The "Coleco conspiracy" - why not Atari?

[Dauber]

I really hate to dredge up the never-dying yet hugely incorrect theory that Coleco intentionally made their Atari 2600 games bad in hopes to influence people to, say, get a ColecoVision to get a more arcade-accurate experience.

But...I have never encountered a similar theory for Atari. I would think that those kinds of accusations would fly especially given that Pac-Man for their non-2600 systems was so much better than the 2600 version. Yeah, the 2600 version pre-dates the 5200, but you could argue that the 5200 was in the planning and development at the time...

[zzip]

13 minutes ago, Dauber said:

I really hate to dredge up the never-dying yet hugely incorrect theory that Coleco intentionally made their Atari 2600 games bad in hopes to influence people to, say, get a ColecoVision to get a more arcade-accurate experience.

But...I have never encountered a similar theory for Atari. I would think that those kinds of accusations would fly especially given that Pac-Man for their non-2600 systems was so much better than the 2600 version. Yeah, the 2600 version pre-dates the 5200, but you could argue that the 5200 was in the planning and development at the time...

I think I've heard rumblings of theories that the 2600 version of Pacman was bad so they could sell 5200s...

 

But here's the thing,  even if they did a good job on the 2600 version,  the 5200 version would still look much more like the arcade,  So I don't think it would have had to make it bad on purpose.

[Dutchman2000]

The 5200/Atari 8-bit version of Pac Man was outsourced to Roklan Software. Atari didn't want another situation with it so they went outside the company. 

[John Stamos Mullet]

The 5200 wasn't even available as a system until November of 1982. 2600 Pac-Man was released 9 months earlier in March of 1982.

 

They didn't intentionally hamper it to push people to buy the 5200, but they definitely spent as little time and money on it as possible in order to maximize profits from it.

[+Stephen]

There was absolutely no conspiracy behind the 2600 version of PacMan being crap.  It was 100% Todd Frye's fault.  He has admitted in numerous interviews on the subject, he didn't understand the hate.  His version had a maze, pellets, and a moving circular character.  He felt that was good enough.  Forget the separate ghost AI, etc.  It was simply piss poor programming by a guy that had no idea what made the original game so beloved.

[zzip]

2 minutes ago, Stephen said:

There was absolutely no conspiracy behind the 2600 version of PacMan being crap.  It was 100% Todd Frye's fault.  He has admitted in numerous interviews on the subject, he didn't understand the hate.  His version had a maze, pellets, and a moving circular character.  He felt that was good enough.  Forget the separate ghost AI, etc.  It was simply piss poor programming by a guy that had no idea what made the original game so beloved.

Yes Todd + whoever the managers were who said "good enough ship it!".   Someone should have sent it back for improvements

[bikeguychicago]

32 minutes ago, Stephen said:

There was absolutely no conspiracy behind the 2600 version of PacMan being crap.  It was 100% Todd Frye's fault.  He has admitted in numerous interviews on the subject, he didn't understand the hate.  His version had a maze, pellets, and a moving circular character.  He felt that was good enough.  Forget the separate ghost AI, etc.  It was simply piss poor programming by a guy that had no idea what made the original game so beloved.

I'd also add that the 2600 ports of arcade titles up to that point were interpretations of the arcade games vs. attempts to reproduce the arcade counterpart as accurately as possible. Notable examples would be Space Invaders, Defender, and Asteroids. Of the ports, Missile Command is probably the closest to reproducing the arcade experience. 

[zzip]

15 minutes ago, bikeguychicago said:

I'd also add that the 2600 ports of arcade titles up to that point were interpretations of the arcade games vs. attempts to reproduce the arcade counterpart as accurately as possible. Notable examples would be Space Invaders, Defender, and Asteroids. Of the ports, Missile Command is probably the closest to reproducing the arcade experience. 

This is true, but I felt that Atari was getting closer to the arcade experience on 2600 ports as time went on..   But Pac-man kind of broke that trend

[HatefulGravey]

Pac-Man was a flawless masterpiece. Fight me. 

[zzip]

Also if there was a conspiracy to make the 5200 look good, then it would seem that the Atarisoft titles would be made purposely inferior, but some of those ports are better than the Atari versions.

[Atari_Warlord]

A conspiracy would be more fun, inferior games were just the result of short time frames, budget constraints, and poor quality control.  The industry hasn't changed much in shipping unfinished/unpolished games.  At least some of them get fixed eventually now.

[Lostdragon]

15 hours ago, zzip said:

Also if there was a conspiracy to make the 5200 look good, then it would seem that the Atarisoft titles would be made purposely inferior, but some of those ports are better than the Atari versions.

And still being recovered 40 years later.. 

 

 

[Hawkeye68]

I owned both 2600 Pacman and the original 8-bit Pacman.

 

Neither were great or captured the feel and charm of the arcade game.  The first 8-bit release was incredibly slow and lethargic on the first two boards.  This was changed and improved before the 5200 release.

 

42 years later, I'd rather play a round of 2600 Pacman than the 8-bit version.

[+GoldLeader]

No conspiracy AT ALL.  Of course Donkey Kong on Atari 2600 is going to look worse.  Just look at the machine specs.  There's even whole articles on the internet about how hard it was to get those girders Angled properly on 2600 (a true feat,  nothing low rent about it),  and not everyone knew how to program Atari carts in those days,  it was a pretty specialized skill.

 

Now, that said,  could some Coleco 2600 games have been better?  Yes,  if they had bigger budgets, more time, and of course if they knew then what we know now (everything from programming tricks to ARM and DPC+ etc. that didn't exist back then)...

 

Now Intellivision games on the other hand (heh)...**Runs off**...

 

 

PS: OK,  Re-reading original post,  I was a bit off topic,...but Yeah,  also completely agree Pac-Man was simply the product of Todd Frye...

Edited September 12 by GoldLeader
My Reading comprehension this early is hampered by lack of sleep and coffee, Please accept my apologies and long Reasons For Edit.... :)

[Flyindrew]

Nah, no Atari conspiracy. Keep in mind, going into and throughout 1983 the 2600 and titles for it, were produced and marketed far more than the 5200 and its software.

[JOD-I]

Pac-Man is a good game for the 2600 if you dont think of it as Pac-Man.  In the interviews you learn that the creator of the game was only given a very short amount of time to make the game and they didnt want it to have a black background because they wanted to show off the color capabilities of the atari.  He also would have had more memory to play with if he had not tried to make it a 1 or 2 player game.  Todd fry still admits it could have been done better.  The creator for Donkey Kong actually did a great job considering they only allowed him 4k to work with and that a lot of that was used to give the first screen that uneven level look.  

Edited September 12 by JOD-I

[Rockymin]

Not only did Coleco make that inferior DK game for 2600, because of their licensing deal, Atari could not release their superior 8 bit computer version of DK for 5200.  Donkey Kong on Atari computers was super to Coleco's own version.

 

As for Pac Man, Ms Pac Man on the 2600 proves that Pac Man could have been made much better on the 2600.  I think those conspiracies have some merit.

[SegaShooters]

The great Garry Kitchen's interview regarding the Atari 2600 version of Donkey Kong...

 

 

[zzip]

On 9/12/2024 at 1:38 PM, Hawkeye68 said:

Neither were great or captured the feel and charm of the arcade game.  The first 8-bit release was incredibly slow and lethargic on the first two boards.  This was changed and improved before the 5200 release.

Was the 5200 version back-ported to the Atari 8-bit?   The 8-bit Pac-man cart I had was an acceptable port,   but if there was an earlier, crappier version, I'm not sure if I've played it.

[Hawkeye68]

55 minutes ago, zzip said:

Was the 5200 version back-ported to the Atari 8-bit?   The 8-bit Pac-man cart I had was an acceptable port,   but if there was an earlier, crappier version, I'm not sure if I've played it.

I asked about it on the forum before and didn't get a reply.  I figure it must have, as most of the internet images are not the slow original version.

 

I've attached it.  Notice how the ghosts move in almost slow motion after you eat a power pellet and how slow the score display is when eating a ghost.  This really detracted from the feel of the original game.

Pacman Orig 1982.XEX

[BillDMatt]

On 9/10/2024 at 1:04 PM, zzip said:

This is true, but I felt that Atari was getting closer to the arcade experience on 2600 ports as time went on..   But Pac-man kind of broke that trend

I agree it seemed liked game developers began to 'crack the code" on these arcade ports,   Phoenix, Vanguard come to mind as well as  Ms. Pacman ( though not that close to arcade accurate, game play is outstanding)    I don't think there isn't any conspiracy beyond  just rushed out for the Christmas season.  

[zzip]

2 hours ago, BillDMatt said:

I agree it seemed liked game developers began to 'crack the code" on these arcade ports,   Phoenix, Vanguard come to mind as well as  Ms. Pacman ( though not that close to arcade accurate, game play is outstanding)    I don't think there isn't any conspiracy beyond  just rushed out for the Christmas season.  

Yeah I think it was a botch job by a management team that thought it could sell on name alone (and let's be honest, it did!)   But I do think the backlash forced Atari to up their game.   Future arcade ports showed greater effort.   Even if it couldn't really reproduce the arcade visuals, like Centipede, or Crystal Castles,  they at least got the gameplay elements right.

 

2 hours ago, Hawkeye68 said:

I asked about it on the forum before and didn't get a reply.  I figure it must have, as most of the internet images are not the slow original version.

 

I've attached it.  Notice how the ghosts move in almost slow motion after you eat a power pellet and how slow the score display is when eating a ghost.  This really detracted from the feel of the original game.

I'll check it out.

 

It's funny, I have a vague memory of seeing an older version of Pac-man running on an Atari 400,  it had the right maze but it was green instead of blue, and the sound effects were similar to the 2600 version and not the arcade.   I've never found the binary for such a version so I wonder if I drempt it.

[davyK]

There's been a lot of back and forth about Frye's 2600 port of Pacman. Given the resources (ie ROM size) he created a good enough port for the time. He also added a 2 player mode. That colour scheme did more damage than anything as it was (a) ugly , and (b) made ghost visibility worse!  The ROM size influenced the maze, the pacman sprite, the sounds, the bonus pickup etc. And it meant he couldn't code for flicker management. Of course a better 4K version was created as a homebrew over 30 years later!!! That shouldn't be used to judge the original, pioneering in some ways, game.

 

Anyhow - wasn't the DK ramp stage with its slopes considered a technical achievement at the time? It isn't a symmetrical field for example which is challenge on 2600.

Edited September 17 by davyK

[zzip]

1 hour ago, davyK said:

The ROM size influenced the maze, the pacman sprite, the sounds, the bonus pickup etc. And it meant he couldn't code for flicker management.

Not every problem was caused by ROM size,  some were design choices.    For instance, giving Pac-man an eye didn't save any space,   probably making Pac-man diamond-shaped instead of round didn't save rom space.    I'm pretty sure they could have improved the sound.   Like the "boing boing boing" sound,  I'm pretty sure if you increased the frequency and changed the envelope they could have had something closer to the arcade without requiring more space.

 

 

[Hawkeye68]

As the most important game on the most important platform, Frye's Pacman will rightly be debated forever.

 

Under the constraints he had, Frye delivered a game that was fun, and more importantly, had tons of replay value.

 

The game got progressively harder, but not impossible.  Patterns worked as a strategy, but not 100%, so you always had to work for a good score.  I remember back in the day I would always try to get a perfect score (4338) on the first three boards.  Anything under 15K was a bad game.

 

It's clear to me that he spent his time on the game play and not the graphics which was the right choice.  So many 2600 games had almost no replay value.