Atari's choice of packins for the XEGS

[DracIsBack]

I've never felt Atari to be "strong" when it came to pack-in choices for their consoles. Whereas Nintendo and Sega both did a great job of this (particularly Nintendo), Atari, all the way back to the 2600, didn't.

 

The worst culprit, I felt, was the XE Game System. Atari had such high hopes for this system but what they chose for packins - ugh!

 

Game 1: Flight Simulator II.

 

OK - I get that it shows the potential power of the XEGS as a computer, but can you think of a duller game for a hyperactive 12 year old to play. I still look at the excited kid playing FLIGHT SIMULATOR II in that XEGS print ad and I howl with laughter. POLE POSITION II on the 7800 may have only had four levels, but at least it was fast paced!

 

Game 2: Bug Hunt.

 

Atari wants to say, "we've got a light gun too!" and includes this game. Graphics are ok, but the gun accuracy is awful. I mean, it's utterly abysmal. The game, IMO, grows old really fast.

 

Game 3: Missile Command.

 

OK - this is good. Let's take a (then) eight year old game and throw it on the system. The graphics were bad, even compared to 2600 games that were out at the time (cmon - look at SOLARIS and CALIFORNIA GAMES) ... would anyone have been into it.

 

<sigh>

[+davidcalgary29]

I'm not sure what expectations Atari had for the XEGS, except that it would help to reduce excess stock of 8-bit components.

 

You are right about those pack-ins, though I think that they were chosen to show the range of gaming possibilities on the XEGS, and not meant to intentionally cripple the system. It's also possible that Atari was still working on cart technology at the time of the XEGS release, and simply couldn't include its really advanced games ("Airball", "Crossbow", "Crime Busters") as pack-ins. The first XEGS games that I saw in Canada were re-packaged Warner-era games ("Dig Dug", "Caverns of Mars", "Ms. Pac-Man"); dedicated 64K XEGS cart games appeared about six months later, in early 1988.

 

I'm sure if Atari decided to continue XEGS support it would have included different pack-ins, but the life of the system was too short (1987-89) to know for sure.

[bcostin]

Yep, I've wondered what they were thinking myself. I'm sure I'm just sentimental, but Missile Command is ok as a built-in title. It's not a showcase for the power of the XEGS by any means, but it's fun, it's a nice version of an iconic Atari game, and, hey, it's built in.

 

But Flight Simulator II? Had they ever actually played it? Sure, it's nice if you're into that sort of thing, but it wasn't going to attract the buyers they needed if they intended to get back into the console business. Bug Hunt only served to poison the well for other new titles.

 

Assuming that Atari didn't have any in-house titles ready (due to their typical lack of planning) I think the best option would've been to license a proven action game from Synapse or somebody and re-release that as a pack-in right away. Maybe even do some minor updates to freshen the look.

 

That would've cost money, though, and it seems the XEGS was the poster child of done-on-the-cheap products. Penny wise, pound foolish.

[Mindfield]

I always felt Combat was a poor choice of pack-in for the 2600. Sure, it was fun when two players were involved, but what if you didn't always have someone to play with? Let's face it. Combat isn't very much fun when the other tank just sits there.

 

Now, my first system was a Coleco Gemini, and at least it came with Donkey Kong. Sure, VCS Donkey Kong was rather crap, but it was a lot better in my eyes than Combat.

 

What did they pack the Lynx with?

[+davidcalgary29]

"California Games" was the pack-in game with the majority of Lynx Is, but some of them were also sold as bare-bones units. My Lynx I came with "California Games" when I purchased it in '90.

 

Other Lynx pack-in titles included "Batman Returns" and "S.T.U.N. Runner" which certainly would have made an excellent showcase for the Lynx. I think that the Lynx had the best pack-ins of all of the Atari consoles.

[mos6507]

Atari Corp never had any understanding or appreciation for game development. It was just something they did as a crass reaction to the rebirth of the industry. Their main goal was the ST.

 

What few good games they had after the crash were developed before the crash (GCC) or inherited from other companies (Epyx) or they just got lucky with naturally talented contractors (Doug Neubauer).

 

So I don't know how they ever thought they could compete.

 

It wasn't the hardware's fault. It was the software.

[bjk7382]

It wasn't the hardware's fault.  It was the software.

 

So that is why they are still making software to this day. It seems like they would have stayed in the market they were strong in. Unless management totally changed when it was sold.

[Room 34]

I always felt Combat was a poor choice of pack-in for the 2600.  Sure, it was fun when two players were involved, but what if you didn't always have someone to play with?  Let's face it.  Combat isn't very much fun when the other tank just sits there.

Agreed! The Sears version's pack-in of Target Fun (a.k.a. Air-Sea Battle) made a lot more sense.

 

They should've packed in Indy 500 and included the driving controllers with every console!

[Joey Kay]

I think the XEGS was trying to poise itself as a more sophisticated machine, thus Flight Similator II... however, I agree they could have found some better pack in than Missile Command. Weren't they just using left-over ROM space for Missile Command? But there must have been some more colorful and exciting small ROM classic that could've worked better.

 

As for 2600 pack-ins, why on earth did Atari pack-in Combat on 2600's that only included one joystick??? What a rip! You either had to buy a second stick or a different game since you couldn't really play that system out of the box...

 

Cheers!

 

Joey

[Callipygous]

FS II was an expensive pack-in because it used the new 128k cartridge plus it included all of the manuals. Of course, it was a clear case of not understanding the target audience.