G.Whiz

Yes, that's the address. Coleco didn't have a "headquarters" in Canada, this is simply the Canadian branch office. This "branch plant" style of setting up offices in Canada was quite common in the 70's and 80's. Today, however, major companies tend to spin-off Canadian operations. For example, McDonald's Canada is not "McDonald's" -- it is a corporation in its own right. (And, incidentally, it was McDonald's Canada that brought the franchise to Russia way back when, not the American counterpart...) BTW "QCQA" most likely means Quality Control/Quality Assurance. ~G Thanks. I've seen other Coleco Canada products out there. There's a hockey table they made. So I'm guessing it's a decent sized plant up there (it may still be there, who knows). From what I've gathered on the internet there are still abandoned trailers sitting around up there. Hasbro bought them out in 1989. http://www.mybis.net/itp/Montreal/html/sthenri51.html Well, the plant there probably had nothing to do with videogames -- more likely just air hockey, etc. Although I think "branch plant" originally referred to U.S. companies building plants in Canada to avoid paying duties, etc. bringing goods into Canada, the term evolved in meaning to encompass other types of companies too. For example, more and more products began to actually be produced in Hong Kong during the 70's (as was one of these cartridges) and Taiwan (like Atari consoles after the first year) so they were being imported anyway. Rather than import to the States, then export them to Canada, effectively paying duty twice, they would set up an office in Canada to import products directly into the country in which they would be sold. There are several other reasons why you would want to set up a separate division in Canada (or any other country for that matter). As you have noticed, all Canadian packaging (including instruction manuals) needs both French and English on it. Almost everything you buy here, from cereal and cookies to lottery cards, toasters, and concert tickets must be bilingual. I don't know the rules of exceptions, but I have noticed some items that are exempt from this, mostly in specialty stores (e.g. asian sauces, italian foods, etc.) Distribution is much easier to coordinate from within the country. I would think that marketing would be better off done within the country too, to avoid cross-cultural mistakes (like, for example, when Ford introduced a new car in Japan or somewhere, and named it "Piece of Shit" because of a mistranslation...) I would imagine there would be a lot less governmental red tape as well if you actually have an office within the country. If you are interested, I found out more about "branch plant economy" in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_plant_economy ~G

Yes, that's the address. Coleco didn't have a "headquarters" in Canada, this is simply the Canadian branch office. This "branch plant" style of setting up offices in Canada was quite common in the 70's and 80's. Today, however, major companies tend to spin-off Canadian operations. For example, McDonald's Canada is not "McDonald's" -- it is a corporation in its own right. (And, incidentally, it was McDonald's Canada that brought the franchise to Russia way back when, not the American counterpart...) BTW "QCQA" most likely means Quality Control/Quality Assurance. ~G

That's pretty good eyesight. And who ever said that playing videogames ruins your vision? Congrats on the score... ~G

Yes, I think it has more to do with game design/development than memory limitations. Adventure games, like Atari Adventure of course, were games that you could "finish" -- and I think the single best thing WR did was make it random so that you could have a different game each time. Look at later adventure games like Ultima. One solution, and once it is solved there is no real reason to play it again. Although it obviously took a lot longer to solve, ultimately you were left with a finished game. Action games started to do this too when the computer game came out. One that comes to mind is "Raid on Bungeling Bay" (sp?) where you flew a helicopter, had to shoot down enemies, and continuously bomb a ship (if memory serves). We did end up solving it eventually -- and then never played it again. Then came first person shooters like Doom, which combined adventure with action. Suddenly all these games required you to "finish" it, and I think today's games, first person shooter or not, owe a lot to Doom for this final shift in gameplay. So what is better? I think both are good in their own way. Space Invaders would not be the game it is if suddenly the screen flashed "YOU KILLED THEM ALL. YOU WIN." It certainly wouldn't be the classic it still is today. On the other hand, it would have been nice to finally get to the end of the river in River Raid... And where would Adventure be if you kept fighting wave after wave of dragons, never being able to get the Chalice? One thing is certain, good "Alamo" games would be a welcome comeback for many people. ~G

I often wonder what the history of the company might have been had he kept control. It would certainly have been different. For all of his brilliance there is every indication that Bushnell was not the greatest book keeper in the world. Every company he owned seemed to struggle for money at one time or another. So the company might have struggled to stay afloat ona pretty regular basis. This is largely due to his being very innovative and we would CERTAINLY have seen the 5200 and 7800 units LONG before Warner ever got to them. Atari would have been the company that put the NES out in America and as a result would probably still be in busines today. -Ray I totally agree Yes, me too. I see Bushnell as sort of the Steve Jobs of the videogame world. He had a vision, and he followed it no matter what happened. Of course the paths split when Bushnell sold to Warner -- I believe it had more to do with distribution than anything else (but correct me if I'm wrong) -- whereas Jobs kept control. His own methods have been up and down as well, sometimes seen as the saviour (like now with the iPod phenomenon) and at other times the albatross around the neck (like when he was kicked out by his own BoD). I imagine that Bushnell would have had his own ups and downs, but his success with Chuck E. Cheese showed that he did have at least some business sense. Who knows what might have happened, though the NES deal would have probably gone through in some form or another. But no matter what happened, the Atari name would have been more of a beloved brand than a semi-lucrative commodity kicked around by various corporations like it has over the years... ~G

The Intellivision version of Space Attack, Space Battle, was originally planned to be a Battlestar Galactica game. The ships in it even bear a resembelance to the ships from that series. Haven't played that -- wonder why they didn't go ahead with the BG theme? Probably some licensing thing that fell through. Next to Star Wars, I think that would be the biggest movie/TV licensing deal of the time. ~G

On the topic of finding peoples, Anyoneknow of a good Canadian (FREE) search engine to find people aside from canada411.ca? Simply www. 411.ca -- they actually do web hosting and stuff too. I haven't used it extensively, but I've found everyone I've looked for so I assume that it uses a compiled list of telephone books... ~G

Deathrace 2000 Battlestar Galactica (both shoot 'em up and "sports" game -- what was it called, Trilon or something? With the gold volleyball? Maybe tough to do on the 2600...) ~G

Just remember that you were barely old enough to wipe your own butt back then, so you must have missed out on the general feeling of the time. Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were huge. What's with the attack? You have admitted yourself that you didn't see the movie until many years later, yet you calling down someone else because they were too young to understand... Which is kind of hypocritical since if you were too young to see Raiders (of all movies), who was wiping your butt when Star Wars came out? Still, you are implying that you were part of the "huge"-ness of that movie too. Kisrael is telling you that you have a right to your opinion and has given pretty good proof that he does in fact know what he is talking about when it comes to his own viewpoints. Yet you can't let it go. You keep coming at him as if he is "wrong" and you are "right". Again, how can you claim that you were part of this "collective consciousness" and Kisrael wasn't when you didn't see the movie at that time either? As Kisrael pointed out, the only thing similar between the movie and the game is the two minutes of jungle scene at the beginning. And yes, I believe the details like the hat and the whip are key if you are claiming (as you have) that Pitfall was a ripoff. I think these personal attacks on Kisrael are out of line. Yeah, it's a free board, free speech, and whatever freedom you want to claim. But I believe that any validity in your arguments must be in question when (1) you hadn't even seen the movie, yet ridicule others for not seeing it either, (2) you imply that anyone who can't spell "Yars'" on a bulletin board shouldn't be listened to, and (3) you believe that there is any remote connection between Toto's "Africa" and Indiana Jones. Let it go. Everyone has their own opinion, and if you are going to debate the merits of someone else's arguments, you'd better have a solid basis for your own. ~G

I think you lost track of what this thread is about. It's not asking if Pitfall Harry was original, it's asking if he was the closest thing the Atari 2600 had to a Mario. Was Pitfall Harry a Mickey Mouse? There didn't seem to be any advertising that gave Pitfall Harry a personality of his own. He was just whatever you wanted him to be and if that was Indiana Jones, so be it. Activision didn't mind riding those lucrative coattails. No, I didn't lose track of the thread, just following the off-topic tangent. So back on topic then... Pitfall Harry can't stand for Atari because it is an Activision game. Mario, Sonic, et al. are all representative of the console manufacturer as well as their respective games. I think the short answer is that Atari doesn't have a mascot. But if I were to choose the "cartoon" representatives of the company, I'd go with the growing group of people (astronaut, pilot, race car driver, etc.) who stood on the front of the Atari catalogues. To me, they are the most representative of the company, and capture the imagination in a way that is similar to what mascots do. ~G

I seem to remember that it was included with the instructions, a number to call or an address to send to if you were really stuck. Half the instruction manual was recommended as "Don't Look" -- they encouraged you to play the game first before you started looking for hints... ~G

Just spitballin' here, but really, if you didn't buy Flag Capture in the early days, why bother when you had much more choice like Demon Attack, Space Invaders, et al.? You've got $40 burning a hole in your pocket, whatcha' gonna buy with it? I know that Flag Capture was not high on my list after about 1979 or so... Yes, someone's grandmother is going to get it for them for Christmas, but still it wouldn't rate compared to other games. ~G

True. Perhaps somewhat. But today, we don't really equate Pitfall Harry with Indiana Jones, except on perhaps a genre level. And we certainly weren't aware of a direct connection back then. If anything, there was a closer connection with Tarzan, swinging from vines, avoiding crocodiles -- anyone else remember those movies and the series? Of course if you think about it now, the hat bears a striking resemblance, and perhaps the first two minutes of the movie with the jungle scene could lend the backdrop. But then Indiana Jones borrowed from Star Wars (and not just the lead actor) which borrowed from Westerns, which borrowed from God knows what. Where do you draw the line? No story has been truly original for 1,000 years or more. And no game can be called 100% original. Mice had been eating cheese in mazes long before Pac Man came out. War of the Worlds was decades before Space Invaders. Perhaps the whole Indiana Jones craze helped Pitfall along, but now, years past the afterglow of that amazing movie, it is still considered to be one of the best all-time Atari games. And I think that stands for something... ~G

Sub in: The Eminem Show Ahem, your attention please! We're gonna have a problem here... Eminem is stuck in 8 Mile, and he's got to get out before he gets his closet cleaned -- permanently. You must find the real Slim Shady and guide him past killer Stan Fan letters, lawyers carrying court summons, and 20 million other white rappers. But watch out! Eminem's wife Kim is out there too -- sometimes you got to keep her close, sometimes you gotta keep da girl as far aways as possible. How you gonna know the difference? Only the Real Slim Shady will know! And be careful when you finally make it to the edge of 8 Mile. Two trailer park girls are going 'round the outside, 'round the outside, 'round the outside. You touch them and yo white ass is toast! Keep yo eye open for Obie Trice. Touch him when he's in the house, he'll give you a Big Ass Medallion . You're one golden mofo for twenty seconds! Cross the median curb, and you're as free as a bird. Otherwise, the FCC will shut you down and you'll die alone in 8 Mile! Listen up kids, I'm the Real Slim Shady ...and I'm telling you your Atari will feel so empty without me. So get ready, cuz this shit's goin' get heavy! Have You Played Atari Today, Bitch? ... ~G

I'm going to say Kaboom! I know that it was popular in the day, but it definitely earned that popularity. You had ads for Pac Man and Space Invaders, and all of them made an impact purely through marketing. But Kaboom! worked its way to the top. It started out as just another title in the Activision catalogue, and now it is one of the most revered carts. I don't think even the people at Activision were expecting it to do so well. ~G

Yeah -- Pac Man, Swordquest, all the obvious. Asteroids as well for me. Pitfall II I didn't mind, but I agree that there could have been a bit more gameplay thought put into it -- why make an essentially linear adventure with all these rooms when you could make a whole map like Adventure? Anyway, the biggest disappointment for me was Barnstorming. The artwork on the box clearly shows the airplane doing a loop on the front of the box -- I actually had to read the instructions to find out that in fact you could not do a loop at all... ~G

Yeah, I think I have to agree here after putting some thought into it. I guess technically, they could do some accounting stuff to split some of the package price towards the "price" of Combat -- at the very least it would have to be accounted into the total cost to produce of the unit. But that's not why I think Combat should be counted. I look at it like Windows -- everyone gets Windows on almost any new computer bought, but how many people actually buy a full copy stand-alone? But Microsoft gets a chunk of every computer sale that contains Windows on it (or Works, or any other MS software for that matter.) It's hard to argue that Windows isn't the "best selling" OS of all time... Would Combat have been a top seller if not included? Certainly in the early days considering it was one of the few available. But of all the original carts, Combat was certainly the best choice both in terms of game play and showing Atari's versatility (64 different games, or whatever it was, some very distinct). Ultimately I would include Combat in the rankings too, and I still see it as the quintessential game -- Combat is Atari. ~G

Definitely "inspired" games rather than "dodge the lawyer" games. Yes, Chopper Command is a good example of this. Demon Attack (which has been discussed in other posts) is another good one. Some say it is a rip off of Phoenix, though the programmer says that Galaxian was the inspiration. I think that it is a great game inspired by those that came before it, but with enough of its own elements to call it unique. However, KC Munchkin for the Odyssey II was supposedly a very good game despite its similarities to Pac Man. I never played so I don't know, but I guess this flies in the face of my arguement! ~G

Yeah, holograms figured into my thinking too, like the holographic chess they played in Star Wars. I always thought that the natural progression would be towards the computer, and game systems would become obsolete. I still don't understand why companies like HP and even Apple don't turn their computers into "game ready" machines, with joysticks etc. Yeah, sure you can buy them separately but with the huge videogame market out there, why leave it to the consumer to piece their machine together? And I'm very surprised that the videogame system market is still alive today. I remember watching "Bits and Bytes", a show up here in Canada, that talked about computers, what they could do, and what the future could be. They would show these amazing graphics generated by an Apple II -- very archaic by today's standards, but that's when I really started thinking about the future of games. Graphics and sound were obviously the two big improvements that needed work. I thought eventually that it would become so realistic that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the game and reality unless you were conscious of the fact. Sort of like a dream when you know you are dreaming. I still think that is coming, though I can't get over the realism of some of the games today already. I also think chips that interact with the brainwaves to help provide this "suspension of disbelief" will be in the future. Sure, it sounds crazy and sci-fi now, but if you could enhance your game play by getting a harmless chip under your skin or perhaps by wearing a special headset, wouldn't you do it? If the desire is there from enough people and physics allow it, it will happen. ~G

I think this one just became my new favourite label! ~G

According to Wikipedia, quoting another source, E.T. is eighth. Would you count Combat? That must be up there, since it was included with millions of units before they switched to packaging it with other games (was Pac-Man the first to replace Combat?) ~G

Somebody recently did a documentary about Nilsson, and the title is: "Who is Harry Nilsson?" (which is what cracked me up ) Yeah, that is funny! Guess it goes to show that the filmmaker really nailed that title... BTW, don't think it was him in the Pitfall video. But he does look familiar -- any ideas? ~G

If you look at images 20-25, it appears that it was used to get in and out of the map room. I have never gotten very far in this game, so I'm not sure how you do it in the normal game... Why leave it out? To save k for some other feature? Also, is this perhaps why you can never get to the top of the Ark, because you never use the key? (i.e. the key was taken out of game play, but it still was programmed to trigger the "points" needed to reach the Ark at the end of the game). The key shown in the screenshots is used to get inside the map room. The key I'm talking about is a second one that was never used in the game. It only exists as forgotten data in the ROM. Well there you go -- didn't realize there was a key (told ya I didn't make it far...) So then, this second key, that would still fit my theory. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that HSW said the fact that you couldn't reach the top was a bug or something. A friend of mine, who had the game and did get all the way through, was banging his head for weeks trying to find out what he missed. Is it possible then that this second key was still attached to the point system after it was removed from the game? ~G

Phoenix coin-op: 1980 If anyone wants to know which Atari 2600 game was released first, here's the answer for that: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=533457 Did a bit of digging -- DA was released in 1982, so Phoenix was out first. However, the programmer said that Galaxian was actually the inspiration. This was in 1993, so I don't think that there was any need to "lie" about it at this point, if in fact it was based on Phoenix: DP: Demon Attack was probably your biggest seller. Fulop: Yes, that was the best one. DP: What was it based on? What was your inspiration for it? Fulop: Galaxian. That's pretty obvious! The idea was to have a game where there was a lot to see. The farther you got, the more there was. There are basically seven different monsters, and we colored them eight different ways. This led to 56 variations. Actually, there are 84 waves. It's a big game to see everything. http://www.digitpress.com/archives/interview_fulop.htm Also, I looked at the AtariAge external reviews, and according to the website, those reviewers collectively gave DA 87% while Phoenix got a measely 80%. I'd say that this is conclusive proof that DA is indeed better than Phoenix. ~G

Did Demon Attack come out before the coin-op of Phoenix? I kind of have the impression that DA was more a spin on Space Invaders, not Phoenix. Although there are similar elements, Phoenix I think is closer to Galaxian and Galaga (both of which also fall on the Space Invaders family tree, but on a different branch, methinks...) But then I guess you could say DA was inspired by Galaxian, which I believe was out at the time. Anyway, I always liked Demon Attack. When it came out, the sound and graphics were mind blowing -- those demons were somehow so chaotic yet so precise! Didn't play much Phoenix though I remember the time I did play it, I thought it was pretty good. That was about the time that I started getting into girls, so Atari was slipping away... ~G