Phredreeke

I think unreleased games and homebrew games should be separate. A game may share the same name, but that doesn't mean it's made the same way as a developer back in the day would have made it (for example compare Atari's prototype Pac-Man to Eduardo's Pac-Man)

Do 2600 games count? If so I'd say Coleco because most Atari 5200 games had decent 2600 versions. If not then they're pretty much tied IMO

Whether a game will start on an Intellivision 2 is a matter of a single bit. If the game contains a valid year for the built-in copyright screen then that bit will be set. On the earliest Coleco games (and Word Fun) it wasn't, so the INTV2 refuses to boot those. I suppose the author is concerned with the timing differences that affected certain games when played on the Intellivision 2.

He's still limited to the Colecovision's palette and maximum number of 4 sprites per line.

Ocean's version for C64 and Amstrad CPC has those as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiJ_uwaTD_w Still, that was AFAIK only released in Europe, so the Atari 400/800 would have the most complete NTSC version (Atari's own C64 version missing the intermission screens, although having the full intro).

I think it's more likely their programmers were inexperienced with the hardware (Intellivision had pretty obscure hardware).

Worse than 2600/7800? What about Fairchild Channel F? (three different frequencies with one amplitude IIRC) Magnavox Odyssey 2? (one sound channel, not sure how it compares to the 2600) Emerson Arcadia 2001? (again one sound channel, not sure how it compares either)

I think by the same logic 32x is the successor of the Sega Saturn Well in Japan it did!

By the same logic the Game Boy Advance was the successor to the Nintendo 64 and the Sega Nomad was the successor to the Sega Saturn.

Tower Toppler uses artifact colors, so even if it didn't glitch you wouldn't get the same colors anyway.

Yes but does the 7800 disable the audio pin while in 2600 mode? Then again, if you're using a 7800, why not just code for the 7800 in the first place?

For games the graphics chip matters more than the CPU though. One could even argue that the 16-bit CPU is a disadvantage since most programmers would be more familiar to the more widely used 6502 and Z80 CPUs. STIC was pretty good for a games console though.

Sega Master System was 8-bit and had 4bpp tiles ^^ I believe the PS3 and 360 both have 64-bit CPUs

Well, some carts are sort of in a grey area. For example the japanese version of Super Mario Bros 2 was only released on the Famicom Disk System. Pirates however ported it to cartridge, making the game playable without a FDS unit. The pirate version of Aladdin far surpass the official NES release. Then there's the crazy ones like Somari (Sonic ported to the NES, with Mario in Sonic's place) and Kart Fighter (fighting game with mario characters, made BEFORE super smash bros)

Paperboy for NES used the CNROM board, which had no extra RAM.

Actually, Sega later released arcade boards based on the megadrive/genesis hardware called Mega-Tech or Mega-Play. Exactly. Games determine a console's success, not raw specs.

I decided to take some screens from 7800 and NES versions of Donkey Kong, and correct the aspect ratio using the pixel aspect ratios found here While the 7800 version is still a little fatter, it's nowhere as obvious as before.

If it's for an old system and it's obvious that it's not an authentic cartridge then I don't see the harm in it.

The Amstrad CPC version of Donkey Kong does a decent job of drawing Mario in 160 pixel resolution.

Is 160x200 resolution really that bad? Does 96 additional pixels of horizontal resolution really make a difference on an 80s TV with an RF cable?

I think it's because the 7800 generates Y/C internally, and converts it to RGB in a separate chip.

I was asking for some specific titles of arcade games that were ported to the NES in its early years so that they were unable to be released on the 7800. You could get around the exclusivity requirement for arcade games by licensing it to a separate developer.

Well, one might argue that since you're not intending on buying PS3 games, they are getting a better deal selling you a PS2 (since they have better profit margins on that console)

me. just don't see the need to upgrade - no games really appealed to me yet, not to the degree of buying a whole new console. plus they are still making ps2 games. played ghostbusters and force unleased on ps2 and they were great. Yes, but if the PS2 wasn't available, would you buy a PS3 or a cheaper Wii or 360?

Anyone notice anything strange here?