Jump to content
IGNORED

Odyssey 2: Under Appreciated?


Recommended Posts

The challenge with the O2 is getting differently shaped sprites at all. Even Mr. Roboto! has that problem.

 

This is also only a clone on a 7x7 grid, while most efforts regarding a 2600 version where shooting for a full 9x9 port. Of course with real Archon shapes, not with Mr. Generic.

 

Some random Archon clone can the 2600 do at ease...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note the first-gen 2600 and O2 titles look VERY similar (the ball/tank/gunfight/brick era games), but once you get beyond that the O2's limitations really stand out. Comparing screenshots of the last-gen third-party ports illustrates this quite brutally.

 

Yeah, even the later O2 games have simplistic graphics, but in the case of games like Q*Bert, KTAA, KC Munchkin, and a few others, the gameplay shines through.

 

Despite the simplistic looks, Q*Bert O2 actually has some missing elements from the 2600 version like discs in different places, level intro screens (though they have been simplified for O2), and the enemies missing from the 2600 version. The O2 Q*Bert also has a full sized playfied. Despite the simplistic looks, the O2 version is quite good. I like both versions.

 

Super Cobra O2 is odd. No scrolling and automatic movement. I like the 2600 one better. Super Cobra doesn't feel right with no scrolling.

 

The other games in those pics are better on the 2600, but not bad on O2. Also, Popeye O2 doesn't seem to have level progression. Is this a problem with the emulator on the game itself?

 

My biggest gripe with the O2 (and the Intellivision for that matter) is the built in character set. The problem with built in character sets is that all the games start looking the same, and programmers start using characters for things that they probably shouldn't have because they couldn't create their own characters (look it's an arrow, a tree, a mushroom, a player, etc.).

 

I'm not completely sure, but the running man seemed to be more of a M-Network/Mattel/Intv trademark than the result of the character sets. The running man was even used in their 2600 games. Most third party intellivsion games don't use the running man and most of Intv/Mattel's own arcade ports didn't use it (what's really odd is that the 2600 Lock 'n Chase uses running man like sprites, but the Intellivision one doesn't). I don't know the extent of character sets on the Intellivsion, but they are definatly more varied than the ones on the O2.

Edited by BrianC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super Cobra O2 is odd. No scrolling and automatic movement. I like the 2600 one better. Super Cobra doesn't feel right with no scrolling.

I've never played this one. How can you get away with no scrolling in a scrolling shooter? Fly from one side of the screen to the other, then do a quick change, like in Pitfall?

 

Agreed about "sometimes the gameplay shines through." There's no flicker in O2 games, and animation is usually very smooth. Compare Freedom Fighters to VCS Defender (or Colecovision Defender, or Intellivision Defender) for a lesson in smooth, fast, stable image control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super Cobra O2 is odd. No scrolling and automatic movement. I like the 2600 one better. Super Cobra doesn't feel right with no scrolling.

I've never played this one. How can you get away with no scrolling in a scrolling shooter? Fly from one side of the screen to the other, then do a quick change, like in Pitfall?

 

Yeah, basically. Also, the copter moves forward by itself.

 

Agreed about "sometimes the gameplay shines through." There's no flicker in O2 games, and animation is usually very smooth. Compare Freedom Fighters to VCS Defender (or Colecovision Defender, or Intellivision Defender) for a lesson in smooth, fast, stable image control.

 

Yeah, the game definatly is fast and stable, but it doesn't feel like Defender. More like a combination of Defender and Asteroids. There is no backdrop in Freedom Fighters like there is in Defender either.

Edited by BrianC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not completely sure, but the running man seemed to be more of a M-Network/Mattel/Intv trademark than the result of the character sets. The running man was even used in their 2600 games. Most third party intellivsion games don't use the running man and most of Intv/Mattel's own arcade ports didn't use it (what's really odd is that the 2600 Lock 'n Chase uses running man like sprites, but the Intellivision one doesn't). I don't know the extent of character sets on the Intellivsion, but they are definatly more varied than the ones on the O2.

 

The Intellivision's graphics were user-definable, not built-in like the Odyssey2. I remember reading that they were upset that General Instruments wanted to design the hardware that way to save money, but they managed to get it changed. Games like Thunder Castle couldn't have been done with character sets. They did use the running man animation a heck of a lot, since it looked so good and it was identifiable as an Intellivision icon. But it wasn't a built-in graphic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The challenge with the O2 is getting differently shaped sprites at all. Even Mr. Roboto! has that problem.

 

This is also only a clone on a 7x7 grid, while most efforts regarding a 2600 version where shooting for a full 9x9 port. Of course with real Archon shapes, not with Mr. Generic.

 

Some random Archon clone can the 2600 do at ease...

 

And yet none exists.

 

 

Funny, that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet none exists.

 

Funny, that.

I guess 2600 coders just have higher standards than to do some half-assed port.

 

Funny, that.

"Hi, my name's ZylonBane. I'm still bitter that the O2 had a better game in KC Munchkin than the Atari had in Pacman. I'll never never NEVER admit there's anything good about the O2. Now I think I'll go play some sucky, slow-moving Donkey K0ong and bask in the flicker of my 2600, thank you very much."

 

You know what?

 

If Adventure were on the O2 (called, say, Quest!), at least your man wouldn't have been a dot, the dragons wouldn't be ducks, there might have been enemies other than ducks, you know - stuff like that.

 

Maybe somebody will code a homebrew like that for the 02...

 

Naw.

 

02 coders just have higher standards than to do some half-assed port.

 

Seriously, ZylonBane, when was the last time you actually played a game on the O2.

 

Or are you just so obsessed with hatin' the O2 that you've never played the best games much?

 

Ever played Pick Axe Pete into the 1000s? Ever made it into 1000-2000 range on Attack of the Time Lord? What's your score on Killer Bees?

 

What is it with you and the O2? Is your high opinion of the 2600 only based on the supposed inferiority of the O2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hi, my name's ZylonBane. I'm still bitter that the O2 had a better game in KC Munchkin than the Atari had in Pacman. I'll never never NEVER admit there's anything good about the O2. Now I think I'll go play some sucky, slow-moving Donkey K0ong and bask in the flicker of my 2600, thank you very much."

Donkey Kong has no flicker whatsoever.

You know what?

 

If Adventure were on the O2 (called, say, Quest!), at least your man wouldn't have been a dot, the dragons wouldn't be ducks, there might have been enemies other than ducks, you know - stuff like that.

 

Maybe somebody will code a homebrew like that for the 02...

 

Naw.

You're right, since the O2 can't display a real playfield.

 

At least ZB isn't ignorant as to what his own favorite system can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Intellivision's graphics were user-definable, not built-in like the Odyssey2.

They're both. The Intellivision contains built-in graphics (mostly alphanumeric characters) in GROM, as well as user-defineable characters in GRAM. The GROM has 256 entries while GRAM can be programmed with up to 64 entries.

 

I remember reading that they were upset that General Instruments wanted to design the hardware that way to save money, but they managed to get it changed.
Not exactly. According to the Blue Sky Rangers the Intellivision was based on a "fun project" design published in the General Instruments catalog. GI called the console the Gimini 6900. Now the Gimini was designed to use only GROM, but BSR Dave James insisted that dynamic sprites were a requirement. Thus GI helped Mattel modify the design to use both.

 

They did use the running man animation a heck of a lot, since it looked so good and it was identifiable as an Intellivision icon. But it wasn't a built-in graphic.

According to this page the running man was in GROM. But I don't know if that's an authoritive source or not.

 

To get back on topic... :)

 

Do you think this system is under rated and under appreciated?

 

All kinds of old systems are under rated and under appreciated. IMHO, each and every one has a history behind it from which we can learn something. Their popularity in the market or lack thereof only makes them that much more interesting. Even for the consoles that did poorly, you still have to take the time to realize that no one set out to make a bad system. Rather *someone* *somewhere* thought the work they were doing was valuable at the time. Analyzing why it didn't pan out is half the fun. And there's no better way to do an analysis than... play the games! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with you and the O2?

A more productive question would be, "What is it with YOU and the O2?". You clearly have only the vaguest notion what the O2's technical specifications are, yet become highly agitated when people who do know them point out that yes, the O2 is overall technically inferior to the 2600. Furthermore--

 

I've never denied that the O2 has some good games.

 

I don't care in the slightest that KC Munchkin is better than 2600 Pac-Man. Ms. Pac-Man blows them both away.

 

2600 Donkey Kong moves rather quickly, and does not flicker.

 

If Adventure were on the O2, the dragons would have been whatever shape the programmer wanted them to be-- so they would have still been ducks. And the sword would have been a tree.

 

Pick-Axe Pete is a meandering mess with no clear goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hi, my name's ZylonBane. I'm still bitter that the O2 had a better game in KC Munchkin than the Atari had in Pacman.

 

Actually I'd prefer 2600 Pac-Man over KC any day - at least it had extra lives.

 

If Adventure were on the O2 (called, say, Quest!), at least your man wouldn't have been a dot, the dragons wouldn't be ducks, there might have been enemies other than ducks, you know - stuff like that.

 

Hm... so you're still feeling bitter that the O2 didn't even have one single Adventure type of game?

 

Ever played Pick Axe Pete into the 1000s? Ever made it into 1000-2000 range on Attack of the Time Lord? What's your score on Killer Bees?

 

Pick Axe Pete is terribly flawed from design already. Time Lord is the one single Death From Above title that was halfway playable on the O2, but you seriously think any 2600 owner would have gone crazy over that?

 

Killer Bees, yes there you got something. Along with Krazy Chase and UFO, there's your 3 really excellent original O2 games. Add in "Turtles" making one good Arcade conversion and "Kill the Attacking Aliens", one of the most excellent homebrews ever. But - that's it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't think the O2 is necessarily under appreciated. I know that when I mention the games to my friends/familiy that had one they look back on it just as fondly as the 2600. I think it's just become a forgotten console. I think it just didn't have the user base or games that became household names enough for it to really etch itself into the general public that much.

 

I personally loved my O2 and to this day wish I still had it. If I ever have disposable income I would definately get another one - I really wish I could play Pick Axe Pete or Krazy Chase again, and would give my right arm for a round of Monkeyshines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe this 30 year old argument never ends.... Maybe I can end it here...

 

1. The O2 is underappreciated... as is the 2600, the Intellivision, and even the Astrocade.... Because modern gamers care more about graphics and sound than gameplay... and in fact the O2 was underappreciated back then, too, because the graphics were less detailed than the 2600's while gameplay on some O2 games was better than on many early to mid 2600 games... In fact, on average, I'd say O2 games were better because even the fantastic late era 2600 games (which just couldn't be duplicated on the O2) were overshadowed by the pile of crud which led to the videogame crash...

 

2. That being said, the 2600 is still overall a more capable system. The sound was two channel, the graphics could be more detailed, and you could use more sprites. That more detail and moving objects sometimes led to flicker or slowdown doesn't make it a less capable system, just a system with some aesthetic problems which the O2 could not be stretched to the point of facing.

 

3. At the same time, the O2 was capable of more than most people realize. Check out the completed ROM of Tutankham, which blows away the 2600 version. Additionally, you could make strong arguments that O2 Atlantis and Qbert are more playable and fun than the 2600 versions, with some features the 2600 lacks (despite the less detailed sprites). In fact, of games made for both systems, the 2600 only clearly comes ahead on Demon Attack (which is fantastic on the 2600 and just good on the O2), Frogger (no flicker and very playable on the O2 but split into two screens) and Popeye (which is ok on the 2600 and crud on the O2). [super Cobra on the O2 rocks, but it is so different than the arcade and 2600 versions I cannot even consider it the same game.] I think this shows that it was as easy or easier to make a fun, graphically attractive (if not terribly detailed) game on the O2 than on the 2600, but on the 2600, with a huge amount of effort, you could do stuff which was impossible on the O2. In light of that, I think O2 homebrew development is a good idea; Kill the Attacking Aliens is easily the greatest O2 game ever made, and does stuff I did not think the system was capable of in terms of complexity and gameplay (albeit not in terms of graphics or sound).

 

4. Why should a 30 year old rivalry keep anyone from porting O2 games to the 2600? If the 2600 really is a better system, WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE PROVE IT BY MAKING BETTER VERSIONS OF O2 CLASSICS FOR THE 2600? There were some great ideas on the O2 (moving dots in pac man [kc munchkin], ricocheting explosions in asteroids [ufo], adding kids rides to crazy balloon [looney balloon]) and some largely or completely unique games [Attack of the Timelord, Killer Bees, KTAA, Pick Axe Pete]. Even the Atari cheerleaders generally admit these were fun games. So why shouldn't they be remade or ported to the 2600 or ported to more advanced systems [5200 Killer Bees with a trackball?] where they can be improved?....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess there's a lot more flicker problems with the 2600 than slowdown problems now that I think about it.... But I could have sworn I detected slowdown on some of the more advanced games... In fact I just did a quick google seach with the word slowdown and the 2600 and here's the author of Star Raiders admitting a slow down problem....

 

http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/NEUBAUER.HTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact I just did a quick google seach with the word slowdown and the 2600 and here's the author of Star Raiders admitting a slow down problem....

Doug was talking about his original Atari 800 version of Star Raiders, not the 2600 version. The 800 had the memory to store an entire frame for the GTIA to render as opposed to the 2600 Just in Time rendering design. The 2600's design lead to more flicker, because missing your deadline meant that nothing would get rendered. On top of that, the 2600 just didn't have enough objects to throw around the screen at any given time, so they had to be multiplexed. The multiplexing ended up being the most common source of flicker simply because it was intentional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I posted this in another forum, but I'd love to see a PC remake of KC munchkin with a larger maze and power ups, like a magnet powerup which attracts dots to KC, a freeze powerup which freezes the dots, ....

 

My mistake on the slowdown on Star Raiders. So Thomas is right, there is no such thing as slowdown in any Atari 2600 game as the game progresses? It's that simple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake on the slowdown on Star Raiders. So Thomas is right, there is no such thing as slowdown in any Atari 2600 game as the game progresses? It's that simple?

 

Pretty much. In the world of computing, the 2600 just didn't have enough power to make that particular Space/Time tradeoff. It had to either power the graphics device or expect to show a blank screen. (Speaking of which, I believe that 3D Tic Tac Toe did exactly that. While it was "thinking" it helpfully killed the video signal so that it could use more processing power. Given its graphics, that's actually kind of pathetic when you think about it. But hey, they had to keep it down to 20 minutes of "thinking" somehow.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2600's design lead to more flicker, because missing your deadline meant that nothing would get rendered.

Gngggnggngg...

 

No, "missing your deadline" on the 2600 just causes things to get drawn in the wrong place, or in extreme cases the entire display to get pushed down a scanline or two. In either case, this is symptomatic of a buggy kernel.

 

Please don't try to explain the 2600's display hardware anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flickering is the VCS's answer to slowdown.

No it isn't. Flickering is the 2600's answer to limited sprite hardware.

 

In general, slowdown is caused by two major bottlenecks-- display and computational. Display slowdown occurs when your display is so complex that updating takes more than a frame. Computational slowdown occurs when the game calculations take more than a frame (for example if you mad-dash through a Doom level and activate all the monsters, the game really slows down).

 

Due to the nature of the 2600's video hardware, display slowdown isn't an option. It has no frame buffer, so the video registers must be stuffed in real-time. The display is either completely drawn in the span of a single frame, or it isn't. If it isn't, the programmer has to try again until it is.

 

Computational slowdown on the 2600, while possible, is rare due to the simplicity of the system. The limited scope (and limited RAM) of 2600 games means that you'll almost never have a situation where all the game calculations would take more than a single frame anyway. It has happened though, but because 2600 game code must be chunked to completely execute in the span of the vertical blanking period (since the CPU is required to draw the display), it's written to always assume the worst-case execution time. So the player usually sees a constant update speed no matter what's going on under the hood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...