Intentionally crippled games...

[Herbarius]

A minute ago the AA homepage showed me this part of trivia:

It is rumored that Coleco intentionally crippled their games for other systems in order to make their own system look better.

 

What immediately came to my mind was: Not only Coleco did that.

 

In fact, I think even Atari did it. Do you know the C64 version of Galaxian? Compare it to the Atari-8bit-version... The C64 version looks and sounds like crap, and it doesn't play nearly as well as the Atari 8-bit version. Yeah, Atari made both versions. I think that's very suspicious, as the possibilites of both machines are very comparable, but the C64 version is FAR inferior.

 

Do you agree?

 

Perhaps this thread can be used to collect some more examples of this "marketing trick"...

 

 

I hope this is the right board, couldn't figure any place where this thread would fit better...

Edited April 12, 2009 by Herbarius

[gamerz]

I dont agree, at least not entirely, Atarisoft version of Galaxian for the Colecovision is probably the best one, also Centipede and Defender.

Edited April 12, 2009 by gamerz

[Herbarius]

I dont agree, at least not intirely, Atarisoft version of Galaxian for the Colecovision is probably the best one, also Centipede and Defender.

 

Sorry, I don't even know the Colecovision version of Galaxian. I was explicitly referring to the C64 version. I didn't want to say that Atari did that all the time! Just that they might have done it sometimes, e.g. with the C64 Galaxian.

[VideoFever1982]

I read where it was said that Sony did the same thing to Sega CD so that the Playstation would do better. Examples are anything by Sony Imagesoft like Dracula. Not sure if this is the deal tho.

[gamerz]

I read where it was said that Sony did the same thing to Sega CD so that the Playstation would do better. Examples are anything by Sony Imagesoft like Dracula. Not sure if this is the deal tho.

 

 

I wouldnt doubt it.

[VideoFever1982]

I read where it was said that Sony did the same thing to Sega CD so that the Playstation would do better. Examples are anything by Sony Imagesoft like Dracula. Not sure if this is the deal tho.

 

 

I wouldnt doubt it.

I know. The Dracula game was made horrible. Would have been i nice concept but the controls sucked and didn't make any sense. Just go around kicking bats and crap. I have their Cliffhanger too which actually wasn't too bad. Can't do the damn snowboarding part tho.

[TwiliteZoner]

A minute ago the AA homepage showed me this part of trivia:

It is rumored that Coleco intentionally crippled their games for other systems in order to make their own system look better.

 

What immediately came to my mind was: Not only Coleco did that.

 

In fact, I think even Atari did it. Do you know the C64 version of Galaxian? Compare it to the Atari-8bit-version... The C64 version looks and sounds like crap, and it doesn't play nearly as well as the Atari 8-bit version. Yeah, Atari made both versions. I think that's very suspicious, as the possibilites of both machines are very comparable, but the C64 version is FAR inferior.

 

Do you agree?

 

Perhaps this thread can be used to collect some more examples of this "marketing trick"...

 

 

I hope this is the right board, couldn't figure any place where this thread would fit better...

 

Funny that you would think that because I used to think that the Atarisoft games were too good. I think with very few exceptions (if any) that they were pretty outstanding. The Vic20 ports immediately come to mind.

[gamerz]

I wish Atari made games as good for their own systems.

[VideoFever1982]

I wish Atari made games as good for their own systems.

Tell me about it. Still tho, they did a pretty good job tho.

[carmel_andrews]

well, just be glad that the person that did 2600 PACMAN didn't code that game for a non atari system (bearing in mind how piss poor 2600 PAMAN is)

 

And Cygnus X1 (or XI) is the A8 equivalent to 2600 PACMAN, so to say that Atari did only decent conversions on there own systems is incorrect...cygnus x1 (or xi) was an atari 8bit release on tape in UK

Edited April 13, 2009 by carmel_andrews

[jboypacman]

I don't know about this whole subject has this has come up in the past some people think that Atari and other companies like Coleco has done this but i was never that sure about this.

 

I always felt it was a matter of the programers experience working with the game system and the time they were giving to make a game for said system.

 

Plus i bet some of these game systems like the Sega CD could be a bear to work with but i could see a company focusing more on a profitable system than another so a conversion of one game to other game system could suffer as a result.

 

I guess this is one of those subjects that will always be around i suppose but it does make for a interesting topic.

[AtariLeaf]

I dont agree, at least not entirely, Atarisoft version of Galaxian for the Colecovision is probably the best one, also Centipede and Defender.

 

I agree with Galaxian and Centipede. I prefer 8-bit Defender though.

[shadow460]

I can think of two Game Boy titles right off the bat that were crippled on that system:

 

Burai Fighter Deluxe and Power Mission. Several enemies were removed and the whole difficulty was neutered for the Burai Fighter Deluxe in the USA. It's way easier than even its NES counterpart. Power Mission is the same way, although I don't know if it has a NES port. IMO, removal of the extreme difficulty of the Japanese version of either game ruined them. Come on, Burai Fighter Deluxe is a shmup, and there's supposed to be lots of bullets and enemies, right? Especially on the harder levels, right?? What gives?

[Atarifever]

I don't think anyone crippled their competition's versions. Why would they? Why would you hurt your own brand name and sales like that? Would any Atari owner want to upgrade to a Coleco made system if all the Coleco games they ever played sucked? Would Coleco make more money if their games were so bad on the 2600 that not one of the millions and millions of 2600 owners took another chance on one of their future 2600 games?

 

The Colecovision could beat the 2600 on its own merits. Smurf is incredibly detailed and fun on the 2600. I can't imagine getting much more out of the system back in the day. But the Coleco version is still much, much more attractive. Seems to me lots of people rank 2600 DK as one of their favorite childhood games, and, Kong aside, the game is attractive enough. However, Colecovision Donkey Kong is still worlds better.

 

The disparioties probably come from two very real, non-manufactured considerations. The Colecovision was much newer, and thus, in most ways, way more powerful. Colecovision games should look better than 2600 ones in the same way that the 360 should look better than the PS2. Secondly, if you were running Coleco, and you had your own hardware division, your own software production, your own advertising, etc to worry about, how much time and effort could you really afford to devote to 2600 and Inty production? You'd do the best you could with available resources (and usually even their bad games outdo truly bad 2600 games), but you'd hardly hurt your own bottom line making sure a game on the outdated 2600 matched what you could barely do on your five year newer system. Likely the Inty versions of many games were even worse than 2600 versions from Coleco because if you're trying to balance all those different responsibilities, how much time can you afford to devote to a console with something like a tenth of the install base of the 2600? Hard enough producing killer versions of games for your own advanced system.

[2600Lives]

I can't see it for the Sega CD, though, as it came out a full 3 years before the Playstation did, and the Dracula game in particular came out in 1993, whereas the PS wasn't released in the US until 1995.

 

Some versions of particular games ARE total ass, though. Donkey Kong for the Inty is a serious case in point. The Inty was capable of making FAR better games than that! It was one of the ugliest things I've ever seen, even worse than the 2600 version.

[DracIsBack]

The Colecovision was much newer, and thus, in most ways, way more powerful.

 

Power is not the right way to think about it. One 8-bit console with an 8-bit processor does not have vastly superior "power" to another 8-bit console with an 8-bit processor. In terms of raw computational capabilities, the Colecovision, the 2600 ... and for that matter the NES ... weren't really different in terms of power.

 

The Colecovision did have more memory and more advanced graphics hardware to enable it to have more detailed graphics than the 2600 but processing power wasn't really an advantage.

 

Colecovision games should look better than 2600 ones in the same way that the 360 should look better than the PS2.

 

In this example, the 360 does have better graphics hardware, more memory, more storage and also more powerful processors.

[Atarifever]

The Colecovision was much newer, and thus, in most ways, way more powerful.

 

Power is not the right way to think about it. One 8-bit console with an 8-bit processor does not have vastly superior "power" to another 8-bit console with an 8-bit processor. In terms of raw computational capabilities, the Colecovision, the 2600 ... and for that matter the NES ... weren't really different in terms of power.

 

The Colecovision did have more memory and more advanced graphics hardware to enable it to have more detailed graphics than the 2600 but processing power wasn't really an advantage.

 

Colecovision games should look better than 2600 ones in the same way that the 360 should look better than the PS2.

 

In this example, the 360 does have better graphics hardware, more memory, more storage and also more powerful processors.

I'll refrain from using the term "power" again. Although, to tell the truth, this is like Memory vs storage to me. Seems like a small segment of people would be misled by improper use of the term, and 99.99% of everyone else would understand the gist of what I meant anyway.

 

In any case, my obvious point stands. The Colecovision games should have looked better because the system itself could do things the 2600 could not, and was not designed for.

[Lauren Tyler]

I don't know if it's true or not, but this is my personal view of the whole thing. Let's take Donkey Kong for example.

 

Atari 2600 - You can't blame the programmers for this one, since at the time they didn't have a lot of memory to work with (I think it was 4k but maybe it was 8k, someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

Intellivision - OK, so the Intellivision wasn't exactly known for all that great graphics, but seriously it could've been a _LITTLE_ better. Not to mention there are only two tunes, both of which are out of place.

 

Colecovision - The Colecovision was using more powerful technology that was available at the time as opposed to when the Atari 2600 and Intellivision both came out, so that's why it made the crippling seem like a possibility.

[A Sprite]

I don't know if it's true or not, but this is my personal view of the whole thing. Let's take Donkey Kong for example.

 

Atari 2600 - You can't blame the programmers for this one, since at the time they didn't have a lot of memory to work with (I think it was 4k but maybe it was 8k, someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

Intellivision - OK, so the Intellivision wasn't exactly known for all that great graphics, but seriously it could've been a _LITTLE_ better. Not to mention there are only two tunes, both of which are out of place.

 

Colecovision - The Colecovision was using more powerful technology that was available at the time as opposed to when the Atari 2600 and Intellivision both came out, so that's why it made the crippling seem like a possibility.

 

Anyone knocking 2600 Donkey Kong for it's graphics oughta try drawing something as large as the ape on a 2600. You can see the same sprite mode in Night Driver - did Atari sabotage it's own products?

 

...

 

I mean, back then...

[Rik]

In Coleco's case,to make the ColecoVision look better by making bad ports for other systems...HOGWASH.Coleco didnt have to shoot themselves in the foot to prove that.IMO,It was just bad programming.Besides would folks buy more Coleco games for their systems after buying 1 game that was godawful?.Coleco had the nicer versions and they didnt have to make stinkers for other systems to prove it,thats absurd,just plain silly to the nth degree.

[+FujiSkunk]

How about the opposite, where a company intentionally crippled their own system to make third-party games look bad? The Intellivision II comes to mind...

[+Psionic]

Do you agree?

Nope, not at all.

 

Having spoken to several programmers who did work for Coleco myself, I can tell you that 'rumor' about Coleco has no merit whatsover. Despite what people may say or think, no company back then was making bad games on purpose...that would make no logical sense. They all (generally) made efforts to produce quality products and some turned out better than others (for various reasons).

 

Regarding your comments about C64 Galaxian...

 

Yeah it's weak, but so what? Out of all the C64 Atarisoft releases, it's probably the worst one. Overall, most of the Atarisoft releases for all systems (including the C64) were good to excellent...very few of them were poor. Additionally, there are plenty of instances where Atari released less than stellar ports for their own systems.

[DracIsBack]

Seems like a small segment of people would be misled by improper use of the term, and 99.99% of everyone else would understand the gist of what I meant anyway.

 

Agree. it's just a pet peeve of mine. It's led to a great many, "so if the NES is an 8-bit system, what is the Atari 2600 ... a 4-bit system?" type questions.

 

All of these systems from 1977 through 1987 have very limited 8-bit processing power, with enhancements being made in terms of graphics hardware, sound and available memory as opposed to the processors themselves. That was the Genesis's thing.

 

In any case, my obvious point stands. The Colecovision games should have looked better because the system itself could do things the 2600 could not, and was not designed for.

 

Totally. It's graphics and sound hardware were more advanced and it had more memory than the 2600.

[Atarifever]

Seems like a small segment of people would be misled by improper use of the term, and 99.99% of everyone else would understand the gist of what I meant anyway.

 

Agree. it's just a pet peeve of mine. It's led to a great many, "so if the NES is an 8-bit system, what is the Atari 2600 ... a 4-bit system?" type questions.

 

All of these systems from 1977 through 1987 have very limited 8-bit processing power, with enhancements being made in terms of graphics hardware, sound and available memory as opposed to the processors themselves. That was the Genesis's thing.

 

 

Yeah, the bit wars thing really screwed people up for awhile. The one thing I like about the idea that kids today will grow up with Xbox 360s and Nintendo Wiis is the fact that they won't ever mention bits, ever.

[BassGuitari]

A minute ago the AA homepage showed me this part of trivia:

It is rumored that Coleco intentionally crippled their games for other systems in order to make their own system look better.

 

What immediately came to my mind was: Not only Coleco did that.

 

In fact, I think even Atari did it. Do you know the C64 version of Galaxian? Compare it to the Atari-8bit-version... The C64 version looks and sounds like crap, and it doesn't play nearly as well as the Atari 8-bit version. Yeah, Atari made both versions. I think that's very suspicious, as the possibilites of both machines are very comparable, but the C64 version is FAR inferior.

 

Do you agree?

 

I can't comment on the Commodore 64 version of Galaxian, but based on the Atarisoft games I've seen for systems like Intellivision and Colecovision, I'm inclined to disagree that Atari did this. Atari's Intellivision games, for example, actually happen to be some of the highest-quality titles available for the system, while some of Coleco's Intellivision games, as another example, are among the system's worst.

 

Atarisoft's Apple II titles are kind of a mixed bag; most are really good, all things considered, and others are kind of mediocre, but certainly nothing that would lead me to believe Atari intentionally crippled them. The Apple II was never that hot a game platform to begin with (which of course isn't to say it didn't have its share of amazing games), but games like Stargate, Robotron, and Jungle Hunt really shine on it.

 

As for Coleco: Donkey Kong on the VCS was passable. The only real problem with it, in my eyes, is that there are only two levels. Otherwise, it's basically a solid Atari VCS title, with clean and relatively detailed graphics, appropriate sound effects, and nice, responsive controls. On the other hand, there was no excuse for the Intellivision port of Donkey Kong. Even if you can forgive the graphics (the Intelly can do MUCH better, though), the sloppy, unresponsive controls and the slow, clunky animation (I know this is Intellivision, but COME ON) conspire to make the game an unplayable travesty.