Why Starpath Frogger?

[Atariboy]

I don't care for most of the Parker Brothers ports of Frogger on systems other than the 2600, but the 2600 version is quite good in my opinion. I fire it up as often as I do the excellent Starpath conversion.

[zzip]

On 10/9/2022 at 9:53 PM, christo930 said:

The Parker Brothers version of Frogger is terrible and it's terrible on every system they released it on.  Not one port has the music right. They don't get the color right.  Even the more powerful system versions of Frogger were terrible. Colecovision, C64, 5200, they all suck.  There is no excuse for these bad ports.  There was a 2016 release for the 64 called "Frogger Arcade" and that's what the 64 version should have been

I wasn't that crazy about 2600 Frogger -- too bare bones,  but I did like the Atari 8-bit PB version.  Sure it wasn't arcade perfect, but neither was the Sierra port.   They did different things right (and wrong)

 

There have been great Frogger ports done by homebrewers in the past decade--  the C64 one you mentioned and arcade-like ports to the ST and 7800,  but back then nobody was doing that.   Even the freeware arcade ports BITD were off.

 

I suspect it's thanks to MAME,   now you can have the orginal running on your PC for easy comparison and even rip assets from it to make your port as arcade perfect as possible.

Edited October 11, 2022 by zzip

[Crazy Climber]

On 10/9/2022 at 8:53 PM, christo930 said:

 

The Parker Brothers version of Frogger is terrible and it's terrible on every system they released it on. 

Gasp! Shock!! Clutches pearls!!

I liked it!!

20 hours ago, zzip said:

 but neither was the Sierra port. 

I really like the sierra port too. The music is fantastic!!

[zzip]

11 minutes ago, Crazy Climber said:

I really like the sierra port too. The music is fantastic!!

The music is the highlight of the Sierra version.   I think if you took aspects of the PB version and aspects of the Sierra you could have an awesome A8 Frogger!

[christo930]

On 10/11/2022 at 1:07 PM, zzip said:

I wasn't that crazy about 2600 Frogger -- too bare bones,  but I did like the Atari 8-bit PB version.  Sure it wasn't arcade perfect, but neither was the Sierra port.   They did different things right (and wrong)

 

There have been great Frogger ports done by homebrewers in the past decade--  the C64 one you mentioned and arcade-like ports to the ST and 7800,  but back then nobody was doing that.   Even the freeware arcade ports BITD were off.

 

I suspect it's thanks to MAME,   now you can have the orginal running on your PC for easy comparison and even rip assets from it to make your port as arcade perfect as possible.

 

 While some of the ports by PB and Siera had good music, none of it was right or triggered by the right things.  Most of the ports had graphics that were lacking, particularly given the simple original arcade graphics.

 

The Supercharger version tries and does pretty well with the graphics, making allowances for the hardware. But even without taking the hardware into consideration, the Supercharger version looks pretty good.  They really nailed the sound.  Each time you get a frogger to his home, it triggers one of the tunes.  All this is spot on.

 

OTOH, I don't know if cartridge Frogger could have been better, at least with a 4k ROM.  It quite possibly could have needed more RAM, which the SC provides so long as the ROM is small enough.  The file on my PC is 8k, but presumably there is a header or other stuff making the file bigger.  If it's 5.5k, that's 1/2 a k of RAM plus the 128 bytes normally present.  I'm not sure if any of the RAM games had been released by Aug of 81.  I know Omega Race came out in 81 and it had 256 bytes of RAM on board.

Edited October 30, 2022 by christo930

[christo930]

On 10/10/2022 at 7:28 PM, Chris+++ said:

 

It just goes to show you how much tastes can vary. I love the (cartridge) version of 2600 Frogger. In fact, I have more fun playing it than the arcade original, as the controls have a more abrupt effect, so it's easier to steer your character quickly and accurately. The "animation lag" in the original takes some getting used to. I care more about the game-play than the music or other ephemeral irrelevancies, but that's subjective as well, I guess.

The C64 version by Sierra Online is great, too.

 

 

The Sierra Online version has decent music, but it's not implemented correctly. It just plays and isn't affected by the game.  If this were an original game and not supposed to Frogger, I would judge it to be much better.

 

Well, I would tend to agree with you on games that are not ports, like original releases.  But the point of arcade ports was to bring the arcade experience home to your TV set.  Given the large disparities between the home hardware and the arcade cabinets, you have to be willing to suffer some concessions, but I don't think the C64 (for example)  needed to give these concessions.  As the recent homebrew shows, the C64 is capable of an authentic arcade experience with Frogger.  The Colecovision version is pretty poor too.

 

To me, particularly at the time, the measure of such a game is how well it measured up against the arcade original. Today I can just play mame, but that wasn't an option in the 80s.

[zzip]

14 hours ago, christo930 said:

 

 While some of the ports by PB and Siera had good music, none of it was right or triggered by the right things.  Most of the ports had graphics that were lacking, particularly given the simple original arcade graphics.

 

The Supercharger version tries and does pretty well with the graphics, making allowances for the hardware. But even without taking the hardware into consideration, the Supercharger version looks pretty good.  They really nailed the sound.  Each time you get a frogger to his home, it triggers one of the tunes.  All this is spot on.

 

OTOH, I don't know if cartridge Frogger could have been better, at least with a 4k ROM.  It quite possibly could have needed more RAM, which the SC provides so long as the ROM is small enough.  The file on my PC is 8k, but presumably there is a header or other stuff making the file bigger.  If it's 5.5k, that's 1/2 a k of RAM plus the 128 bytes normally present.  I'm not sure if any of the RAM games had been released by Aug of 81.  I know Omega Race came out in 81 and it had 256 bytes of RAM on board.

I don't think there's a lot of extra stuff in 2600 ROM dumps.   I could be wrong.   It seems the 8K games started coming sometime in 82.   (shortly after Pac Man, which could have used it!)   Was the Frogger cart really released in 81?  I thought it came in 82?   If it was that early then no way was it an 8K cart

 

Yeah back then arcade games usually weren't 1:1, especially when a game like Frogger had a vertical screen and had to be adopted to a horizontal TV.   Interestingly Parker Bros ran ads that compared their ports to each other but not to the arcade,  so by these ads the A8/5200 looked among the best with C64 close.   But it's easy to think it's closer to the arcade then it was when you don't have a machine to compare it to.    I remember how we all thought CV Donkey Kong was a near-perfect arcade port,  but after I was able to compare it to DK in Mame then I realized it was quite a bit off

 

[+splendidnut]

The cartridge version of Frogger (Parker Brothers) is 4k.  (ROM-only)

The Supercharger version is 6k (tape loaded into 6k RAM... 3 banks of 2k).  The file is around 8k due to the Supercharger header information.

 

Frogger 2 is an 8k ROM using a Parker Brothers bank-switching scheme (ROM-only).

[christo930]

5 hours ago, zzip said:

I don't think there's a lot of extra stuff in 2600 ROM dumps.   I could be wrong.   It seems the 8K games started coming sometime in 82.   (shortly after Pac Man, which could have used it!)   Was the Frogger cart really released in 81?  I thought it came in 82?   If it was that early then no way was it an 8K cart

 

Yeah back then arcade games usually weren't 1:1, especially when a game like Frogger had a vertical screen and had to be adopted to a horizontal TV.   Interestingly Parker Bros ran ads that compared their ports to each other but not to the arcade,  so by these ads the A8/5200 looked among the best with C64 close.   But it's easy to think it's closer to the arcade then it was when you don't have a machine to compare it to.    I remember how we all thought CV Donkey Kong was a near-perfect arcade port,  but after I was able to compare it to DK in Mame then I realized it was quite a bit off

 

 

I double checked and the ROM is 4k, at least in my 2600 roms folder and the supercharger rom file is 8k.  But the SC only has 6k of ROM, so it cannot be right. I speculated that the file would have some sort of header to let the emulator know it's a SC file and not a standard ROM.  I don't know for sure, but I think any SC RAM not used by simulating a rom file is allowed to be used as system RAM.  So if the file was actually 5.5k, the remaining 512 bytes would be available as RAM plus the 128 bytes the 2600 normally has for the RAM.

 

Google says 2600 Frogger was released in August of 1981, but I think that's wrong. I found the following on Wikipedia.

"Home versions of Frogger had high sales. The 1982 Atari 2600 version earned its publisher Parker Brothers $40 million in orders upon launch"

 

Which says it was released in 1982, which corresponds to my memory of the game being released.

 

IMHO, it's a lazy port.  They made a fortune off the game too.  Frogger, despite being 3rd party, is one of the most common 2600 cartridges.

 

Asteroids was released in 1981 with an 8k ROM.  I think most of the companies, Atari included, were just being cheap and trying to wring every last nickel out of the customers. They only increased ROM sizes when it become absolutely necessary.  I don't think the cost difference between a 32kbit ROM and a 64kbit ROM was all that much.  I was reading some Coleco stuff and even in 1983, the Coleco people said the Box and art on the box was more expensive than the ROM and that the total for the package was like $5 (but don't me quote me on that $5 figure, I'm entirely going off memory here)

 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by christo930
clarification

[JetSetIlly]

2 hours ago, christo930 said:

I double checked and the ROM is 4k, at least in my 2600 roms folder and the supercharger rom file is 8k.  But the SC only has 6k of ROM, so it cannot be right. I speculated that the file would have some sort of header to let the emulator know it's a SC file and not a standard ROM. 

 

The binary files should be 8448 bytes. The first 6k is loaded into Supercharger RAM according a page table which is stored at the end of the file. The next 2k is just junk data. And the final 256 bytes is meta-data that would normally be loaded from tape, but is not part of the data that is loaded into RAM.

[+cvga]

14 hours ago, zzip said:

I don't think there's a lot of extra stuff in 2600 ROM dumps.   I could be wrong.   It seems the 8K games started coming sometime in 82.   (shortly after Pac Man, which could have used it!)   Was the Frogger cart really released in 81?  I thought it came in 82?   If it was that early then no way was it an 8K cart

 

Yeah back then arcade games usually weren't 1:1, especially when a game like Frogger had a vertical screen and had to be adopted to a horizontal TV.   Interestingly Parker Bros ran ads that compared their ports to each other but not to the arcade,  so by these ads the A8/5200 looked among the best with C64 close.   But it's easy to think it's closer to the arcade then it was when you don't have a machine to compare it to.    I remember how we all thought CV Donkey Kong was a near-perfect arcade port,  but after I was able to compare it to DK in Mame then I realized it was quite a bit off

 

I love these ads but no way the TI99 and the Colecovision ports are identical right? And what version is the kid playing? It's not one of the other 8 listed ports.

[Chris+++]

9 hours ago, cvga said:

I love these ads but no way the TI99 and the Colecovision ports are identical right? And what version is the kid playing? It's not one of the other 8 listed ports.

It looks like a blurrier and darker shot of the A8/5200 version (at a different point in the game than the screens shown at the top, of course), probably affected by the light and focus being on the kid in that part of the photograph.

 

 

[christo930]

21 hours ago, JetSetIlly said:

 

The binary files should be 8448 bytes. The first 6k is loaded into Supercharger RAM according a page table which is stored at the end of the file. The next 2k is just junk data. And the final 256 bytes is meta-data that would normally be loaded from tape, but is not part of the data that is loaded into RAM.

Yes, that is the size, 8448.

Shouldn't that be in the beginning of the file if the supercharger actually gets these 256 bytes?  By the time you get to that portion of the load, all of the stuff is already sitting in the RAM.

Do you happen to know if any RAM not taken up by the file becomes RAM available to the 2600?  I thought I remember reading that at some point in the past, but I'm not really sure if this is the case.

[+splendidnut]

15 minutes ago, christo930 said:

Do you happen to know if any RAM not taken up by the file becomes RAM available to the 2600?  I thought I remember reading that at some point in the past, but I'm not really sure if this is the case.

Supercharger games load into 6k of RAM located in the Supercharger cartridge... that's where they run from.  Frogger has a lot of self-modifying code that takes advantage of that.  Nukey Shay started work on a disassembly of that game... which is something I looked at a few months ago.

 

Nukey Shay posted the original uncommented disassembly here:
  https://atariage.com/forums/topic/65897-supercharger-conversion-hacks/?do=findComment&comment=1649922

 

--

 

The Supercharger essentially provides 6k of RAM to the Atari 2600... where both code and data can be read and written to.

 

For more technical details, please see:  http://blog.kevtris.org/blogfiles/Atari 2600 Mappers.txt

[chuckwalla]

That's interesting.

 

I just recently revisited the Retrogaming Times newsletter site (http://www.classicplastic.net/trt/arclegacy/legacyindex.html) for nostalgia purposes.

 

As for Frogger, I think most ports were excellent - meaning just plain fun with adequate graphics and sound effects.

It's definately one of my favorite arcade games and ports to home systems.

[Video]

Hey, you eff off. Frogger rules! Actually the music is way better and more intact on the supercharger version. I do slightly prefer that version, but not enough to boot the supercharger up that often.

 

Honestly, I'd be down to buy a cart version of most the SC titles.

 

Do yourself a favor, buy (or download) Stella gets a new brain. Totally worth it.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Video

[Nintenloup]

I set up my SC mostly just to play this game. Plug in an old MP3 player and there you go. The 15 seconds load time doesn't bother me, I'm used to old computers, I even consider the SC quite fast in fact and I'm not preventing myself from playing the best version of frogger on the 2600 because of that.

[CaptainBreakout]

On 10/31/2022 at 9:06 PM, cvga said:

I love these ads but no way the TI99 and the Colecovision ports are identical right? And what version is the kid playing? It's not one of the other 8 listed ports.

Heya CVGA!  I need you to empty your message box and message me!

 

Sorry to butt into this Frogger thread... I can at least say that I have Starpath Frogger and love it!

 

Would anyone say for sure that it's better then the Colecovision version?  I just made some space on my shelf and am considering picking that one up.

 

(also... too bad the magazine ad doesn't show a screenshot of the Apple II version from Sierra... that's the one I grew up with after we put the 2600 away.

 

[CaptainBreakout]

On 10/31/2022 at 9:06 PM, cvga said:

I love these ads.

Yo cvga, please contact me.

[+pboland]

I actually find the Odyssey2 version of Parker Bros Frogger to be one of the more interesting. Mainly because of the way Parker Bros had to go about making it for the O2 hardware. Yes, I know it doesn't look that good (because the 2600 hardware is more capable), but for the limitations of the O2 it's done fairly well. Heck, Parker Bros even made an opening animation for the O2 version which is almost unheard of on that platform.:

Because of the grid system that the Odyssey2 uses, Parker Bros was forced to have to make it two screens. At first I thought this would be a bad thing, but it actually works quite well. Not only that but, Parker Bros went to the trouble of making two color cars in the game. For those that don't know, elements of a game having more than one color for the O2 is quite rare. I would say Parker Bros tried a lot harder with the O2 version of the game than any other platform from that time (I just wish Parker Bros would have put that much effort into the O2 Popeye).

[+Psionic]

On 10/30/2022 at 6:53 PM, christo930 said:

 

 I'm not sure if any of the RAM games had been released by Aug of 81.  I know Omega Race came out in 81 and it had 256 bytes of RAM on board.

 

The patent for the RAM Plus chip wasn't filed until May 1983 and the first titles to use it (Omega Race, Mountain King & Tunnel Runner) weren't released until December.

 

It's worth nothing that a 4K version of Omega Race was originally in development at Bally Midway long before RAM Plus, but this version was scrapped...

 

https://www.atariprotos.com/2600/software/omegarace/bc.htm

 

On 10/31/2022 at 3:05 PM, christo930 said:

 

Google says 2600 Frogger was released in August of 1981, but I think that's wrong. I found the following on Wikipedia.

"Home versions of Frogger had high sales. The 1982 Atari 2600 version earned its publisher Parker Brothers $40 million in orders upon launch"

 

Which says it was released in 1982, which corresponds to my memory of the game being released.

 

 

Frogger was released in the summer of 1982, most likely in August.

[Keatah]

On 9/20/2022 at 2:19 AM, davidrepsda253 said:

How much does this game cost? I have a brand new copy I had forgotten about in my collection inside a box I left. It has some damage and 2 rips on plastic and 1 on the box.

It will cost precisely what you or someone sets the price at. Not one cent more. Not one cent less.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Keatah

[Keatah]

On 11/5/2022 at 5:22 PM, CaptainBreakout said:

(also... too bad the magazine ad doesn't show a screenshot of the Apple II version from Sierra... that's the one I grew up with after we put the 2600 away.

Apple II game screenshots were usually sidelined if there were other choices available. Apple II didn't even have a videochip and could only make 6 false colors by banging the NTSC signal (like making interference).

[Chris+++]

 

I remember John Harris telling us a funny story at WOA '98, whereby Ken Williams from Sierra OnLine had John's Atari 400/800 version of Frogger displayed at an Apple convention, with the Apple II out in front and the Atari computer itself hidden behind the stand.

 

 

[Supergun]

On 11/5/2022 at 6:22 PM, CaptainBreakout said:

Would anyone say for sure that it's better then the Colecovision version?  I just made some space on my shelf and am considering picking that one up.

 

The ColecoVision version is excellent. It has great graphics and sound and it has the best version of the melody music than the others.