Activision versus Atari

[zzip]

5 hours ago, davyK said:

Activision , like all devs, have a chequered library. But like great devs, their best are great. Their hit/miss ratio is favourable. Unlike Atari they didn't have to try and squeeze arcade games onto the 2600

They may not have licensed arcade titles,  but I could argue a number of Activision games were clones of arcade games:  Chopper Command, Freeway,  Megamania 

[+GoldLeader]

Most of Activision's titles were still different enough to be their own games usually...Even if inspired by arcade games.

 

That said...

 

Some of Activision's Originals were the Best!

 

For me, that's Pitfall!, River Raid, and H.E.R.O.!  

 

I have fond memories of Pitfall! and River Raid on Both Atari and ColecoVision,...And H.E.R.O. I just have on ColecoVision.

 

 

Speaking of... @John Van Ryzin Did you do the conversion of H.E.R.O. on ColecoVision?  It is Truly Fantastic!  It was my favorite game on ColecoVision at the time.

 

 

[zzip]

1 hour ago, GoldLeader said:

Speaking of... @John Van Ryzin Did you do the conversion of H.E.R.O. on ColecoVision?  It is Truly Fantastic!  It was my favorite game on ColecoVision at the time.

On that note seeing what they did with Colecovision,  why did so many 5200/Atari 8 Activision games feel like marginally enhanced 2600 ports?

[Astro Rabby]

Atari's output mostly was either conversions of arcade games they made or licensed (Asteroids, Kangaroo etc) or games that only really function with two players (Combat, Outlaw etc). Haunted House and Adventure were the two biggest exceptions. 

Activision had great graphics but sometimes half-baked gameplay as many have said, of course Pitfall and River Raid are certified bangers in both departments. I'm gonna have to give it to Atari, not only because Adventure is one of my favorite games ever but come to think of it I haven't played many Activision games because they're almost never on compilations.

 

(But Imagic had cooler looking cartridges than both of them so they win)

[Lord Thag]

Yeah I have always been on the 'Atari's just as good as Activision' bandwagon. Activision unequivocally made *prettier* games than Atari did, mostly, but they're very similar in other respects. Both companies released a lot of early games that were fun at the time, but very shallow, and which paled in comparison to later outings. Once they got some experience, both companies cranked out excellent titles that are on my most played list. Both companies also cranked out quite a lot of 'well, it's fine' games. But the later release stuff is excellent from both companies. Is HERO better than Solaris? Is Galaxian better than Megamania? Is Berzerk better than Frostbite? I dunno. They're all great fun.

 

I think Activision made more graphically impressive stuff than Atari did, but in terms of play-ability and fun, their hit to miss ratio was pretty on par with Atari.

 

Imagic, on the other hand, only has one title I actively dislike (Firefighter), and everything else is good to great. Moonsweeper, Solar Storm, Cosmic Ark, Laser Gates, Subterrania, Riddle of the Sphinx, and Fathom are *always* in my 'most played' pile. If anyone should get the Atari developer with the highest quality' award, it's Imagic.

Edited January 2 by Lord Thag

[John Van Ryzin]

7 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

Most of Activision's titles were still different enough to be their own games usually...Even if inspired by arcade games.

 

That said...

 

Some of Activision's Originals were the Best!

 

For me, that's Pitfall!, River Raid, and H.E.R.O.!  

 

I have fond memories of Pitfall! and River Raid on Both Atari and ColecoVision,...And H.E.R.O. I just have on ColecoVision.

 

 

Speaking of... @John Van Ryzin Did you do the conversion of H.E.R.O. on ColecoVision?  It is Truly Fantastic!  It was my favorite game on ColecoVision at the time.

 

 

No I only designed and programmed the original 2600 version.  Only influence I got on ports was the box design.  2600 box had a Mad Magazine feel to me.  I thought my character was a cool comic book super hero.  Of course 2600 graphics did not display my imagination. Ha!

[351cougar]

as in most things, competition is a good thing. especially from people intimately involved in that field (think EA and Madden monopoly today) . Most of the early games were probably atari rejected ideas, or couldn't release due to 'its gonna be over 2-4K' cart.  eventually everyone won, as all parties had to try harder. 

[John Van Ryzin]

On 1/1/2024 at 1:43 PM, BillDMatt said:

that is a common perception but IMHO a little overblown, it's certainly the case in some games but  people act like every game from Atari was like on the level of the first Atari Golf, but they did some really great ports of some tough arcade Games,  Vanguard,  StarGate (Defender II) Space Invaders, I can go on.  and on games where  where the graphics weren't looking too close to the arcade version, Atari did a fantastic job of game play, something that gets so overlooked by many people.   Ms. Pacman, Centipede, Millipede,  Dig Dug,  Asteroids,  Missel Command again I could keep going.   Atari  nailed game play.   I think it says something when the original Atari Basketball is thoroughly enjoyed by my 10 year old son and his freinds .   

As a person who worked in Garry Kitchens home, while he developed 2600 version of Donkey Kong … I can say I agree, making a 2600 version of an arcade game was very difficult!  

[John Van Ryzin]

8 hours ago, zzip said:

They may not have licensed arcade titles,  but I could argue a number of Activision games were clones of arcade games:  Chopper Command, Freeway,  Megamania 

One game influencing the design of a new game is simply the evolution of the games industry.

 

Many home brewers do it too.  Some with less original twists to the source game.  And retro fans love it.

[moycon]

12 hours ago, zzip said:

So a lot of those were fun at the time but didn't hold up.

 

Maybe but, I personally think many of the earliest Activision games weren't fun even at the time (at least to me) but for sure others were and did hold up and are some of the funnest games on the systems. Then and now. You mentioned some of the great ones yourself. Kaboom, Keystone Kapers, even Fishing Derby. I loved Fishing Derby. Unique gameplay. It had vs the CPU and even more fun vs a real opponent. Still a lot of those early games just bored me, they had a lot of the same type games, flicker free, but yawn fests. Sky jinks: Fry plane upwards, go between pylons. Skiing: Ski downwards, go between pylons. Barnstorming: Fly to the right go up and down and avoid stuff. Grand Prix: Drive to the right go up and down to avoid stuff. It also didn't help I wasn't a sports fan. So boxing, tennis, and hocky I just thought they were super boring as well. But all that said, if anything I think they are all more impressive now, just knowing the limitations of the system, and how good they look. 

 

I would say Activision was the best 3rd party producer of Atari. Ironic because they were also the first to break away from Atari, although maybe not ironic, they were the best programmers of the 2600 at the time, pissed they weren't being acknowledged or compensated properly for their work. Honestly, I think Pitfall 2 might be the game I was most impressed with back in the day. It genuinely amazed me, the HUGE world, swimming, falling down waterfalls!!? And that song, amazing to me, shocking, especially since I found the original so bland.

 

Activision for the win!!

[tradyblix]

7 hours ago, Lord Thag said:

Is HERO better than Solaris?

Is Galaxian better than Megamania?

Is Berzerk better than Frostbite?

 

I think Activision made more graphically impressive stuff than Atari did, but in terms of play-ability and fun, their hit to miss ratio was pretty on par with Atari.

 

Imagic, on the other hand, only has one title I actively dislike (Firefighter), and everything else is good to great. Moonsweeper, Solar Storm, Cosmic Ark, Laser Gates, Subterrania, Riddle of the Sphinx, and Fathom are *always* in my 'most played' pile. If anyone should get the Atari developer with the highest quality' award, it's Imagic.

1.) Possibly. Solaris is just a better version of Star Raiders / Star Master. It could even have a first person view mode and it would be identical. 

2.) Galaxian is more classic for sure, but Megamania is weird and the progression is cool. maybe more interesting gameplay. I'd say yeah. 

3.) Berzerk Enhanced is better 

 

I agree about Imagic. Atlantis amazed me as a kid, I'm still good at it now. Cosmic Ark. Demon Attack got so many hours. 

[davyK]

On 1/2/2024 at 3:54 PM, zzip said:

They may not have licensed arcade titles,  but I could argue a number of Activision games were clones of arcade games:  Chopper Command, Freeway,  Megamania 

Agree with you there, but they had the freedom to take influences instead of having to do an accurate arcade port. Chopper Command and Defender is a case in point - you don't have to rescue and catch falling humanoids in Chopper Command for example. That must have been a nightmare to implement in Defender.

Edited January 11 by davyK

[Major Havoc 2049]

My favorite Atari 2600 games mainly consisted of Activision and Atari Silver Label games.

 

HERO and Pitfall 2 are probably my two favorite games on the 2600.  I also loved River Raid, Pitfall, Chopper Command, Decathlon, Beamrider and Enduro.

 

[Cynicaster]

Frostbite is a top 5 video game for me (on any system) and by my last count, I think 8 of my top 10 favorite games on the 2600 are Activision titles.  That's coming from someone who had quite a collection back in the 80s; if memory serves, we had just shy of 100 games at the time we finally upgraded to a 7800 on Christmas of '87.  I haven't done the math, but I'm certain that Atari and Activision were by far the best represented companies in that collection.  

 

As for how the games hold up now, there are actually several Activision games that have moved up on my list of favorites as an adult vs. what I would have said as a kid - Kaboom, Megamania, and Seaquest come to mind immediately as examples.  I don't really understand the "clone" tag being applied to these games in what seems like a pejorative sense.  I mean, I guess they're "clones" in the sense that they pilfered game mechanics from proven arcade games.  But isn't that how the industry has always worked, and how it's grown into what it is?  For example, Xevious was a groundbreaking vertically-scrolling shoot-em-up... does that detract from 1943 or Star Force on the grounds that they're just "clones" of Xevious?  I don't see it, myself.  

 

Activision definitely lifted some ideas that were proven to be fun in other games, but they worked those ideas into new games built specifically for the 2600, which gave them the latitude to exclude features of the source material if they couldn't be done well, but also add new/different stuff if there was an opportunity to do so within the tight constraints of the platform.  

 

I think that's why, when I'm in the mood for some 2600 goodness in the present day, I gravitate to Activision's library of "original" games more so than Atari's port-heavy library.  With few exceptions, I'm happy to leave blocky old console ports of arcade games in my childhood past and just play the real versions of those games via emulation on my MAME cabinet.  Of course, that was not an option in 1983, which created a raison d'etre for the console ports that has since gone away (for me, at least - YMMV).