p.opus

If you think, after playing the Atari 800 version and the 2600 version that the 2600 version is " the right way " All I can say is wow... Perhaps Doug is happy with his work on Star Raiders 2600. He did mention that programming for the 2600 was a much greater challenge than the Atari 800, so maybe he had more satisfaction that he could even get something that resembled Star Raiders on the 2600 at that time. However in terms of gameplay it's a pale reflection to the original Atari 800 version and is even outshined by Starmaster. The decision to eliminate all the starbases and distill the enemy to a single fleet takes away all the tactical nuances of the game. Your comparison to HSW is hardly applicable. Yar's was a game originally developed for the 2600. Star Raiders was a port. And while some compromises were to be expected, Star Raiders was so bare bones as to be barely recognizable. And by looking at Solaris it's clear that Doug could have and did do better.

I just try to remember that all these games were designed to shake you down faster than a mob enforcer. They're just staying true to their roots.

Mine never leaves the machine....Unless I just need to get that feeling of inserting a cart into the 2600. That tactile feel brings back a flood of good memories, so sometimes I just have to take it out and put it back in......I'm wierd like that.

Carts that smell like cat pee. You may have discovered the new number one reason for buying a Harmony cart.

While I like the different weather depictions and an actual damage system. I have to agree with the If you can't see the enemy they don't exist argument. The same problem exists with Starmaster, but since Starmaster doesn't have a radar screen showing the enemies relative position to you, it doesn't stand out. In fact I hadn't even noticed that issue in Starmaster until it was brought to my attention, that's how well it was disguised. Robot Tank is another story. You see the enemy on your radar, he's right there, and the manual even suggests that you put the enemy behind you to avoid enemy fire. Had they eliminated the radar and simply given you visual clues (left or right) then the fact that you can SEE the enemy is behind you and not firing would not have been so distracting. The 360 Radar was a necessity, it was one of the "cool bits" from battlezone, so the developers had to include it. But the fact that they don't have the AI fire when they are not in your field of view just really blows the illusion. I believe Robot Tank is technically superior to Battlezone in almost EVERY way. However it's this one thing that really breaks your suspension of disbelief and for me makes it unenjoyable. It's like a huge zit on that cheerleader you liked in high school.. She was beautiful but you just can't get over that zit....

Check out Thomas's last post in the Starmaster High Score thread. He gives detailed instructions on how to maneuver your cursor at what time to prevent the enemy from surrounding your first base. You still have to be fast and good. But, it is possible.

For me it's the pew,pew,pew sound that plays before the beginning of each wave of Missile Command.

Yes. This is how you create a game that has many of the familiar aspects of an arcade game (cough... Tempest) but work within the constraints of system to provide the person the same visceral experience within the limitations of the platform.

oh, it allows you to exploit the AI.... (grin)....

Oh darn......I didn't even get to break out this:

First World Problem <facepalm>....Oh, and reality check. no one died and made you king....sorry.

I have used the map. Perhaps I'm just not fast enough. If I'm not mistaken, the speed at which a station is destroyed is dependent on how many enemy ships are adjacent to the station. That's where I start. The station usually dies while I'm still trying to clear the sectors directly adjacent to it. I know it depends on the sectors that are occupied above, below, right and left of the station. I'm not sure about the diagonals

The game had an impossible development schedule, six weeks instead of six months. HSW also had tremendous hubris and instead of creating just "another pac-man" which Steven Spielberg had actually suggested, HSW had grandiose plans in an impossible time frame. The software equivalent of "A Bridge Too Far. Problem was, Steven had a better idea of the demographic than HSW did. Steven knew his audience. It was the kids that were the same age as Gertie and Elliot in the movie. A simple to pick up game that allowed those kids to control ET eat Reese's Pieces and "phone home" would have been a blockbuster. Instead we got ET with special powers that can only be used in certain areas on the map. The pits or craters that ET fell into continually and hid his "phone pieces" were nowhere to be seen in the movie. "Daddy, these pits weren't in the movie". Add to that a complicated scoring metric that encouraged players to collect the Reeses Pieces, but penalized the player for using them to extend his life. The game isn't at all intuitive, and even has you scratching your head after reading the manual. Some pretty high brow concepts for the 5 to 10 year old set.

Reading Davie's statement I understand what you are saying, but reading his last sentence I can also see how someone might take it as a sense of frustration or bitterness that it took so long to sell the remaining unsold copies. In any case...H2O under the bridge. It is what it is....time to move on. Thanks to all that responded.