2600 games stink but I played them for hours !!!!

[mrushton]

Well I just got stellax running and played some games that I did not play in a while.

 

I got to say the 2600 games stink in terms of graphics, but I played them for hours !!!! On a black and white TV none the less. Pacman is pathetic. Space invaders is bad. I would "turn it over" go from 0 to 99999 at least 8 times.

 

I recently started playing with MAME and got the original versions of many games to work and been having fun retrogaming.

[MacGurl]

The graphics were just fine back in the day.

[Brad2600]

Regarding graphics, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?

 

This was the late 70s- early 80s stuff. They were only capable of so much.

 

Want a 2600 game that DOESN'T suck in graphics? Get PitfallII. You'll get swallowed up in the gameplay and forget all about the graphics!

[Godzilla]

gameplay is where the 2600 0wn3rz ur s0ul

[King Atari]

You can't expect very much from a system released in 1977. I suggest downloading some of the later stuff, specifically Solaris, Super Football, Secret Quest, and Xenophobe. And don't forget Activision made the best games graphically: Pitfall! (the original, baby!), Pitfall II (Oh yeah)!, and Ghostbusters (simple but good port).

 

Basically, the earlier the game, the more basic the graphics. That's when you have to forget about how the game looks and concentrate on the great gameplay. Warlords may look simple, but it's gameplay is exceptional.

[BeerGnome]

yeah..it aint about graphics.. the original programers had very little to work with so everything was thrown into game play.. thats why you played the hell out of those games when you were a kid on that nasty little B&W TV

a lot of games today? damn.. they're just expanding on ideas that were at least introduced on the 2600.. you like legend of zelda and the like? sorry.. would'nt exist if it wasn't for adventure.. and all the cheats and hidden bugs.. yep.. adventure again.. the first game to have an easter egg!

modern programmers have been rehashing the same concepts for years.. the only diffrence in a lot ways is the way the game is presented.

as for pacman.. thats just a bad example of Marketing gone horribly awry.. same thing with ET.

if you give a damn about maze games.. download the rom hack of pacman from here. or better yet.. get Jr.pacman.. the best pacman port for the 2600 IMHO

and to see what the systemis really capable of.. check out some of the crazy stuff people are doing in the programers forums, particuarly the fung ku one

welcome back tot he wonderful world of atari man

[sku_u]

Expecting good graphics from these games is like expecting Mozart to compose on a synthesizer.

 

The technnology wasn't there, but does that mean the music wasn't great?

[Brian R.]

The graphics don't stink. Your expectations are different.

 

And emulators don't count. Get yourself a REAL Atari 2600 and some carts.

[Gregory DG]

Space invaders is bad.  I would "turn it over" go from 0 to 99999  at least 8 times.

 

I think you're in the minority if you believe Space Invaders to be a bad game. I like the 2600 version 100x more than the arcade!

[PeeknPoke]

Everyone is entitled to their view, but Space Invaders on the 2600 is pretty good, not to mention the various game selections just on that cart...Value for money in those days

 

Lee

[Godzilla]

Space invaders is bad.  I would "turn it over" go from 0 to 99999  at least 8 times.

 

If it was so 'bad' why did you spend ALL that time playing it, and rolling the score at least 8 times, hmmm???

 

yea... thought so.

[King Atari]

I like the 2600 Space Invaders more than the arcade, as well. Just seems to play faster and smoother.

[AtariDude]

Maybe compared to what we have today the Atari 2600 is not great visually but the game play is where it is at and the game play is awesome in some games.

[shep]

gameplay is where the 2600 0wn3rz ur s0ul

 

Todays newer gamers have no gaming soul! All they care about is visuals!