Paranoid Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 The gameplay is CLOSER to the arcade, control is a bit more precise, graphics are far improved. Unfortunately, a lot of it is somewhat subjective. They're both pretty respectable versions in their own right. Again, I almost always turn to MAME or the 800/5200 version when I want a DK fix, although I've got the 7800 version, 2600 version, INTV version, NES version, and Colecovision version. I generally can't remain interested in the 7800 or the CV version through an entire session. I often quit or just don't try very hard and lose my all my men. Neither seems that much fun to me. Mame or the 5200 version however, engage me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Similar. I would say that the 7800 version has the edge between the two.In what way? Well, for one thing, the Coleco version is bass ackwards. So is the 5200 version, but it kicks both of their asses, anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Glad you figured out the issue! Anyhow. Once I hit the play button and let it transfer the files over, everything works peachy-keen. I'm on the fence about these C-64 versions. They're clearly the closest to the arcade in graphics... but I'm not digging them on the XBox controller, despite it being an OK solution on MAME and the 5200 version. It's a lot better with a real C64, where you can plugin a CX-40 joystick. The VICE timing also seems to be off just a little, though I can't put my finger on it. Plus, using a joystick feels more like the arcade than using a gamepad. Are you playing on the Mac version of VICE? I'm hitting some serious limitations on the Mac version... maybe because it uses the X11 engine to drive it? If I try to resize the screen too large, it reports "your machine is too slow" in the X11 terminal window. It is a 933Mhz G4. Runs fine in fullscreen on my 733Mhz Xbox. That is frustrating. Also, if I plug in a joystick and enable the joystick, the keyboard starts doing wonky things, incorrect key response. I hit the D and I get a space, for example. Backspace displays a back-arrow. Turn the joystick off, and keyboard works fine. The joysticks won't work, either, in the games. I read the manual and it said that joystick support is only available under GNU/Linux. Is this true? Why have the menu options available on the Mac version, in that case? I'm using a Logitech dual action d-pad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Are you playing on the Mac version of VICE? I generally only use VICE for testing. Otherwise I play on a real C64. I do, however, have and use both the Windows and Mac versions of VICE. Also, if I plug in a joystick and enable the joystick, the keyboard starts doing wonky things, incorrect key response. I hit the D and I get a space, for example. Backspace displays a back-arrow. Turn the joystick off, and keyboard works fine. The joysticks won't work, either, in the games. I read the manual and it said that joystick support is only available under GNU/Linux. Is this true? Why have the menu options available on the Mac version, in that case? I'm using a Logitech dual action d-pad. The Mac version of VICE is a straight-up recompile of the GNU/Linux version rather than an actual port. As a result, it integrates very poorly with the overall Mac OS X operating system, and suffers from some performance issues due to the overhead imposed by the relatively naive implementation of the Mac X11 server. The Mac X11 server was supposed to be boon for consumers as it would allow them to use Linux/Unix software while they waited for the Mac ports to be completed. Instead, it's prevented many ports as the authors don't realize that an X11 version is NOT in fact "good enough". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 So is the 5200 version, but it kicks both of their asses, anyhow. To be pedantic for a moment, the 5200 doesn't actually have a version of Donkey Kong. The C64 has two. The version on most systems is the bass ackward Coleco or Coleco-inspired version. The versions on the C64 both ring arcade-true. So if you're an arcade Donkey Kong fan, you're going to go for the C64. The 8-Bit version is only "best" if you're looking for non-authentic gameplay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 The Mac version of VICE is a straight-up recompile of the GNU/Linux version rather than an actual port. As a result, it integrates very poorly with the overall Mac OS X operating system, and suffers from some performance issues due to the overhead imposed by the relatively naive implementation of the Mac X11 server. The Mac X11 server was supposed to be boon for consumers as it would allow them to use Linux/Unix software while they waited for the Mac ports to be completed. Instead, it's prevented many ports as the authors don't realize that an X11 version is NOT in fact "good enough". That is a bummer. I really would like to get more of these things running better on my Mac, one - to free up real estate on my PC hard drives for other things, but two - to have a compelling reason to turn it on and take it for a spin more often. Which isn't a bash. I still find ample reason to do so from time to time as it is. But getting some decent emulators running well would just increase that. To be pedantic for a moment, the 5200 doesn't actually have a version of Donkey Kong. The C64 has two. The version on most systems is the bass ackward Coleco or Coleco-inspired version. The versions on the C64 both ring arcade-true. So if you're an arcade Donkey Kong fan, you're going to go for the C64. The 8-Bit version is only "best" if you're looking for non-authentic gameplay. Well, the 8 bit version, anyhow. Oddly enough, I'm not sure about the history of the DK 5200/8 bit version, and why they decided to go with the Coleco-style screen layout. I think it is an Atarisoft release, though. I still think that the 5200/8 bit version -plays- better than the C64 version (although I must admit, I have not had the pleasure of playing it on actual hardware on the Commie). The 64 version looks far more faithful, and plays well... but it isn't as much fun as either the real thing *or* the 5200 version. Totally subjective opinion, I'll grant you. The arcade version is very engaging, the 5200 version is very engaging. The other various platforms... not so much fun to me, despite the fact that there are several versions that are graphically "superior" to the 8 bit/5200 release (in as much as they look more like the Arcade original, at least). The 7800 and NES versions are both true to the original as well, on the ladder level... right? Actually, isn't the 2600 version on the right side, and INTV too? (the RIGHT side being the LEFT side, of course...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 The 7800 and NES versions are both true to the original as well, on the ladder level... right? Yep. Both are exceptionally good conversions. Although, by then Donkey Kong had been done to death. Those carts wouldn't have sold if they weren't faithful. Actually, isn't the 2600 version on the right side, and INTV too? (the RIGHT side being the LEFT side, of course...) I can confirm from my own cart that the 2600 version is on the right side. The INTV is also on the right side, but that was to be expected as it was (to my understanding) a rather poor port by Coleco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 http://www.atariage.com/screenshot_page.ht...wareLabelID=149 On the left. INTV... bass ackwards... http://www.intvfunhouse.com/games/dk.php Vic 20... on the left... http://www.mobygames.com/game/vic-20/donke...meShotId,88122/ Apple II, bass ackwards http://www.mobygames.com/game/apple2/donke...meShotId,42988/ TI 99, on the left... http://www.mobygames.com/game/ti-994a/donk...eShotId,111180/ AMSTRAD version looks very good... http://www.mobygames.com/game/cpc/donkey-kong/screenshots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 http://www.atariage.com/screenshot_page.ht...wareLabelID=149 On the left. Now that's weird. I could have sworn it was backwards. Now I'll have to get out my 2600 cart and refresh my memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 I loaded the image on Stella, and it is on the left side. I thought maybe I had one of the DK hacks loaded, but I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I can confirm from my own cart that the 2600 version is on the right side. The INTV is also on the right side, but that was to be expected as it was (to my understanding) a rather poor port by Coleco. So you're saying the Atari computer version is a poor port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSprinter Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 No, he's not. The Atari 8-bit version was ported directly by Atari. Coleco only worked on the ports for their own system, the Atari 2600, and IntelliVision. Atari also did the ports for the C64 (US version), TI-99/4A, Atari 7800, Apple II, IBM, and VIC-20. All but the 7800 versions were made and published under the AtariSoft label. In no way was he stating the 8-bit was a poor port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 (edited) Even if he was, that is a perfectly valid opinion. The 8 bit version is my *favorite* version. But the important detail there, is it that it is *my* favorite version. Someone else may think the 8 bit version sucks, and there are a lot of valid reasons why one might draw that conclusion. I can't exactly force those guys to see things *my* way, although I'm certain their lives would be more rewarding if they did. And anyhow, the only opinion I care about, is my own. Edited November 24, 2006 by Paranoid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The bad sound in 7800 DK is a prime example of how ATARI are the masters of f$%king things up for a great idea or game,by skimping on quality,(when TRAMIEL TOOK OVER THAT IS)i mean cmon using the 2600 sound chip in a more advanced system,?that makes ALOT OF SENSE,and a VERY DISAPPIONTING MOVE that was, for us,the gamers ,for the otherwise great 7800. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The bad sound in 7800 DK is a prime example of how ATARI are the masters of f$%king things up for a great idea or game,by skimping on quality,(when TRAMIEL TOOK OVER THAT IS)i mean cmon using the 2600 sound chip in a more advanced system,?that makes ALOT OF SENSE,and a VERY DISAPPIONTING MOVE that was, for us,the gamers ,for the otherwise great 7800. Tramiel had nothing to do with the 7800 using the 2600's sound chip. One of the main requirements that Warner Atari had for the 7800 was that it be backwards compatible with the 2600 because they got a lot of flack for not having that in the 5200. Technology was not at a point where the 2600 could be easily "emulated", so they achieved 2600 compatibility by including 2600 on the 7800's motherboard. The problem with this was that they ran out space on the motherboard for an additional sound chip (like MARIA for graphics) and it also wasn't cost effective. Where Tramiel can be blamed was that he didn't pay money to put sound chips in the cartridges (Ballblazer and Commando notwithstanding) and he didn't continue the development of the low-cost GUMBY sound chip that was intended for 7800 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Allan Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The bad sound in 7800 DK is a prime example of how ATARI are the masters of f$%king things up for a great idea or game,by skimping on quality,(when TRAMIEL TOOK OVER THAT IS)i mean cmon using the 2600 sound chip in a more advanced system,?that makes ALOT OF SENSE,and a VERY DISAPPIONTING MOVE that was, for us,the gamers ,for the otherwise great 7800. Tramiel had nothing to do with the 7800 using the 2600's sound chip. One of the main requirements that Warner Atari had for the 7800 was that it be backwards compatible with the 2600 because they got a lot of flack for not having that in the 5200. Technology was not at a point where the 2600 could be easily "emulated", so they achieved 2600 compatibility by including 2600 on the 7800's motherboard. The problem with this was that they ran out space on the motherboard for an additional sound chip (like MARIA for graphics) and it also wasn't cost effective. Where Tramiel can be blamed was that he didn't pay money to put sound chips in the cartridges (Ballblazer and Commando notwithstanding) and he didn't continue the development of the low-cost GUMBY sound chip that was intended for 7800 games. And the really sad part was the reason the motherboard was so small was that they wanted to fit it in an already designed shell so that they could save a little money. Allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercat Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The problem with this was that they ran out space on the motherboard for an additional sound chip (like MARIA for graphics) and it also wasn't cost effective. Sound chips were available in small packages; the chip used on the TI-99/4a is something like a DIP16 IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadmeow Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Nearly every version of Donkey Kong is fun. In the 90's, thanks to the internet, I started collecting old systems and I was very suprised how good the Atari 7800 version and Atari 8 bit version were. The Atari 8 bit version plays the best it seems. The Atari 7800 version has very nice graphics, but the sound hits you in the face like someone with garlic breath. The Colecovision version is excellent, very arcade like. The Coleco editions for Atari 2600 and Intellivision only have 2 screens, it seems Coleco didn't try very hard. The Commodore 64 versions are not bad, but seems they could have been better. The Donkey Kong in the Ocean version looks like a zombie, and the other version would be perfect if it didn't look squished. I thought maybe it was just the emulator making it look like that? But it looks like to get all the heighth of the arcade screen into the television screen, they squished it I would have to say, the most arcade like versions are the Colecovision and NES. The Atari 8 bit version is the most suprising, and maybe the best playing. If you play without the volume, the 7800 version is pretty good too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Helmet Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I would have to say, the most arcade like versions are the Colecovision and NES. I will agree with you on the NES version, but not the CV. The CV version is a really fun traslation, but not nearly the most like the arcade version. The A8 version is closer than the CV version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadmeow Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The best pre-crash console version was the Colecovision version, which was advertised a lot. The Atari 8 bit Donkey Kong, was only made for the Atari computers, and I never saw a single commercial advertising it (Which was too bad). The best computer version is the Atari 800 for sure, it doesn't match the arcade version, but it improves on it in some ways, and plays best out of the whole lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) sorry wrong thread Edited February 20, 2007 by Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I can confirm from my own cart that the 2600 version is on the right side. http://www.atariage.com/screenshot_page.ht...wareLabelID=149 On the left. Now that's weird. I could have sworn it was backwards. Now I'll have to get out my 2600 cart and refresh my memory. LOL. Ooops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The bad sound in 7800 DK is a prime example of how ATARI are the masters of f$%king things up for a great idea or game,by skimping on quality,(when TRAMIEL TOOK OVER THAT IS)i mean cmon using the 2600 sound chip in a more advanced system,?that makes ALOT OF SENSE,and a VERY DISAPPIONTING MOVE that was, for us,the gamers ,for the otherwise great 7800. Tramiel had nothing to do with the 7800 using the 2600's sound chip. One of the main requirements that Warner Atari had for the 7800 was that it be backwards compatible with the 2600 because they got a lot of flack for not having that in the 5200. Technology was not at a point where the 2600 could be easily "emulated", so they achieved 2600 compatibility by including 2600 on the 7800's motherboard. The problem with this was that they ran out space on the motherboard for an additional sound chip (like MARIA for graphics) and it also wasn't cost effective. Where Tramiel can be blamed was that he didn't pay money to put sound chips in the cartridges (Ballblazer and Commando notwithstanding) and he didn't continue the development of the low-cost GUMBY sound chip that was intended for 7800 games. Yeah,thats true,the fact that the 7800 was bulit to be backwards compatable with the 2600 games,a point i didnt think of,making it TOO EXPENSIVE to add the better pokey chip or whatever for the 7800 games,i think they should have just made it play 7800 games only with the pokey,after all ,who didnt have a 2600 already,but i must admit having the backwards compatibility with the 2600 is damn handy...confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Allan Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The bad sound in 7800 DK is a prime example of how ATARI are the masters of f$%king things up for a great idea or game,by skimping on quality,(when TRAMIEL TOOK OVER THAT IS)i mean cmon using the 2600 sound chip in a more advanced system,?that makes ALOT OF SENSE,and a VERY DISAPPIONTING MOVE that was, for us,the gamers ,for the otherwise great 7800. Tramiel had nothing to do with the 7800 using the 2600's sound chip. One of the main requirements that Warner Atari had for the 7800 was that it be backwards compatible with the 2600 because they got a lot of flack for not having that in the 5200. Technology was not at a point where the 2600 could be easily "emulated", so they achieved 2600 compatibility by including 2600 on the 7800's motherboard. The problem with this was that they ran out space on the motherboard for an additional sound chip (like MARIA for graphics) and it also wasn't cost effective. Where Tramiel can be blamed was that he didn't pay money to put sound chips in the cartridges (Ballblazer and Commando notwithstanding) and he didn't continue the development of the low-cost GUMBY sound chip that was intended for 7800 games. Yeah,thats true,the fact that the 7800 was bulit to be backwards compatable with the 2600 games,a point i didnt think of,making it TOO EXPENSIVE to add the better pokey chip or whatever for the 7800 games,i think they should have just made it play 7800 games only with the pokey,after all ,who didnt have a 2600 already,but i must admit having the backwards compatibility with the 2600 is damn handy...confusing. They were going to have both a Pokey and the 2600 sound chip but there wasn't enough room on the board which had to fit into the pre-existing case. They were trying to avoid designing a new case for it so out went the Pokey. They figured they could just throw one on the cart if they had to. Unfortunetly the crash and the Tramiel buyout kind of put a damper on things. Allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaWarrior Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I havn't played the 7800 DK yet..But from the screens of the 5200 version the 7800 looks better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
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.