7800 - what did Atari wrong?

[christo930]

I don't think there was any saving the 7800 no matter what they did.  Video games were as associated with Nintendo in that time as Atari had been in 1981.

Though nobody really knows for certain would they could have done had the 7800 been supported well enough, I don't think the 7800 could go head to toe with the NES even had Jack been willing to spend money on extra RAM and ROM.  It seems to me that the NES is just a superior machine. The screen shots would show it.

I don't think Jack cared about the 7800.  I think he saw it as a stop-gap money maker to help fund the computer division. This is probably primarily why they didn't want to spend money on the games.  I don't think he wanted to be in the video game console business anywhere near as much as he wanted to be in the computer business.

Turning around Atari was going to need someone better than Jack.  It would have taken a pretty amazing person to turn Atari around at that time. Hell, it's a miracle they held on as long as they did.

 

 

[+Sauron]

1 hour ago, christo930 said:

I don't think there was any saving the 7800 no matter what they did.  Video games were as associated with Nintendo in that time as Atari had been in 1981.

Though nobody really knows for certain would they could have done had the 7800 been supported well enough, I don't think the 7800 could go head to toe with the NES even had Jack been willing to spend money on extra RAM and ROM.  It seems to me that the NES is just a superior machine. The screen shots would show it.

I don't think Jack cared about the 7800.  I think he saw it as a stop-gap money maker to help fund the computer division. This is probably primarily why they didn't want to spend money on the games.  I don't think he wanted to be in the video game console business anywhere near as much as he wanted to be in the computer business.

Turning around Atari was going to need someone better than Jack.  It would have taken a pretty amazing person to turn Atari around at that time. Hell, it's a miracle they held on as long as they did.

 

 

BINGO, thread over. 

 

 

[kiwilove]

I never thought the 7800 hardware delivered anything significantly better over the 5200 - that said - Wow I want to upgrade to the 7800.  As much as the difference there was between the 2600 and the 5200.

Cost cutting on the 7800 did not help - like with not including a decent quality sound chip on board.

And not putting enough money aside to build an awesome 7800 library showed how little commitment Atari had to it's own hardware.

 

If you're not going to actively support your own library - why bring it (the hardware) onto the market in the first place?

A games console - needs new games all the time - if it's to have any chance in the marketplace.  That it was never going to achieve significant sales because of this.

 

And it usually takes a couple of years for developers to understand the hardware enough to push it - to show off what it can really do?  Or did the 7800 lack the potential because it was severely crippled in the first place?  That there weren't any allowances for hidden potential to be present?

 

A measure of this - may be in what new homebrews showed the potential of the hardware?  What example titles show this?

 

Harvey

 

[Greg2600]

You know, I used to just be flippant and say the 7800 just in terms of financial support and distribution, like the Master System, was DOA up against Nintendo.  However, my beliefs have shifted a bit.  In terms of @christo930's theory on Jack T., isn't it now clear that he fully intended on selling the 7800?  Warner Bros. is what ruined the 7800 before it even began.  POKEY/MARIA sound debacle aside, they did the test run in California in June 84, and the next month sold the company to Jack.  Jack then gets stuck in this idiotic feud with Warners and GCC over payment.  3/4 of a year goes by, GCC gets paid but there's more problems in paying them for the software work on the launch titles, and eventually they're out entirely.  So Jack is now stuck with a company (Atari Corp) that cannot make games, plus they had issues making consoles and distributing them.  Atari actually had a decent Christmas 85 selling 2600 stock, as the home game market had begun to recover. 

 

So again, if Atari Corp hypothetically had retained the services of GCC, the 7800 would have likely rolled out for the Holidays in 1984.  The 5200 may or may not have still be going but probably not.  So now we're moving into 1985, and Nintendo had not even debuted the NES yet in New York in October.  What does that mean?  Well, initially the NES was not exactly widely available.  I think it didn't show up in toy stores right away either.  I mean, nobody in my orbit even heard of it for at least a year.  We all knew Atari.  Now I'm still not saying that Atari wouldn't have been steamrolled by the NES anyway, but they would have been competitive if they just could have continued writing new games and building consoles.  The games likely would have mostly been arcade ports, but if they had a proven market share, could have enticed Konami, Capcom, SEGA, etc. from porting their games.  Had Nintendo still insisted on limits to 3rd parties, many of those could have published on the 7800 as well.  Who knows?

[+Defender_2600]

16 hours ago, kiwilove said:

I never thought the 7800 hardware delivered anything significantly better over the 5200 - that said - Wow I want to upgrade to the 7800.  ... ...

 

Or did the 7800 lack the potential because it was severely crippled in the first place?  That there weren't any allowances for hidden potential to be present?

 

A measure of this - may be in what new homebrews showed the potential of the hardware?  What example titles show this?

 

Harvey

 

 

 

In the 320 mode the 7800 displays the resolution of 320 horizontal pixels with 7 or 9 colors per zone / scan line; the 7800 Froggie, in 320 mode ( 320×240 ), has over 20 colors on screen.

 

Moreover, in the 160B mode, a single sprite / tiles can have 12 colors from 2 palettes + transparent / background and without limits of size; 25 colors per zone / scan line.

 

Here is a quick comparison between 5200 and 7800 graphics. As you can see from the screenshots, the difference between a second generation system and a third generation system is evident.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Defender_2600]

On 6/16/2020 at 3:35 AM, christo930 said:

 

Though nobody really knows for certain would they could have done had the 7800 been supported well enough, I don't think the 7800 could go head to toe with the NES even had Jack been willing to spend money on extra RAM and ROM.  It seems to me that the NES is just a superior machine. The screen shots would show it.

 

 

7800 and NES are very different systems. 

 

The 7800 features a palette of 256 colors, a single sprite / tiles can have 12 colors from 2 palettes + transparent / background and without limits of number / size. No flickering. The color depth can be considerable despite of the wide pixel aspect ratio.

 

The NES features a palette of only 48 colors and 6 grays, 8x8 tiles / 3 colors, 8x8 or 8x16 sprites / 3 colors.

 

Each system has its strengths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ZylonBane]

1 hour ago, Defender_2600 said:

No flickering

Yeah, instead sprites just completely disappear when you try to shove too many onto a single line, as happens quite often in Midnight Mutants.

[+Defender_2600]

14 minutes ago, ZylonBane said:

Yeah, instead sprites just completely disappear when you try to shove too many onto a single line, as happens quite often in Midnight Mutants.

 

Yes. Exceptio probat regulam.

[kiwilove]

7 hours ago, Defender_2600 said:

 

 

In the 320 mode the 7800 displays the resolution of 320 horizontal pixels with 7 or 9 colors per zone / scan line; the 7800 Froggie, in 320 mode ( 320×240 ), has over 20 colors on screen.

 

Moreover, in the 160B mode, a single sprite / tiles can have 12 colors from 2 palettes + transparent / background and without limits of size; 25 colors per zone / scan line.

 

Here is a quick comparison between 5200 and 7800 graphics. As you can see from the screenshots, the difference between a second generation system and a third generation system is evident.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm always appreciative of anyone showing comparison differences between consoles/hardware etc.  While it is a direct comparison of between 5200 and 7800 - I have to point out another Frogger conversion - that was done on the 8-bit Atari computers by John Harris.  I'll guess this was never officially available on the 5200 or else it would have been in the official conversions as such.  This was done better than the arcade version - and probably beats the 7800 conversion by a nose?

I'll guess that homebrew development started late for the 7800 or else there'll be a lot more variety of homebrews present there?  That there was a lack of knowledge about the 7800 hardware and how to develop for it.

I always like to see demos or games pushed beyond what you think that the hardware can handle.  I can't say that I am knowledgeable about what has appeared for the 7800 and wonder if there are that many demos/games that really push it's limits?

I am not into the technical side - but I wonder if there are any hardware add-ons which can remove previous restrictions of the 7800?  The 5200 can take advantage of bank select memory - which means I presume that more levels/graphics data can be made use of.

Is there any kind of flashcart system for the 7800 which not only allows to run games, but allows access to more memory and a pokey chip?

 

Harvey

[+Pat Brady]

On 7/9/2020 at 9:32 PM, kiwilove said:

I never thought the 7800 hardware delivered anything significantly better over the 5200 - that said - Wow I want to upgrade to the 7800.  As much as the difference there was between the 2600 and the 5200.

 

It’s an interesting comparison. Surely someone has written a head-to-head comparison, but I haven’t seen it.

 

Note that the screen shots above compare vintage 5200 releases to 7800 homebrews and Congo Bongo is just a mock-up. The original 7800 releases of Donkey Kong and Pac-Man don’t look as good. Conversely the 5200 versions can be improved. The 7800 would still have the graphical advantage, just not by as much.

 

Both systems were developed after Ray Kassar laid off Atari’s R&D team, a short-sighted decision which IMO is one valid answer to the original “what did Atari [do] wrong?” question. The 5200 was a modified 400, the modifications light enough to minimize engineering work but heavy enough to prevent compatibility. Design of the 7800 was outsourced.

 

The 5200 was positioned as a high-end console ($270) in 1982. The technology was a few years old by then but had originally been at an even higher price point. The 7800 was only 2 years newer at original release, was priced much lower ($150), and used some design and manufacturing resources for 2600 compatibility.

 

Both systems use the same processor at the same clock speed.

Both systems support the same cartridge ROM size without bankswitching.

The 7800 has a more powerful graphics chip.

The 5200 has a better sound chip and 4 times as much RAM.

 

Which is more powerful is somewhat game-dependent. For most games, the 7800 wins because 4K is usually enough RAM and graphics usually affect play more than sound. The 7800’s biggest advantage is that its weaknesses can be eliminated by extra hardware in the cartridge.

 

But I can’t think of any other system that is less clear of an upgrade over its predecessor. That makes sense considering the above-mentioned factors.

 

2 hours ago, kiwilove said:

I am not into the technical side - but I wonder if there are any hardware add-ons which can remove previous restrictions of the 7800?  The 5200 can take advantage of bank select memory - which means I presume that more levels/graphics data can be made use of.

Is there any kind of flashcart system for the 7800 which not only allows to run games, but allows access to more memory and a pokey chip?

 

That would be the XM, announced years ago and hopefully arriving soon. I think this is the current thread about it.

[Trebor]

2 hours ago, bizarrostormy said:

Both systems use the same processor at the same clock speed.

Both systems support the same cartridge ROM size without bankswitching.

The 7800 has a more powerful graphics chip.

The 5200 has a better sound chip and 4 times as much RAM.

The 7800 by design was intended to support external sound chips for better sound, making it more like the Famicom than the NES in this regard.  The lackluster support in its heyday, utilizing only the POKEY chip and for just two games, left much sound potential and options to be tapped; though Rikki and Vikki and the XM module leverages that feature more robustly.

 

While the system only contains 4K RAM, this is the same as its contemporary, the NES.  The difference is all 4K for the 7800 is devoted to main memory, while the aforementioned system divides 2K to main and 2K to video. 

 

Similar to sound, memory is upgraded via external cartridge as needed by games.  Impossible Mission has 8K RAM as part of its PCB.  Summer Games and Winter Games both have 16K RAM as part of their cartridge design.

[SearsRoebuck]

Ot but that mockup really has me jonesing for a Congo bongo 7800 port..

Edited July 11, 2020 by SearsRoebuck

[+Pat Brady]

7 hours ago, Trebor said:

The 7800 by design was intended to support external sound chips for better sound, making it more like the Famicom than the NES in this regard.

To clarify, I and the person I was responding to were comparing the 7800 to the 5200, not the NES or Famicom.

 

After re-reading my late-night post, “which is more powerful is somewhat game-dependent” is generous to the 5200. I was thinking that for some games, extra RAM would be more important than improved graphics. But among games that were actually released for both consoles, I don’t know of any where the 5200 is better.

[Trebor]

3 hours ago, bizarrostormy said:

To clarify, I and the person I was responding to were comparing the 7800 to the 5200, not the NES or Famicom.

Absolutely; that was completely understood, especially with the quoted portion of text I included prior to my response.  ?

 

The statement was more of a side-point and irony of the 7800 imitating the Famicom more than the NES by design when it comes to external sound chip support. ?

[christo930]

21 hours ago, kiwilove said:

I have to point out another Frogger conversion - that was done on the 8-bit Atari computers by John Harris.  I'll guess this was never officially available on the 5200 or else it would have been in the official conversions as such.  This was done better than the arcade version - and probably beats the 7800 conversion by a nose?

Not even close.  The music is completely wrong. I think the 7800 versions looks and sounds a lot better and is much more faithful to the arcade.

 

21 hours ago, kiwilove said:

I'll guess that homebrew development started late for the 7800 or else there'll be a lot more variety of homebrews present there?  That there was a lack of knowledge about the 7800 hardware and how to develop for it

 

Don't quote me on this, but I think 7800 homebrews were locked out and until an Atari ST showed up with the encryption software on it that made it possible to actually run 7800 software on a 7800.

15 hours ago, bizarrostormy said:

The 5200 was positioned as a high-end console ($270) in 1982. The technology was a few years old by then but had originally been at an even higher price point. The 7800 was only 2 years newer at original release, was priced much lower ($150), and used some design and manufacturing resources for 2600 compatibility.

The 5200 was a case study in bad design.  Between the controller from hell, which they knew about the problems before it even released along with the old hardware, it was just not a great new console. The chips were already several years old by this time.  They should have developed a new custom chipset for the 5200, preferably one that was backwards compatible.

 

14 hours ago, Trebor said:

The 7800 by design was intended to support external sound chips for better sound, making it more like the Famicom than the NES in this regard. 

This was a terrible decision on Atari's part. They should have put a POKEY in the 7800 even if they wanted to have better sound as an option.  The TIA as a basic sound chip was not good enough for anything other than very basic sounds.  Perhaps they wanted to force 3rd parties to pay for a more expensive board or something. Still, it should have been obvious even then that this was a problem. At the time they were designing it, there was already major competition in the home video game console market.

 

 

[christo930]

On 7/10/2020 at 1:08 AM, Greg2600 said:

So again, if Atari Corp hypothetically had retained the services of GCC, the 7800 would have likely rolled out for the Holidays in 1984.  The 5200 may or may not have still be going but probably not.  So now we're moving into 1985, and Nintendo had not even debuted the NES yet in New York in October.  What does that mean?  Well, initially the NES was not exactly widely available.  I think it didn't show up in toy stores right away either.  I mean, nobody in my orbit even heard of it for at least a year.  We all knew Atari.  Now I'm still not saying that Atari wouldn't have been steamrolled by the NES anyway, but they would have been competitive if they just could have continued writing new games and building consoles. 

 

In this alternative timeline where the 7800 rolls out without a glitch and captures a significant part of the market before Nintendo even gets into the American market, things probably would be different.  For one, it would have been a lot more difficult for Nintendo to impose the kind of restrictions they were able to impose on developers which severely restricted them from supporting other consoles.  They basically had the video game console market entirely to themselves in those first few years. 

 

But I still think Nintendo would have won, just not by as much. That would have benefited everyone.

[+Defender_2600]

19 hours ago, bizarrostormy said:

 

Note that the screen shots above compare vintage 5200 releases to 7800 homebrews and Congo Bongo is just a mock-up. The original 7800 releases of Donkey Kong and Pac-Man don’t look as good. Conversely the 5200 versions can be improved. The 7800 would still have the graphical advantage, just not by as much.

 

 

 

kiwilove said: <<...may be in what new homebrews showed the potential of the hardware?>>, so I showed some 7800 homebrews, these games are certainly the result of the efforts of some of the most talented people we have in our community, however I don't think I'm wrong by saying that they could be technically made in 1986/87. Obviously I'm not generalizing and I'm referring to the games I showed.

 

I chose the 7800 versions of Froggie and (the new) Ms. Pac-Man because they both use the 320 mode. We compare the same games on two different systems but the 7800 versions can move a much higher horizontal resolution (double, 320 pixels) compared to 5200 versions (160 pixels). And in Ms. Pac-Man 320 we also have vertical scrolling. Certainly some tweaks can be made to the 5200 versions but it is not possible to double the resolution preserving the colors.

 

About Donkey Kong XM / PK, I had the great privilege of working on graphics and I would have so many things to say... I will only mention that DK Remix (WIP) for 7800 will be completely written from scratch and it will be a nice improvement (under every aspect) compared to the already excellent DK XM / PK. The new extraordinary engine will be able to manage a large number of sprites per line in an excellent way, all the sprites will move at the same time, with great fluidity and without flicker.

 

A comparison with the 5200 makes no sense if you are trying to overlap the maximum performance of the two systems.

 

Regarding Congo Bongo, as I have already written, I confirm that it is a mock-up. However, I don't know what you mean by "just" a mock-up.

 

I believe that designing graphics and level layout has its own intrinsic value regardless of the possible implementation in the code of a game. Of course, I'm really extremely grateful to all the programmer friends who used my work in their code, but when that doesn't happen I don't think my work is "just" something.

 

When I deliver the graphics to a programmer I am delivering a mock-up. The graphics on that Doh level screen, which I posted in this discussion, was also "just" my mock-up before being kindly implemented in the Arkanoid code for 7800.

 

 

[Greg2600]

3 hours ago, christo930 said:

Don't quote me on this, but I think 7800 homebrews were locked out and until an Atari ST showed up with the encryption software on it that made it possible to actually run 7800 software on a 7800.

 

This was a terrible decision on Atari's part. They should have put a POKEY in the 7800 even if they wanted to have better sound as an option.  The TIA as a basic sound chip was not good enough for anything other than very basic sounds.  Perhaps they wanted to force 3rd parties to pay for a more expensive board or something. Still, it should have been obvious even then that this was a problem. At the time they were designing it, there was already major competition in the home video game console market.

7800 games had a digital signature to prevent unlicensed games, though not quite encryption.  Yes, it was released to the community in 2001, thought it took a few years for the homebrew scene to pick up in general, not just on 7800. 

 

And Atari made many, many terrible decisions at that time!  I guess the official story is that the components needed for 2600 backwards compatibility drove up costs and crowded the motherboard, so GCC didn't include a newer sound chip.  It just wasn't a well managed project, but neither was the 5200.

[christo930]

 

11 minutes ago, Greg2600 said:

And Atari made many, many terrible decisions at that time!  I guess the official story is that the components needed for 2600 backwards compatibility drove up costs and crowded the motherboard, so GCC didn't include a newer sound chip.  It just wasn't a well managed project, but neither was the 5200.

Atari was on a steep downhill slide.  Maybe because it was all the suits with all the money coming in.  One really has to think that whoever OKed the controller was someone who did not play video games.  It became something to put on the box with the new and exciting 360 degrees of movement. 

The size never really bothered me nor the automatic switch box. But it probably helps that I found a case of those things at a flea market before I ever had a 5200 and so I never had to try and find one.  It does have a decent library too, although it has the distinction of completely unplayable games like frogger and q-bert.  The analogue control of galaxian makes it near unplayable, for me at least.

IMHO, they should have added a digital joystick and fire buttons to the roller controller and called it The Arcade Controller.

[christo930]

1 hour ago, Defender_2600 said:

About Donkey Kong XM / PK

I personally would love to see some new screens, like the intellivision DKII or the COCO version, like a DK remix.  The extra screens could be part of a DX mode or something.  It would be nice to have something new.

[+Pat Brady]

37 minutes ago, Defender_2600 said:

Certainly some tweaks can be made to the 5200 versions but it is not possible to double the resolution preserving the colors.

...

Regarding Congo Bongo, as I have already written, I confirm that it is a mock-up. However, I don't know what you mean by "just" a mock-up.

 

I believe that designing graphics and level layout has its own intrinsic value regardless of the possible implementation in the code of a game. Of course, I'm really extremely grateful to all the programmer friends who used my work in their code, but when that doesn't happen I don't think my work is "just" something.

 

When I deliver the graphics to a programmer I am delivering a mock-up. The graphics on that Doh level screen, which I posted in this discussion, was also "just" my mock-up before being kindly implemented in the Arkanoid code for 7800.

 

I repeatedly agreed that the 7800’s graphics are superior, and by a large enough margin to more than compensate for its reduced RAM and outdated sound. I wanted to point out that the 7800 examples really maximize its capabilities, and the 5200 examples do not. I still think that is a valid, relevant, and fair point.

 

As for “just” — I can see how you took that as derogatory, but I absolutely did not intend it that way. On the contrary I am very impressed by how it looks! My intent was as shorthand for saying that after the graphics have been designed, on the 7800 we have to determine whether there are enough cycles per line for DMA (maybe you accounted for that) and then whether there are enough remaining cycles per frame to run all the code. If there aren’t enough cycles then we have to simplify the graphics, slow down gameplay, or make some other compromise. These issues (along with the ridiculousness of 320B color 1) are on my mind as I crank up the resolution on 7ix. When a project is at the mock-up stage, nobody really knows if the 7800 can actually do it.

 

Again, not at all a slight to the value of design work. I apologize for the ambiguity of “just” but not for my overall point.

[+Defender_2600]

13 hours ago, bizarrostormy said:

 

I repeatedly agreed that the 7800’s graphics are superior, and by a large enough margin to more than compensate for its reduced RAM and outdated sound. I wanted to point out that the 7800 examples really maximize its capabilities, and the 5200 examples do not. I still think that is a valid, relevant, and fair point.

 

As for “just” — I can see how you took that as derogatory, but I absolutely did not intend it that way. On the contrary I am very impressed by how it looks! My intent was as shorthand for saying that after the graphics have been designed, on the 7800 we have to determine whether there are enough cycles per line for DMA (maybe you accounted for that) and then whether there are enough remaining cycles per frame to run all the code. If there aren’t enough cycles then we have to simplify the graphics, slow down gameplay, or make some other compromise. These issues (along with the ridiculousness of 320B color 1) are on my mind as I crank up the resolution on 7ix. When a project is at the mock-up stage, nobody really knows if the 7800 can actually do it.

 

Again, not at all a slight to the value of design work. I apologize for the ambiguity of “just” but not for my overall point.

 

 

No worries and apology are not due. It wasn't my intention to belittle 5200's graphics, simply the 5200 library is very small and I have not found other games to compare with some 7800 homebrews.

 

In truth, some time ago, I have seen some sprites updated in 5200 version of Donkey Kong but I think that to define a significant update it would be necessary to redesign at least the layout of the first level and above all to have a greater number of sprites and colors on the screen. I believe that version is very close to its limit but I would be glad to be wrong.

 

Regarding the restriction of the 320B mode I am not so critical, after all no other 8-bit console can handle such a high resolution.

[+Defender_2600]

On 7/10/2020 at 4:32 AM, kiwilove said:

As much as the difference there was between the 2600 and the 5200.

 

 

On 7/11/2020 at 5:02 AM, kiwilove said:

I'm always appreciative of anyone showing comparison differences between consoles/hardware etc. 

 

 

Sometimes I have a feeling that the 2600 is underestimated, it is a system with an important history, great charm and has a vibrant homebrew development scene.

 

Looking at the 5200 library I realized that I had almost forgotten how many titles it shares with the 2600, it is interesting that some versions of these games have quite similar graphics to each other and you might even prefer some 2600 version for the clean style and a more appropriate palette. Since you said that you appreciate comparisons, I enjoyed keeping some screenshots while watching them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trebor]

Seeing those captures brought a couple of thoughts to the forefront of my mind.

 

Although admittedly, my favorite port of Pitfall II is actually under the C64, H.E.R.O. is absolute gameplay perfection under the 2600.  No other port under any other system - console or computer, surpasses or even matches how well it plays under the VCS for me.  The sensitivity of the controls, including the necessary touch and timings, are all at their best under the 2600.  I've must have played 2600 H.E.R.O. hundreds of times and never tired of it.

[kiwilove]

I seem to be the only one who is unimpressed by the 7800 graphics capability and hardware.  And I haven't seen a 7800 running, in person.  I knew a keen Atari guy who bought the system and games - but sadly he unexpectedly died - and was a fit youngish guy.

Looking at screenshots and videos just doesn't have me appreciating what I am seeing.

I don't deny the amount of work put in by 7800 developers - particularly the programmers who have to understand how the hardware works to be able to get it working for them.  That it some huge effort on their part

The 2 year delayed release of the 7800 didn't help it one bit, nor with Atari not wanting or able to back it's own hardware with new releases for it.  Even with almost zero money - there could have been the effort made to encourage independent developers for it.  With the XE computers it was the same - no new significant games/applications for it - but relying on an old library to go with the new hardware.  I was looking for some company to sell a new game I helped complete around 1990 - and I forgot to give Atari UK, a go.  A pitch for it - HawkQuest anyone?

 

Anyway - with the 7800 I like to see a game that is played to it's strengths.  Someone who has worked with the hardware long enough should have so idea of what could be done with it?  While Rikki & Vikki is truly a fine effort - this appears to be a game ported to various systems.  It would be good to see these developers start on a game for the 7800 first - to see what they can come up with?

 

My gripes with 7800 games - are with Xevious - they chose to use a close-up view - while it's a good compromise that works, I'd prefer something not as close-up.  The low-res chosen for Galaga simply doesn't look nice.

7800 games tend to have this blocky look - is that due to a low-res mode?  Doesn't the 7800 have a graphics mode similar to that of Antic 4 for the 5200/8-bit Atari's?

 

Those who do know me or of me - will know I designed the graphics for AtariBlast! and Scramble for the 5200/8-bit Atari's - and Laser Hawk, HawkQuest for 8-bit Atari's.

 

An example of how a game can be redone better - would be Archer McLean's Dropzone - take on Defender - while it was designed to run on a 48K 8-bit Atari (Atari 400, 800 with 48K) - this was converted/ported across to the 5200.  Archer did write a Defender game - which he took around and showed off - but Atari said NO - he couldn't sell it - so then he went around and wrote Dropzone.  Or so the story goes.

 

Harvey