Games that should have been made for Intellivision

[pimpmaul69]

 

The irony is that someone started in on a port of an arcade game, realized it would be too much for the hardware (and would end up as a sub-standard port), and instead created one of the best 2600 games of all time. Many people even rank it as THE best 2600 game.

 

Instead of a programmer fighting against the hardware in a vain effort to make yet another arcade port, we ended up with a truly unique classic. Which is kinda what several people have been saying here. It's often a big waste of time to try to port something. Instead, try something new and you can end up with an amazing game.

 

Yar's Revenge supports what people like DZ and Tarzilla are saying in terms of the futility of trying to port every single game to the Intellivision.

yars revenge definitely is the best back in the day game on the 2600.

[BladeJunker]

 

The irony is that someone started in on a port of an arcade game, realized it would be too much for the hardware (and would end up as a sub-standard port), and instead created one of the best 2600 games of all time. Many people even rank it as THE best 2600 game.

 

Instead of a programmer fighting against the hardware in a vain effort to make yet another arcade port, we ended up with a truly unique classic. Which is kinda what several people have been saying here. It's often a big waste of time to try to port something. Instead, try something new and you can end up with an amazing game.

 

Yar's Revenge supports what people like DZ and Tarzilla are saying in terms of the futility of trying to port every single game to the Intellivision.

Well that is because it is a good game Yar's Revenge, doesn't change the circumstances of the original's failure. I'll continue to play Yar's always but Star Castle didn't happen in the 80s and I'm glad it finally got made.

 

Programmers fight against hardware limitations constantly, it goes with the job, raycasting engines were born from systems specs not being able to render true 3D efficiently so you fake it. I chatted with one of the guys involved with making software sprites on the VIC-20, it didn't exist but they made it happen. These efforts are not futile, they are creative solutions around HARD limitations. They aren't invented every day but I'd hardly tell anyone not to try.

 

While there are many good games that are written to the exact specs of the hardware you can also think outside the box and make something new. The 2600 is literally all about that, if they just made games to the default output it would be like 12 games total maybe using only 2 Player Objects, 2 Missles, a Playfield, and a Ball total on screen.

 

I really can't understand why I have to explain this option and I repeat option, I didn't say mandate or law. I just don't understand how every single piece of hardware has examples of system stretching tricks but the Intellivision doesn't and or does but nothing new could ever be added now. There is nothing wrong with staying within set parameters when you can but there also isn't anything wrong with non standard procedures if it produces a new result. Nobody here or anywhere has to work any more hard on their homebrew than they deem necessary.

[carlsson]

Another example of the outcome when you can't faithfully convert one game across platforms is Paradroid for the C64 that turned out to rely on 2D scrolling features that the ZX Spectrum could not reproduce. Instead, Steve Turner of Hewson Consultants made a completely unique, 3D isometric game Quazatron in the same universe. So in this case, you got two different games with common ties, both high rated on respective format and taking advantage of the specific hardware.

[+DZ-Jay]

I'll try to explain that better. When I say console maximized I mean each consoles maximum output, the best each one of them can do which varies. So when I say all ports are approximations of arcade originals is because they are, there is more often than not things cut or reduced.

 

I got that part, what I didn't understand was this: "Your work is so good, how come you don't want more people to see it?"

 

 

I find it hard to believe you don't understand these compromises when you work with this stuff. Porting is one big exercise in cutting, reducing, compressing, that is what makes it so hard. If it were just a 1:1 transfer anybody could do it.

 

Wow, what a way to build a straw-man. I think I will retire from this conversation if you insist on missing the point and attacking false arguments.

 

 

 

How did you get the idea that I did not understand the compromises of implementing ports on video game consoles?

 

 

Are you one of those people who believe that everybody must agree with your point of view, so dissent equates to being wrong? Because all this time, all I've said is that I want to encourage and promote programmers to make original content because that is my personal preference.

 

 

 

I will just add, again, that your view is a purely technical one, while I am approaching the scene -- my hobby -- from the fun and enjoyment perspective. I want to play games, and I want to make games that I want to play.

 

 

 

I think with IntvBASIC you will see those fun addictive titles you speak of for years to come. But as far as arcade ports that is expert territory in coding, all assembler in most cases. People want those arcade games you seem to say don't matter, I have some favorites but I'm not the only one asking.

 

Oh, I see now: You are an elitist.

 

Let the masses produce the icky dirty BASIC games for fun and stuff, and let the wizards do the real work in Assembly, like the real boys do. Good, I'm glad we got that out of the way.

 

I wonder if you knew that my game was written in Assembly Language? I also wonder if you've noticed me promoting the use of Assembly and building a programming library for making games for it, at the same time I provided feedback to programmers on usability and polishing? I never knew I was doing it wrong.

 

But thanks for showing me the error of my ways. I guess I should go learn IntyBASIC for my next game, I wouldn't want to do it wrong again.

 

 

 

French had to look that one up lol, a master stroke hmm. I may be naive technically and INTV is the least like other consoles in that regard of culture but that is a thing I see nearly daily in my searches of all gaming systems. System limit pushing is a common factor of most any forum not just in peer comparison but also with titles against other titles

 

In programming forums, yes; where macho pissing contests are the norm. Regular people just play the games they like. The Intellivision community is a weird mix of collectors and enthusiasts, where the focus is on polish of collateral -- but that's an argument for another day.

 

The closest example on INTV in an internal sense would probably be Donkey Kong versus DK2, we praise the heck out of DK2 because Coleco's version is so terrible. So in that regard minimum and maximum console capacity are measured and evaluated based on a game title.

 

Like I suggested in my previous post, not all arcade ports will be D2K's, especially when you start asking for games whose specific strengths are features not available on the Intellivision.

 

 

I understand why you don't want to get into that brawl so to speak for console popularity but again that is a thing. What I find frustrating is the diminishing perception of all pre NES consoles and there standing into the future. Over on Sega-16 they have their fight for the future too as Nintendo fanboys rewrite history since the Big N "won" the war against Sega so basically the stance is Nintendo invented everything first lol.

 

I guess I have thicker skin than that. I really do not care about "console wars" or pissing contests between home-brew communities. It's not my thing. I do want to play Intellivision games because I grew up with the Intellivision and I have a soft spot in my heart for it. It reminds me of my childhood and I want to cherish that.

 

Look, I am not against making ports -- my own game started as a port of Pac-Man. When learning a new platform, it is hard enough to wrestle with the technical capabilities of the machine; so removing an entire layer of creative design and invention and adhering to familiar mechanics, serves to accelerate the process.

 

What disappoints me is the apparent dependence on ports, the constant clamouring of the community for more of them, and the overstating of their importance by people like you who think that the technology is what matters. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't to the detriment of original creative works, either by dismissal or contempt.

 

I'm here for the games; if this were a community of technical wizards pissing over each other to push this boundary or that, I probably wouldn't be here. I'm 46 years-old and have better things to do with my time, and I rather spend it playing and making the games that I enjoy. I'm not the only one, but we are few. I wish there were more people in it for the fun, but I accept that there's all sorts of motivations.

 

I think I've gotten my point across and spoken my peace, so I won't pursue this. We will have to disagree, and you know what? That's OK.

 

-dZ.

[+DZ-Jay]

Programmers fight against hardware limitations constantly, it goes with the job, raycasting engines were born from systems specs not being able to render true 3D efficiently so you fake it. I chatted with one of the guys involved with making software sprites on the VIC-20, it didn't exist but they made it happen. These efforts are not futile, they are creative solutions around HARD limitations. They aren't invented every day but I'd hardly tell anyone not to try.

 

 

 

Most of the time, they are merely tech-demos and done for macho braggadocio. Unless they result in good games, but how many C=64 demo crews actually finished a (good) game?

 

 

 

 

I really can't understand why I have to explain this option and I repeat option, I didn't say mandate or law. I just don't understand how every single piece of hardware has examples of system stretching tricks but the Intellivision doesn't and or does but nothing new could ever be added now. There is nothing wrong with staying within set parameters when you can but there also isn't anything wrong with non standard procedures if it produces a new result. Nobody here or anywhere has to work any more hard on their homebrew than they deem necessary.

 

 

Reading comprehension? Look back, nobody is arguing against that. Nobody is saying that the boundaries of the Intellivision should not be pushed, or that games must follow old models and tricks. All we're saying is that the technology is not necessarily the most important thing. Does this make sense?

 

OK, I'm really done now. LOL!

 

-dZ.

Edited March 28, 2016 by DZ-Jay

[BladeJunker]

I got that part, what I didn't understand was this: "Your work is so good, how come you don't want more people to see it?"

I know you have your game up for anyone to try. I speak of more exposure for the platform itself which in turn makes your excellent work all the more visible. Some people offer the ROM for free, others sell them, and others sell limited carts which may or may not have illegitimate ROMs on the web. It's a broad sense matter, the Flashback reminds people that Intellivision existed and still exists but how far does that discovery last in the mind of the consumer?

 

Wow, what a way to build a straw-man. I think I will retire from this conversation if you insist on missing the point and attacking false arguments.

I'm sorry if you are bothered by this direction, I meant to inspire not alienate.

 

How did you get the idea that I did not understand the compromises of implementing ports on video game consoles?

Well so far I haven't seen much talk in regard to techniques beyond the normal operation of the hardware which I've seen on many other forums. So far it's pretty by the book ijs.

 

Are you one of those people who believe that everybody must agree with your point of view, so dissent equates to being wrong? Because all this time, all I've said is that I want to encourage and promote programmers to make original content because that is my personal preference.

Yeah I couldn't agree more so I don't know where this is coming from? I just suggested limit pushing pursuits as a direction for arcade ports but you and Zilla would hear nothing of the sort.

 

 

I will just add, again, that your view is a purely technical one, while I am approaching the scene -- my hobby -- from the fun and enjoyment perspective. I want to play games, and I want to make games that I want to play.

You can do whatever you like, I can't make you do anything.

 

 

Oh, I see now: You are an elitist.

First time I've been called that. Too bad we will likely never meet because if you knew me you'd see how far from that I am.

 

Let the masses produce the icky dirty BASIC games for fun and stuff, and let the wizards do the real work in Assembly, like the real boys do. Good, I'm glad we got that out of the way.

 

I wonder if you knew that my game was written in Assembly Language? I also wonder if you've noticed me promoting the use of Assembly and building a programming library for making games for it, at the same time I provided feedback to programmers on usability and polishing? I never knew I was doing it wrong.

 

But thanks for showing me the error of my ways. I guess I should go learn IntyBASIC for my next game, I wouldn't want to do it wrong again.

Now who sounds elitist, sarcastic or not.

 

I assumed your game was written in Assembler because it has the high quality of an officially released game bitd. I never said you did anything wrong, you're leaping bro.

 

 

In programming forums, yes; where macho pissing contests are the norm. Regular people just play the games they like. The Intellivision community is a weird mix of collectors and enthusiasts, where the focus is on polish of collateral -- but that's an argument for another day.

Yeah it really is unique in that regard, I'm just trying to feel out the landscape because I am blind figuratively speaking.

 

Like I suggested in my previous post, not all arcade ports will be D2K's, especially when you start asking for games whose specific strengths are features not available on the Intellivision.

Yeah again there is always things in arcade games hard to do on any hardware but developers have found good compromises over the decades.

 

I guess I have thicker skin than that. I really do not care about "console wars" or pissing contests between home-brew communities. It's not my thing. I do want to play Intellivision games because I grew up with the Intellivision and I have a soft spot in my heart for it. It reminds me of my childhood and I want to cherish that.

 

Look, I am not against making ports -- my own game started as a port of Pac-Man. When learning a new platform, it is hard enough to wrestle with the technical capabilities of the machine; so removing an entire layer of creative design and invention and adhering to familiar mechanics, serves to accelerate the process.

 

What disappoints me is the apparent dependence on ports, the constant clamouring of the community for more of them, and the overstating of their importance by people like you who think that the technology is what matters. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't to the detriment of original creative works, either by dismissal or contempt.

 

I'm here for the games; if this were a community of technical wizards pissing over each other to push this boundary or that, I probably wouldn't be here. I'm 46 years-old and have better things to do with my time, and I rather spend it playing and making the games that I enjoy. I'm not the only one, but we are few. I wish there were more people in it for the fun, but I accept that there's all sorts of motivations.

 

I think I've gotten my point across and spoken my peace, so I won't pursue this. We will have to disagree, and you know what? That's OK.

 

-dZ.

Your skin doesn't have to be thick at all, I'm not attacking you. If this were a "flame war" I'd have probably pulled out childish insults by now.

 

I still think you're underestimating the importance of ports, I'm not dismissing creative works as much as you are fighting me on ports and there place in the gaming landscape along with the necessary limit pushing that makes them possible on hardware other than the arcade PCBs.

[+Lathe26]

 

The irony is that someone started in on a port of an arcade game, realized it would be too much for the hardware (and would end up as a sub-standard port), and instead created one of the best 2600 games of all time. Many people even rank it as THE best 2600 game.

 

Instead of a programmer fighting against the hardware in a vain effort to make yet another arcade port, we ended up with a truly unique classic. Which is kinda what several people have been saying here. It's often a big waste of time to try to port something. Instead, try something new and you can end up with an amazing game.

 

Yar's Revenge supports what people like DZ and Tarzilla are saying in terms of the futility of trying to port every single game to the Intellivision.

 

I don't know. If they can port Grand Theft Auto to the Intellivision, I think they can port anything. I look forward to World of Warcraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdHG5-K8E1E

[Intymike]

If they can do World of Warcraft on the Atari VCS, the Intellivision should be no problem! Remember, it has twice the Bits!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxay8-d9YTo

[mr_intv]

Time to bump this thread. Id still like to see a new racing game.....is a first person style car racing game possible? What about a Mariokart-esq type of game. Super Sprint? Super Pro Horse Racing? Or something entirely new like a Greyhound Racing game? Turbo could use a makeover, even though Im starting to grasp those steering controls finally.

[+intellivotion]

Rev, make a port of Enduro for Intellivision and release it at Portland!

[carlsson]

I wonder if the math + redefinition of GRAM would make a first person racing game a challenge. I found a JavaScript racer with Out Run graphics that is well documented, but then JS (*) on a modern PC is a completely different kettle of fish than CP1610 assembly code (or worse, compiled IntyBASIC) on the Intellivision.

 

(*) Although I just ported another, much less demanding piece of code from JS to IntyBASIC

Edited January 31, 2018 by carlsson

[+DZ-Jay]

I wonder if the math + redefinition of GRAM would make a first person racing game a challenge. I found a JavaScript racer with Out Run graphics that is well documented, but then JS (*) on a modern PC is a completely different kettle of fish than CP1610 assembly code (or worse, compiled IntyBASIC) on the Intellivision.

 

(*) Although I just ported another, much less demanding piece of code from JS to IntyBASIC

 

I think Arnauld did a demo of this some time ago.

 

-dZ.

[First Spear]

I think we got some of this with "Scarfinger" http://www.intellivision.us/intvgames/scarfinger/scarfinger.php

 

There might be a better way of doing it in 2018 though, with all that the coding community knows now, compared to 2005. Might be.

 

I wonder if the math + redefinition of GRAM would make a first person racing game a challenge. I found a JavaScript racer with Out Run graphics that is well documented, but then JS (*) on a modern PC is a completely different kettle of fish than CP1610 assembly code (or worse, compiled IntyBASIC) on the Intellivision.

 

(*) Although I just ported another, much less demanding piece of code from JS to IntyBASIC

[carlsson]

Nice one!

 

I am also thinking of 4K Race Refueled which Paolo Ferraris made for the ZX Spectrum in 2005. Now that is a rather different, more powerful system but it impressed me greatly that he could fit in 4 kilobytes of code + data.

[Bill Loguidice]

I think we got some of this with "Scarfinger" http://www.intellivision.us/intvgames/scarfinger/scarfinger.php

 

There might be a better way of doing it in 2018 though, with all that the coding community knows now, compared to 2005. Might be.

 

 

I suspect that's about what you'd get out of anything with reasonable graphical embellishments. It reminds me of The Dukes of Hazzard on the ColecoVision. Cool looking for the time, but not really a playable game by most other standards.

[Intymike]

Maybe a modern top down racer is more suitable for the Intellivision.

[m-crew]

I still say Galaga should of been made for the intellivision..

[mr_intv]

Id really like to see a Super Sprint style game, if the 2600 has Sprint Master, then surely the intellivision could do it better.

[ColecoGamer]

I know I’m late to the party, but I would really like to see Krull for the Intellivision. The Atari 2600 version of Krull was decent, but nothing special. I’d like to see a game that is more like the arcade version.

[+intellivotion]

Sea Quest! I want Sea Quest for the Intellivision! Why should that stinky VCS get it and not the Intellivision?

soon soon

[+intellivotion]

How about Super Intelly Bros. (...)

soon soon

[+intellivotion]

PARSEC

 

TI-99 4/A (Original)

Gameplay

 

Commodore 64Intro

Gameplay

 

Parsec was probably the first video game I ever played (On my friends TI-99 4/A) and I was just fascinated by it at the age of 8 or 9...

I have not played the C64 version, but it looks really good.

 

An Intellivision version could be inspired by both I think...

soon soon

[xybot67]

I know its been said before, but I think that Gyruss and Tempest would be great with the disc.

[+intellivotion]

apologies for the spamming, but re-reading the old comments I realized how many "Games that should have been made for Intellivision" mentioned here have actually been made and released in the meantime (Ms. Pac-Man, a good Zaxxon, Missile Command, Flappy Bird) and how many will soon be available.

It's awesome!

 

p.s.: Am I the only one around here who likes Raiders of the Lost Ark? I bet it would be great on Intellivision

[carlsson]

What is this, developers and publishers listening to the customers?