Jump to content
IGNORED

Video Game Console comparisons from 11/1982


doubledown

Recommended Posts

In the picture, they call the 5200 "System X" which is a WAY cooler name than 5200. Atari should have used that.

 

CV Super Action controllers are the best joysticks of that era so they should get top marks but to give the stock knub type a high mark indicates insanity or wildly deformed hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny about the CV controller rating - they're my least favorite of any classic console. =) Fun chart, though, thanks for the scan!

 

yeah - I'm not much of a fan of the CV controllers, either. Part of the problem is more than likely that mine are simply old and not as responsive as they used to be. I'd like to get my hands on a really good, clean set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reviewer obviously was really psyched about the Colecovision hence his slant in ratings in favor of it overall.

 

Yep, the gaming press at the time had a massive, throbbing boner for the Colecovision.

 

The reviewer obviously had some serious affection for the Astrocade, and some very warped tastes in controllers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't help but notice a few things...

How is it that for sound variety, the Colecovision got a no rating, which points to that units or carts not fully available at presstime for adequate testing?

Granted, they must have been just READING up on the system, but then how did they give an accurate rating on the controllers?

AND, on the 5200...their horrible, terrible unplayable controllers got a 3/4 stars. Sounds to me like they didn't find them all THAT bad as everyone complains. The lack of getting 4/4 may have to do with reliability than ergonomics.

But I digress...

Neat scan, but the chart is kind of crap. I can't imagine having used that to decide on what system back then.

 

And I agree with Joey the CV stock controllers are not exactly fun, but the Super action controllers are awesome (well...the ones I had were until they broke) :sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CV Super Action controllers are the best joysticks of that era so they should get top marks but to give the stock knub type a high mark indicates insanity or wildly deformed hands.

Yeah, that got me scratching my head as well. Those nub joysticks are terrible. I was also amused to see the 5200 controller rated the same as the 2600 sticks.

 

Thanks for the scan, Doubledown!

 

..Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love posts like this--some great reading to go with my morning coffee.

 

Regarding the 5200 controllers, I actually agree with the reviewer. Fresh out of the box, they are a 3/4 easily. Multiple buttons, variable speed depending on how hard/far you press it, number pad, Start, Pause, and Reset right on the controller... I loved these controllers when we first got them for Christmas in 1984 and I'm sure a reviewer would have a similar favorable reaction...until the inevitable breakdown.

 

Also, a terrible cheap shot at the Intellivision controllers--when he says it makes sports games complicated, I'm sure he means Baseball, where you have to select the player you want using the number pad. This is not complicated, it just takes skill and quick reflexes, and also: it's awesome. Baseball is still one of my top-10 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy had such a hard-on for the Colecovision it's not funny. Talk about a biased article. Funny how everyone was so excited about the Colecovision's graphics back then yet 25 years or so later we see that Colecovision games have -not- aged well (as opposed to the oh-so-primitive 2600's), and that the controllers have claimed the second place Suck award, Intellivision's having won the gold.

 

Also, the two stars for the Vectrex controllers in baffling. I owned a Vectrex back then and found the joystick very smooth and accurate, more so than Atari's less than reliable CX 40's. Meanwhile, that clunky, mushroom-headed Colecovision controller got top marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the picture, they call the 5200 "System X" which is a WAY cooler name than 5200. Atari should have used that.

I think that pic is actually a prototype 7800. They refer in the article and table to the 5200, so they obviously knew the name of that console. Look at the cartridge in the "System X" slot. Looks like a 2600/7800 cart to me, which changes the scale of the whole pic. Those controllers look more like 5200 models, of course, but I'd guess the ProLine was still in the early design stages in late 1982.

 

Now the question of course is why they'd show that instead of the 5200 but... well... look at their ratings in the table. They gave the 5200's controllers the same rating as the 2600's, and it looks like the Astrocade is their overall 1st choice (perhaps a tie with the CV).

 

If this magazine covered other technologies besides video games, they were probably also recommending Betamax! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy had such a hard-on for the Colecovision it's not funny. Talk about a biased article. Funny how everyone was so excited about the Colecovision's graphics back then yet 25 years or so later we see that Colecovision games have -not- aged well (as opposed to the oh-so-primitive 2600's), and that the controllers have claimed the second place Suck award, Intellivision's having won the gold.

 

That's how most of the articles back then were. Atari was the behemoth that everyone loved to hate and wanted to see knocked off the mountain (I liken 80's Atari to current day Microsoft). The 5200 was always the crap system according to the game mag reviews whereas the Colecovision could do no wrong. I wouldn't say the CV's graphics have not aged well, but many of the reviews back then had the 5200 as being the graphicially inferior system, when really it's arguable the 5200's are far better (not saying they are per se, but it could easily be argued as such)

But ya, the CV was the darling of all the gaming mags back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that the Colecovision's graphics haven't aged well. I meant that between the crappy controller and the inferior gameplay, Colecovision games are not a whole lot of fun to play nowadays (though this could be my bias), whereas 2600 games are. The same could be said about the Intellivision: better graphics, but terrible controllers and iffy gameplay helped ensure the 2600 remained king. If there is something we have learned from every generation of consoles since the VCS, it's that better graphics do not always a better system make. (Just look at NES vs Sega Master System, N64 vs PSX, PS2 vs X-Box)

 

Also, it is funny how gaming magazines were as biased back then as they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the analysis here fairly closely, but I draw a different conclusion....which is that the colecovision is the better console.

 

First on the controllers....no doubt, the packins are terrible, they must be replaced with a better controller.

 

But on the idea that CV games haven't aged well...the problem is, that the CV was the system that did arcade perfect ports...and that sold a lot of systems back in the day, but...the CV of course, cannot do arcade perfect ports of what is in the arcade in 2007.

 

So it didn't keep its original function...it completely lost it. And what may have really impressed back then, doesn't do anything today. You cannot simply fill a screen with fantastic graphics and pictures and have it impress anyone, because they are dated.

 

You need gameplay. The CV Donkey Kong is great. ...but, why not just play the actual arcade version.

 

History was unkind to the CV, because, we don't need it to play arcade ports, we have emulators to play the real version.

 

But for someone trying to write a new program, the CV has all kinds of power, and the Atari doesn't.

 

And if someone finds the 2600 too limiting to implement their vision for a game, the CV is a great choice.

 

As a programmer, I have to be sure that my game, when its done, has the game play that makes it addictive and fun.

 

The CV owns the 2600 in terms of what you can do with it. I haven't always seen its potential in current homebrews, but they will get better every year. What someone has to do, though, because of its power, you have to have an artist, to get the best pictures, a musician for the sound, a game designer, and a programmer. A team is best.

 

In the absense of having an artist, I have been going to free animation collection sites, and getting some of the artwork that is in the public domain. I cannot imagine a 2600 programmer ever doing that, because the 2600 just cannot display that much.

 

Attached is an actual 'angry tree' shot, of a real, in game animation...that is in my game currently...but may or may not, make it to the final release...

 

Graphics won't make the game...they are still primitive by todays standards, but they do have to be at least a notch above old Coleco games, and....the game play must be...shall I say, in the spirit of 2600 games.

dither2.bmp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get the appeal of the VCS adapter for the CV to people who already owned a 2600. This thinking that it's ok to upgrade to the CV because we can play the games on an adapter. Why not just keep the 2600 system?

 

I think the thought was why be forced to have 2 systems set up at the same time. Keep in mind they didn't make 3-way tv/game switches back in the eighties, which means you would have to unplug/plug systems to switch back and forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the picture, they call the 5200 "System X" which is a WAY cooler name than 5200. Atari should have used that.

I think that pic is actually a prototype 7800. They refer in the article and table to the 5200, so they obviously knew the name of that console. Look at the cartridge in the "System X" slot. Looks like a 2600/7800 cart to me, which changes the scale of the whole pic. Those controllers look more like 5200 models, of course, but I'd guess the ProLine was still in the early design stages in late 1982.

 

Now the question of course is why they'd show that instead of the 5200 but... well... look at their ratings in the table. They gave the 5200's controllers the same rating as the 2600's, and it looks like the Astrocade is their overall 1st choice (perhaps a tie with the CV).

 

If this magazine covered other technologies besides video games, they were probably also recommending Betamax! :D

 

Could be, so I'll amend my statement: "System X" is a WAY cooler name than 5200 OR 7800! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I just realized that "5200" is exactly double "2600", and "7800" is "2600" more than "5200" and/or three times that of "2600". Atari was really onto something there. So in esscence according to all math and common sense, I hypothesize that:

 

2600=1

5200=2

7800=3

 

ergo:

 

5200 is twice as "technologicial" as the 2600

 

7800 is the "technology" of the 5200 plus the "technology" of the 2600, and/or is three times as "technological" as the 2600

 

Really makes you think. My brain hurts now! :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get the appeal of the VCS adapter for the CV to people who already owned a 2600. This thinking that it's ok to upgrade to the CV because we can play the games on an adapter. Why not just keep the 2600 system?

 

I think the thought was why be forced to have 2 systems set up at the same time. Keep in mind they didn't make 3-way tv/game switches back in the eighties, which means you would have to unplug/plug systems to switch back and forth.

 

 

Like dweebs like me still do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...