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

[+bent_pin]

3 minutes ago, GoldLeader said:

 

Yeah,  That's it.  I couldn't remember if it happened on the portable or not, (I've had it happen on the Flashback (don't remember which one) and on the RetroN 77).  If the robot hugs the wall and you shoot down at him,  sometimes your shot goes right past him and he evades the shot.  I've never seen that happen when playing on the 2600 or 7800.

Did you order the 2600+?

My girlfriend got one for me but I'm going to set it aside until Christmas or until she pesters me into giving her the gifts that I got for her. So I might be a bit tardy to the release party.

[+GoldLeader]

1 hour ago, bent_pin said:

Did you order the 2600+?

My girlfriend got one for me but I'm going to set it aside until Christmas or until she pesters me into giving her the gifts that I got for her. So I might be a bit tardy to the release party.

 

No,  I figure having a Flashback 9 and a RetroN 77,  I won't need the 2600"+".

[+bent_pin]

10 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

 

No,  I figure having a Flashback 9 and a RetroN 77,  I won't need the 2600"+".

I've got a flashback 8 gold, but no RetroN, so I figured the 2600+ had a place in my collection. I'm sure someone will post a list of compatibility with Dark Cavern on it before I get to playing mine, but I'll be sure to tag you when I do get to mine.

[+bent_pin]

Nobody has mentioned Frogs and Flies 2600. Some of the worst graphics on the platform, but I could play it for hours on end.

[0078265317]

Graphics are playability.  Poor graphics are unplayable.

[+Stephen]

53 minutes ago, 0078265317 said:

Graphics are playability.  Poor graphics are unplayable.

Pong is unplayable?  Lunar Lander is unplayable?

[0078265317]

26 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Pong is unplayable?  Lunar Lander is unplayable?

Those are not poor enough.

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

2 hours ago, 0078265317 said:

Those are not poor enough.

Some examples then? 

[0078265317]

5 minutes ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said:

Some examples then? 

The flickering in pac man 2600 makes it unplayable  5200 version is much better to see with improved graphics.  2600 baseball also has flicker.  And 2600 basketball also compared to nes or snes versions not as good.  The tiny ball and stick figures and no line on the court.  Pong is fairly simple just a ball and 2 paddles.  Not much to see or do.  Just pass the ball back and fourth.  I just see 2 purple sticks here.  I can't even make out the net vs the pole if I did not watch it.  Nes version art least I can clearly see the hoop

 

It is much clearer here which is the pole and where the net is. 

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

Well you pointed out better versions sure, but still nothing proven “unplayable” for example 2600 PAC Man while very different then arcade and yes it has much flicker it is obviously playable as millions will attest to but whatever. 🤷

 

Anyway, as for the poll pretty much as I expected on a retro gaming site the results overwhelmingly resulting in playability. 

[+bent_pin]

14 hours ago, 0078265317 said:

The flickering in pac man 2600 makes it unplayable

I played the heck out of Pacman 2600 for almost 4 years, Asteroids too. I didn't even know that the flicker was a problem until I got a 7800 and an NES and Gameboy shortly thereafter. For me the issue with Pacman was the tiny lag in the controller, with practice I learned to anticipate and move ahead of the lag.

 

In fairness though, I was a bit disappointed in the pellets after having played the arcade version.

[Arno1978]

I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_1-D I remember when it first made news on the independent and experimental games sites. The poll has already answered the question, but still it's very interesting.

[MrTrust]

19 hours ago, Stephen said:

Pong is unplayable?  Lunar Lander is unplayable?

 

Who says those games had bad graphics?  They were technically good graphics by the standards of their day, and even today, they have a certain sort of minimalist charm about them.  They've certainly aged better aesthetically than many games from the 90s.  If Pong has bad graphics, does that mean that these graphics are comparatively good?

 

Or this?

 

These may not have been considered good games in their day, but graphically, they were on the better side of average, and they're pretty hideous.  Pong, primitive as it is, I don't think will ever be looked back upon with the same kind of aesthetic disgust as stuff like this.

[Big Player]

On 10/13/2023 at 1:31 AM, 0078265317 said:

And 2600 basketball also compared to nes or snes versions not as good.  The tiny ball and stick figures and no line on the court.  Pong is fairly simple just a ball and 2 paddles.  Not much to see or do.  Just pass the ball back and fourth.  I just see 2 purple sticks here.  I can't even make out the net vs the pole if I did not watch it.  Nes version art least I can clearly see the hoop

 

Strong disagreement on the gameplay for 2600 Basketball. Have you played it or are you judging the gameplay from watching a Youtube video?

 

2600 Basketball has solid one-on-one basketball play. It's simplified of course, not only because it's a late 1970's release for the 2600 but the ROM is only 2K.  Alan Miller did a great job translating the sport to those limitations.

 

There is no key, free throw lane or foul line. Since there are no fouls or out of bounds, they would just clutter the screen.  Also missing 3-point lines but those didn't exist in the sport at the time of the game's release.

 

My brother and I played this game quite a lot in the early 1980's, when it was even primitive compared to the 1980's 2600 games we had. It's the one 2600 sports game that didn't get a Realsports or M-Network update. I think part of this was due to how good the game play is.

 

From the comments section of the video you linked: "I have an old Atari and had my 10 year old son and his friends play it to see what they would think of it and they LOVED it. No joke.. they loved how easy it was and how competitive you can be. Goes to show you graphics aren't everything...Something to said about simplicity and game play..."

 

On 10/13/2023 at 1:31 AM, 0078265317 said:

It is much clearer here which is the pole and where the net is. 

 

Really? The vertical purple line is the pole and the horizontal purple line is the net.

[+Stephen]

On 10/13/2023 at 5:27 PM, MrTrust said:

On 10/12/2023 at 10:06 PM, Stephen said:

Pong is unplayable?  Lunar Lander is unplayable?

 

Who says those games had bad graphics?  They were technically good graphics by the standards of their day, and even today, they have a certain sort of minimalist charm about them.  They've certainly aged better aesthetically than many games from the 90s.

That was my point.  Pong and Lunar Lander are still 2 amazingly fun games that can be enjoyed for hours.  Even though they are literally 2 colours (black and white) and a few pixels per screen.  That was my entire point - they did not have bad graphics, but even the most minimalistic of graphics with excellent gameplay makes for games that stand up to the test of time.

[+CyranoJ]

I don't think the "classic" part of the question is important or required.

 

I wouldn't want to waste time with anything unplayable, no matter how nice the graphics are.

[ledzep]

56 minutes ago, CyranoJ said:

I don't think the "classic" part of the question is important or required.

 

I wouldn't want to waste time with anything unplayable, no matter how nice the graphics are.

 

I think the point was that "classic" games had the weakest graphics compared to now with real-time rendering and realistic effects and camera moves and all that.  Old games were 8-bit for the most part and limited colors, weak CPUs, low memory, etc.  So they never looked amazing though I always loved how the vector games looked.  But games didn't start getting noticeable (though primitive and blocky) shading or depth until I think arcade games went to 16-bit?  Likes those side-view fighting games?  Either way, at the beginning you had to mentally fill in the blanks for what the game was purporting to be showing the players.  But the gameplay made up for those limitations.

 

I mean, we've seen comments from apparently young players who outright laugh at how simple the old games are even though they're not really judging the playability (or being fair), they're just mocking the looks (and assuming they're no fun).  Which, to be fair, are a long way from even PC games' looks from 10-20 years ago.  But you get them to try playing those games and they don't last long, hahaaha, so who's laughing now.