Seriously, Poor Donkey Kong Intellivision

[Pacfan97]

The Intellivision version of Donkey Kong is the worst conversion EVER!!! Here are some reasons:

 

Mario doesn't look like Mario.

DK looks like a brown blob.

DK is on the opposite side.

Only 2 screens.

 

The Intellivision programmers were sure purposefully made by Coleco to make their machine look bad!

The 2600 version also has only 2 screens, but it's more fun.

How many of you agree?

[Rev]

yes,its pretty crappy.

 

coleco did it on purpose to make the colecovision version look better....shame shame

[Nukey Shay]

The same "the game was made inferior on purpose to increase sales of their own" myth has been said about the Atari version (Atari themselves had the myth applied to the 2600 vs. home computer ports of Pac-Man)...and it's completely false in all cases. Coleco controlled the home console rights to the title...so if they really wanted to limit sales to their own console, the optimal strategy would be not to license a version for others at all.

 

BTW the myth is especially idiotic when applied to the 2600's DK and Pac-Man...both of which were extremely popular and viewed as successes, despite modern-day revisionist theories.

[Ransom]

I read somewhere that Coleco gave the programmers very tight schedules for doing the ports, which is why most of them turned out not-so-good. In other words, yes, the same problem as for Pac-Man on the 2600 -- but in no case did someone say, "Make this one bad, we don't want to sell very many of them." It was just the usual incompetent management that you see everywhere.

[Rev]

here is the quote from www.intellivisionlives.com :

 

 

 

Fun Fact: When the programmers at Mattel Electronics saw the Intellivision version of Donkey Kong, they were shocked at how bad it was. They actually suspected a conspiracy: that Coleco released an awful version for Intellivision so that the ColecoVision version - and the ColecoVision itself - would look that much better.

 

Far more likely it was the result of a rushed development schedule and having no experienced Intellivision programmers on staff.

 

But whatever the reason, the programmers (specifically Bill Fisher, Steve Roney, Mark Urbaniec and Keith Robinson) begged management for the opportunity to program their own version of Donkey Kong - not for release, obviously, but to demonstrate for the press what Intellivision could do when programmed properly. They were confident they could put together a version more faithful in feel and gameplay to the original arcade game than even the ColecoVision version. Management said no, feeling the programmers' time could be better spent.

[+save2600]

I actually kinda like INTV DK, on the same level I like the 2600 version: they're both cool for what they are. INTV DK has its charms though. I like the monkey looking Mario, sounds and graphics. The game plays about as well as any of the platformers do on the system. That disc pad is mostly to blame, but there's some "charm" in that too. Back in the day, I don't remember anyone thinking, "boy does the Intellivsion version of DK suck". We all thought is was pretty cool and indicative of an INTV game (most all of them have that sloppy/blocky look IMO).

 

I do wonder though, had somebody released that particular game under a different title, if people would have just considered it a DK rip-off or clone...

[Ransom]

Thanks for that, Revolutionka...that must be where I read it. (I keep thinking I also read the same thing about the 2600 version.)

 

Save2600: That's a good point. Whether something is a faithful port, whether it looks nice, and whether it's a good game are three separate questions.

[+cvga]

I actually kinda like INTV DK, on the same level I like the 2600 version: they're both cool for what they are. INTV DK has its charms though. I like the monkey looking Mario, sounds and graphics. The game plays about as well as any of the platformers do on the system. That disc pad is mostly to blame, but there's some "charm" in that too. Back in the day, I don't remember anyone thinking, "boy does the Intellivsion version of DK suck". We all thought is was pretty cool and indicative of an INTV game (most all of them have that sloppy/blocky look IMO).

 

I do wonder though, had somebody released that particular game under a different title, if people would have just considered it a DK rip-off or clone...

 

I'm going to have to disagree. I played alot of Intellivision growing up and we couldn't wait to get Donkey Kong. We were extremely disappointed and it received very limited play due to how poorly it played. On the other hand, I played a bunch of Atari Donkey Kong. I think it's a pretty fun game even though it gets complaints on a regular basis.

[Rev]

nnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

 

 

[+save2600]

Looks pretty darn good to me! lol I always thought the way they drew DK, looks like he's got one hell of an overbite! lol

 

 

nnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

 

 

[Albert]

Looks pretty darn good to me! lol I always thought the way they drew DK, looks like he's got one hell of an overbite! lol

Great, I'm going to see that now every time I see a screenshot of Donkey Kong for the Intellivision.

 

..Al

[Vic George 2K3]

Suspecting a conspiracy is NOT the same as saying there was actually a conspiracy.

[jeremysart]

Wether or not it was done on purpose by Coleco to make their port look more like the "Authentic Arcade Look", while making the other versions look like utter hell as a matter than no one can prove, but I can say a few things about it:

 

The Intellivision was fully capable of having an arcade quality port. Just look at games like Thunder Castle and Tower of Doom for complexity, sound and graphics, or arcade ports like Dig Dug, Frogger, and Pac Man that were almost dead on, or any Imagic game for that matter.

Coleco either had sabotage in mind, or really did rush this crap out. They probably made the 2600 port marginally better than the Intv version just because Atari was BIG.

 

And to be honest, I really enjoy the 2600 version. The sounds are classic, and you can tell what everything is, it just has a great charm to it, and pretty decent replay value for a two screen game. Now as for Intellivision, its no wonder Coleco games were locked out of their later consoles.. Mario looks like Porky the Pig, Dk looks like a smiling shit with buck teeth, and NO, absolutely NO effort was put into the levels or sounds.

[Rik]

Games were not made bad to make another system look better.That rings most true with Coleco games for the 2600 for example,everyone knew,and it was obvious whose games looked better..ColecoVision.Didn't need to tarnish their OWN image or cause low sales to prove it.That's a silly rumour,as no one would shoot themselves in the foot and make themselves look bad and lose sales on purpose.Just LAZY programming.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Rik

[Nukey Shay]

Lazy programming? I don't think so...there is some innovation present in 2600's DK. Be aware that it's Garry Kitchen's 2nd VCS game done while learning the system - the first was Space Jockey. According to him, he spent too much time and resources putting (relatively useless) hammers in the game when vertically-moving fireballs would have been better. Regardless...it was a fine attempt for 1982, and the game turned out to be one of the most popular.

[Rik]

Lazy programming? I don't think so...there is some innovation present in 2600's DK. Be aware that it's Garry Kitchen's 2nd VCS game done while learning the system - the first was Space Jockey. According to him, he spent too much time and resources putting (relatively useless) hammers in the game when vertically-moving fireballs would have been better. Regardless...it was a fine attempt for 1982, and the game turned out to be one of the most popular.

Hi Nukey,so lack of experience would be a better word then?But,lazy programming was the problem for lots of other games though,would you not agree?For whatever reason i just don't believe games were made bad on purpose.Others are free to believe want they want to :)I don't want to cut down programmers for making a good honest effort,but for some games.. i just don't know man.I mean look at 2600 Pac-Man,then a short while later Ms Pac-Man which was miles better,and even more impressive,Pac-Man Jr.was that lack of know how?i say in that case it WAS bad programming,or Rushed out,either way bad programming.Bad programming due to an "i don't care" attitude,get it out quick for Xmas?,or an honest attempt with lack of knowledge?who knows.Yes theres numerous reasons for less than spectacular games.But like i said,not games made bad on purpose.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Rik

[retrorussell]

Something else to hate about Intellivision's Donkey Kong is the fact that your jump is so damn slow. And your movements are incredibly stiff. And yes, I also used to think DK looked like a grinning, buck-toothed pile of manure.

[+thegoldenband]

Have folks heard about DKInty? It's an unfinished, but very playable, homebrew version of Donkey Kong for the Inty, written by Carl Mueller Jr. It used to be hosted on a Geocities site, but since that's long gone, here it is:

 

dkinty.zip

 

Enjoy!

[BydoEmpire]

I haven't played it in a looooong time, but I have to admit I really enjoyed Inty Donkey Kong back in the day. It was no Beauty and the Beast, but I had fun with it. Somehow I no longer have the DK cart - I should pick one up just to see how bad my NostalgiaVision is.

 

I played a new homebrew Inty DK at CGE 2k7 and it was amazing. Might have been DKInty, I don't recall.

[Tempest]

Something else to hate about Intellivision's Donkey Kong is the fact that your jump is so damn slow.

Try the Apple II version. I swear you could almost hear that Six Million Dollar Man sound effect every time you jumped.

 

Tempest

[Bill Loguidice]

All things considered, Coleco's Donkey Kong for the Intellivision could have been much better, but even the ColecoVision version could have been much better. I also agree that sabotage is ridiculous, because even the best programmer couldn't have made the Intellivision version look as good as even the released ColecoVision version, and playability aside, that's what really mattered in the marketing--looks.

 

Imagic's Beauty and Beast probably showed how a better overall job could have been done on the conversion, but even those visuals are not all that great.

[desiv]

Try the Apple II version. I swear you could almost hear that Six Million Dollar Man sound effect every time you jumped.

 

There was one for the Apple ][? I only ever played Cannonball Blitz...

Hey, I gotta go play that again now that you reminded me.. :-)

 

desiv

[atarian63]

Something else to hate about Intellivision's Donkey Kong is the fact that your jump is so damn slow.

Try the Apple II version. I swear you could almost hear that Six Million Dollar Man sound effect every time you jumped.

 

Tempest

Gotta ask.. How the heck can you play DK with an analog joystick?

I would think something would be lost.

[+save2600]

Gotta ask.. How the heck can you play DK with an analog joystick?

I would think something would be lost.

Same way we play most all of the Vectrex games. The software written doesn't have to take advantage of the analogue control if it doesn't want to. In other words, any value that gets detected will simply be digital - on or off. But yeah, by nature - analogue controllers can be a pain when playing certain games like Pac-man and such. Too spongy for my tastes.

[mbd30]

Lazy programming? I don't think so...there is some innovation present in 2600's DK. Be aware that it's Garry Kitchen's 2nd VCS game done while learning the system - the first was Space Jockey. According to him, he spent too much time and resources putting (relatively useless) hammers in the game when vertically-moving fireballs would have been better. Regardless...it was a fine attempt for 1982, and the game turned out to be one of the most popular.

 

DK isn't bad by Atari 2600 standards. Compare the visuals to the blocky flickeriness of 2600 "Kangaroo" for instance.

 

DK has a multi-colored sprite, no flicker, and slanting girders!