Super Mario Bros. for 2600.

[King Atari]

This topic caused a bit of a discussion on another post, so here's it's own spot. I think that it would be an excellent idea to convert "Super Mario Bosr." to the 2600 (of course, Nintendo would probably sue you! ). Anybody else share my view?

[ubersaurus]

i dont think it could be done except as an insanely watered down version. like, 4 levels, maybe. really short.

[Nateo]

It's sounds possible. The game would be better if a SuperCharger was used to make the game with (i'm hooked on the idea of using a SuperCharger to program more enhanced games with)

[Nateo]

As a side note - the Game and Watch version of Super Mario Bros. would be easier to do. Of course, it plays nothing like the NES version.

[ubersaurus]

i dont even think it could pass off as a supercharger game, unles it was a multi load, and even then, it would be incredibly minimalistic. no, i think that you'd be better off doin it for 7800 or even the 5200.

[King Atari]

Yeah, versions for the 5200 & 7800 would be cool, but I'd still try the 2600. It would be watered down and there would be only a few levels, but it would still be interesting. Hey, wasn't there a version for the Commodore 64? I remember seeing one at a computer convention. It could perhaps be similar to that. P.S.-Sorry for the spelling error "Bosr" above.

[Hakogame 箱亀]

You could make it kind of like pitfall, but with a castle screen every 10 or so screens, and maybe a pallette change every so often to simulate a new world.

[Nostalgic]

Unfortunately, the rather bizarre way in which 2600 playfield graphics are produced would make a horizontal scrolling game nearly impossible. There are 40 "pixels" which are stored as 20 bits, which are either reversed or copied on both halves of the screen. To have an asymmetric playfield, you have to change the playfield bits in the middle of a scan line. To make things worse, the bits aren't read in the same order; some bytes are read low to high and others high to low.

 

Games like Defender and Vanguard can manage because they repeat the same pattern over and over, making calculating the bit shifts simple. The only game I know of with large horizontal-scrolling platforms is Mountain King, which manages with very simple platforms (i.e. lines).

 

Couple this with having to keep the "state" of each platform unit in RAM (question mark or regular, what it hides, if anything) and you have a very challenging time ahead of you.

 

It could be done... with a lot of patience and by not attempting to copy the graphics all that closely.

[StanJr]

Okay here's my treatment: It can be done and done interestingly well. It might go something like this:

 

4 screens, 1 for each section of each NES level.

 

Screen 1: a simple screen that involves jumping up to collect coins and stomping goombas and Koopas

 

Screen 2: a second similar screen, more jumping and coins and bad guys, but the difficulty of the jumps and bad guys can be increased (maybe even a few new baddies) maybe even a perilous fall to the death type of screen (similar to the giant mushroom level in NES)

 

Screen 3: Even tougher jumps with more coins and baddies (would those cannons with the bullets be too much to ask?), but this level ends with Mario going into the castle with the flag.

 

Screen 4: Bowser's castle. Some lava jumps, maybe a couple of flame chains to jump. (It'd be going too far to want some of those shell beetles) Then, the showdown with Bowser. He spits fire and jumps and you have to jump on him three times to squash him.

 

Maybe a final screen with you and Toad or you and Princess Toadstool would follow.

 

Then you start back at screen 1 with the difficulty amped up.

 

The number and variety of power-ups might have to be majorly revised and limited, but you should at least be able to have 1-up mushrooms and stars.

If the up direction could be used to jump, it may be possible to shoot fireballs with the button (this may be asking too much)

The backgrounds would be less detailed and there wouldn't have to be many colors (they didn't bother with too many in the NES). But all the basic elementsc would still be there. It would operate very similar to how Jungle Hunt operates.

Some of the variety of the NES would be lost, but the basics are still what make the game fun and could be preserved on 2600.

 

O ye who art more wise than I, please feel free to pick this apart and tell me where I am stretching the limits of the 2600 (it will greatly help me in learning what I can and cannot do on the 2600)

 

Wannabe Programmer Stan

[King Atari]

I've actually been considering a version for the 2600, but I don't have the resources or time to program it. If somebody could program it, I could figure out the levels and controls, we could probably make a deal with Hozer Video Games and Nintendo (Kind of like Dutchman making "Swordquest: Airworld").

[Ze_ro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raccoon Lad:

You could make it kind of like pitfall, but with a castle screen every 10 or so screens, and maybe a pallette change every so often to simulate a new world.

---

 

Cool idea! I think that's the best one yet. I'm not sure quite what the game would be like without the scrolling. Might not really feel the same anymore, but there might not be a lot of choice.

 

It's worth pointing out Smurf's Rescue in Gargamel's Castle uses the same kind of technique without being quite as repititious as Pitfall (though not quite as fun).

 

quote

To make things worse, the bits aren't read in the same order; some bytes are read low to high and others high to low

 

Ugh! I stumbled across this fact the hard way This is probably one of the harshest limitations... I'm amazed at some of what people have been able to do despite this.

 

I'd like to see 5200, 7800 and 2600 versions of Super Mario Bros. Of course, the 2600 version wouldn't be nearly as close to the originals as the other two, but I'd still love to see it. I think the idea of having a "complete" system that has all the fun games (even if they aren't the best version) is appealing.

 

--Zero

[BigSurUser]

On 10/15/2001 at 9:40 PM, Ze_ro said:

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raccoon Lad:

 

You could make it kind of like pitfall, but with a castle screen every 10 or so screens, and maybe a pallette change every so often to simulate a new world.

---

 

 

Cool idea! I think that's the best one yet. I'm not sure quite what the game would be like without the scrolling. Might not really feel the same anymore, but there might not be a lot of choice.

 

It's worth pointing out Smurf's Rescue in Gargamel's Castle uses the same kind of technique without being quite as repititious as Pitfall (though not quite as fun).

 

 

quote

 

Ugh! I stumbled across this fact the hard way This is probably one of the harshest limitations... I'm amazed at some of what people have been able to do despite this.

 

I'd like to see 5200, 7800 and 2600 versions of Super Mario Bros. Of course, the 2600 version wouldn't be nearly as close to the originals as the other two, but I'd still love to see it. I think the idea of having a "complete" system that has all the fun games (even if they aren't the best version) is appealing.

 

--Zero

There is a 2600 version of Super Mario Bros but it's known as Princess Rescue, it's not only like Super Mario Bros 1 it has elements of Super Mario Bros 3 which is pretty neat for a 2600 game, also it's a bit more difficult than the NES Super Mario Bros. I just realized how old this post is. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by BigSurUser
Correcting mistakes

[Thomas Jentzsch]

"21 years later..." necro-bump!  Record breaking?

[4ever2600]

21 years is a pretty good record... wonder if I can break it.

[Crazy Climber]

What is the very first post on Atariage? (that can still be actively posted in) 

[+KaeruYojimbo]

On 11/7/2022 at 11:59 AM, Crazy Climber said:

What is the very first post on Atariage? (that can still be actively posted in) 

This is the oldest one that came up when I sorted by start date (and its only replies are 14 year later necrobumps).

 

[MrTrust]

17 hours ago, BigSurUser said:

I just realized how old this post is.

 

I think we need to have you take us through the story step-by-step.  For posterity.

[ZylonBane]

"Dear Diary,

So I signed up for this cool interwebs sight called Atari Age.

Both my first and second posts were replies to messages that were over 20 years old.

Oh god why can't I do anything right?

This is why my wives keep leaving me."

[randomcat2000]

How did they find this old post to reply to in the first place? Before the bump, this thread would be on page 610, a decent ways even from the last page.
How do you realise how old the thread is, and then continue to bump it?

Every time I read that post my questions continue to grow.

 

I wonder how many people in the old thread are still active to see the bump?

[Linndrum]

I like it when people revive old threads, we're all about nostalgia here aren't we? Sometimes it spurs some good conversations.

[+Nathan Strum]

4 hours ago, Linndrum said:

I like it when people revive old threads, we're all about nostalgia here aren't we? Sometimes it spurs some good conversations.

Waiting for someone to start up the website AtariAgeAge.

[+KaeruYojimbo]

15 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

How did they find this old post to reply to in the first place? Before the bump, this thread would be on page 610, a decent ways even from the last page.

They probably googled "Atari Super Mario" or something like that. Whenever I end up in a thread that's 10+ years old the answer to "How did I get here?" is almost always Google.

 

Aaaaand now I'll have "Once In a Lifetime" stuck in my head the rest of the day.

[King Atari]

20 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

I wonder how many people in the old thread are still active to see the bump?

I lurk more than I post, but I'm still here. And rest assured, my heart sinks a little every time I see something moronic I posted 20+ (!!!) years ago get randomly revived.

 

This is actually the second mega-old topic of mine that's been necrobumped in recent months, and while this one isn't TOO bad (I guess), the other thread actually had me considering a snotty reply, given the idiocy of my original post and the needlessness of what I got it revived. I held my digital tongue, though. I'm a peaceable sort.

On 10/15/2001 at 10:15 PM, King Atari said:

I've actually been considering a version for the 2600, but I don't have the resources or time to program it. If somebody could program it, I could figure out the levels and controls, we could probably make a deal with Hozer Video Games and Nintendo (Kind of like Dutchman making "Swordquest: Airworld").

Oh now that's just precious. (And by "precious" I mean "wildly stupid.")

Edited November 10, 2022 by King Atari