Breakpack Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 Hmm... I wonder if I can get the guy who wrote that page to email me internally here at the company so I can correct him a bit. Gee.. guess where I work? You are one of 'us'?You should know my name then........ Nope, I'm guessing you work at our Wal-Mart.Com facility in Palo Alto, a CMI facility in Sacramento, or one of our DC's out in California. I work at the "big cheese"... just look at my location! Oh.....you work for the company's web site....................................................................I see............................................ Nope, you're close.. I work in the same town/building but in a different department though Do you do "the cheer"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mos6507 Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 1978: Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS) - Most popular gaming system in the world from 1978-84, the VCS was technically superior to all competitors. Technically superior? Umm, I love my 2600 as much as anyone (580+ pieces in my collection and counting) but I don't think it was technically superior to the ColecoVision. It had a wider color palette and could animate the few sprites it did have smoother than the ColecoVision. Comparing 8-bit architectures is not as black and white as it might be with today's more homogenous platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 1978: Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS) - Most popular gaming system in the world from 1978-84, the VCS was technically superior to all competitors. Technically superior? Umm, I love my 2600 as much as anyone (580+ pieces in my collection and counting) but I don't think it was technically superior to the ColecoVision. It had a wider color palette and could animate the few sprites it did have smoother than the ColecoVision. Comparing 8-bit architectures is not as black and white as it might be with today's more homogenous platforms. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the ColecoVision chipset allowed for smooth sprite motion, it just wasn't a feature used by many ColecoVision games due to the way they used the hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Rogue Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 1978: Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS) - Most popular gaming system in the world from 1978-84, the VCS was technically superior to all competitors. Technically superior? Umm, I love my 2600 as much as anyone (580+ pieces in my collection and counting) but I don't think it was technically superior to the ColecoVision. It had a wider color palette and could animate the few sprites it did have smoother than the ColecoVision. Comparing 8-bit architectures is not as black and white as it might be with today's more homogenous platforms. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the ColecoVision chipset allowed for smooth sprite motion, it just wasn't a feature used by many ColecoVision games due to the way they used the hardware. Yes, it had hardware support for 32 sprites though many games just used character graphics and video ram. Having a wider color palette does not make it more technically advanced however - there's a lot more on the drawing board than just that. As for the original post - 1978? Where do they get 1978? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 1978: Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS) - Most popular gaming system in the world from 1978-84, the VCS was technically superior to all competitors. Technically superior? Umm, I love my 2600 as much as anyone (580+ pieces in my collection and counting) but I don't think it was technically superior to the ColecoVision. It had a wider color palette and could animate the few sprites it did have smoother than the ColecoVision. Comparing 8-bit architectures is not as black and white as it might be with today's more homogenous platforms. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the ColecoVision chipset allowed for smooth sprite motion, it just wasn't a feature used by many ColecoVision games due to the way they used the hardware. Yes, it had hardware support for 32 sprites though many games just used character graphics and video ram. Having a wider color palette does not make it more technically advanced however - there's a lot more on the drawing board than just that. As for the original post - 1978? Where do they get 1978? Yah. As I understand it, TI also designed the chipset where sprites operated independantly of the image layer so that you could use sprites on top of a character background(much like player/missiles in an Atari computer). Furthermore, the graphics chipset could also move the sprites on its own. For something with a lot of straight line motion, like an Asteroids clone, input was only needed when the velocity vector changed. Using that chipset solely in character mode was, well, a waste of silicon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 the 2600 was the most advanced game console for years :-) it had speed like no other system, and a larger color pallete, to me, is always better than 16 colors. Just compare Solaris to anything on the coleco... 60hz owns you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaManFan Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Explain to me then how Q*Bert's Qubes is so freaking awesome on Coleco and a complete pile of s#!t on 2600. Space Invaders (Atari's version versus opcode's version). Donkey Kong. Et cetera. I'm the most obsessive Atari 2600 collector I know outside of AtariAge, and I still think that the only people who have TRULY made this look like a phenomenally powerful system are the homebrewers who've tricked out every last possible nook and cranny of code to milk it the way only Paul Slocum and Thomas Jentzsch and their brethern can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE146 Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 1978: Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS) - Most popular gaming system in the world from 1978-84, the VCS was technically superior to all competitors. I think that's a pretty accurate quote. It WAS advanced over anything else. The colecovision didn't even come out until the early 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaManFan Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 But the early 80's would fall into the time frame 1978-1984, would it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Explain to me then how Q*Bert's Qubes is so freaking awesome on Coleco and a complete pile of s#!t on 2600. Space Invaders (Atari's version versus opcode's version). Donkey Kong. Et cetera. I'm the most obsessive Atari 2600 collector I know outside of AtariAge, and I still think that the only people who have TRULY made this look like a phenomenally powerful system are the homebrewers who've tricked out every last possible nook and cranny of code to milk it the way only Paul Slocum and Thomas Jentzsch and their brethern can do. games that have more static screen elements will benefit from the colecos more code-easy ability to draw static graphics. I don't think this neccessarily makes the coleco any where near as advanced as the 2600. The artchitechture of the 2600 leaves a LOT to the coder. To me, that is FAR more powerful than the coleco vision, which is basically a 16 color (vs 4 in its original incarnation,) game boy. It's why, even after all this time we are hearing sid music converted to the 2600, and seeing color bitmaps, and games like oystron and thrust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerG Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 You guys are being too hard on a pretty cool little tribute to Atari. I really don't think anybody meant to lie or deceive. Walmart just wants to give an ode to another American company that was part of history. Also, NE146 has a good point in that it depends how you read the quote. From 1978-1984 the Atari was the most advanced if you take the whole 6 years as a time-frame. Sure, Colecovision was better for a year and a half and Intellivision for maybe half the time, but Atari wins the first four years and that gives it the victory for the whole period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Posted October 21, 2003 Author Share Posted October 21, 2003 I think that while it is nice to get some new attention from "the mainstream," it is totally obvious that they are simply jumping on the bandwagon. That being said, I say WELCOME to the ride! There's room for everybody! A splendid time is guaranteed for all! Buck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Also, NE146 has a good point in that it depends how you read the quote. From 1978-1984 the Atari was the most advanced if you take the whole 6 years as a time-frame. Sure, Colecovision was better for a year and a half and Intellivision for maybe half the time, but Atari wins the first four years and that gives it the victory for the whole period.To add a third angle, when it came out the VCS was the most advanced system. It didn't remain so forever, but at launch it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 The wal-marts in my area sold atari stuff in the late 80s we didnt have one in my town at the time the nearest was abuot 30 miles away. So i got most of my atari stuff at kb-toys and a store calld roses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtariDude Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 So has anyone finally sent them an email asking them to correct their mistakes? I just wonder why Walmart created this page unless it is to sell some of their new "Atari" products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaManFan Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 games that have more static screen elements will benefit from the colecos more code-easy ability to draw static graphics.. This sounds like a fancy way of saying "Atari playfields suck." Q*Bert on 2600 versus Q*Bert on Coleco. Congo Bongo on 2600 versus Congo Bongo on Coleco. You can talk about "static elements" all you like but the truth of the matter is that games like Q*Bert are way off on Atari while on CV they come damn close to being like the arcade. I still love my 2600. And there are some great ports for it. But there are four things that matter to me most: 1. Nostalgia. 2. Price. 3. Collectability. 4. HOMEBREWS! When it comes to gameplay on the same title for both systems though, Coleco almost always wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwilkson Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 When it comes to gameplay on the same title for both systems though, Coleco almost always wins. It would be interesting to see some of those ports redone, by people who aren't just doing it for the money and who don't hate their bosses. People who are jsut doing it for the fun and challenge. Those are the people and the environment that really push the capabilities of any platform. I'm not too familiar with the Coleco, though I do remember being amazed by it as a kid. But I think that gameplay is purely software driven, and in that sense the Atari has an advantage. The programmer is closer to the hardware, and will fine tune things. Not only because they can but because they have to, just to get anything done. Then as they gain experience, that becomes less of a hurdle and more like The Most Powerful Weapon Ever Conceived. The 2600 forces good programming techniques (and I'm not talking about OOP). Good habits are formed. Most other systems are too easy to program (relatively), so the programmers get in the habit of just doing everything the same lazy way. They don't have to push the hardware until the nextgen systems appear. Coleco had the dubious good fortune to not compete with a nextgen system. So we never saw what the machine was truly capable of. But from what I know of the architecture, there wasn't much room to push it. (yeah, I know...there's always just one more trick to discover) Now, having said all that...which game most clearly shows the Coleco's superiority? And don't count Donkey Kong. Everyone knows about that one. And the 2600 version could easily be improved. Now about the comparison, what's better about each version: graphics? sound? gameplay? replay? faithful port? I'm willing to bet that the 2600 version could be improved in most cases if someone took the time to do it. Here's another intersting idea. Think of a game that never appeared for either system. How would they compare if they were written today. Hmmm... -Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwilkson Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 PS. You said Coleco "almost always wins". Which titles do you consider to be better on the 2600? -Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaManFan Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I'll get back to that point in a minute, when I have time to x-ref a list for both. I had to address the irony that you said "Don't count Donkey Kong, everybody knows about that one." Okay, if the playing field was truly level, and game programming for both systems was purely a function of the skill of the programmer, why has every single person who looked into making a more realistic Donkey Kong on Atari 2600 reported back that it was technically impossible? A few people have generated somewhat believable mock-up playfields, until they've been broken down by programmers with the actual technical skills who say they exceed the limitations of what a 2600 can display; or that is, display without so much flicker they would be essentially unplayable. Yet if the Coleco and the 2600 are relatively equal, then the possible versions of Donkey Kong on each shoud ALSO be relatively equal. Clearly they couldn't be more different though, and it just goes to prove that although the 2600 can be programmed to play fantastic games (Yars' Revenge, Marble Craze, Ms. Pac-Man, Oystron, Stargate, Thrust+ DC) there are some things it can't do that Coleco has no problem pulling off. Nobody has yet been able to pull off an arcade perfect port of Space Invaders on 2600 (Instigators came close, but the UFO was off and the playfield seemed odd) but opcode NAILED IT on the head on his Coleco port. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE146 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Which titles do you consider to be better on the 2600? Well.. I for one like Moonsweeper on the 2600 vs. the Colecovision version Just has that smoother gameplay.. it's like buttah! And p.s.. as you all probably know by now, I personally harbor no preference of consoles. I'm a total console slut But I will say this.. the 2600 gameplay on it's best titles is silky smooth and FAST. You guys who've played the games know what I'm talking about.. so I won't get into it here. But it's hard to see that type of gameplay on the Colecovision where games have a more 'clunkier' feel. That being said, OF COURSE the Colecovision is superior hardware.. that was the whole deal. I mean it came out later.. look at friggin Donkey Kong. Colecovision was the NEXT GENERATION. It's competition wasn't the 2600.. it was the 5200. It makes about as much sense pitting the NES against the TG-16. Different wars. Different time. But it's all in your perspective. Both systems have games that would school the other console. But of course I love 'em all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwilkson Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Oh I never said the playing field was equal. Never meant to imply it even. The Colecovision *SHOULD* be better than the 2600. It should be much, much, better. I'd say that it should be 10x more powerful, just due to technology alone. Let alone the gift of architectural hindsight. Regarding DK, the 2600 version isn't bad. I think it's pretty good actually. But the coleco version shines in comparison. It's graphically superior, as it should be. And the extra levels are an obvious bonus. Don't know why they weren't included in the 2600 port, but it was probably due to hardare production costs. Does the Coleco version have the interlude scenes? I don't remember. I think it does. These things put it far above the 2600 version. However, gameplay is always the most important thing, at least to me personally. And the Coleco gameplay seemed sluggish. And also, those horrible, horrible control sticks hurt it. It might be that the sticks are the sole cause. I'll have to get a better controller and try it out sometime. But I'd be a fool to say that the 2600 superior gameplay is enough to get it in the same ballpark as the Coleco version. The 2600 version could be certainly be improved. Getting all the levels and the interludes are a gimme. But I think the graphics and soudn could be better as well. I'd do it myself if I had an arcade DK sitting around and if I weren't already swamped with hardware projects. Maybe I'll add it to the end of the list? Heh. Just after 2600 Zork, Zelda, and Lode Runner. (No, really! They're at the end of my project list, and if I don't think it's doable, it won't ever stay on my list.) -Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 I kinda think the gameplay on Donkey Kong 2600 is pretty good. The only thing that kills me is the ape itself. If it could somehow be hacked to look a little more arcade-like, you'd have a real winner on your hands.(IMO of course) Whatcha think? Bucky-Kong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaManFan Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 And also, those horrible, horrible control sticks hurt it. It might be that the sticks are the sole cause. I'll have to get a better controller and try it out sometime. Combine a Wico stick with a Coleco console and you've got a winner. I use a Y-split so I can keep a keypad on one half to start the games, but use a REAL joystick for all gameplay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwilkson Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Combine a Wico stick with a Coleco console and you've got a winner. I use a Y-split so I can keep a keypad on one half to start the games, but use a REAL joystick for all gameplay. I haven't dug into the Coleco guts yet. Are the joysticks 2600 compatible? Or do I need to find a Coleco Wico? -Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mitch Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Combine a Wico stick with a Coleco console and you've got a winner. I use a Y-split so I can keep a keypad on one half to start the games, but use a REAL joystick for all gameplay. I haven't dug into the Coleco guts yet. Are the joysticks 2600 compatible? Or do I need to find a Coleco Wico? -Chris Coleco joysticks have a second button that isn't supported by a 2600 stick. Though only about half the games use the second button. Mitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
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.