Jump to content
Have You Played Atari Today?
2600|5200|7800|Lynx|Jaguar|Forums|Store  

Lord Thag

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3,851

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lord Thag

  1. Posted

    Tough question. They were very average in terms of quality.

    I find Turmoil to be the best personally, and the only one I'd consider falling in the 'really good' category if I am in the mood. It's basically 2d Tempest.

    That said, I infrequently have quite a fun time with Crash Dive, Bank Heist, Flash Gorden and Beany Bopper. All are good if not outstanding games.

  3. Posted

    From 30+ years experiencing using 800/XL computers... they are basically the Keith Richards of the retro world. Things are built like tanks. Most of the failures (outside the cheaper XE line) seem to be from power supplies that go bad and fry something or from moisture/exposure to the elements.

    Kept inside, and taken care of, outside the occasional keyboard overhaul, they are rock solid. When we all die in the coming Mad Max apocalypse, the cockroaches that gain sentience afterwords will probably be playing Donkey Kong on them. 😀

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  4. Posted

    If you want something that works well while you're waiting, I just picked up one of those chinese LDKGame consoles of Amazon. While it's an emulator console, it plays Lynx roms beautifully in a small, portable form. I'm loving the hell out of it, especially for the price.

    That said, I'll get one of the Analogue things. Basically one portable will (hopefully) eventually play carts from every portable retro console I collect.

    • Thanks 1

  6. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Flojomojo said:

    Are you going to start a thread for every manufacturer? If so, my favorite game is KNOCK OFF THE STUPID SHITPOSTING

    Speak for yourself (and maybe grab some coffee?). I like talking about the games I like from different vendors. Nothing wrong with threads like this.

    That said... you might want to space it out a bit boneman. Let each discussion run it's course before starting a new one, and maybe tell us WHY you like a given game.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1

  7. Posted

    22 minutes ago, GunNac said:

    OK, that makes sense but is there any recourse for that kind of thing?  I feel like if that were the issue, the controllers junk at that point.  Also, thanks for your reply.

    They're not junk. You can use the cord from another stick or wire your own, just make sure you get the right wires to the right pins. My daily driver is a 2800/ SVA II, and you can fix anything on those controllers.

  9. Posted

    18 hours ago, Justin Payne said:

    Thank you very much!
    If you have headphones on, make sure to tell everyone you're listening to a podcast so that when you get to the bloopers, at the end of the show, they know why you're erupting in laughter. We made those bloopers and I still laughed at them.

    Well, my job is full of a bunch of weirdos with inappropriate humor, so I just sorta fit right in.

    • Like 2

  12. Posted

    3 hours ago, zzip said:

    I don't see C-64 as being a generational leap.   Very similar CPU (ran faster on Atari),  same memory capacity (64K, but varies by model on Atari).  Sound better on C-64-  Graphics ( more colors on Atari, more color freedom on C64, better sprites on C64)  disk (much faster access on Atari, higher capacity on C64) - They end up looking about even to me, with each having certain strengths and weaknesses

     

    As for productivity,  I seem to remember the C64 getting lots of productivity applications that the Atari never got.  

    There was a three year gap between the Atari and the c64, so maybe generational is the wrong word, but it certainly launched a lot later. And I don't think comparing components really helps either, as all the PCs back then ran off two or three main processors and similar components. The c64 handles sprite graphics much better, which was the wave of the future and what the NES, Genesis, SNES etc all used moving forward, the whole 'player missile graphics' thing being an evolutionary dead end, so the c64 is a very different, next gen machine in terms of graphics design. That doesn't mean it's BETTER, it just means it's design was more modern in terms of graphics.

    But I agree, they are very comparable, they do different things well. Like I said, it's like the Genesis vs the SNES. It depends on what kind of game you are talking about. Commodore did big RPGs better (due to larger disk sizes), Atari did Arcade games better.

    As to productivity... it depends. If you look at both PCs when both were actively sold and in most stores, the Atari was very much a better machine for productivity (Syncalc was the gold standard for years). However, the XL line stopped being actively supported by most business software companies after '84, '85 or so, while the c64 still had store presence in 1990. If you compare them when they were both supported, the Atari is a better productivity machine by far. If you count all the software that the c64 got because it was actively supported for a half decade more... yeah, it got stuff the Atari didn't get. But that's because people ported stuff to it, not because it's a better machine hardware wise for productivity. It isn't. It just got supported longer. I still think the Atari is the best compromise of any 8-bit PC between games/productivity/business. Apple II was by far the best productivity machine at the time.

  13. Posted

    Here's some more info on the Romox centers, copied from a .PDF from the (now defunct) ti99ers.org site some years ago:


    Content begins:

    ROMOX ECPCs and SOFTWARE CENTERS: Romox was a Campbell, CA firm, with manufacturing facilities in the Phillipines, that specialized in manufacturing cartridges for home computers like the TI-99/4A and others in the same or lower price range. The company was founded in 1982 by a management team of pioneers in the computer and semiconductor industries. In 1983 Romox, with noted industry pioneer Paul Terrell as company president, announced a new idea in marketing computer game programs that would allow the user to buy their new reusable Edge Connector Programmable Cartridge (ECPC) only once, and have it reprogrammed each time a new game program was desired. Initial purchase price for the ECPC was around $25 and a new game could be "burned in" for less than $10.
    The Romox Plan for the ECPC was to put Romox "Software Centers" in retail outlets like 7-11 stores, at a $160 per month lease charge to the retailer, which would allow easy access to new programs by computer users. The user had only to bring their ECPC to any outlet with a Romox Software Center, place the ECPC in the correct cartridge slot, choose the game they wanted, pay the new game fee and the clerk would activate the Software Center.

     

    The Software Center was an off-white colored plastic cabinet and monitor which looked alot like a computer. It was approximately 18" wide by 6" high with a color monitor approximately 12" wide by 8" high. There were ten slots on the front panel of the cabinet for different types of computer cartridge connectors and a membrane covered keypad for typing in the catalog number of the program to burn in to the ECPC's reprogrammable chip.

     

    The user pressed any key to start the Software Center, selected a program from the screen or the Romox Catalog, paid for the new program and the clerk would activate the Software Center. The machine would notify the user when the new game was ready to go. That was all there was to it.
    Only 5 of the 10 slots in the Software Center front panel were used, probably because Romox already had the major players in the cartridge software business covered, but they built the
    machine for the possibility of new computers in the future. I know the Spectravideo SV-318 and the Coleco Adam both came with a cartridge port and there might have been a couple of others, but the "big guns" were already on the panel.

     

    Going from left to right while facing the Software Center, the slots were dedicated to:
    - Slot #1: TI-99/4A Home Computer - Slot #2: Commodore VIC 20 - Slot #3: Commodore 64 - Slot #4: Atari 2600 VCS - Slot #5: Atari 400/800, Atari 600/800XL, and the Atari 1200XL
    The TI-99 games housed in the Software Centers were Ambulance, Anteater, Cave Creatures, Data Base Sort Utility, Driving Demon, Henhouse, Hen Pecked, Princess and the Frog, Rabbit Trail, Rotor Raiders, Schnoz-ola, St. Nick, Topper, Typo II and Video Vegas. Other machines has more titles available. Atari 2600-49 titles, Atari (all others)-39 titles, VIC 20-51 titles, Commodore 64-26 titles and the TI-99/4A-16 titles.

     

    I have never seen an actual Romox Software Center anywhere, but Kyle Crighton of Milbrae, CA, who is a software engineer in the San Jose area, has verified their existence, at least in convenience stores in the northern California area. Byte Magazine, in their February 1985 issue on page 10, reported that Romox ceased operations mainly because of poor dealer response and the general collapse of the cartridge video-game market, so it appears that the Software Center concept lived a short life.

     

    ECPC CARTRIDGE PROGRAMMER: Romox also offered a complete ECPC Cartridge Programmer tool kit that was not related to the Software Center marketing concept. The tool kit consisted of:
     WD-03 Cartridge Programmer $300.00
     WD-04 Cartridge (EPROM) Eraser 39.95
     Blank ECPC cartridges were also offered:
     TI-01 Blank 8K ECPC Cartridges 19.95

     

    An illustration/photo of this system may be seen in the July 1983 issue of Enthusiast 99 magazine on page 40.
    During the second quarter of 1984 Navarone Industries took over the Cartridge Programmer business from Romox and added an IBM PCjr. cartridge making tool kit to their product line. At the same time, Navarone announced a licensing agreement with Romox that allowed Navarone to produce and distribute Romox's entire line of cartridge software for both the 99/4A and the Commodore 64. Byte Magazine, in their February 1985 issue on page 10 reported that Romox ceased operations mainly because of poor dealer response and the general collapse of the cartridge video-game market. Perhaps the licensing agreement with Navarone was the beginning of the end for Romox?

    (Charles LaFara writing in Enthusiast 99, Nov83, p.40 -- Romox Software Catalog -- Jerry Price, former owner of Tex*Comp User's Supply in Granda Hills, CA

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  14. Posted

    I think I remember seeing an ad for an XEGS once on TV around Christmas and wondering what (and why) it was. The only place it ever 'showed up' in my home town was in the sears catalog,. and much later at a local Kaybee as a clearance item. Eventually, I bought one from this guy in a nearby town who was an Atari fan and ran a secondary Atari PC business behind his dentist's office. Back then, I thought it was very odd. I had an 800, wanted an XL, and compromised with an XEGS... which promptly sent me back to using the 800.

    These days, I thank the gods it existed just for the great library of cart games it got us.

     

  15. Posted

    8 hours ago, Mclaneinc said:

    As I keep banging on, go where the good games are, by that I mean don't ditch a machine, just enjoy the wealth of games etc on all machines..

    This.

    I prefer the Atari, but both systems are good. What tends to get lost in these 'which is better' discussions tend to forget that which one is better (in terms of games/usefulness) tends to be which year you are referring to. The Atari line predates the c64 by several years. It was a luxury machine (until the XE line), and it's build quality shows that. It does the old-style arcade games better than anything from that era, with a lot of great original stuff, but struggles with the later 80s stuff that the cheaper (budget priced, hence the reliability issues) c64 was designed to do better. The c64 is a game console first and a computer second,  while the Atari was sort of a jack of all trades, master of none. The Atari, I think, was a better all around computer (probably the best compromise between productivity and gaming of the era), while the c64 is a more capable game machine... unless you're looking for raw speed, which is why the old arcade ports play better on Atari. The fact that the Atari was still competing with the c64, which was basically a next gen computer to it, is a testament to it's solid design. In a lot of ways, it's similar to the differences between the genesis and the super nintendo: decent graphics and blazing speed vs. great graphics and slowdown. Which one is 'better' depends on the style of game. RPGs are better on SNES. Shmups are better on Genesis.

    Ultimately, I like both. The Atari is a hell of a lot more reliable, but it also cost 4x more back then. Both play great games. I prefer the Atari for arcade ports of the 'golden age', while the c64 does a lot of cool later gaming stuff, including a lot of RPG/Strategy games the Atari's never got.

    • Like 4

  16. Posted

    On 10/28/2019 at 12:37 PM, -^CrossBow^- said:

    This is easy for me...Sega and more specifically the Genesis/MD without a doubt. It is my second largest collection to my Atari stuff. 

    Same here. First love is Atari, but Sega is next in line. Have about 400 games CIB (all the stuff I want), gotten back when you could hardly give Genesis stuff away.

    Also enjoy collecting Neo Geo, TG-16 and GBA.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    20 minutes ago, Mr. Brow said:

    I think this does a good job of getting at the root of our disagreement, and thank you again for your well thought out response.  In my opinion, no art critic worth their salt should be using objective criteria to rate things.  That's putting the cart before the horse.  Instead, I think things like character development and coherence should be coming up in the post-analysis, and can help explain why we were so immersed by a particular novel or game.  But ultimately, the judgement should be entirely subjective.

     

    So to clarify my previous post, I don't mean that we should learn to use different objective criteria in our opinions so that we can match college professors or the New York Times.  When I say that we shouldn't be quick to dismiss acclaimed works that we don't like, I genuinely mean that our subjective experience of it can change with exposure and experience.  I have found this to be the case in every artistic medium I've explored, and I don't see any reason to think video games are any different.  Some of my best personal experiences with art of come from just revisiting something from a different point of view.

     

    Also, I'm not advocating high-brow over low-brow.  I love Steve Reich and Citizen Kane, but I also love the Monkees and slasher films.  The wonderful thing about the art world is how vast and varied it is, and the more you keep an open mind, the more it will give back.

    Ah, I see what you mean now, and yes, I agree. I think we're saying roughly the same thing. Completely agree on the high brow elitist stuff. Never had much use for anything that looked down on someone else. I appreciate your thoughtful response as well.

    My original point is that there are not really any objective criteria, and that anything listed as such is dressed up opinion. Possibly GOOD opinion, but opinion nonetheless. I get tired of people on the internet stating bias (the old chestnut: 'E.T. is the worst gamer ever!' being a good example) as if it were fact, which is why I posted all of that to begin with.

    However, experience DOES count. For example, using myself as an example to illustrate your point, I used to think the Genesis had about 50 or so good games, and the rest of the library was Wii-level schlock. That was my experience owning one back in the day (the stores I had access to never sold the good stuff). My good friend swlovinist here, had just amassed a CIB collection for the whole library at the time, and set about convincing me otherwise. After several visits and playing a ton of games I'd never heard of or had access to as a kid before, fast forward ten years, and I now have like 400 games for the Genesis and it's one of my favorite consoles: his greater experience with the library modified my opinion and experience. The reverse is true as well too: he's a much bigger Atari fan/collector these days than he was when we met. Expanded experience changed both our views.

    But sometimes experience is very connected to the time it was expressed. Take cartoons: A lot of old Looney Tunes episodes pretty racist by modern standards, even if over all, the cartoons were classics, hence why many don't air on TV (or air with disclaimers) now. Time modified perception, which modified experience, and changed opinions too.

    Atari seems to suffer from two kinds of this type of bias: the people who remember the NES and disregard/forget/ignore anything that came before, and the people who think 'real' games ended with the Atari and play nothing else. A lot of the opinions about Adventure specifically seem to fall into one of these camps, either it's a hideous, unplayable mess or it's the greatest adventure game of the era.

    My own opinion/experience says it's neither. Its a fun, if primitive, oddity that's still fun today. I still play it. But nowhere near as much as I once did.

     

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    Well, I'm no hardware expert on porting things to the Atari, but the fact there is a working (if quite slow) Apple II *emulator* that runs on the Atari makes me think Apple II ports are certainly doable. I know it's due to the Apple running most things via processor without specialized hardware etc. Without modification, and Atari can't handle 80 column mode, hi res etc. but many games could (and were) be ported back in the day.

    Atari Apple II Emulator post

  23. Posted

    15 hours ago, Mr. Brow said:

     

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments so far.  I agree in one respect -- our judgement of art is necessarily subjective, and this should really be taken for granted in any discussion about it.  However, I don't think that's equivalent to saying that everything boils down to taste.  Our perception of a game or a book is a function of a complex set of factors, some of which involve taste, but many others of which involve experience, attention to detail, introspection, etc.  When college professors declare Ulysses a masterpiece, they're usually basing it on years of experience with literature, poring over the nuances and considering its implications for their perception of the world.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but I don't think we should feel satisfied in judgements that come from inexperience and impatience.  The more I've learned to listen to dissenting views on the things I like or dislike, the more richness I've found in the world. 

    Very well put. You can certainly set an objective bar (based on experience) with which to compare something to, and try to be objective after that, but ultimately that bar is going to be skewed by your original perspective. Take Ulysses again, the reason it's highly regarded by some is that they measure it by flowery, descriptive writing, historical significance, experimental techniques and uniqueness (all of which it has in spades). Now, lots of other people (including many college professors) measure a novel by character development, coherence, plot execution and good writing. By those standards, it only meets one of the four main qualities of a good novel. Both are valid viewpoints, it just depends on how you are measuring it, and which bar you compare it to, whereas something like Slaughterhouse 5 or The Road would meet both sets of qualifications.

    I agree that you shouldn't listen to uninformed opinions or take them seriously, any more than I do when IGN has some 20 year old kid rating ET as the 'worst game of all time' without even having played Atari.

    With Adventure, if you are incorporating historical significance, it should at least be in the running on your list for sure. It's very significant, and it can be argued, was a prototype for later action RPGs like Zelda (the format is remarkably similar to Zelda's dungeons: find items to unlock doors in a series of vertically and horizontally connected rooms with occasional secrets you need to use items to access), not to mention easter eggs. 

    Whether or not it's fun though depends on what you term as fun. I rate it quite highly. My friend John, who is building a game museum, finds it pretty dull. Both of us have been playing, researching and collecting for 30+ years... who is right? Neither of us. At least, neither of us when comparing our likes to anyone else's.



     

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    29 minutes ago, JBerel said:

    This is a question than can never be answered definitively for a variety of reasons. Most notably is the question of when does a "masterpiece" become possible vs cave paintings. There's so many ways to rank a video game and because the category is so versatile, to establish one or several as first masterpiece in a category equivalent to the Mona Lisa or Sistine Chapel is not really gonna happen. I'd think you'd just need a "best of" or "most notable accomplishment" list for several categories or something. I don't know how to crack it, but I'll just throw a few standouts that should be in the running.

     

    Pong/breakout

    Asteroids

    Adventure 

    Pitfall

    Zaxxon

    Tetris

    Super Mario (One of the many versions that did new stuff first/best) 

    Legend of Zelda Ocarina of time (I'm not a big Zelda fan, just based on what I read)

    Star Wars Arcade (or maybe that should go to Red Baron)

    Wolfenstein 3D

    Myst

    Goldeneye

    Shadow of the Colossus

    Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (people keep mentioning it, I dunno, never played it)

    E.T. (just kidding) 

    Mass Effect 2

    Knights of the old Republic (again, not my cup of tea, but whatever)

    Trine (I dunno bout this one, but it's pretty damn gorgeous.)

     

    The problem is that 'masterpiece' is ALWAYS subjective. Take books. Lots of college professors and a few others say that James Joyce's 'Ulysses' is a masterpiece. The rest of the planet thinks it's an impenetrable, boring, unreadable nightmare only used by arrogant college professors to justify their tenure. Who is right? Depends which side you are on.

    I think we can say that Adventure belongs on any 'games that were historically significant' list, but whether it's a masterpiece in terms of fun is always going to depend on taste. I love it and still play it. Others rarely touch it but love space invaders. It's all personal taste.

    It was the first action-adventure game, and the first widely recognized easter egg (to be generally found/noticed, the Channel F had the first which remained undiscovered for decades). That makes it significant.

    Fun is up to you.

    • Like 1
AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...