82 replies to this topic

[atari5200dude82]

The question that most people want to know. I have both systems. Love them both. Staying neutral in this one. But you decide?

The 2600 has  a huge library of games, plus accessories, paddles, trackball etc. Some games have really cool and good graphics.

Intellivsion better graphics. Great  sports titles and other great games. Plus intellivoice and Ecs system, 2600 apapter, music keyboard.

[PsychoKittyNet]

I learned to love the INTV recently, in fact I built a sizable collection over a few weeks, but still I think I prefer the 2600. A lot more games and a better controller.

[tz101]

I grew up on VCS so have a preference here. Got into INTV a couple years ago for the first time and have amassed a nice collection. Overall, it is a nice system with good games of its own. I do believe that VCS wins out on shear number of games and controller options though.

[retrorussell]

PsychoKittyNet, on Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:57 PM, said:

I learned to love the INTV recently, in fact I built a sizable collection over a few weeks, but still I think I prefer the 2600. A lot more games and a better controller.

Hear hear!  Especially over the controller.. If one were to take a poll on which system had the worst controller, Intellivision gets my nod.

[Random Terrain]

Intellivision has weird graphics that don't look as real and alive as Atari 2600 graphics. Intellivision also has a crappy controller. I think it's made out of a nippless robot areola.

[zylon]

I play 5200 more than both 2600+INTV together.   That said, I enjoy 2600 a lot more than INTV mostly due to the amount of games available then and now. The INTV had its place then as it does now. It still provides a choice and alternately, a way to play some of your old favorites in a different way.

[Jess Ragan]

This debate has probably been done a thousand times over, but in hindsight, I would say that the Atari 2600 is the most enjoyable of the two systems.  Why?  Because it offers the jump-in-and-play kind of gaming experience that defined its generation.  Intellivision games have a huge learning curve, especially for the time, and having to dig through an instruction manual and mess around with a button-filled keypad is a real killjoy if you just want to sit back and blast some aliens.  There are some things the more advanced Intellivision does better (especially sports!) and I admire the system for its pioneering spirit.  Nobody ever tried anything like B-17 Bomber or Utopia on a console before the Intellivision came along, and the results are stunning.  Nevertheless, there's a lot of prep work involved in playing Intellivision games and that's rarely the case on the Atari 2600.  It was designed to be simple and flexible, and brilliantly succeeds.

[high voltage]

Hm 8 bit vs 16 bit.

But I have to concur with Random, Inty has weird graphics

Edited by high voltage, Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:20 PM.

[AtariLeaf]

Random Terrain, on Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:02 PM, said:

Intellivision has weird graphics that don't look as real and alive as Atari 2600 graphics. Intellivision also has a crappy controller. I think it's made out of a nippless robot areola.

That exactly what I told my school friend who had an Intellivision when we were 11 years old. Strange how those old sayings just trickle down through the generations.

[cmart604]

Love them both and own them both for different reasons, but the INTV gets the nod for me and I have ZERO problems with the controllers.

[rmaerz]

I got a bargain on an Intellivision which was the only way I was going to buy it...

From the little that I've played, BurgerTime and Lock N Chase look real nice...

I forget which one looked and played horrible - Pac-Man? Donkey Kong?

In any event, at the time the Intelli came out we were already invested heavily in the 2600 to buy one.  And by that time graphics and games were getting better on the 2600 anyway.

[jaybird3rd]

It's difficult to compare them side-by-side because the two systems are so different, and are suited for different types of games.  Which one is "better" for you really depends on what type of games you like.  As someone who owns 93 original Intellivision cartridges and over 150 original 2600 cartridges, I would say that the Intellivision library, both first-party and third-party, has a higher percentage of high-quality games than the 2600 library does, even though it is smaller at 125 released titles.  The Intellivision isn't a system I grew up with, either: I've been playing the 2600 since about 1981, but I hadn't even seen an Intellivision until I was in my early thirties.

I compared the two systems in more detail in the Intellivision forum:

jaybird3rd, on Mon Sep 6, 2010 2:24 PM, said:

If you ask people who grew up on Atari consoles what they don't like about the Intellivision, the answers you'll get basically boil down to "I don't like it because it isn't an Atari": the controllers are different, the graphics look different, the types of games in its library are different, etc.  I think what helped me is that nostalgia doesn't play much of a role for me when I sit down to play a game on a classic computer or console: I still like playing the games I played when I was a kid, but I'm not so limited by my experience that I can't appreciate something different on its own terms.

Regarding the much-maligned hand controllers: in my opinion, the main stumbling block that modern gamers have to overcome is their familiarity with gamepads.  If you try to use the hand controller like a gamepad, as newcomers to the system often do, you're only making it harder on yourself because that isn't the best way to use it.  For side-to-side games like Astrosmash, use your index and middle fingers to "rock" the disc back and forth; for four-direction games (like Snafu), I often find that it's easier to "spin" the disc around in a circle with your index finger to reach the directionals, rather than manhandling it by pushing it up, down, left, or right with your thumb.  You have to find a method that works for you, but again, don't approach it like a gamepad!  It also helps if you can find a way of holding the controllers that makes the side buttons more comfortable.

Once you get used to them, you'll find that the hand controllers aren't as bad as their reputation might suggest: they offer sixteen directions, a feature unique to the Intellivision and Aquarius (and yes, it does make a difference in games that were designed for it).  They also offer a keypad for secondary input, an idea that the Atari 2600 needed a whole separate controller to implement.

jaybird3rd, on Mon Sep 6, 2010 9:56 PM, said:

As far as the Intellivision software is concerned, it's inevitable that Intellivision games and Atari games are very different, because both consoles are different and were designed to appeal to different audiences.

The 2600 was intended primarily for home conversions of popular arcade games, and the initial games that were made for it reflected that.  On the other hand, the Intellivision seems to have been aimed at more of an upscale market: it was much more expensive, it was advertised in mature outlets like Playboy Magazine, its woodgrain and brown plastic case didn't look like something that belonged on a spaceship, its pitchman was the urbane and erudite George Plimpton, and its games were seen as more sophisticated and more realistic ("the closest thing to the real thing").  Its initial library of games were aimed at a wider audience than kids who hung out at video arcades, so you had very detailed implementations of classic games (card games, board games, Horse Racing, etc), sports games, simulations, and other types of games that the general public was familiar with.  So, in the beginning, the Atari was the "kid's console," while the Intellivision was the "thinking man's console" (hence its full name, "Intelligent Television").

As the video game market grew more competitive, and as it became clear that space shooters and arcade games were driving more sales, the game ideas for both consoles became more intermingled: the Intellivision gradually got more arcade-style games, while the 2600 got more detailed and sophisticated games.  But in both cases, the game designs were closely tied to the capabilities of the hardware, and games that were designed for one couldn't easily be ported to the other.  So, out of necessity, the two consoles maintained very different personalities, and Intellivision games certainly have a different "feel" than Atari games as a result.  You'll either like them or you won't, but it's a mistake to dismiss them merely because they aren't just like what you might have played when you were a kid.  I think the 2600 turned out to be the more versatile of the two platforms because its minimalist design was more flexible (again, a happy accident on Atari's part), but the Intellivision still has a lot to offer, and if you're willing to expand your horizons a bit and give it an honest chance, you may find that you'll like it.

[zylon]

I'd agree with the percentage thing. I only still want to play about 5% of the original 2600 games, but still would play about 10% of the INTV releases. In numbers that'd be about 30 2600 games and 12 INTV games.

[Gregory DG]

My opinion:

Intellivision = 90% of the games are boring and/or overly complicated. TERRIBLE controller.

Atari 2600 = Endless pick up and play games that are fun! Includes the world's most perfect controller.

[SlowCoder]

Looks like the majority points to 2600.  I have many more play hours on the 2600 than I do the IntV.  While I do enjoy playing the IntV, it just slightly misses the plug-in-turn-on simplicity of the 2600.  The reason is due, again, to the controllers.  With my schedule I often only have time for a quick game.  Trying to remember how to use the controllers in the IntV makes it frustrating for that period of time.  To me that only counts the IntV down, but not out.  When I have time I will dedicate more to playing the IntV.

[PsychoKittyNet]

Gregory DG, on Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:41 PM, said:

My opinion:

Intellivision = 90% of the games are boring and/or overly complicated. TERRIBLE controller.

Atari 2600 = Endless pick up and play games that are fun! Includes the world's most perfect controller.

I have to disagree, there are a lot of great pick up and play games for the INTV. Astrosmash, Beauty and the Beast,  Buzz Bombers, Burgertime, the list goes on. The INTV controller is much better than it is let on to be, very fluid once you get the hang of it, I do prefer the 2600 joystick, but  the INTV one works well.

[NE146]

Intellivision can't really match the speed and fluidity of the faster 2600 action games. At least not that I've seen.

[maiki]

I have never seen or played Intellivision, but judging from the videos and description:

2600 is technologically older
2600 has better controller
2600 has faster CPU
2600 has 2x higher resolution
2600 has more colourful graphics in many games

Intellivision is technologically younger
Intellivision has more sprites per scanline
Intellivision has far more RAM = more complex games
Intellivision has better sound hardware with full scale of notes (yep the famous AY 3-8910)

So, probably owning both is the good option if there are enough good games for Intellivision.

[Stan]

Other than a handful of games, the Intellivision is pretty pointless.  That's about all that needs to be said.

[GroovyBee]

maiki, on Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:55 PM, said:

2600 has faster CPU
2600 has 2x higher resolution

Inty has a 16 bit CPU. The 2600 does not have 2x higher resolution over the Inty in the X direction. When it comes to sprites the Inty can equal the 2600 because its software programmable. However for BACKTAB "cards" the 2600 does always have 2x resolution in Y.

[jaybird3rd]

Stan, on Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:56 PM, said:

Other than a handful of games, the Intellivision is pretty pointless.  That's about all that needs to be said.

There are much more than "a handful" of worthwhile Intellivision titles, and many of them have the same "pick up and play" quality that we all enjoy so much about the 2600.  Even those games that are "deeper" than most Atari games don't require that much extra time to learn (no more than learning to play 2600 Star Raiders, for example).  There are still a surprising number of Intellivision games--including many of the best ones--that are readily and inexpensively available, even new in the box, for anyone who's interested in exploring the system on their own.

About all you really have to remember about Intellivision games is that, when you see the title screen, you need to press the correct button or the disc to select your level of difficulty.  Pressing the disc usually selects the hardest/fastest level, which is the one you want the most often if you're a veteran player.  Those who complain that the Intellivision is "so slow" probably pressed something else (such as "1" on the keypad) and started the game on a slower speed.  There's also a built-in pause feature, which I believe works for all Intellivision games: just hold down "9" and "1" on the keypad.

[rhindlethereddragon]

atari5200dude82, on Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:51 PM, said:

The question that most people want to know. I have both systems. Love them both. Staying neutral in this one. But you decide?

The 2600 has  a huge library of games, plus accessories, paddles, trackball etc. Some games have really cool and good graphics.

Intellivsion better graphics. Great  sports titles and other great games. Plus intellivoice and Ecs system, 2600 apapter, music keyboard.

Well if you ask on this forum (the atari 2600 forum), you should obviously expect answers slanted towards the Atari. If you ask this exact same thing on the Intellivision forum, you're going to get answers biased for the Intellivision against the Atari.

Asking this question on the Atari 2600 forum isn't going to give you the unbiased answers you're looking for.

[revolutionika]

high voltage, on Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:19 PM, said:

Hm 8 bit vs 16 bit.

But I have to concur with Random, Inty has weird graphics

What games in particular have weird graphics to you guys?

Some of the games are pretty much similar to the 2600, such as Pitfall and Frogger. If anything they are better looking. Even Sight Stalker is WAAAAYY better.

Now if you are talking about The graphics of Vectron, you are right...

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

Heh another another VS thread! Bound for glory I am sure!

Edited by OldSchoolRetroGamer, Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:47 PM.

[Keatah]

Despite the infantile baby graphics, the Atari 2600 video circuitry is freewheeling while Intellivision can't get out of its own way.

Edited by Keatah, Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:54 PM.