rhindlethereddragon Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) When I was a kid. Anyone else had the same problem? I mean I grew up on the Atari 2600 and always wanted a Colecovision but when the 5200 came out I wanted that and got it instead. Damn branding! I was branded an Atari boy even though I knew the CV was way better. Man did those joysticks ever kill me. You are correct that the Colecovision was way, way better. Powerful hardware, and fresh new games. Atari expected everybody to buy "updated" rehashes of games that they'd ALREADY BOUGHT for the Atari 2600. With Colecovision, you had more obscure and yet more "exciting" games. And what's more, for the time, the games were deemed as close to arcade perfect as you could get! Edited May 2, 2011 by rhindlethereddragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhindlethereddragon Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I think you made the right choice. The stock controllers for the Atari 5200 were an annoyance, but hey, nobody who owned a Dreamcast used its pack-in joypads for long either. I'm of the opinion that the Atari 5200 was the better console. There's something about the ColecoVision that's very off-putting to me. It was built with off the shelf components, and that limited its versatility. It can't scroll well, and its sixteen color palette pales in comparison to the 256 colors offered by Atari's system. Those sixteen colors aren't even GOOD ones, either... the saturation is turned way down, making them better suited to illustrating unpleasant bodily secretions than vibrant video game graphics. Yeah, the ColecoVision had a higher resolution, but that only goes so far. I'd choose smooth gameplay over a higher pixel count any day of the week, and Atari 5200 games almost always offer a smoother, more arcade-like experience than their ColecoVision equivalents. About the color palate thing: You could use this arguement to say that the Atari 5200 was better than the NES as well I guess since the NES could only display a mere 48 colors! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetset Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 You are correct that the Colecovision was way, way better. Powerful hardware, and fresh new games. Atari expected everybody to buy "updated" rehashes of games that they'd ALREADY BOUGHT for the Atari 2600. With Colecovision, you had more obscure and yet more "exciting" games. And what's more, for the time, the games were deemed as close to arcade perfect as you could get! If that's so how were the 5200 game graphics as good if not better? And more people DID want updates of games they already had. At least moreso than second rate knock-off games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie_ Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 You are correct that the Colecovision was way, way better. What a bunch of shit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIAD Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 You are correct that the Colecovision was way, way better. What a bunch of shit. What is the real shame is that these systems died an all-too early death due to their creators abandoning them just when the game developers where really just getting their legs under them and starting to push both system capabilities. I am a 100% ColecoVision fanboy, but after all these years I have come to accept the simple fact that these two systems really do compliment one another in today's retrogaming scene like many others have suggested. There's no reason they can't sit side by side in people's houses in perfect harmony... who cares what system can do this or that better. After all these years it boils down to the enjoyment that they can still provide and there is no value, rating or comparison that can be placed on that. When I was 14/15 and playing these systems (as well as the Vectrex) for hours at MusicLand to the dismay of the employees, I thought the ColecoVision was the king of the hill and I still think that way (see above... ColecoVision fanboy ), but I'm sure not gonna pass up the oppotunity to play Space Dungeon just because it's on the Atari 5200. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Yurkie Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 What is the real shame is that these systems died an all-too early death due to their creators abandoning them just when the game developers where really just getting their legs under them and starting to push both system capabilities. I am a 100% ColecoVision fanboy, but after all these years I have come to accept the simple fact that these two systems really do compliment one another in today's retrogaming scene like many others have suggested. There's no reason they can't sit side by side in people's houses in perfect harmony... who cares what system can do this or that better. After all these years it boils down to the enjoyment that they can still provide and there is no value, rating or comparison that can be placed on that. When I was 14/15 and playing these systems (as well as the Vectrex) for hours at MusicLand to the dismay of the employees, I thought the ColecoVision was the king of the hill and I still think that way (see above... ColecoVision fanboy ), but I'm sure not gonna pass up the oppotunity to play Space Dungeon just because it's on the Atari 5200. Well put Niad! +1 I really wish threads like this would be banned. Comparing/trashing the ColecoVision on this forum makes no sense to me nor would posting this thread in the 5200 forum and comparing/trashing. This is the kind of thread that leads to flaming and hard feelings. I feel that the AtariAge forums are about friendship and unity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Ragan Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I think you made the right choice. The stock controllers for the Atari 5200 were an annoyance, but hey, nobody who owned a Dreamcast used its pack-in joypads for long either. I'm of the opinion that the Atari 5200 was the better console. There's something about the ColecoVision that's very off-putting to me. It was built with off the shelf components, and that limited its versatility. It can't scroll well, and its sixteen color palette pales in comparison to the 256 colors offered by Atari's system. Those sixteen colors aren't even GOOD ones, either... the saturation is turned way down, making them better suited to illustrating unpleasant bodily secretions than vibrant video game graphics. Yeah, the ColecoVision had a higher resolution, but that only goes so far. I'd choose smooth gameplay over a higher pixel count any day of the week, and Atari 5200 games almost always offer a smoother, more arcade-like experience than their ColecoVision equivalents. About the color palate thing: You could use this arguement to say that the Atari 5200 was better than the NES as well I guess since the NES could only display a mere 48 colors! Forty-eight is still a lot better than sixteen, although that was the NES's TOTAL color palette. It could only display sixteen colors at once, but what was available to it was more appealing than Coleco's puke green and diarrhea brown. Nevertheless, the NES does have its own issues with color deficiency, which is what made a small minority of gamers choose the Sega Master System instead. Games on the SMS tend to cover the whole color spectrum, while similar titles on the NES go overboard with the browns and purples. There are a whole lot of reasons I prefer the NES, but in the end it's all a matter of personal preference... just as it is with the Atari 5200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+5-11under Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I'm of the opinion that the Atari 5200 was the better console. There's something about the ColecoVision that's very off-putting to me. It was built with off the shelf components, and that limited its versatility. It can't scroll well, and its sixteen color palette pales in comparison to the 256 colors offered by Atari's system. Those sixteen colors aren't even GOOD ones, either... the saturation is turned way down, making them better suited to illustrating unpleasant bodily secretions than vibrant video game graphics. About the color palate thing: You could use this arguement to say that the Atari 5200 was better than the NES as well I guess since the NES could only display a mere 48 colors! Forty-eight is still a lot better than sixteen, although that was the NES's TOTAL color palette. It could only display sixteen colors at once, but what was available to it was more appealing than Coleco's puke green and diarrhea brown. Don't forget my favourites... black, white, and grey (which on many TVs just looks like white)... and my all-time favourite, invisible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhindlethereddragon Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 You are correct that the Colecovision was way, way better. What a bunch of shit. What is the real shame is that these systems died an all-too early death due to their creators abandoning them just when the game developers where really just getting their legs under them and starting to push both system capabilities. This was CERTAINLY true for the Colecovision, not so much for the Atari 5200. The 5200 had been pushed to it's limits basically before it was released since it had already existed for a long time (in the guise of an Atari 400 computer). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetset Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 You are correct that the Colecovision was way, way better. What a bunch of shit. +1. Hey at least it made for a good laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhindlethereddragon Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 When I chose Colecovision back in 1982, I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that I'd made the right choice. The real test is when you look back though. And looking back, the Colecovision was far and away the right choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie_ Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 You are correct that the Colecovision was way, way better. What a bunch of shit. +1. Hey at least it made for a good laugh. Oh yeah it did. You know, he liked it better so it IS better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph74 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I dunno. I like me some ColecoVision, but the 5200 had more size. The ColecoVision came out first, but Atari comes first alphabetically. Arguably Atari had more lucrative licenses for the time, but IGN says ColecoVision is better (see the "Top 25 systems of all time" list). But they're both predominantly black in color. so I'm torn... Ugh. If only one played, like, 2600 games too, that would set them apart for me! Screw it, I'm going back to my Intellivision, no one compares that to the Coleco or 5200 anymore! (Note: The above post was written after a day in the sun working and slightly dehydrated. In lieu of sarcasm, humor was intended. Sometimes, I should jsut know better and not say anything, but somehow I'd still post just to amuse myself at times. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIAD Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) I dunno. I like me some ColecoVision, but the 5200 had more size. The ColecoVision came out first, but Atari comes first alphabetically. Arguably Atari had more lucrative licenses for the time, but IGN says ColecoVision is better (see the "Top 25 systems of all time" list). But they're both predominantly black in color. so I'm torn... Ugh. If only one played, like, 2600 games too, that would set them apart for me! Screw it, I'm going back to my Intellivision, no one compares that to the Coleco or 5200 anymore! (Note: The above post was written after a day in the sun working and slightly dehydrated. In lieu of sarcasm, humor was intended. Sometimes, I should jsut know better and not say anything, but somehow I'd still post just to amuse myself at times. ) Self-amusement and self-deprecation (no not defecation ) are two truly noteworthy traits to own! Self-gratification is the one I try to practice the most, however! Edited May 3, 2011 by NIAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEFF31 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Gotta say that after my Atari 2600 I tried the other systems and made a choice to go with a Colecovision (out on my own for the first time) and enjoyed the games that came out for it for a couple of years (and now I'm enjoying many more!!!). Over the years I've collect several systems, including the 5200, and other than the controllers, I like this system also. As for the 'flame wars' as to which was better... I say who cares... you got what you got you like what you like... I play my coleco more than my 5200 now.... who cares? If I go to your place and you want to play on your 5200... fine with me! Come to my place and who nows what system you will play on (well probably not the 100 boxed Adventurevision's I have stored away... :roll: ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie_ Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Gotta say that after my Atari 2600 I tried the other systems and made a choice to go with a Colecovision (out on my own for the first time) and enjoyed the games that came out for it for a couple of years (and now I'm enjoying many more!!!). Over the years I've collect several systems, including the 5200, and other than the controllers, I like this system also. As for the 'flame wars' as to which was better... I say who cares... you got what you got you like what you like... I play my coleco more than my 5200 now.... who cares? If I go to your place and you want to play on your 5200... fine with me! Come to my place and who nows what system you will play on (well probably not the 100 boxed Adventurevision's I have stored away... :roll: ) There ya go. I like em both as well. I prefer 5200 but I love breaking out the CV too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhindlethereddragon Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I'm of the opinion that the Atari 5200 was the better console. There's something about the ColecoVision that's very off-putting to me. It was built with off the shelf components, and that limited its versatility. It can't scroll well, and its sixteen color palette pales in comparison to the 256 colors offered by Atari's system. Those sixteen colors aren't even GOOD ones, either... the saturation is turned way down, making them better suited to illustrating unpleasant bodily secretions than vibrant video game graphics. There's got to be something wrong with this assessment. Last night, I had a few spare minutes before I went to bed, and I compared the Atari computer version of Congo Bongo (EXACTLY the same as 5200) to the Colecovison version, and there was no contest. The colors on the Atari version were DRAB, and the colors on the Colecovision version were positively vibrant by comparison. I then did a side-by-side comparison of Popeye. Again, absolutely no contest, Colecovision wins in the color (and graphic) department hands down. To cite specs is one thing, but to say that the 5200 is capable of running circles around the Colecovision color-palate wise just isn't SHOWING in the games. Not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie_ Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I'm of the opinion that the Atari 5200 was the better console. There's something about the ColecoVision that's very off-putting to me. It was built with off the shelf components, and that limited its versatility. It can't scroll well, and its sixteen color palette pales in comparison to the 256 colors offered by Atari's system. Those sixteen colors aren't even GOOD ones, either... the saturation is turned way down, making them better suited to illustrating unpleasant bodily secretions than vibrant video game graphics. There's got to be something wrong with this assessment. Last night, I had a few spare minutes before I went to bed, and I compared the Atari computer version of Congo Bongo (EXACTLY the same as 5200) to the Colecovison version, and there was no contest. The colors on the Atari version were DRAB, and the colors on the Colecovision version were positively vibrant by comparison. I then did a side-by-side comparison of Popeye. Again, absolutely no contest, Colecovision wins in the color (and graphic) department hands down. To cite specs is one thing, but to say that the 5200 is capable of running circles around the Colecovision color-palate wise just isn't SHOWING in the games. Not at all. I never noticed either system lacking anything with colors.... But I don't think any one likes or plays Congo Bongo on any system! I like Popeye on both A8(5200) and CV but the nod goes to the A8 version in gameplay. Just slightly. I'm happy with both versions 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangest Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 C'mon, we all know it comes down to the "scientific fact" that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobZu7zu7 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I can't wait to sink my teeth in Atari 5200 on my TV... I been missing out Playing Berzerk on emulator, I like how the mazes are in contrast to 2600. Centipede and Battlezone, are pretty cool... I like those vector? graphics, the tank shield breaks! Colors are fancy here by Atari... not only does 5200 give Coleco a run but it also gives Atari 7800 a shove around because that console was 1984 at the soonest. It's true many games are re-done on 5200... but a game like Gremlins feels totally different than the 2600 version, as does others with their new graphics and features. It was when 7800 came around, when Atari were starting to rehash a bit too much. Not 5200. 5200 was nice for a home console in '82, if only Atari made more reliable joysticks! 2600/5200/7800, all these systems have breakable joysticks, I broke 'em all, but the 5200...I got these non-working and they probably just need a clean re-tooling. I do have the console tucked away, just gotta PM someone soon on the controller fixing. Then I can play it. Someone said, Atari 400? in a past life, hmmm what? Atari can rip itself off a little if they wanted, it is Atari afterall. Just like Colecovision can port many Atari games or re-do what they already did on Atari 2600, like Donkey Kong, DKJR, Venture etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadmeow Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 When the Colecovision came out, it killed the competition. It was like having the arcade at home, just like the commercial. Then it came with Donkey Kong, which was huge at that point. Atari 5200 finally came out, and it had horrible joysticks. Super Breakout was fun, my friend had that and Galaxian. However, he didn't like the lack of games and returned it for a 2600. Another friend bought a 5200, and now it had Pac Man as the pack in game, but Pac Man was old news by this time, and impossible to play on those analog joysticks. Overall they are both good systems. I like the odd arcade ports Colecovison had, as many were favorites of mine. Atari 5200 had some good games, but the joysticks made it frustrating for the average person. Had the Atari 5200 had digital joysticks with the same layout, and if they had been able to get or share rights to a home port of Donkey Kong, it could have been just as good possibly. I must give Atari credit for getting the rights to Mario Bros. I did enjoy playing this for hours 1 on 1 vs my friend on his 5200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
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.