Scott Stilphen

Computer Creations advertised this in some of the classic gaming mags. Any ideas what this was (or supposed to be)?

Perhaps the Dukes of Hazzard version could be hacked for this?

Inky: that's one of those "special features" that Stan mentioned

Playing games the wrong way is how you find some of the best tricks (and glitches)!

Haha! Didn't Coleco use that 'special features' line on all of their manuals? Actually, DK does get a bit different (strange) on higher levels. Check the DP Easter egg entry for more info.

It's true, as far as their Intellivision titles go. Here's some info from the Intellivision Lives site (formerly Blue Sky Rangers): As for the worst (title), I believe I will sidestep that question, although I will opine that the most disappointing Intellivision game was probably the heavily-hyped Donkey Kong. All of us at Mattel were worried about Coleco's entry into the Intellivision market, particularly with such a popular title as Donkey Kong. The cartridge, however, was terrible. So bad, some Mattel programmers were sure that Coleco had done it deliberately to make their Colecovision version look that much better. The Mattel programmers wanted to program an Intellivision version of Donkey Kong themselves - just to show to game magazine reporters that, with good programming, the lower-resolution Intellivision could still in many ways outperform a Colecovision. (Management wouldn't let them, but their point was proved later with the game BurgerTime: most independent reviewers seem to find the Intellivision version superior to the Colecovision version, or even to the Nintendo version.) Mattel also designed the Intellivision II console to reject 3rd-party titles, to which Coleco's titles were primarily affected: In 1982, Mattel phased out the original master component, replacing it with the restyled light-grey Intellivision II... a trap was added to the operating system to keep third-party games from working on the Intellivision II. Some Coleco cartridges (and Mattel's own Word Fun) fell victim, but third-party producers quickly figured how to get around the trap. The old BSR site had more info on this, which can be found in the Easter egg section at DP (see link below). Haven't heard any evidence to say the same for the Atari ones. DK was done by Garry Kitchen. He was a subcontractor for it, not an employee of Coleco, so I doubt Coleco told him he would get the job only if he purposely made it bad. It only makes sense that he would try to make the best version he could, but you can only do so much with 4K . If you can accuse them of anything, it was that they probably imposed a 4K limit at a time when most companies were moving to 8K (but then their excuse would be they were keeping costs down....). Given how Ebivision reworked Pac-Man in 4K, I'm sure it's possible a better 4K version of DK could be programmed.

That's not exactly what is stated (re-read it more carefully). Here's a scan of the original box:

There aren't 2 different ROM versions. The initial run of these had different artwork, and a typo – it lists 256 game variations. While technically this is true, it's confusing since the highest game variation # you see onscreen is 16.

Deja vu http://www.atariage.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5891 I just uploaded it again, in case anybody wants it. Also, check the Easter egg section of DP (link in signature) for a picture of the final screen.

How much w/o the cat?

It ended for me It's possible you have a different version.

The whole story behind it is at DP: http://www.digitpress.com/archives/arc00084.htm

What’s nonsense is that some people still cling to that literal definition. It was limited in the 60s; it’s flat-out absurd now. There’s no confusion because the original definition has been abolished. It was inaccurate, and extremely narrow in its meaning. You can only stand by one, not both.. Right, but that’s only a technical definition of the term “video game” and it’s origin, and not the definition commonly adopted by the rest of the world since. To say something is “video” only because it uses a raster CRT was acceptable in the 60s b/c (a) oscilloscopes (or vector CRTs) could only be found in science labs and (b) LCDs didn’t exist AFAIK. Complete b.s. Both vector and raster-based games use a CRT to display a video image. The semantics of how that’s technically done is irrelevant. We’re NOT following the 60s definition - nobody is! It’s NOT a mistake – the definition has changed, or rather, it’s been corrected. Vector-based video game. You can play Asteroids on the original arcade hardware (with a vector monitor) or on a PC via MAME (with a raster CRT or a laptop with an LCD screen). The program itself isn’t changed at all- it’s the exact same code running on different hardware. LCD-based video game. Nobody is going to start calling Gameboy games ‘LCD games’. MAME Pac-Man on a laptop is still a video game. Again, vector-based video game. Um, they ALL deliver a “video” signal. Video games can use a number of devices for display – CRT (raster and vector), LCD (hand-helds, plasma screens). The only gray area IMO would be LED-based (dot matrix) displays, since the resolution is limited. But all of these devices are simply a matrix of lights, which vary in their number (“resolution”) and the means by which they’re controlled. The 60s definition was wrong. It was corrected at least 20 years ago. Now 40 years later, it’s never been more hopelessly outdated and out of place. It needs to be left in the 60s. Baer did NOT invent video games; he invented a system to display video games on a raster-based CRT. Got it ?

Too late http://www.digitpress.com/eastereggs/26spa...paceshuttle.htm Forgive the pictures (got corrupted).

That's where Baer's reason falls apart. Saying it's not a video game b/c it uses an oscilliscope or vacuum tubes is as inane as saying games w/o a CPU aren't 'real' video games. Besides, before this goes OT any longer, this discussion already happened- http://www.atariage.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8993 Next...

They're not only still together......they're touring http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4556

I heard some time ago that Peter Niday programmed a version that preceded and differed from the released version (which Peter didn’t do), so this may be it. That's all the info I have on it in my notes.

It amazes me how anyone can read this whole thread and still not get it...

That's the version where E.T. gets...uh...fixed. Try this one: http://www.atariage.com/hack_page.html?Sys...ftwareHackID=28

Yep... that's how it works. So when we release a *working* version of this game, please dont bitch and moan about it working only on the 7800. If you state that up front to people, then they have no reason to complain, otherwise that's not how it's supposed to work.

And this is exactly why it doesn't work that way....because of people like Randy. As for how much $ he's made in the past 8 years, we can only speculate. According to Joe's figures, he sold Randy approx. 1,435 pcbs for $1,790 in a span of 14 months. His cart prices ranged from $11 (any non-royalty games, which were the majority) up to $25. What would he pay for EPROM and hex inverter chips (in bulk), another $1k-$2k? Add in cost of getting cart casings, label materials (paper, ink), and misc items (solder, s&h, etc). To make say 1,500 games might cost him $4k-$5k, plus his time to make them (and after 8 years, I'm sure he can crank them out pretty quick). So we're talking $3 per cart. Even if we double that, he's still making about $6 per cart or more, which translates to about $9k. There's probably other costs I'm overlooking, but even if it's half that, that's not too bad for a "non-profit" hobby/business. Bottom line is, he was making $ off of Thomas' work. I don't know the details of his royalty program, but one of the $25 titles he was selling was Thrust . When you have a nice little niche market like that to yourself, and suddenly other competitors enter the field, greed can motivate you to make some immoral choices.

Alex may

So, it's DP's fault that they haven't been released yet? Unless there's more to the story here, that's a pretty damn weak excuse. Why stop with DP? Why not keep them until Fulop decides what to do with Actionox, or AA releases their UA protos, or some of the rumored Coleco protos surface, or when Ed English and Ed Temple agree to release Looping... Btw, I have some Activsion proto versions that I don't think are available on the net, so I guess it's my fault too.

Which were supposed to originally be included on the Anthology package. Then it was stated they'd appear on the website (still waiting btw - what happened with that?). And now possibly on a 2nd package? Why are the releases of these being dragged out?

I stopped dealing with Randy a couple years ago, when I got a copy of Shooting Arcade (Atari) from him. The game would run, but it had some graphics glitches, and always crashed after clearing a few screens. When I told him about it, he said the 16k circuit boards he was using were not designed properly. He offered to refund my $, but my point was that fact should have been stated up front. He immediately became defensive, saying the refund offer was "good enough". And up until now there STILL isn't any mention of that problem on his site. Unbelievable. Btw, what's this all about??