Best home version of Donkey Kong?

[NinjaWarrior]

Wow, The Atari 8-bit is beating out the NES

[BillyHW]

Not surprising on this forum.

 

I've been playing around with the C64 versions again in VICE. The Atarisoft version has some serious collision detection issues. And the barrel A.I. (if you can call it that) is very different from other ports. I'm not liking it.

[JPjuice23]

Nintendo needs to get on it and release Arcade VC games. There isn't a single version I really like.

[snstay]

I checked other cuz i just downloaded a rom of donkey kong with the missing level.

So thats now my new favorite version. Its on the nes, but now on my powerpak.

 

Scott

Edited March 19, 2012 by snstay

[+FujiSkunk]

These topics are always flawed. A "home" version could be anything you have at home...

 

2600 HAD the best port. It was first.

 

Nukey, forgive me, but I'm not really quite sure if you're being serious. This post seems just a tad smart-alecky, and I don't mean that disparagingly.

 

At any rate, I think there is a pretty good consensus of what "home version" means, just like there is a pretty good consensus of what "8-bit era" means. Yes, the actual arcade games could be played at home by those privileged enough to do so, and yes, not every console released during the 8-bit era was actually an 8-bit machine. But the terms have acquired enough context that people get the idea of what is being referred to. Claiming the definitions are wrong at this point is just picking nits.

 

But hey, if nitpicky is what we want, then I'll say any question asking for the "best" of something is not going to have a right answer anyway. We all have our own definitions of "best," and even if we try to shape those definitions objectively, they still don't apply to anyone but ourselves.

 

So, if your definition of "best" means the first out of the gate that had some resemblance to the original, or if it means the one among those released for home computers and video game consoles that most accurately captured the arcade game's presentation and mechanics, or if it's just the one you liked the most, you get to have a legitimate opinion any which way. And we get to debate that opinion, which is the whole point of threads like this, "flawed" or not.

Edited March 19, 2012 by FujiSkunk

[youki]

I'm a great DK Fan , i have almost all version of DK in my collection. As well tons of goodies.

 

I voted the C64 version. Both version on C64 are great , but i have a little preference for the AtariSoft version.

 

The Amstrad CPC version (not listed) is very good also.

[Mark Wolfe]

well, this may be cheating a bit but the very best one I know of was released WITHIN the N64 game "Donkey Kong 64"

 

as you progress through the game you get to a control room [i forget exactly where in the game, it's been a long time] where there is a Donkey Kong arcade machine, you have to play donkey kong and get past a certain number of levels to keep going in the dk64 game, you can return and play DK as much as you want for as long as you want and basically it is the actual rom from the game emulated by the N64... so really, it is the BEST official home version of Donkey Kong there is

 

after that, the Gameboy Donkey Kong GB is really really good [it was the first version of mario vs donkey kong lol]. the first levels of this port are exact to the arcade with the exception that you do not die of you jump from too far high up and you can stand on your head and do a special long jump but aside from that it is a dead-on port of the arcade original, so let's just say it is the best handheld version and leave it at that. Despite what naysayers here are saying about the gameboy version this is actually more like a continuation of the original, what they could have done had they more memory. It is the continuing story of mario chasing that damn ape...

 

lastly, in my opinion the version for Colecovision and the ones on the various Commodore platforms are pretty damn good. I thought the absolute worst were the Atari 2600 version and actually the NES version because they left out the one level... that was inexcusable in my opinion, can't play the game as it is meant to be played without that missing level.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Mark Wolfe

[Mark Wolfe]

Are you KIDDING me?!?! The best was Donkey Kong 64 by far!

 

that's what I'm sayin'!!!

[Retro Rogue]

These topics are always flawed. A "home" version could be anything you have at home...

 

2600 HAD the best port. It was first.

 

Nukey, forgive me, but I'm not really quite sure if you're being serious. This post seems just a tad smart-alecky, and I don't mean that disparagingly.

 

I have to assume he's joking because the 2600 version was after the Colecovision version of course, as it was programmed by Coleco for the 2600.

 

 

just like there is a pretty good consensus of what "8-bit era" means.

 

I wouldn't bet on that, there's many who think it refers to the NES/SMS era exclusively and that earlier consoles were "4-bit". The current Smithsonian Video Game Art exhibit isn't helping the issue.

[NE146]

well, this may be cheating a bit but the very best one I know of was released WITHIN the N64 game "Donkey Kong 64"

 

Agreed.. although whether it's a fully emulated version was always a question in my mind.. there seemed to be some slight gameplay differences from the arcade game the last time I played it.. but it's been so long I forget exactly what.

 

after that, the Gameboy Donkey Kong GB is really really good [it was the first version of mario vs donkey kong lol]. the first levels of this port are exact to the arcade with the exception that you do not die of you jump from too far high up and you can stand on your head and do a special long jump but aside from that it is a dead-on port of the arcade original,

 

Oh come on it's pretty far from a "dead-on" port. Although the stages are of course meant to be homage layouts of the arcade originals, they are pretty far from exact. Also the gameplay is far far different in tons of little ways. Donkey Kong for the Gameboy is a platforming puzzle game. End of story.

 

I'll just leave this here .

 

Edited March 20, 2012 by NE146

[MaximRecoil]

 

just like there is a pretty good consensus of what "8-bit era" means.

 

I wouldn't bet on that, there's many who think it refers to the NES/SMS era exclusively and that earlier consoles were "4-bit". The current Smithsonian Video Game Art exhibit isn't helping the issue.

 

I've always considered the so-called "8-bit era" to refer to the NES/SMS era exclusively, and not because I think that earlier consoles were "4-bit". It is because there was no such thing as an "8-bit era" until the so-called "16-bit" era began with the Sega Genesis, and "16-bit" was the marketer's way of distinguishing their console from, and denoting its technical superiority to, its competition at the time, mainly the "8-bit" NES. The fact that the e.g. Atari 2600 and ColecoVision had 8-bit CPUs is irrelevant to the so-called "8-bit era" in the same way that the Intellivision's 16-bit CPU is irrelevant to the so-called "16-bit era". "8-bit" and "16-bit" as they were popularly used were just marketing terms anyway. While they do have legitimate technical definitions, they are meaningless as a measure of a system's graphical, memory, processing, and audio capabilities. Marketing and popular usage defined the terms, and that definition does not include e.g. Atari 2600 and ColecoVision.

 

It goes something like this:

 

First generation - Atari 2600, Intellivision (marketers hadn't discovered "bits" yet)

Second generation - Atari 5200, ColecoVision (marketers hadn't discovered "bits" yet)

Third generation - NES, SMS (retroactively dubbed "8-bit era" because ...)

Fourth generation - SNES, Sega Genesis (... marketers discover "bits", "16" = superior, "8" = inferior)

[BillyHW]

just like there is a pretty good consensus of what "8-bit era" means.

 

I wouldn't bet on that, there's many who think it refers to the NES/SMS era exclusively and that earlier consoles were "4-bit". The current Smithsonian Video Game Art exhibit isn't helping the issue.

 

I've always considered the so-called "8-bit era" to refer to the NES/SMS era exclusively, and not because I think that earlier consoles were "4-bit". It is because there was no such thing as an "8-bit era" until the so-called "16-bit" era began with the Sega Genesis, and "16-bit" was the marketer's way of distinguishing their console from, and denoting its technical superiority to, its competition at the time, mainly the "8-bit" NES. The fact that the e.g. Atari 2600 and ColecoVision had 8-bit CPUs is irrelevant to the so-called "8-bit era" in the same way that the Intellivision's 16-bit CPU is irrelevant to the so-called "16-bit era". "8-bit" and "16-bit" as they were popularly used were just marketing terms anyway. While they do have legitimate technical definitions, they are meaningless as a measure of a system's graphical, memory, processing, and audio capabilities. Marketing and popular usage defined the terms, and that definition does not include e.g. Atari 2600 and ColecoVision.

 

It goes something like this:

 

First generation - Atari 2600, Intellivision (marketers hadn't discovered "bits" yet)

Second generation - Atari 5200, ColecoVision (marketers hadn't discovered "bits" yet)

Third generation - NES, SMS (retroactively dubbed "8-bit era" because ...)

Fourth generation - SNES, Sega Genesis (... marketers discover "bits", "16" = superior, "8" = inferior)

 

Exactly.

[high voltage]

just like there is a pretty good consensus of what "8-bit era" means.

 

I wouldn't bet on that, there's many who think it refers to the NES/SMS era exclusively and that earlier consoles were "4-bit". The current Smithsonian Video Game Art exhibit isn't helping the issue.

 

I've always considered the so-called "8-bit era" to refer to the NES/SMS era exclusively, and not because I think that earlier consoles were "4-bit". It is because there was no such thing as an "8-bit era" until the so-called "16-bit" era began with the Sega Genesis, and "16-bit" was the marketer's way of distinguishing their console from, and denoting its technical superiority to, its competition at the time, mainly the "8-bit" NES. The fact that the e.g. Atari 2600 and ColecoVision had 8-bit CPUs is irrelevant to the so-called "8-bit era" in the same way that the Intellivision's 16-bit CPU is irrelevant to the so-called "16-bit era". "8-bit" and "16-bit" as they were popularly used were just marketing terms anyway. While they do have legitimate technical definitions, they are meaningless as a measure of a system's graphical, memory, processing, and audio capabilities. Marketing and popular usage defined the terms, and that definition does not include e.g. Atari 2600 and ColecoVision.

 

It goes something like this:

 

First generation - Atari 2600, Intellivision (marketers hadn't discovered "bits" yet)

Second generation - Atari 5200, ColecoVision (marketers hadn't discovered "bits" yet)

Third generation - NES, SMS (retroactively dubbed "8-bit era" because ...)

Fourth generation - SNES, Sega Genesis (... marketers discover "bits", "16" = superior, "8" = inferior)

 

Nah, NES/SMS was just consoles too, marketers didn't use the term '8-bit era' either.

 

That actually came earlier with computers, Atari 8-bit computer is the best example here, than came 16-bit, Atari ST (1985) being the best example again.

[MaximRecoil]

 

Nah, NES/SMS was just consoles too, marketers didn't use the term '8-bit era' either.

 

Why did you type "nah" and then follow it with a statement that agrees with what I already said?

[high voltage]

Because nobody nowadays calls the NES/SMS '8-bit era' at all ...just consoles.

You could call the SMS '8-bit era' because Sega were clever by putting 16-bit on their MegaDrive console, later Nintendo copied it for their SNES (my SNES box proudly says Super 16-bit...ah we know Nintendo, been playing it for two years on MegaDrive already).

 

But anybody who doesn't call the VCS, Coleco '8-bit era' is just clueless (Inty is 16-bit, btw)

Edited March 20, 2012 by high voltage

[Rex Dart]

Because nobody nowadays calls the NES/SMS '8-bit era' at all ...

 

^ Extremely inaccurate statement.

[Retro Rogue]

Because nobody nowadays calls the NES/SMS '8-bit era' at all ...

 

^ Extremely inaccurate statement.

 

I concur.

[MaximRecoil]

Because nobody nowadays calls the NES/SMS '8-bit era' at all ...just consoles.

You could call the SMS '8-bit era' because Sega were clever by putting 16-bit on their MegaDrive console, later Nintendo copied it for their SNES (my SNES box proudly says Super 16-bit...ah we know Nintendo, been playing it for two years on MegaDrive already).

 

"Era" refers to a time period. The "8-bit era" as it is commonly used is synonymous with the "NES era" and refers to the "third generation" consoles time period.

 

But anybody who doesn't call the VCS, Coleco '8-bit era' is just clueless (Inty is 16-bit, btw)

 

I bolded the part where you've again repeated something I've already pointed out. The Atari 2600 and ColecoVision were not part of the "8-bit era" for the same reason that the Intellivision was not part of the "16-bit era".

Edited March 20, 2012 by MaximRecoil

[Retro Rogue]

The Atari 2600 and ColecoVision were not part of the "8-bit era" for the same reason that the Intellivision was not part of the "16-bit era".

 

Which is what I was originally complaining about when I stated that's just a wrong classification and naming based on later inaccurate interpretation of marketing (i.e. "Genesis is starting the 16 bit console generation so NES is the previous 8-bit and anything older must be less"), and the current Smithsonian exhibit isn't helping. It's specifically what leads a lot of the general populace to think the earlier consoles are somehow less than 8-bit, and it's a point of frustration in a lot of scholarly and preservation circles. There were three waves of "8-bit era" technology - 1) VCS/VES/Odyssey2/RCA, etc., 2) Colecovision, 5200, Vectrex. 3) 7800/NES/SMS.

[NE146]

Look it's easy. The Xbox 360 being the current gen of systems is quite simply 496-bit since you have to minus 1 1/2 generation back as it is simply the Xbox 1.5 (not the Xbox 2).

 

Now just extrapolate backwards.

Edited March 20, 2012 by NE146

[BillyHW]

Anyone have any idea how I can play the Adam version on my Mac?

[+darryl1970]

It's true that the Nintendo 8-bit had the best LOOKING version of Donkey Kong. However, I was extremely bitter after I played it. It sounded and looked great, but the gameplay was missing most of the details that Atari 8-bit had... The NES follows the same lame patterns over and over -- none of the unexpected randomness of the Arcade. The bottom hammer was moved. My guess is that the fireball was not programmed to be destroyed by the hammer, so they limitted it to the first two levels, and they placed the hammer up on the third.. Mario's wall bounce is missing the "spring-up" effect. The points are all wrong when jumping multiple barrels.. Nintendo could have done a perfect version... (In fact, there was a BETTER version they released for the Japanese Wii, which included the Pie factory and cut scenes. However, it still had lame gameplay..)

 

Anyway, the Atari 8-bit has been my longtime favorite, and I still have a certain loyalty to it.. HOWEVER, I voted for the C-64... Not the clunky (pretty to look at though), muddy-slow, Atarisoft version, but I voted for the OCEAN version. I have to give credit where it is due. That version (Almost identical to the Amstrad) has all four screens (in japanese order), and it has most of the elements. It is a version that I KNOW could have been reproduced on the Atari 8-bit too. I wish somebody would port that!..

[BillyHW]

Anyone know what the ROM size was for the NES version? I'd also be interested in knowing what the ROM sizes were for the other versions.

[high voltage]

The Atari 2600 and ColecoVision were not part of the "8-bit era" for the same reason that the Intellivision was not part of the "16-bit era".

 

Which is what I was originally complaining about when I stated that's just a wrong classification and naming based on later inaccurate interpretation of marketing (i.e. "Genesis is starting the 16 bit console generation so NES is the previous 8-bit and anything older must be less"), and the current Smithsonian exhibit isn't helping. It's specifically what leads a lot of the general populace to think the earlier consoles are somehow less than 8-bit, and it's a point of frustration in a lot of scholarly and preservation circles. There were three waves of "8-bit era" technology - 1) VCS/VES/Odyssey2/RCA, etc., 2) Colecovision, 5200, Vectrex. 3) 7800/NES/SMS.

 

Actually 4 waves, not forgetting A8, Apple ][, C64. So please get it right people, the NES/SMS was just (a little) part of the huge 8-bit era ( a 'time period' from 1977 to late 80s/early 90s)

Edited March 21, 2012 by high voltage

[high voltage]

Gotta look up the Smithonian and their mistakes, I hope it's to see online.

Edited March 21, 2012 by high voltage