an honest-to-goodness audio-only interactive fiction game?  No screen.  No text.  Just a microphone for input.  Environments and events are described like the old Infocom days, but with proper voice narration, acting, and sound effects.

 

Interactive Radio Drama.  Play it on long drives.  Play it sitting around with the family on the Amazon thing.  All I'm aware of existing in that format now are quiz games and simple memory games for kids.

 

3 hours ago, digdugnate said:

I played plenty of older games that had really cool graphics but mechanics made it not very fun for me.

 

This was a bucket of cold water to the face when I got an Amiga for the first time.  2010 or so.  Oh, man, when I was a kid, seeing the ads for those games... that stuff was out of this world. And now I have one with a bunch of games, so I can go back and see all the awesome stuff I missed...

 

Turns out what I was missing was mostly frustration.  Everything looked great on that system, but maaaaaan, so many of the games were janky and broken, either by the controls or just the ridiculous level design/balance.

 

But that's more a thing of the 80s/90s with small teams and garage developers overrepresented.  Such a thing is much rarer among arcade games, for example.

[RaymanC]

For me both things are important, and one can't be without the other.

And is good to know that you liked Lucky Chase! 

 

[BIGHMW]

5 hours ago, Silvio Mogno said:

Thank you for appreciating my game!☺️

....and I'll be playing it as soon as I get that 2600 Jr. in the mail later on this week, I HAVE seen it in action and I can't wait to play it for the first time, I already have the final demo ROM of it for my Harmony Encore, the only reason I haven't played it yet is because my Flashback 9 won't work with it and my current 2600 Jr. (short rainbow version)) had a bad circuit so I'm using this newer one (beat-up but complete and fully working long rainbow version) I picked up as a donor for its board. THEN we'll start to kick some ass with this version!!!

[Arno1978]

When I was younger, it used to be graphics and gameplay 50/50. Growing up I was addicted to video games. My parents wouldn't let me own anything until I was 16, so I got my fixes at arcades or on a friends NES or SNES. I was too young when Atari 2600 was popular, but did play some games and when you had basic graphics representing sprites and play area vs the more cartoony sprites and backgrounds in NES games, I leaned toward NES. We kids back in the mid 80s would mistakenly refer to the Atari 2600 as a 4-bit console. We didn't know what bits meant. I never lost my appreciation for games like PacMan which was one of the first game I ever played and played the arcade version numerous times, but growing up I was always drawn to the flashier and colourful graphics of the later 8-bit and 16-bit systems and later 64-bit systems. I really enjoyed Mario 64 on my N64 and Mario Kart 64. It was at that point when 3d graphics were starting to become mainstream and 2d was falling off a bit. When I got my first computer, I cursed its slow built-in graphic chip because I couldn't run Half Life at full resolution at a smooth FPS. So I too was chasing after better graphic cards which were always out of my budget. Then I played Half Life 2 on a friends computer who had all the latest bells and whistles and for the first time I realized how stupid the highest settings were. There was texture mapping and reflections on all of the wrong surfaces. I remember the worn rubber wheels of the buggy being shiny and reflecting light. So after that, the only purpose of a good graphic card was simply to maintain a steady FPS, not to crank graphics settings up to max. Now my current computer I find can display higher graphics settings than I care for. In the last 15 to 20 years, I also started to go backwards with my gaming interests. I went back to my consoles. I've been more interested in DOS games. Playing early arcade games that I missed out on. I really like playing roguelike games, including the original Rogue, and early titles like Nethack. In roguelikes, the graphics are just text characters on a screen, but they are very fun and equally frustrating.

 

All my life I only played games I considered fun - so of course gameplay was an important factor always. My interest in good graphics has dwindled. I certainly appreciate the graphics in some games, don't get me wrong. I love SNES rpg graphics. Right now though, I love using my imagination more than having an image constructed for me. It's abstract. I like many Atari 2600 games where you can barely make out what the sprite is, but they're fun as hell. I super love Adventure. I love when I defeat those big evil ducks with their square bellies. I really appreciate the homebrew devs that work really hard to make or remake titles and enjoy them too. But, now whether nice or not, the only purpose graphics serve is simply to indicate what I'm looking at. My imagination will do the rest.

[BIGHMW]

22 minutes ago, RaymanC said:

For me both things are important, and one can't be without the other.

And is good to know that you liked Lucky Chase! 

 

That I did. One thing I DO have to say is that the cops are WAY TOO smart, I can barely finish off a level, perhaps maybe a "dumber" version would be cool for some of us who can't seem to shake off those pesky lawmen would be cool, no complaints otherwise. Best ever version I have played on a 2600, greatly compliments @splendidnut's Chaotic Grill as the "Data East Duo".

 

What Burgertime and Lock 'n' Chase were in 1982, Chaotic Grill and Lucky Chase are here in 2023!!! 41 years sure does make a difference!!!

[Absalon]

It's all about the playability for me.

 

good or even great graphics on top are of course also very good. But the basics of a FUN idea and and a FUN way to play and control a game is the key to a good game. Retro or modern...

[RaymanC]

29 minutes ago, BIGHMW said:

One thing I DO have to say is that the cops are WAY TOO smart, I can barely finish off a level, perhaps maybe a "dumber" version would be cool for some of us who can't seem to shake off those pesky lawmen would be cool, no complaints otherwise

 

Did you download the final version? That version is easier than the others!

If you did and still find it hard then let me know and I will tell you a few tricks to outsmart those cops!