jaybird3rd

Okay, sorry for the confusion. Should have made myself clearer. A new 7800 game from the GCC guys ... now THAT would be a must-have regardless of how much it cost!

Uhh ... Harry Dodgson wrote it. He also developed the 7800 monitor cartridge, which was an authorized release during the 7800's life. This makes him one of the original developers as opposed to someone coming to the 7800 after its death, which was all I meant in my post.

I take it that this is the reason Thrust never made it to the FB2. That's a real shame, since it would have been a great addition to the console (as would other prominent homebrews like EdTris). Given the FB2's hardware problems and the issues they've had with recruiting developers, which made the FB2 less valuable than it would have been with more homebrews, I hope that Atari learns that they should STOP being so cheap and rushing these Flashbacks to market as they've done with the first two. To sidcrowe: I totally agree about the inherent worthiness of the whole classic game style (black backgrounds, "primitive" graphics and sounds, bright colors, vivid contrasts, simple addictive play patterns, etc). My only point is that you don't have to limit yourself to the 2600 to get those things. I don't know if you've ever actually used the Atari 400/800 or any of their descendants, but if you had, you'd know that they are a bona fide classic platform that can offer more growth potential for the FB3 than the 2600 can, along with the 2600-like classic gameplay that we all love. I would also argue that the FB2 can't be considered a rehash of the FB1, even though 2600 games appeared on both, because the FB2 is the authentic hardware and game code while the FB1 was neither. A third system with 2600 games on it WOULD be more of the same, though. Since Curt has already indicated that this is NOT the direction that Atari is going with the FB3, they apparently agree.

I think $39.95 is entirely reasonable considering how difficult it is to produce these games and how few people are attempting to distribute new 7800 titles on cartridge. Everybody seems to be selling new 2600 cartridge parts now, but as far as I know 7800 cartridges still require either building a custom board or retrofitting old carts with a new ROM, both of which are expensive options. Plus, it's exciting to see a new 7800 game from one of the original developers (who supported the 7800 during its woefully short lifespan), so I'd buy it even if it cost a little more.

A few things stand out in my mind about the Atari 2600 version of Ms. Pac-Man, and I'm sure others here will correct me if any of this is wrong or misremembered. The first thing is that it is widely considered to be one of the best games available for the 2600, and one of the best examples of the kinds of design techniques that lead to almost all of the best classic video games (especially on the 2600). The programmer chose a popular coin-operated arcade game, identified the elements that make the game fun to play, stripped them down to their bare essentials, and implemented them on the 2600 while leaving the gameplay totally intact. This was a more difficult accomplishment than most people can appreciate today because the 2600 was severely limited in terms of its graphics and sound capabilities, and in terms of the amount of memory its programmers had to work with. The 2600 couldn't dazzle its players with fancy graphics and sounds, at least not for long, so game designers had to hook players on their games by focusing on gameplay first and foremost. That is the reason many of us find classic games to be so more fun than modern games: today's game designers can get away with incredible visuals and sound effects but don't have to focus so much on gameplay anymore, so the games on modern systems aren't nearly as much fun to play as the classics were. This isn't to say that graphics are totally unimportant, though, and that is another reason Ms. Pac-Man was such a popular 2600 game. It followed the original Pac-Man on the 2600, which was a major disappointment to many because its gameplay and especially its overall appearance was so primitive and so much different than the original arcade game. Ms. Pac-Man succeeded where Pac-Man failed because it remedied both of these shortcomings: it more accurately duplicated the gameplay of the original Ms. Pac-Man, and it looked better because it used newer and more sophisticated programming techniques that Pac-Man lacked. It ran in single-line resolution instead of double-line resolution (resulting in more detailed characters), and it used a more advanced method of moving and drawing the characters on the screen (which greatly reduced the "flicker" problem of 2600 Pac-Man but could not eliminate it for technical reasons that are probably beyond the scope of your paper). This helped make Ms. Pac-Man more popular because it couldn't help but look good next to its predecessor, even though it still looked much different than the original arcade game and did not have the two-player option that Pac-Man had. Another notable fact about 2600 Ms. Pac-Man is that it was not, in fact, developed by Atari. It was developed by a company called General Computer Corporation, which played an important role in the creation of the original Ms. Pac-Man in the arcades. They were in the business of developing modification kits which enhanced arcade games that were produced by other manufacturers, and an enhancement kit they developed for the original Pac-Man (called "Crazy Otto") was bought by Midway and eventually became Ms. Pac-Man. To make a long story short, GCC began developing games for Atari, and one of their best was the 2600 version of Ms. Pac-Man. I've always suspected that one reason it was so true to the original was the fact that the same group of people contributed to both. This was true to an even greater extent of the Atari 7800 version of Ms. Pac-Man, which GCC also developed (along with the Atari 7800 system itself!) If you are interested in finding out more about GCC, there is another thread in the Atari 7800 forum which talks more about the company and its relationship with Atari. I hope this helps. Good luck on your paper, and welcome to AtariAge!

Oh, I totally agree. I'll be an owner of the FB3 regardless of what it turns out to be, because I trust the people behind it and love what Atari is doing in revisiting these older consoles and games. I am constantly amazed at how the classic games have held up and remained popular over the years. Through its newest incarnation in the FB2, I believe the Atari 2600 is the only video game console that has been on the market with first-party support for four consecutive decades (support in the early 90s was pretty sparse but still counts). That demonstrates a kind of staying power that the 2600 wouldn't have if it was a simple fad or a flash-in-the-pan retro craze as its critics have always claimed. Having said all that ... I think one of the imbalances that exists in classic game circles is that the 2600 tends to get all the attention and soaks up all the oxygen and leaves other classic platforms gasping for attention. That applies to collectors, homebrewers, and game players alike. The 2600 has gone beyond being a game console first and foremost and has become some sort of pop culture icon, and to a lot of people, classic gaming and 2600 gaming is one and the same thing. But there are many other classic platforms that are equally worthy of attention and also have the kind of appeal you've described: simple graphics, simple controls, and great and innovative gameplay. The A8 family, with the incredible collection of popular arcade ports as well as the eclectic and interesting mix of games I alluded to earlier, has the kind of variety and classic appeal that can make it succeed as a TV-game unit, and that's why I'm advocating it as the source platform for the FB3. There's another reason, though. One of the things that Atari has a unique opportunity to do with the FB3 is to experiment with new game ideas and to create some NEW classics. They can afford to do this because the console and the cartridges will be relatively inexpensive to produce, which makes it a lot easier to take creative risks and to try new things. I think it would be very sad in a way if Atari limited itself to recycling its old products and living off of the remains of its former glory. It would be a lot more difficult to create something totally new with a 2600-based system: it's hard to find and attract developers (as we've learned with the FB2), and since the 2600 hardware is so limited and probably close to 100% exploited, any new games that are written for the 2600 would likely be variations on previously established themes. The A8 has enough versatility and untapped potential to allow for more experimentation, it's a lot easier to learn to develop for than the 2600, and it has enough genuine classic appeal to make it attractive to discerning retro gamers. EDIT: I just noticed that this thread has now passed 10,000 views. If anyone is wondering whether the public is interested in another Atari console, there's your answer.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how could that possibly be done in the real world? The 2600 and 5200 were two totally different systems except for the CPU, and the 7800 would require its own video chip (the MARIA) and RAM on top of all of that. Think about it: that's essentially three separate systems, somehow mashed together and sharing one CPU and one set of controller ports and one cartridge slot (even though the original cartridges and controllers were different from one another), all shoehorned into one hybrid system from hell. The engineering on that would be a nightmare and it would cost an insane amount of money. The only realistic way of having games from all three systems in one unit would be to pick the games you want and port them over to ONE hardware platform that is capable of reproducing them all if programmed correctly (such as a NOAC-based system like the FB1). Is that really what you want? I've seen this idea come up a few times before, but let's be realistic. Atari is competing against companies that sell 2600 compilations for $15 to $30. Those companies can only afford to sell at the prices they do because they use off-the-shelf NOAC chips and don't have to fabricate their own. Atari can't afford to do lots of elaborate engineering on the FB3 if they're going to play within that price range and make a profit. They need to implement a design that already exists and already has a large library of games, and something that is DIFFERENT from the competition. If they release another 2600-based system, it won't stand out from the crowd and it will be competing against their own FB2. If they build a system that has USB, integrated keyboard/mouse ports, VGA graphics, flash drives, integrated tape/floppy drives, and all the other crazy ideas people seem to have, it's going to push it WAY over the price of the FB2 and nobody will buy it. I'm not trying to pour cold water on anybody's anticipation here, but we need to adjust our expectations if we're to avoid being disappointed when Atari finally comes up with something that doesn't live up to all these wild predictions. A few other points: That apparently wasn't the case when Atari was putting the FB2 together. They succeeded in getting ONE totally new homebrew game (Atari Climber) and had to hire a software house to flesh out their collection. What makes you think the FB3 will be any different? I agree it would be great, but is it likely? With the FB2, they've apparently already decided that they don't want those support calls. Companies that are in the business of delivering professional customer service don't resort to putting stickers on boxes as you've described, especially if those consumers are doing the very thing you want them to do. Think about it: you put in a cartridge slot so people can play old games. People try to play old games. They don't work because the carts are broken. They call Atari, and Atari says they can't help them because the games are too old? That's going to generate way too much confusion. You can say that using old cartridges will void the warranty, but if the new carts are of the same form factor as the old carts, how do you prove that an old cart was inserted? The best way to avoid that problem is to put in a cartridge slot that is pin-compatible with the old one (so you can bring the old games right over to the new format without too much trouble), but in a different form factor. That's exactly what Curt has indicated is already being done with the FB3. As for the A8 being AFTER the 2600 and less appealing because of that ... I'm not sure what to say. Both systems were released in the late 1970s, had games released for them throughout the 80s, and were both discontinued in the early 1990s. They were sold and supported at the same time, and most of the 2600 games we remember so fondly came out after the A8 systems did. The console and computer markets that the two systems served were very different. There was some overlap and many titles showed up on both (with the A8 versions almost always being superior, and not just in terms of graphics), but the computer could handle games that weren't well-suited for consoles. That is a very large class of games that the C64 30-in-1 succeeded in tapping into and bringing to the TV-game market, and it's something that Atari should seriously consider for the FB3 instead of the done-to-death 2600 and top-40 arcade games.

Aside for the inherent merits of the A8 platform (high-quality arcade ports, popular cross-platform computer titles, interesting titles that were unique to the A8, etc.), consider this: the FB1 was mostly 2600 ports. The FB2 was entirely 2600 games. If Atari releases the FB3 as a 2600 system, it will be increasingly hard to find popular titles that haven't already appeared on the first two (without running into nasty licensing issues) and to avoid the impression among the general public that Atari is reheating its old leftovers. Aside for Atari's TV game units, there are 2600 emulation packs for the PC and modern game consoles, as well as the Jakks products, and I fear that there's a danger of overexposing the 2600 properties at the expense of other equally worthy properties in Atari's possession. The C64 30-in-1 was, to my mind, the model that Atari should follow in developing the FB3. As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, the A8 hardware with its built-in capabilities as a computer platform is a significant departure from the standard cheapie NOAC offerings, and brings with it a HUGE collection of quality games that already exist in a cartridge format (which, according to Curt, the FB3 will implement in a pin-compatible package). Let's not downplay the recognizability of the computer titles; the classic computer games from companies like EA and Broderbund still have a lot of nostalgic value, and as has been pointed out, the vast majority of popular arcade games are also there on the A8. And if Atari wants to do new games, it would probably be a lot easier to bring new developers up to speed on the A8 than it would be on the 2600.

Not very much, I'd suspect. BallBlazer is one of the more common 7800 games, and even the unusually-labelled ones are more plentiful than some of the truly rare titles. I've seen them go on eBay for about the same price as regular BallBlazer cartridges (or maybe $1 or $2 more).

I think the reason I'd choose dedicated cartridges over the CC2 is that, even though the CC2 is a VERY cool product, I've never been entirely comfortable with menu systems and choosing a game to play from a bank of games inside a gigantic multicart. This kind of technology didn't exist "back in the day," and when I play the 7800, I don't want to be reminded that I'm not in the 1980s anymore.

Heh ... I think I remember him telling the story on the "Once Upon Atari" DVD about how he rolled himself a funny cigarette one day, took a nice long drag, and had a vision in which the complete algorithm for the 2600 BallBlazer display kernel suddenly materialized in his mind. This was (according to him) followed by months of simple clerical work to code it out. But, getting back on topic, I bought a whole stack of 7800 BallBlazers cartridges once from O'Shea's to use as POKEY-enabled donors for homebrew games, and I've found one or two of them with red end labels.

Different platform... Curt 913751[/snapback] A reminder as to why it will probably *not* be a 2600-compatible system like the FB2. I wish I could actually bet money on its being an A8-based product (whether it looks from the outside like a 5200 or not) because I still think that would be the coolest of all options.

That sounds kind of like "Entombed," by U.S. Games.

Geez ... for that kind of money, I can't help but wonder if somebody could make some money taking a few more high-res photos like the ones earlier in this thread, reverse-engineering the thing, and building some clones.

I agree ... the FB1 team had a HUGE task on their hands when they were given the job of building a console in such a short period of time, and because this was Atari's first attempt at marketing such a device, they had to choose a hardware platform that they could use and sell at a competitive price. I personally liked the console's small form factor (which made it easy to carry around), and as I've said, the joysticks fixed a lot of the problems with the original 7800 ProLine controllers and gave you the added convenience of Pause/Select buttons on the controller. The fact that it uses a NOAC chipset inside wasn't necessarily the problem for me, as it apparently was for so many others. If more time was available to do proper ports of the games, based on the original source code, the result could have been outstanding even if nothing else was changed about the system. In my opinion, the Jakks Atari Paddle unit is a great example of a NOAC-based system done right. It does not use Atari hardware, but the games inside it were painstakingly ported from the original source code. Both characteristics were obvious to me from the moment I first plugged it in. When I played Circus Atari, for example, I sensed that the sound effects were a little bit off in places, but I also recognized some of the strange little quirks in the movement of the jumping men and a few other glitches that told me the developers at Digital Eclipse worked off of the original source code. They could never have gotten it that close otherwise. I also thought the port of Arcade Warlords was outstanding.

I'm curious to know what application you have in mind for this. If it's just to run games and other standard A8 software, I would think that emulation would be a much easier option since it gives you an Atari display on the PC (like the TV-tuner) and the inherent ability to control the A8 through the PC. Are you looking to run copy-protected software or something that won't work within an emulator?

Ah, I must have gotten the two mixed up. Thanks for the clarification.

I think it's already gotten more than its fair share of criticism. Given the rushed nature of its design, I think it was a fairly impressive effort, and I especially like the controllers. They're a 100% improvement over Atari's original 7800 sticks, mostly because they're small enough to fit comfortably in your hand. I'm in the process of using them and a Sega Team Player adapter to build a four-joystick hub to connect to my emulation box for MAME and other emulators.

You've got to admit, though, that these weird names have done their job; we all still remember them all these years later (and don't forget Q*Bert, which reportedly started life as Hubert, then Cubert, then Q-Bert, and finally Q*Bert). And yes, I've always pronounced it 'kicks' also. It would need a 'u' to be pronounced 'quicks.'

Not to mention the 2600 games that GCC did (such as Ms. Pac-Man), which were infinitely better than anything the folks left at Atari were turning out after the Activision and Imagic guys pulled out. From what we've learned about the programmers at least, those enormous resources Atari had at their disposal probably went up their noses or up in smoke. Kinda puts the wild stories from HSW and friends in "Once Upon Atari" in a different light.

I voted for the original cartridges. I like the simplicity of plugging in a cartridge and turning on the console and playing the game. And yes, I always play on the original system these days. I used to use emulators to avoid the uncomfortable 7800 controllers and snowy RF-modulated video, but now that I've got a composite video mod and a pair of my Space Invaders arcade controllers to use, that isn't a problem anymore.

Yeah, it's really too bad about the 7800. Despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the system, I think it still would have been steamrolled by the NES juggernaut even if it had come out in 1984 as originally planned; Nintendo just understood gamers better than Atari ever did under the Tramiels. If it hadn't been delayed/cancelled, though, I think it would have gotten a lot more support and would have put up a much stronger fight against the NES. Developers would have had the chance to explore the system's capabilities more thoroughly, more and better developers would have made more and better games for it, and it probably would have become popular enough to justify the extra expense of creating games that had larger ROMs or better sound hardware built into the cartridges. Considering how cheap Atari was when it came to 7800 support, I'm amazed it sold as well as it did even though it was stuck in third place for most of its life. EDIT: Am I correct in remembering that the 7800 cartridge slot had composite audio AND video lines, or was it just audio? If it was both, that would have REALLY helped to prolong the system's life; they could have simply stuck in new hardware to bring it up to par with the competition.

Or, to paraphrase Will Rogers, "we're all n00bs, only in different subjects."

Nope, that was General Consumer Electronics. Different company.

After their break with Atari, I believe they went on to do Macintosh products. The company still exists today and sells laser printers.