AVGN reviews the Odyssey 1

[S1500]

Easily one of his funniest reviews ever. Funny to see just how much junk that came with the console.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/48329.html

[+Ransom]

That was pretty good!

 

I haven't played Odyssey in decades. I'd forgotten how lame it was. Basically all it had going for it was the cool feeling of making your own TV respond to your input. "Hey, look, I'm controlling a glowing bar on the TV!!!"

[S1500]

I admit his "co-host" was a bit juvenile. He should have just got his hired musician to play with him. The funniest part was when he was just goofing around on the screen, adding "parts" to the kids(on the overlays) and simulating bodily functions.

 

Can't wait to see an Odyseey 2 review.

[Mirage]

Wow. About a year ago I was bidding on a complete NOS Odyssey 1 on ebay, but I didn't get it. Kinda sorta glad I didn't! Would be cool to have, but that's beyond primitive to actually try to play.

 

I do remember a similar system that had a similar gun though. Some kind of Pong unit that also had Skeet Shoot. That was a lot of fun back in about 1976-7.

[StoneAgeGamer]

I have never played and Odyssey and it doesn't look like I missed much. Its really amazing though how we went from a video game being two bars on a screen to what we have today in only 37 years. Could you imagine if you could take a 360 back with you in time to 1972 and show them?

[BassGuitari]

I've got an Odyssey (with most of the game pieces still wrapped), and yeah...it's neat to look at, but most of the games are a pain to set up (assuming you found anyone to play with you - good luck!), so you're probably just going to end up playing Table Tennis, if anything at all. I think it's probably better to think of it as more of a board game with video accompaniment than "real" video game. I keep it for its historical value.

 

I think the system itself looks really cool, like something from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

Not a bad review though, as AVGN reviews go, and I thought it was actually pretty cool seeing all the games in "action."

 

 

EDIT: content

Edited April 22, 2009 by BassGuitari

[+Lynxer2007]

I really liked it. I thought it was very good. I have an Odyssey, complete with everything except for one thing: The Manual. I gotta go find one, cause without it, I don't know what is what.

[nathanallan]

I had to stop it early-- too over the top. Did he mention anywhere that it spurred on the home console industry? Or did he continually berate it?

 

I remember someone had an O1 back in the day, and it was pretty cool how the screen overlays stuck to the TV set.

[Segataritensoftii]

I occasionally watch this guy's stuff. Very crude humor for my tastes, but quite informative.

[S1500]

I have never played and Odyssey and it doesn't look like I missed much. Its really amazing though how we went from a video game being two bars on a screen to what we have today in only 37 years. Could you imagine if you could take a 360 back with you in time to 1972 and show them?

 

I bet that in 1972, being able to move the "bar" on the x plane in addition to the y plane was considered a "next gen feature".

 

I could imagine bringing a Mac or a WinXP laptop to a xerox employee in 1969 he would just say "Yeah, we have that too here."

[BugsBunny2600]

That was a good Angry Video Game Nerd episode. I enjoyed the gun part. All those overlays were weird. I also found a review he did of the search for spock movie. Which was quite funny.

 

http://www.spike.com/video/cinemassacre-trek/3157214

[Crazy Climber]

Woah, I knew the Odyssey was lame but I have never actually seen one in action. That thing sucks! Well, in it's defense it is from 1972 so..

 

*Favorite line - Nuclear Boner - lol

[Artlover]

Just saw this today myself.

 

Wow. Like others here, I've never seen a real Odyssey 1 at work. Heard about it, seen pictures. Those things sure didn't accurately represent how god awful horrible this thing was. How on earth did people actually buy this and think it was fun? For all the non video gaming crap it came with, and non video gaming crap you had to do, you might as well just played a board game or something.

 

Anywho.... I guess he was getting complaints from hardcore fans because he's sorta back into old form again. Yay! Tho I'm not too keen on Nerdy Turd. That's kinda stupid. He should have just stuck with Shit Pickel.

 

I had to stop it early-- too over the top. Did he mention anywhere that it spurred on the home console industry?

I can't believe this is what Atari had to pay royalties to. I can't believe THIS is what spurred on the home video game market.

 

If the home video game market was a person, and I was them, I'd be ashamed. I'd keep this locked away in a basement, fill that basement with cement and never speak of it again.

 

~ Aren't you related to Odyssey?

~ What, Odyssey, no, no. No. Never heard of him. Here, meet my only relative, Pong. Hey, get away from the basement!

 

Tho I do believe it. The home video game market had to have been spurred on in trying to prove that home video gaming wasn't a complete pointless boring dead end sack of crap.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Artlover

[nathanallan]

agreed. They had to do something better just to prove it wasn't a total crap fest.

 

Though when I was 8 or 9 when I played it at my friend's house, I remember it actually being fun-- lots of books and stuff, but still fun at that age.

[Canadian Paul]

I have to say, I found it really interesting... aside from finally getting to see it in action, it's pretty cool to see how they got my the insane limitations of the system and still managed to work out such interesting games. When you consider today how many games there are out there that are nothing BUT graphics essentially (see Zero Punctuation for some good examples), I have to admit I'd take the Odyssey 1 over a lot of that junk. If I were rich, I'd definitely pick one up as at least a talking piece...

 

I'm generally a fan of the AVGN, but I thought the Nerdy Turd was really pointless and unfunny... he's usually a lot cleverer than that. As someone pointed out, even bringing back Kyle Justin would have been funnier...

[lushgirl_80]

Hmmm the Haunted House game actually looks really cool. Wish he would do a review on the Vectrex

 

 

My favorite AVGN episode lately is the Nintendo Power one. That one was really really funny.

[Artlover]

My favorite AVGN episode lately is the Nintendo Power one. That one was really really funny.

Weaseletta & Terror Teddy. WTF?

 

Hahahaha.

[Herbarius]

I watched it too. I'm an AVGN fan, but this review was a little disappointing to me...

 

However, as other people already said it was nice to see the Odyssey 1 in action. I didn't even know the game did not keep score before.

Also, I agree on that the review would have been much better if he had done it with Kyle Justin like in the Battletoads review. Also I would have liked some more historical facts, like mentioning the name Ralph Bear and the "Brown Box" prototype.

 

 

Also, in my opinion seeing it in action sheds some more light on the whole Ralph Baer/Nolan Bushnell Pong debate.

Okay, Baer won the lawsuit and Bushnell had to pay a (rather small) licensing fee.

But seeing the tennis game in action, knowing it does not keep score and you can move all around, even steer the ball... As Bushnell said "not very clever". I don't see he "ripped of" Bear in any way. Maybe he had some inspiration from the Tennis game, but saying Pong is a ripoff is like saying Chess is a ripoff of Checkers because it uses the same board.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Herbarius

[Artlover]

Also, in my opinion seeing it in action sheds some more light on the whole Ralph Baer/Nolan Bushnell Pong debate.

Okay, Baer won the lawsuit and Bushnell had to pay a (rather small) licensing fee.

But seeing the tennis game in action, knowing it does not keep score and you can move all around, even steer the ball... As Bushnell said "not very clever". I don't see he "ripped of" Bear in any way. Maybe he had some inspiration from the Tennis game, but saying Pong is a ripoff is like saying Chess is a ripoff of Checkers because it uses the same board.

Well, to be sorta fair. People and the courts were stupid back then.

 

 

Here's pretty much how it must have went.

 

~ Odyssey = thing you hook up to a TV and has two blobs that players can move and a 3rd blob that moves around on it's own.

~ Pong - thing you hook up to a TV and had two blobs that players can move and a 3rd blob that moves around on it's own.

 

Same things, Atari, you lose. Case closed. Next case. ~ KC Munchman vs Pac-Man. ~ Boy, today sure is an easy day!

[Retro Rogue]

I had to stop it early-- too over the top. Did he mention anywhere that it spurred on the home console industry? Or did he continually berate it?

 

I remember someone had an O1 back in the day, and it was pretty cool how the screen overlays stuck to the TV set.

 

Nathan - that's exactly why he was discounted as a reliable review reference over at Wikipedia by myself and others in the the video game project there. He's for entertainment purposes only, and I don't think tries to be anything but.

[jboypacman]

I like the review and it was nice to see the Odyssey 1 in action but the "NerdTurd" was really not needed.

[Retro Rogue]

I watched it too. I'm an AVGN fan, but this review was a little disappointing to me...

 

However, as other people already said it was nice to see the Odyssey 1 in action. I didn't even know the game did not keep score before.

Also, I agree on that the review would have been much better if he had done it with Kyle Justin like in the Battletoads review. Also I would have liked some more historical facts, like mentioning the name Ralph Bear and the "Brown Box" prototype.

 

 

Also, in my opinion seeing it in action sheds some more light on the whole Ralph Baer/Nolan Bushnell Pong debate.

Okay, Baer won the lawsuit and Bushnell had to pay a (rather small) licensing fee.

But seeing the tennis game in action, knowing it does not keep score and you can move all around, even steer the ball... As Bushnell said "not very clever". I don't see he "ripped of" Bear in any way. Maybe he had some inspiration from the Tennis game, but saying Pong is a ripoff is like saying Chess is a ripoff of Checkers because it uses the same board.

 

 

The lawsuits had to do with the technology (the manipulation of a TV signal to create objects on a screen for a game). And Nolan decided to settle because otherwise he would have screwed up the Sears deal that the company so desperately needed at the time (all the rest of the defendants wound up loosing). Likewise, Baer never sued Nolan, that was Magnavox with Baer simply called as a representative of Sanders (the holder of the patents being licensed by Magnavox). Oh - and Nolan admitted he ripped the game idea off from Ralph in later court trials involving others, Al also admitted it as well. The patents were upheld well in to the late 80's/early 90's by the courts (which I believe is the last time he was called to testify).

Edited April 23, 2009 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

Here's pretty much how it must have went.

 

~ Odyssey = thing you hook up to a TV and has two blobs that players can move and a 3rd blob that moves around on it's own.

~ Pong - thing you hook up to a TV and had two blobs that players can move and a 3rd blob that moves around on it's own.

 

Same things, Atari, you lose. Case closed. Next case. ~ KC Munchman vs Pac-Man. ~ Boy, today sure is an easy day!

 

1st, the case in particular was towards arcade games, not the home pong console.

 

And secondly, it was more like:

 

Defendants: Ours use different technology, look at the screen.

Judge: Ok, open up the back and lets see the technology. Ok, there's the computer board with the game logic on it which is.....hooked up directly to a tv set sitting inside.

Edited April 23, 2009 by wgungfu

[Artlover]

I had to stop it early-- too over the top. Did he mention anywhere that it spurred on the home console industry? Or did he continually berate it?

Nathan - that's exactly why he was discounted as a reliable review reference over at Wikipedia by myself and others in the the video game project there. He's for entertainment purposes only, and I don't think tries to be anything but.

AVGN has said the very same thing himself. He has never tried nor ever claimed to be an honest reviewer. It IS entertainment.

 

 

And secondly, it was more like:

 

Defendants: Ours use different technology, look at the screen.

Judge: Ok, open up the back and lets see the technology. Ok, there's the computer board with the game logic on it which is.....hooked up directly to a tv set sitting inside.

Either way, the courts then (and largely still don't now) understand the fine technical differences of hardware and software. If Baer's patent wasn't so generally vague, Magnavox wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. As far as all this goes, part of the problem is the whole trademark/copyright/patent system is flawed.

 

Surprized calculator companies never sued the computer industry. Because you know, they are both just electronics on a circuit board designed with the purpose of processing numerical data.

[Herbarius]

If Baer's patent wasn't so generally vague, Magnavox wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. As far as all this goes, part of the problem is the whole trademark/copyright/patent system is flawed.

 

Yes, that's propably true. AFAIK if you want to register a patent you have to be very precise in your description of your product and even submit instructions to construct your device, which is detailled enough that anyone familiar with electronics (in this case, because it's a electronic device) can reproduce it from this instruction.

 

Hence I still wonder why there was no impartial expert of some kind, perhaps some electronics professor or something, who could have told "Despite the superficial similarity, the patent is in no way infringed."

 

Or maybe the patent was worded in such way that superficial similarity is enough to infringe it? Wouldn't that be reason to nullify/reword the patent? Because it's not precise enough to meet the criteria stated above... However, nullifying patents is close to impossible even if you have sufficient evidence, isn't it? Again, flawed patent system

Edited April 23, 2009 by Herbarius