almightytodd
-
Content Count
916 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by almightytodd
-
-
Yes, clicking on the picture from the MSN main page just takes you to the PC World article. I think a more significant link to follow from the tech.msn.com page, is this one, which takes you to an article titled, "The 10 Worst Games of All Time". Ranked number one is Atari's E.T. I believe this is totally undeserved and is the result of an urban legend, born of ignorance. I totally agree with the opinions expressed by Duane Alan Hahn, who explains that if you actually bother to read the manual, and come to understand how to play the game, not only is it definitely not the worst game ever, it's actually one of the best.
It is definitely inaccurate to claim that the game "caused" the collapse of the home videogame industry. Atari suffered financially because of it, but that was more due to over-production than to the game itself not being a good game. If the pits had been made smaller (available now as a hack) and perhaps game 1 and 3 had been swapped (...so that the game versions became progressively more difficult the higher the game number... ...intuitive to how most other Atari titles were programmed), it might even had been a huge success. And if Atari had more than five weeks to program it to where they could have done some user testing of it, before rushing it into production to meet the holiday season deadline, these drawbacks might have been discovered and corrected.
I noticed another thread starting here, talking about the original Atari port of Pac Man. That game is also on the list, at spot number five...
-
...available only as ROM files... ...Is that right?
nope.
Yeah, I guess if I'd looked at a few posts down, it might have clicked that Lily's Woods is a Pitfall hack...
...nevermind.
-
I would think most hacks (...and there are some REALLY good ones) are available only as ROM files, since there are copyright reasons preventing them from being sold on cart. Is that right?
-
I'm thinking that what has always been lacking for the 7800 system, is four-player games. I believe an adapter could be created, to allow two CX40 joysticks to deliver various voltage divisions of the 5 volts sent to the paddle controllers, which plugged in two to a port, allowing for four-player joystick games. The trouble is, it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario in that such a game would have to be programmed with the four-player joysticks in mind, and then the four-player joystick adapters would have to exist to allow for development of the game.
I'm not sure if what made Gauntlet more fun, was that you were trying to stay alive on as few quarters as possible, or if it was the cooperative competition dynamic of three players, with different attributes of speed, strength and magic. I always thought the arcade version of Rampage was more fun with three monsters tearing up the town at the same time too...
-
This is a terrific little game, vdub. Congratulations on your nearing the finish line.
-
It's always good to see portions of our technological history restored to working order. I'm doing something similar with some electric guitars that I "saved" from pawn shops. Details here...
Do you plan on selling any of them once you have some fully restored with controllers and power supplies? I have a friend who recently acquired a 2600 who tells me the controllers only work in the right port. He said he opened it up and didn't see anything that looked obviously wrong on the PC board. Would you consider taking his in on trade with a nominal fee for your work and for shipping?
-
I've created a Secret Quest web page with maps and codes for anyone who's interested. If you have additional information to what I've written there, reply to this post, PM me, send smoke signals... whatever.
Thanks ,
-
I think a better solution would be to implement the games turned 90 degrees. Many games (like Galaxian and Pac-man) in the arcade have the monitor turned 90 degrees. It is very easy to make vertical strips of enemies on the 2600 and 7800. A sideway galaxian would be much nicer looking and much easier to implement. Trying to squeeze the extended veritcal detail of arcade games into the low horizontal resolution of the 2600 is a poor choice IMO.
This is what I'm thinking also. Here are some mock-ups:
As you can see, you wouldn't have to physically turn your TV sideways (...or lie on your side) because the scoring/status information would still be oriented horizontally. But I would think the actual gameplay would be a more accurate representation of the coin-op versions, because the spacial relationships of the on-screen objects would be preserved.
-
Is it just me? Or does it seem like some of the Mattel ports to the 2600 play better than their Intellivision counter-parts, while the Atari ports to Intellivision are better than the 2600 versions?
-
Hmnnnn...
I dunno if you need to drop $2000 to accomplish the kind of frame-rates and processing power that a PS3 or XBox360 are producing.
I'm sure you can't do it for $600, so I see your point, roughly, though.
I'm talking about a true monster gaming PC with the latest video cards and Blue-Ray DVD (like the PS3 has)... I guess I have something like this in mind... (one of the lower-priced AlienWare PCs, actually...)
-
It looks like Id software DOOM is in the lead with the most votes
-
I've got a feeling that if I ever get any hands-on time with a Wii, I'll want one. But I can't see the PS3 or the X360 offering anything that is so new and different that I get hooked and have to have it.
To me, consoles like PS3 and X360 are for players who want the experience of playing games on a $2,000 hot-rodded gaming PC... ...without having to spend $2,000 on a hot-rodded gaming PC.
-
I fear you got me wrong, basically I was trying to say that I can't take a position, because I need to play it some more first
BTW: What do you know about my stature? Did you somewhere find a photo from me?
Basically, I'm saying I admire you for not feeling like you need to go along with the apparent consensus that Adventure is the greatest game ever made, and that you're willing to give Secret Quest a chance. So far as "stature" goes, I was referring to your Moderator status, and over 5,000 forum posts.
I'M NOT WORTHY! I'M NOT WORTHY!
-
So the difference for me is that Secret Quest is linear - you must do specific things in a certain order to complete it (though it is fun to do so). Adventure though is decidedly non-linear - and there are always different options for how to proceed. Adventure remains fun long after the satisfied glow of finishing Secret Quest fades away.
A very good, objective analysis. Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for in this post.
I'll still go with Adventure as well... Still, I do agree with you that Secret Quest gets a raw deal. It is fun to explore the later levels, which are huge and very confusing.
Another fun game in this vein that nobody ever seems to play is Dark Chambers. It has over twenty levels, 2 player co-op, and is pretty fun as well.
I was playing Dark Chambers last weekend with my 17 year-old daughter. She exclaimed, "Hey, this is like Gauntlet". I was impressed with the level of graphic detail, the cooperative play, and the programming to get a scroller-type action game ported to a 2600.
...Not saying that Secret Quest is any better though. I only recently started playing it, giving it a second chance after reading the manual
It is significant to me that an Atarian of your stature would take this position. Thanks for your reply.
If I may parrot some other comments, SQ is very repetitive. All the rooms look the same. There's no randomness like the bat. There are no monsters that chase you through the rooms like the dragons. It's confusing because there are so many map layouts.
When I ran a "poll" for the best Atari games ever, Adventure was #1. I contacted Warren Robinett and asked for some words about why, and he sent me this write up.
Warren's article was very informative and brought up a lot of issues I hadn't really given thought to. Thank's for posting the link. I think I'll give Adventure another chance... ...after I've spent some more time with SQ.
Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful replies to this thread. I was hoping that this wasn't a rehash of a previous discussion. I did a search of the forum for Secret Quest and didn't find anything exactly like this topic, so I hope you found this discussion "fresh".
Thanks again.
-
The game "Adventure" frequently scores very well as one of the "best Atari 2600 games". In fact, the latest "Top 100 2600 Games of all Time" list ranks it as number 2. In contrast, "Secret Quest" does not even make it into the top 100. My first exposure to either of these games was through their inclusion in the Flashback 2 Adventure Games section.
I can't help but wonder if the popularity that Adventure enjoys over Secret Quest has its basis in the chronology of the two games. It seems to me that Adventure was ground-breaking in its appearance, as one of the first video games that combined the puzzle-solving nature of role-playing games such as those available for TRS-80 and Apple II computers of that era, with the graphic nature of the then current crop of coin-op arcade games. Playing Adventure was certainly a far different experience from the typical reflex-action games of the time, such as Pong, Air-Sea-Battle, and Combat; games that if not direct ports of coin-op games, were certainly in the same spirit of "try to stay alive and get a higher score".
Secret Quest was one of the last games released for the 2600, and had very little new to offer in comparison to the numerous side-scroller action/adventure games being played on the NES at that time. While the "enter a code to restart where you left off" feature was innovative for a 2600 game, it's not as though there weren't any NES games doing something similar (Megaman comes to mind).
Still, from my perspective of evaluating each game strictly on its merits as "new to me", I feel that Secret Quest is getting a raw deal. I've tried to give Adventure a chance to become a game that I love to play, but as I direct the motions of my little colored square on the screen, and wind up-and-down along the maze section to try and reach the move-able bridge, I inevitably reach the point where I exclaim, "This is boring!" and instinctively open up the "Deluxe Invaders" hack in an emulator and try to clear a few screens.
This past weekend was the first time I gave Secret Quest a real chance. I played it on Stella, so I could stop and take screen-shots along the way to build a map. My joy in completing the first level reminded me of my first experience of playing the PC game, "Doom". I knew that the first level was intentionally simple, compared to the levels that were to come; provided as a "confidence builder" to prevent players from becoming frustrated and giving up before really giving the game a chance.
So far, the game seems to have a pretty good balance between puzzle-solving/navigation and fighting bad guys. If you can kill the bad guys quickly enough, you can actually increase your supply of energy/oxygen, as opposed to just trying to keep it from reducing. I get the feeling this will become important later on, as the enemies become harder to kill, and the size of the stations becomes larger.
I don't know if there is any context where Adventure and Secret Quest could be compared and evaluated objectively in such a way that SQ could end up rated as the superior game. The fact of the matter is that the history of these two games, and the nostalgic feelings we have when we play them does color our perception of whether we consider them "good" or "bad". The degree of actual participation (or lack thereof) by Nolan Bushnell in the design of the game seems to have an overall negative impact on people's feelings about the game. I'm just trying to give both games a chance, and rate my feelings about them objectively by my own experiences with them.
-
I think that remains one of the strengths of the 2600, and where it faltered in part. The 5200 and CV really moved the emphasis to solo gaming on arcade ports. The 2600 tried to compete there, and it just couldn't, really... but looking back, the CV and 5200 never had the family-room titles that the 2600 did.
The solo gaming vs. family/group experience aspect is a really good point. This is an observation that has been made by many here and I believe was one motivating factor in Darrell's creation of the Medieval Mayhem game. I think the idea of bringing people together to share in the videogame experience is the reason behind the huge success of the Wii.
-
Possibly, but to be honest I don't think it would be worth it, Pac-man collection is just about the best thing that has ever been released for the 7800.
I think I'm inclined to agree with you, Mimo. Awesome programming, Bob!
-
The screenshots on the link provided really illustrate an issue that I brought up in the 2600 Forum... the issue of portrait vs. landscape orientation. In that discussion thread, Supercat makes the very valid point that the 2600 has severe limits that affect objects sharing the same horizontal line differently than objects aligned vertically. The Spectravision game "Planet Patrol" is able to get around this somehow, and plays as a vertical scroller turned sideways:
For "dot-eater" games such as Pac-Man, I noted that the NES port captured the screen orientation of the original coin-op, by putting the scoring information off to the side:
This tactic obviously wouldn't work for the 2600, but I wonder about whether a 7800 port could get away with it?
Any thoughts?
-
I was 17 years old when the Atari VCS first appeared, and it became our "family" Christmas present for 1977 (Heavy Sixer SN#17718K). By 1982, I was a struggling college student, with a wife, kid in diapers, and another one on the way. In short, I was in no financial position to be chasing after the latest home-gaming trend.
But I still have intense memories of walking into some store somewhere, and seeing a Colecovision being demonstrated. I had seen the Atari 400 and 800 computers, and noted that they seemed to be a lot like the Apple II in many ways; except just a little bit better in every area of performance. I had heard rumors of the new Atari gaming console, and understood it to be basically an "Atari 800 without a keyboard". I thought to myself, "Gee, sounds expensive". In just a passing scan of the available games for the 5200, it seemed like they were the same games as were available for the 2600, except with better graphics; not very inspiring.
So when I actually saw the graphics and game-play of a Colecovision, it was like, "Wow! That looks just like the picture on the screen of a machine I would have to feed quarters to in order to play." I was never a big fan of the coin-op version of Donkey Kong - it seemed unfair to me that I had to start again at the very bottom each time Mario "died", regardless of how close I was to the top. But the fidelity of the translation from arcade to home-machine was quite impressive. Also quite impressive, was the news that an add-on module would be available to make this new machine compatible with all of the existing Atari 2600 games. Very cool.
So now, years later, I have inherited our family's original Heavy Sixer, and also picked up a couple 7800's along the way. I also have a few plug-n-play units and a Flashback 2. But the truth is, I'm more likely to play classic games and the new home-brews through an emulator, than fire-up one of the old systems or the FB2.
I've noticed that there is some activity in the home-brew scene for Colecovision, and I understand it has the development advantage that it can be programmed in C. I see that there are a few forums devoted to Colecovision here at AtariAge. A Google-search reveals that there are other forum sites out there talking about the Colecovision, but they don't seem to have much in the way of activity (http://www.neoncherry.com/retrogamevideos/...php?forum_id=50 for example).
I guess what I'm getting at here, is I'm wondering if these feelings I have about the Colecovision are common/typical? Am I faithful to the 2600 because it was the first (successful) home system? Or is it because it was the system I grew up with? I don't know that I'd have any interest in trying to get a Colecovision from an ebay seller, as I've heard it's hard to find a unit that remains in working order. And even if I were able to find one, then there's the matter of finding carts for it. Having dozens (hundreds?) of titles available as ROM downloads makes it hard for me to justify spending money on something that doesn't even qualify as nostalgia, as I'm wouldn't be reclaiming something that I once had - more like getting a late taste of something I always wanted.
What is the Colecovision connection here at AtariAge? Is it a technicality, since one of the selling points of it was that it could be expanded to be Atari-compatible? Or do other "Atarians" like myself suffer from "Colecovision-Envy"? Or is it something completely different; like maybe a sense of empathy for Colecovision enthusiasts who found themselves orphaned by some of the similar kinds of corporate-thinking mistakes that led to the fall of Atari? Is the Colecovision the system that Atari should have built? Or would things have worked out differently if the talks between Atari and Nintendo for distributing the Famicom in the U.S. with an Atari name badge hadn't fallen apart?
I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Thanks,
-
...But when my buddy bought "Journey Escape" for the 2600 for 35 hard-earned dollars, he nearly wept! After playing the awesome arcade game, how could Data Age even CALL that mess "Escape"?
It was terrible, still is terrible, and my boys still occasionally play it for their friends as the "worst game ever".
So it gets my vote!
I can see how a comparison of the 2600 game to the coin-op game could generate severe disappointment, but strangely enough, the 2600 Journey Escape cartrige is my wife's favorite 2600 game! I think it must have something to do with there being no "shooting" involved, and the sense that she's "helping" the band. I find it interesting how when I see the band members' initials displayed, I'm able to instantly recall their names after all these years.
Perhaps the limitations of the first home videogame systems were the deciding factor for the band KISS to opt to be immortalized on a classic pinball machine instead. Given the nature of their mass-merchandizing, I still find it somewhat surprising.
-
I have to add another vote for "Sneek n Peek". This is an example of a stupid concept. I can't imagine that at some point in the development process there wasn't a conversation something like this:
"...and then the player who is going to be doing the seeking leaves the room..."
"Wait a second; did you just say that one of the players leaves the room"?
"Yes".
"In the middle of the game? A player leaves the room"?
"Yes. One player has to leave so he can't see where the other player is hiding. It's like playing "hide n seek" on a videogame".
"And this is more fun than just playing "hide n seek" for real because..."?
"No, you don't understand. See, this is a videogame, so that makes it more fun".
"Riiiiiight"...
-
...the threads "Once Upon Atari" and "Stella at 20" mentioned the legendary Atari founder; which gives me cause to ask the question, "Is anyone following his uWink restaurant venture"? Here are some news stories linked from the uWink.com web site:
I pass by the Riverton neighborhood where Nolan grew up, every day on my way to work, and I went through my own little "career crisis" - losing my home and going bankrupt - right about the same time his financial backers pulled the rug out from him, kicking him out of his home. So his story is very near and dear to my heart.
Almighty Todd
-
A very good point, Alex. Obviously, the NES solution for Pac Man is not feasible for the 2600, given it's limitations. The 7800 might not fare much better, although I would still like to see what would happen if the portrait layout of the arcade maze was flopped on its side. Ironically, the resulting maze would have tunnels going from top to bottom as was the case in the original 2600 port and Nukey Shay's excellent hack (...thanks for providing that link by the way. A fascinating discussion thread and a new ROM for me to play with
).It's interesting that you brought up Xevious, as that is another game that I would like to see ported as a left-to-right scroller instead of top-to-bottom in landscape; using programming techniques similar to what was done in Planet Patrol.
-
Am I the only one with questions about why so many ports of arcade games fail to consider the screen orientation of the original game they are porting? Particularly with the 2600's graphics limitations, it would seem to me, that the most important aspect to capture, in getting the "essence" of an arcade hit, would be the game-play. An example of a game that does this fairly well is "Joust". The level of graphic detail is not nearly as important as the response of the controls, and the movement of the objects on the screen.
There are quite a few games that were ported to the 2600 (and other home systems) that began their lives in arcade form using a "portrait" oriented screen, with the screen being much taller than it is wide. Titles that immediately come to mind include "Space Invaders", "Galaxian/Galaga", and "Pac Man". The gripes of the lack of faithfulness of the original 2600 Pac Man port are numerous, so I won't bother to elaborate. But I've observed that even when Ms Pac Man "corrected" many of the shortfalls of the original Pac Man port, the layout of the maze is a "squashed" version of the arcade version, rather than turning the maze on it's side.
I've noticed that the NES port improved on this situation by putting all of the scoring information off to one side and then orienting the layout of the maze in portrait form like the arcade version. A similar tactic has been used in the "Namco Museum" port of the original arcade games for the Nintendo Game Cube and some portable systems.
In the shooters that all derived originally from Space Invaders, the screen orientation is critical to the game play, because it is so much more difficult to time the firing of shots at the targets that are so far away, such as the top row of invaders or the mother ships. This is also true of derivations such as Galaxian and Galaga.
When using a joystick contoller, which limits the speed of movement of your base ship or blaster cannon, having more ground to cover from side to side is a definite obstacle. To a certain degree, the 2600 Space Invaders port compensated by having fewer columns of invaders than the coin-op version. This kept the game play closer to the arcade original, but I maintain that hitting the Mother ship is still easier on the 2600 than it ever was at the arcade.
I've only seen a few games that attempted to capture the game-play characteristics of a multiple approaching targets shooter, by laying a portrait view orientation on it's side. Planet Patrol does this, but still gets a very negative review in the attempt.
This observation carries over to the 7800 arcade ports, but since there are so few 7800 games in general, and this forum seems to be more active, I thought it would be more appropriate to bring it up here. Obviously, asking gamers to lay their TV sets on their sides isn't a very viable option (...although I seem to recall reading about one such game that did that very thing), but for some games (such as Pac-Man style games) it seems to me that the final resulting game play would actually be more true to the original by maintaining the ratios of the original arcade maze layouts, turned side-ways, and then re-orientate the Pac Man and the Ghosts, with Pac Man starting off to the right, and the Ghosts in a box at the left.
As I think about it, it is somewhat ironic that the Vectrex system was designed assuming a portrait orientation while some of the most popular vector graphics arcade games (Asteroids and Battlezone) were landscape oriented. If this has bothered you too, please add your thoughts. And if you think I'm just full of crap, feel free to tell me that too.
Thanks,
Almighty Todd
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Reminiscing Over Pac Man...
in Atari 2600
Posted
Nukey Shay's hack is AWESOME! It combines a graphical look that is more faithful to the arcade version, while retaining the maze layout and game-play of the original 2600 version. There are so many great hacks of Pac Man. I love playing the different versions, one after the other, and enjoying the variety in mazes, graphical looks, speed and game-play.
The 7800 Pac Man collection is really fun too. There are also plenty of DOS, Windows, Java, and Flash versions of Pac Man out there, including the Grandpa pac-man here. It's amazing how such a simple concept can be so much fun and inspire so much variety.