Odyssey 2: Under Appreciated?

[supercat]

I guess my conclusion, from what I've read here and from what I think I understand, is that the O2 is not technologically superior to the 2600.

 

Judged by the standards of its day, the O2 was generally technologically superior to the 2600. The color palette and audio were inferior, but when the O2 came out, the norm was for Atari 2600 games to have at most five objects (possibly using the 2x/3x cloning) on screen at once along with a low resolution background. Some games used horizontal splits to show more objects (e.g. Air-Sea Battle and Street Racer) but nothing very fancy.

 

The Odyssey 2 was designed to be technically superior to what the 2600 was designed to be. On the other hand, it turned out that some of the design decisions that contributed to the 2600's being cheap (e.g. forcing the processor to load all sprite data on a line-by-line basis) also led to it being extremely versatile, thus allowing for games that went far beyond anything the machine's designers would have imagined.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

...and that's exactly why many homebrewers feel so attracted by the 2600.

[kirin jensen]

I guess my conclusion, from what I've read here and from what I think I understand, is that the O2 is not technologically superior to the 2600.

 

Judged by the standards of its day, the O2 was generally technologically superior to the 2600. The color palette and audio were inferior, but when the O2 came out, the norm was for Atari 2600 games to have at most five objects (possibly using the 2x/3x cloning) on screen at once along with a low resolution background. Some games used horizontal splits to show more objects (e.g. Air-Sea Battle and Street Racer) but nothing very fancy.

 

The Odyssey 2 was designed to be technically superior to what the 2600 was designed to be. On the other hand, it turned out that some of the design decisions that contributed to the 2600's being cheap (e.g. forcing the processor to load all sprite data on a line-by-line basis) also led to it being extremely versatile, thus allowing for games that went far beyond anything the machine's designers would have imagined.

 

Of course it is worth noting that the O2 seems able to get objects to move in ways that the atari 2600 finds difficult or impossible, for example the boulders on later levels of Pick Axe Pete and nearly everything in UFO.

[NovaXpress]

And the 2600 does a lot of things that the O2 could never pull off.

 

It's pretty damn hard to create a measurement of system power. We can play the same game with 2600 vs intellivision. Intellivision looks better on paper and could do some amazing things, but it can't do colors and movement as slick as the 2600. Each system has its own tricks and troubles.

[ZylonBane]

Of course it is worth noting that the O2 seems able to get objects to move in ways that the atari 2600 finds difficult or impossible, for example the boulders on later levels of Pick Axe Pete and nearly everything in UFO.

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. What "ways" are you talking about?

[supercat]

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. What "ways" are you talking about?

 

UFO! allows a dozen objects to move about the screen freely and independently. Asteroids on the 2600 constrains most of the rocks to move in two groups (one moving upward; the other moving downward). There are enough objects in UFO! that there will usually be more than two on a line and often more than four. The 2600 simply cannot handle that except via a Suicide-Mission-style kernel (which requires memory expansion and causes constant 30Hz flicker).

[Flojomojo]

Yes, the boards were pretty much just firewood, but it was original and exclusive to the O2. And the games were fun, though come to recall we eventally ditched the boards altogether.

 

Has anyone actually played a full game of Quest for the Rings since 1983?

The main problem with the Quest for the Rings board is the amount of busywork put on the dungeonmaster. Counting turns, hiding tokens ... all of these tasks are better accomplished with a computer.

 

If I had the talent/time, I'd bang out a little Flash version of the Quest for the Rings boardgame, with an embedded Odyssey 2 emulator running the computer portion. I'd play it ... maybe others would too?

[doug0909]

So Kirin if you are really learning assembler for the O2, have you thought of fixing that Looney Balloon ROM? I can't think of a better example of a flawed great classic game that needs so little to be fixed (I think the maze at the exit just has to be widened....)

Edited May 15, 2006 by doug0909

[NovaXpress]

The main problem with the Quest for the Rings board is the amount of busywork put on the dungeonmaster. Counting turns, hiding tokens ... all of these tasks are better accomplished with a computer.

The same thing goes for D&D as well. Or pretty much any board game.

 

People still play D&D even though computer RPGs are much more convenient. They play the paper version because they want to socialize as well as play. The Master Strategy series offered a reason to have people gather around the TV set rather than playing in isolation or sitting idly bored while waiting for your friend to lose a life. Many people ended up buying an O2 strictly for the QFTR experience.

Edited May 15, 2006 by NovaXpress

[doug0909]

Not Dungeonmaster, that was for Dungeons and Dragons. "RINGMASTER"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And the problem was that the Ringmaster had no role during the videogame portion of the game. Here's an idea; let him have some limited control of the dragon, or one of the spiders or birds or orcs, in the remake.....

 

By the way, if the O2's limitations are background graphics and static playfield sprites, and what it does best is a dozen or so flicker free objects moving quickly in "all directions" (as Kiri likes to say).... Wouldn't it be possible to do a kick ass Robotron homebrew for the O2? You could have a one or two joystick option, use the standard O2 border, have the "nuclear family" represented by little O2 running men.... And you could call it "Robotron 8084" or "Magnatron".....

[Cybergoth]

... or Amok!...

[doug0909]

... or Amok!...

 

Nah, Berzerk was never as good as Robotron, and that homebrew lacks interesting enemies and innocents to save....

[ZylonBane]

... or Amok!...

The enemy movement in Amok is strange-- it seems as if there's never more than one robot moving at a time, and they never move diagonally. Just in discrete horizontal or vertical hops.

 

I never could figure out if this was a limitation of the system, or the programmer.

[ccc---]

I had to chuckle about the suggestion to add kids' rides to Crazy Balloon. In the O2 version, the gameplay makes no sense at all. It's basically impossible to even get past the first screen.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. If you know how, you can get past the first screen. Just read the manual first

 

Btw: I really love that thread! Fond memories of the great Videopac vs 2600 fights, and even greater Atari XL vs C64 fights. I really didn't expect that those would be still possible today!

[ozyr]

Has anyone mentioned that the O2 can do polyphonic sounds!!! And yes, this is true! Just wait as see...

 

 

Not having visited this post since last June, I can't believe the hate here between the O2 and 2600. Can't gamers jut get along!

 

 

I have both systems, and guess which one I play the most! The Odyssey2! Why, it's hard to say, but the games are one reason. Mr. Roboto which just came out just kicks ass. And just wait until that new game in the works with the polyphonic sounds comes out. You won't believe what the O2 can do with sound.

 

Oh, and for the one person a bit back that cut Mr. Roboto for being programmed poorly - all I have to say is GET BENT! The game is great, and you have no idea of what a good game is. Ted did a wonderful job on that game!!!

 

As for the folks who keep posting that Pick Axe Pete has no point - if that is the case, why is it one of the popular games for the Odyssey2! That's because it is a very good game! If you don't get it - as I've stated June 2005 - then you just don't get it. Deal with it and move on.....

 

 

 

As CCC--- mentioned though - it is fun to see all the 2600 fan boys cutting the O2 (and don't say you are not fan boys - it's so damn obvious). Thanks for the the entertainment.

 

And in case you are wondering, I like both the O2 and 2600. Yes, I like the O2 better, but that doesn't mean I don't like games on the 2600. Robot Tank comes to mind right away - super fun game. Guess I'm a fan boy of both systems...

[supercat]

... or Amok!...

The enemy movement in Amok is strange-- it seems as if there's never more than one robot moving at a time, and they never move diagonally. Just in discrete horizontal or vertical hops.

 

There was a VIC-20 game entitled Amok, and its robots moved in discrete steps.

[doug0909]

ah, I see on Looney Balloon, thanks... now it is a great game! That teaches me to read the darn instruction manual.... And it looks like the O2 put yet another great twist on a classic game; you need to get enough points to slow the sway of your balloon...

 

But Ozyr, how can you get "polyphonic sound" out of a mono speaker????

Edited May 18, 2006 by doug0909

[Lord Thag]

Ah yes, the ol' O2 flame wars are alive and well

 

Seriously, though, technical considerations are really secondary to gameplay. The O2 is an inferior machine from a technical standpoint, due to the pre-programmed sprites, limited memory, poor choice in using the intel 8088 processor instead of the 6502, etc. That being said, it doesn't mean the system sucks. It has some really fun games, including some of the most original ideas in gaming (Master Strategy Series). In the end, that's really all that counts. Sure the system can do a few things the 2600 doesn't do as well, but that's like arguing that your Ford Tempo is better than a BMW because it has better cup holders.

 

The O2 is a great little system, with some very unique and fun games, but there are argueably only a dozen or so really playable titles out of a small library. The Atari 2600 has several hundred titles, and many are far more advanced than the O2 games, and the system architecture is a lot more open to boot, making for (when a good programmer uses them), better games.

 

Seriously, I don't see Pitfall, River Raid, Hero, Star Raiders or Solaris happening on the Odyssey. Play it and enjoy it if you want (I do regularly), but let's be realistic here. The 2600 could easily do ports of most of the O2 games such as the K.C. games, Pick Axe Pete and the rest of the lot fairly easily. Sure, UFO might flicker a bit on the 2600, but it's still doable. I really don't see the lion's share of the 2600 library being ported to the O2 in a still-recognizable fashion.

 

Love it for what it is: a fun, simple, entertaining and somewhat more limited early game system.

[NovaXpress]

I think that the Channel F is better than both systems.

[Rob Mitchell]

I think that the Channel F is better than both systems.

 

Yeah .. I really like digital paddle games where the player can move all over the screen.

 

Rob Mitchell, Atlanta, GA

[ccc---]

poor choice in using the intel 8088 processor instead of the 6502

Unfortunately it's only the 8048, not the 8088

 

Btw: I heard those polyphonic sound demos too, and first I really couldn't believe that this music is done by an Odyssey2. It sounds like my ol' Atari 130 XE. Can't await the new game!

Edited May 18, 2006 by ccc---

[doug0909]

Let me in on this polyphonic stuff! Where? When? How?

[VPR]

Let me in on this polyphonic stuff! Where? When? How?

 

 

The polyphonic stuff will be revealed in the forthcoming release of TETRIS for the Odyssey Called "Puzzle Piece Panik!" written by the author and great innovator of O2 software Ted Szczypiorski. with Mr Roboto pushing the O2/Videopac console to techniques that the programmers of the time did not even consider Ted has developed a way of producing polyphonic sound.

 

The early O2 packs contained only 2k roms, and made use of the o2s own built in character sets sucha as the mushroom/tree, humanoid, circle, that combined with them all being written by the same chap does lend the 2600 some credit.

 

but these restrictions were soon realised, and the rompacks quickly went up to 4k to include customised graphics.

 

the system, did not benefit from the 3rd party contributions to its library in the same way the 2600 did, had it have done, I think we would be able to come back and argue the merits from a higher ground. since we only have a library of at most 100 games to choose from as opposed to what (I'll let you atari experts answer that)..a couple of thousand ???

 

however, I can assure you that the Videopacs hayday is far from done... a global colaberation of the biggest names in the O2/Videopac world is underway, a new approach to extracting the most from this system will show exactly what this baby is caperble of.

 

watch the videopac/Odyssey 2 it is going to blow you away very soon.

[ZylonBane]

As for the folks who keep posting that Pick Axe Pete has no point - if that is the case, why is it one of the popular games for the Odyssey2!

Because beggars can't be choosers. Seriously, I give it a try every now and then, but it feels more like a tech demo than a completed game. Every other platform game in the world has some sort of objective-- get to the top, get to the end, gather all the loot, kill all the enemies, etc. But PAP (hmm, now that's an unfortunate acronym) has no goal to work toward. Sure, you can collect a key and go to the next identical level if you want, but there's no strong motivation to do so, and you don't even have to work for that key... you just wait for it to randomly show up. And the gameplay sure is thrilling when your pickaxe disappears and you have to stand around waiting for a new one.

 

There was a VIC-20 game entitled Amok, and its robots moved in discrete steps.

Well of course they did-- the VIC-20 only supported character graphics. The O2 version uses sprites, so there doesn't seem to be any technical reason for the stiff robot movement.

 

I wonder if the way Atari fans view O2 fans is the same way NES/Sega/Sony fans view Atari fans?

[vdub_bobby]

the system, did not benefit from the 3rd party contributions to its library in the same way the 2600 did, had it have done, I think we would be able to come back and argue the merits from a higher ground. since we only have a library of at most 100 games to choose from as opposed to what (I'll let you atari experts answer that)..a couple of thousand ???

The 2600 had around 450 games released for it, I believe.