Is the Colecovision more powerful than the Atari 5200?

[rhindlethereddragon]

Do you think the Colecovision is a more powerful system than the Atari 5200?

 

I chose the Colecovision over the Atari because of Donkey Kong, and because it was hyped as the most powerful system on the planet.

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

Heh Heh Here we go...........

[youki]

You can not really compare.

 

They are things that are better on the 5200 and some are better on the colecovision.

 

To have programmed on both (ok not directly for 5200 but for Atari 8bit that share the architecture) , the big power of the colecovision is it simplicity of conception and the ease to program it.

 

The only "plus" i find to the 5200 is the hardware scrolling feature and a bigger palette.

 

But all in one , i think we can do better and nicer game more quickly on colecovision.

[DracIsBack]

Do you think the Colecovision is a more powerful system than the Atari 5200?

 

I chose the Colecovision over the Atari because of Donkey Kong, and because it was hyped as the most powerful system on the planet.

 

How I hate the "more powerful" argument, when it comes to comparing 8bit systems.

[fiddlepaddle]

I've come to believe that most of the "power" in the old systems was due to the skill and attention paid by the programmer. Yes, there were differences in resolution, memory, and clock speed, but a good game does not really depend on any of these, per se. The newer systems have so much in the way of specialized instructions and custom hardware that the programmer actually has less control of HOW certain effects can be achieved. With the older systems, there are more ways a clever idea (one not envisioned by the designers of the hardware) can be used to demonstrate dramatic differences in effect, somewhat compensating for differences in the architectures. As the consoles evolved, hardware was added to help implement the effects the software developers apparently wanted, leaving fewer "tricks" to exploit. Today, performance differences between consoles can more easily be summed up by specs, which have become more standardized.

[Yurkie]

This topic has been beat well beyond "Death". The forum search function is ones friend for this topic.

[+jd_1138]

My family bought the ColecoVision. Mainly on the strength of the pack-in cartridge Donkey Kong. Super Breakout was the pack-in for the 5200!?! Um, what, Atari?!?! Sure, I love Super Breakout now, but that wasn't a good choice by Atari management, nor the controllers.

 

If Atari had any brains, they would've included 2 or 3 pack-ins from their own catalog like Missile Command, Centipede. The trick is getting an installed base installed, then you can sell more games. You can say: "well it's easy to say what Atari should've done NOW but at the time they did their best." I disagree. They blundered often back then; this stuff was obvious, folks, even back then.

 

The pack-in cart for the 2600 at the end of its life was Pac-Man for Pete's Sake. What a way to cause people to return the 2600 to the store.

Edited April 17, 2011 by gps_trekker

[+save2600]

Do you think the Colecovision is a more powerful system than the Atari 5200?

 

I chose the Colecovision over the Atari because of Donkey Kong, and because it was hyped as the most powerful system on the planet.

Since the 5200 never had a DK conversion, guess we'll never really know for sure which is the more powerful system.

[NIAD]

This topic has been beat well beyond "Death". The forum search function is ones friend for this topic.

I second Yurkie here, but I completely understand the posting of topics that have already been beaten to death... even though I'd rather see people use the search functions of the forums first.

 

I actually have been browsing/reading through the old "Classic Gaming General Forum" for all the stuff that I missed or didn't pay attention to when I was just a lurker and it's really amazing how many topics are repeated over and over. It's also amazing how much great information is out there to be had for the small price of spending about 15 minutes a day readng some of these old threads... also a lot of nostalgia.

 

What I am beginning to notice is a cyclical pattern where people get interested in a certain system, go through all the growing pains of learning and asking questions and then eventually get their fill and move on to other interests/systems. Then a new group moves in a starts the whole process over again. There are a handful of people that stick with a particular system through hell or high water (and they're pretty obvious to recognize), but for the most part people come and go rather quickly... not that there is anything bad or wrong with that especially since there are so many great systems from the past to play around with.

 

I was going to start a new thread concerning rating systems, but I think I will pass now!

Edited April 17, 2011 by NIAD

[kingofcrusher]

You can easily say that "on paper" one system should be more powerful than the other, for example the PC Engine versus the SNES; PC Engine on paper looks basically like a really beefy NES, but if you look at the library there are games that match the best SNES and Genesis visuals of the era. So technically the SNES would be a "more powerful" system, but it had a shit-slow, half-retarded CPU that held it back.

 

In reality there's just too many factors involved to give a definitive answer unless one vastly outstrips the other in all regards (i.e. Coleco VS Atari 2600).

[DracIsBack]

unless one vastly outstrips the other in all regards (i.e. Coleco VS Atari 2600).

 

How does the Colecovision display 128 colors?

[jetset]

Well, if I had to choose which of the two I'd least want dropped on my big toe I'd say the 5200.

So my answer is no, the CV is not more powerful.

Edited April 18, 2011 by jetset

[kingofcrusher]

unless one vastly outstrips the other in all regards (i.e. Coleco VS Atari 2600).

 

How does the Colecovision display 128 colors?

 

Uh, dithering? Hah.

[DracIsBack]

Uh, dithering? Hah.

 

The color palette of the Colecovision isn't as large as the one on the 2600. This is why I hate these 'more powerful arguments' as they're so simplistic and treated as "all encompassing". Most systems of the same era have advantages and tradeoffs. The Colecovision (being 5 years newer) certainly had quite a few more advantages than tradeoffs than its older predecessor, but one tradeoff is a smaller color palette to draw from.