Legacy versus ARM-based 2600 Game Development

[+KaeruYojimbo]

2 hours ago, kisrael said:

Right, but I guess one thing that bubbled up for me in this conversation is that... developers putting 1984 tech were doing it for a system that was still pretty viable (modulo the crash) at the time! By 1987 or 1988, those developers would have been moving on to a different platform!

I suppose it depends on whether or not you view the 2600 as still “alive” or completely as a retro console. I like to think we’re still living in the life of the 2600, just a later, different part of that life. And if it’s still alive, there should be growth. And part of that growth is continuing to push what is possible. And I’m saying this as someone who has written a couple of 4K games, in large part because I like seeing how much game I can get out of 4K, but who also appreciates what has been done with expanded capabilities.

 

There’s room for both points of view, but I don’t want to see developers feel limited because of someone else's view of what's authentic.

[MrTrust]

1 hour ago, kisrael said:

Ah, but "a-TAR-i CARts" sounds GREAT

 

True, but since we now have a game called Atari Karts, I can never hear it without being consciously aware of the two possible meanings even when the use is obvious from context.  Of course, the same applies to "Atari games", so I guess this is a treadmill we're never going to get off of.

 

1 hour ago, kisrael said:

(PS @MrTrust- notice I said "forces the question" where someone might say "it begs the question" - but "begs the question" was an important unique concept - "assume the question had already been answered" and I can't bring myself to be part of the loss of that meaning ;-D )

 

I used to feel the same way until I thought about it and noticed I haven't seen it used correctly in any context other than someone explaining how to use it correctly for maybe a decade.  It's actually really difficult to use naturally in conversation or writing, and seemingly impossible to do it without appending a little lecture on its meaning, since everybody who understands its original meaning is convinced nobody they're speaking to does and may be right.   So, I would say it's lost its utility at this point.

 

2 hours ago, KaeruYojimbo said:

The point I was really trying to make with the cycling stuff but didn’t really spell out is that most of these limitations are arbitrary. The people who want warning labels on homebrews with extra chips are fine with the DPC in Pitfall II or the CBS RAM Plus carts because they’re “of the time” but what was of the time in 1984 is still beyond what VCS developers had in 1977.

 

Ah, well, we're definitely in agreement there.  Like one of the touted features of Circus Convoy was that it was "authentic".  It's a 128k rom.  Technically possible in the mid or late 80s?  Yeah, but would it have been practical?  For a 2600 game at a time when publishers were pinching pennies on cart sizes for games on much more advanced consoles?  Doesn't seem likely.

 

1 hour ago, kisrael said:

Right, but I guess one thing that bubbled up for me in this conversation is that... developers putting 1984 tech were doing it for a system that was still pretty viable (modulo the crash) at the time! By 1987 or 1988, those developers would have been moving on to a different platform! But we love retro. But in part we love it AS RETRO. So it forces the question, what retro limitations are worth heeding so that it's still retro and not just modern, and which ones worth blowing off? and what makes Atari still "worthwhile" as a retro/semi-retro platform. (I got other folks to agree that a cart using its own HDMI out, usb sticks in would probably not be authentically retro... so there's a conceivably some line to think about drawing ... and people may never agree on how exactly to handle the lines or which ones to emphasize but that is all ok)

 

Well, I'm not a homebrewer myself, but just as a player and occasional tinkerer, I don't know that I necessarily love it, qua retro.  It's not like I love Backgammon because it's ancient; it's just a good game that never stopped being good.  It happens to be the case that the game designs I like the most in basically every form tend to be the kinds of designs that were popular in the 80s and a little into the 90s, but I don't feel any causal connection between the two.  It's true; I wouldn't want to play a 2600 game through and HDMI out.  I'll go RF into an LCD flat screen, but that's as far as it goes.  If I'm playing emulators, I want that faux RF interference.

 

But I can't stand films in 60 FPS either; I want 24 or 30 or whatever.  60 just looks and feels wrong to me, but that's entirely because my eyes happened to get used to the old standard any everything else doesn't look right.  I don't know that it's necessarily an affinity for the time or "retro" as a concept.

 

1 hour ago, kisrael said:

And yeah, we're pretty much in agreement. Homebrew games aren't really a competition except in a limited way of "in the marketplace of attention" (and I guess, marketplace of sales) and it seems unfair to know that casual fans absolutely will judge a coprocessor cart right up against one that only uses tech feasible in the 80s.

 

Has anyone actually done this, though?  I mean, people went pretty gaga over Circus Convoy, and that's just standard 2600 Activision graphics for the most part.  I love Demons to Diamonds and Dodge 'Em, both of which are pretty primitive even by 80s standards on the 2600.  If I gave a shit about high resolution graphics or hundreds of sprites on the screen at once, I wouldn't be playing the 2600 in the first place.  Why would I pick up even, say, Galaxian from years later and judge it against DtD as if the comparison had any meaning?  I just don't understand why anyone would do that.  

 

So, I'm looking through the store, and I see Galagon exists on the 2600, so now that devalues Galactopus in some way?  I don't see why.  Either way, I'm spending way more money on this than any rational person would do, and still less than all the effort and materials it took to make the thing and get it to me deserve.  So why split hairs about the difference between the two.  The only reason I'm even so thunderstruck about the coprocessor game in the first place is that I know it "shouldn't" be possible.

[kisrael]

1 minute ago, MrTrust said:

I used to feel the same way until I thought about it and noticed I haven't seen it used correctly in any context other than someone explaining how to use it correctly for maybe a decade.  It's actually really difficult to use naturally in conversation or writing, and seemingly impossible to do it without appending a little lecture on its meaning, since everybody who understands its original meaning is convinced nobody they're speaking to does and may be right.   So, I would say it's lost its utility at this point.

 You might have a point. I guess it's just "force the question" vs "that presumes we already accept _____" for me from now on 

 

3 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

It's true; I wouldn't want to play a 2600 game through and HDMI out.  I'll go RF into an LCD flat screen, but that's as far as it goes.  If I'm playing emulators, I want that faux RF interference.

 

But I can't stand films in 60 FPS either; I want 24 or 30 or whatever.  60 just looks and feels wrong to me, but that's entirely because my eyes happened to get used to the old standard any everything else doesn't look right.  I don't know that it's necessarily an affinity for the time or "retro" as a concept.

Heh. yeah, 60 FPS is interesting. Does it look "bad" to some of us just because we're not used to it, or worse because we associate w/ lower quality entertainment (like BBC clips shot outdoors and soapoperas or other things that were direct to video). Or is there just something semi-objectively meh.

So it sounds like you'd be... looking for some hard to pin down aspect of "atari-ness". I think earlier posts fleshed that out a bit; using the pathways that were provided to make a game image, and not TOO too much shenanigns using it like a bad 48px or 96px wide monitor. 

 

7 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

Has anyone actually done this, though?

well I think someone previously posted where like Super Cobra was set against Super Cobra Arcade, and the former got an "F" and the latter an "A". I know I'm sentimental for the old Super Cobra and that some of the critique was legit even within the realm of what was plausible at the time, but in the end it didn't seem 100% "fair" to present as an apples to apples comparison.

And to be clear, I'm taking a more or less fence sitting position overall. As Groucho said, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

[+Nathan Strum]

1 hour ago, kisrael said:

well I think someone previously posted where like Super Cobra was set against Super Cobra Arcade, and the former got an "F" and the latter an "A". I know I'm sentimental for the old Super Cobra and that some of the critique was legit even within the realm of what was plausible at the time, but in the end it didn't seem 100% "fair" to present as an apples to apples comparison.

This was The Video Game Critic, and he gave the original Super Cobra an "F" long before the Champ Games version came out. He subsequently re-reviewed the Parker Bros. version, but the grade remained the same.

 

(And FWIW, I refer to my Atari games as "Punch Cards". Or just "Cards" if you're one of the cool kids.  )

[kisrael]

14 minutes ago, Nathan Strum said:

This was The Video Game Critic, and he gave the original Super Cobra an "F" long before the Champ Games version came out. He subsequently re-reviewed the Parker Bros. version, but the grade remained the same.

Alright it's a fair cop. He's a lot harsher than I am! Especially than my youthful nostalgia  

 

[+KaeruYojimbo]

2 hours ago, MrTrust said:

So, I'm looking through the store, and I see Galagon exists on the 2600, so now that devalues Galactopus in some way?  I don't see why.

FWIW, I'm spending more time playing Galagon than Galactopus these days (but thanks for the plug).

[MrTrust]

2 hours ago, kisrael said:

Heh. yeah, 60 FPS is interesting. Does it look "bad" to some of us just because we're not used to it, or worse because we associate w/ lower quality entertainment (like BBC clips shot outdoors and soapoperas or other things that were direct to video). Or is there just something semi-objectively meh.

 

Yeah, I remember back when 120 Hz TVs and stuff like that were just coming out, that was a common complaint: "looks like a soap opera".  I always just assumed that was because, for most people, there was no other vocabulary to describe it at the time.  I actually had a problem with this back in the early 90s.  We were playing Taz-Mania on Sega Genesis, and the whole game is ~30 FPS until you get to the boss, where it suddenly jumps to ~60.  I was trying to ask why it did that, and all I could say was "How come it looks like a TV show when you get to the boss?  You know how, like, Roseanne looks different and faster than Murder She Wrote (or whatever the shows on at the time were)?"  And nobody in my family could understand what on Earth I was talking about.  Apparently, none of them can actually perceive the difference, which I've tested on them now that there are direct side-by-side videos.  So for years I thought there was just something wrong inside my head.

 

An interesting thing to look into would be what people thought when sports broadcasts starting being shown at 60, did those people notice and what did they think?  Not sure if there's any way of knowing now.

 

2 hours ago, kisrael said:

So it sounds like you'd be... looking for some hard to pin down aspect of "atari-ness". I think earlier posts fleshed that out a bit; using the pathways that were provided to make a game image, and not TOO too much shenanigns using it like a bad 48px or 96px wide monitor.

 

I remember once seeing a video where someone had put a Raspberry Pi, with an SNES emulator and Super Mario World on it, in an NES cart and was shooting the display straight to the TV through the PPU, or something like that, and it was captioned "See Super Mario World running on the original NES!"  Neat engineering project, but a little cheese-y and misleading at the same time.  Would I scoff at somebody doing that with the 2600 other than as a sort of gee-whiz novelty?  Ehhh... I mean, maybe, but I just can't picture anyone actually doing that as a serious way to develop games for the system.  What would be the point, other than to say "look what I got running on the 2600?", and if you're savvy enough to do that, you've got to know how much overlap there is between the people who are going to be impressed by that, and the people who are going to know you're full of it, right?

 

Maybe it's just that I never cared that much about graphics in the first place.  When I look at, say, Gingerbread Man, I don't think "blocky, monochromatic graphics", I just think "early 80s-style graphics".  Of course, in some sense to say one is to say the other, but I wouldn't look at something like Mappy and say "This has better graphics than that".  I don't really understand the idea of "better graphics."  I mean, all the 16-bit platforms had "better graphics" than every 2600 game, but many of them were downright hideous to behold, and I would have a hard time picking many 2600 games that you could say that about.  I would even say that with some 2600 games relative to each other.  Berzerk always did look great on 2600, and always will.  Some of the later games haven't aged as well.  Though, I guess there are more to the coprocessor games than just graphics.

 

2 hours ago, kisrael said:

well I think someone previously posted where like Super Cobra was set against Super Cobra Arcade, and the former got an "F" and the latter an "A". I know I'm sentimental for the old Super Cobra and that some of the critique was legit even within the realm of what was plausible at the time, but in the end it didn't seem 100% "fair" to present as an apples to apples comparison.

 

Well, let's just assume for a second it wasn't The Video Game Critic, who presumably knows better, that invites the question "Is there any kind of label or disclosure that would help this goofball?"  It would take a real space cadet to think that this was a fair comparison even without a coprocessor (did SCA even have one?).  Back when 8k was the standard and everyone was working on these tight ass deadlines, and you didn't have 20-30-40 years of accumulated knowledge on your side.  And, not for nothing, but duh; if they didn't improve on the original, what would be the point of making it and putting it out?  If you're loopy enough to not take any of that into account, I'm not sure a logo on a box is going to do anything for you.

 

4 minutes ago, KaeruYojimbo said:

FWIW, I'm spending more time playing Galagon than Galactopus these days.

 

That's because it has the ARM and goes right next to Galactopus on the alphabetically organized shelf to temp the unsuspecting player.  That is pretty insidious.

[s0c7]

For me, nostalgia plays a large part of it and I specifically have 1977-1982 or so in mind when I think of it. Like a lot of people, I moved on to home computers at that point and never really saw the later era 2600 stuff until much later. So if I create something, that's the time frame I'm mostly trying to emulate.

 

I don't have an issue with people making ARM games, etc. It's just from my perspective that if a mostly pixel perfect port of a game requires modern hardware add-ons, I'd just as soon play the real thing in MAME. However, I'm in the minority on that and I totally get why everybody goes nuts for the ARM stuff. I think the current entity known as Atari really missed the boat with their new VCS system. If they had contracted out some ARM style 2600 games and marketed it as an upgraded 2600 for the 21st century it might have been something interesting. Of course licensing and whatnot would come into play, so that probably wouldn't have worked in the end.

 

 

[+KaeruYojimbo]

2 minutes ago, s0c7 said:

It's just from my perspective that if a mostly pixel perfect port of a game requires modern hardware add-ons, I'd just as soon play the real thing in MAME.

I generally feel that way as well, but I own some of the ARM ports because sometimes it's more fun to play on the 2600 than my laptop (I've never been motivated enough to build a MAME cab), and because some of them have features that aren't in the arcade (like the co-op mode in Galagon).

 

10 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

If you're loopy enough to not take any of that into account, I'm not sure a logo on a box is going to do anything for you.

That's the thing that gets me about the posts wanting ARM games labeled as a warning instead of as promotion. They're basically saying "I refuse to buy any 2600 game with a co-processor. Now please tell me which games those are because I can't tell." If you can't tell, why does it matter?

[kisrael]

Just now, KaeruYojimbo said:

That's the thing that gets me about the posts wanting ARM games labeled as a warning instead of as promotion. They're basically saying "I refuse to buy any 2600 game with a co-processor. Now please tell me which games those are because I can't tell." If you can't tell, why does it matter?

Heh. Now I'm thinking of a similar sentiment at one point for labeling bB games - like esp. before custom kernels made them a bit more competitive. Kind of the opposite problem. 

I guess some of the people against think it's akin to wanting asterisks for certain baseball achievement records because of change of length of the season, or from suspected steroid use. 
(Not to get dragged into another metaphor war, but yeah... it reminds me of the defense of steroid users, that yeah, definitely it added more power, but it didn't really help put the bat on the ball.)

But some of the big stuff like ZeroPage keep up the <= 4K category which is good. Along with the Port vs Original Work categories. I just wish they were more specific than "K"  in theory could an ARM-assist thing be 4K?

[s0c7]

8 minutes ago, kisrael said:

I just wish they were more specific than "K"  in theory could an ARM-assist thing be 4K?

I may be wrong, but I think I read the ARM stuff is 32k minimum.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

7 minutes ago, s0c7 said:

I may be wrong, but I think I read the ARM stuff is 32k minimum.

That's due to the CPU used. If compatible CPUs with less memory exist (look it up) and the existing driver would be adapted to these, then you could create smaller ARM games.

[+littaum]

What is the difference between Atari 2600 games using ARM chips to enhance the game vs. the common practice in NES times to use mapper chips to enhance NES 8-bit games (or SNES enhancement chips)?

[kisrael]

Just now, littaum said:

What is the difference between Atari 2600 games using ARM chips to enhance the game vs. the common practice in NES times to use mapper chips to enhance NES 8-bit games (or SNES enhancement chips)?

For some people who are very aware of the difference, the keyword there is "at the time"  You are doing tricks that might have been literally impossible with the technology that was available in the time frame when it was a current system.
(and the other question is, are there any limits beyond what you can stuff into a cartridge port... could it have its own rasperberry PI and MAME emulator and own HDMI out?)

[Thomas Jentzsch]

@littaum

This has been discussed more than once right here on AtariAge. All arguments are there. Look them up.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Thomas Jentzsch

[+batari]

There are 16k and 8k versions of ARM chips similar to Melody (same core) but no 4k version. You could just use 4k of the space, though?

 

There are, however, ROMless ARM chips out there that are intended to be used with an external flash/ROM/EPROM, so in theory I suppose you *could* possibly use a 4k chip with one and create a 4k ARM game?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

1 minute ago, kisrael said:

For some people who are very aware of the difference, the keyword there is "at the time"  

In 2077 they will put a quantum computer into an Atari 2600 cart. Just an enhancement.  

[kisrael]

Just now, Thomas Jentzsch said:

In 2077 they will put a quantum computer into an Atari 2600 cart. Just an enhancement.  

IF THE CART FITS, YOU MUST ACQUIT! 

 

(sorry for a very American + 90s reference for a rather 80s gaming system)

[Keatah]

Part of of what a cart slot does is allow changing of program. Another function is expansion. A cartridge system is similar to a computer with 1 expansion slot. We all know that.

 

As kids in the 70's and early 80's we looked forward to what new stuff could be done. It didn't matter how. We were totally oblivious to DPC or other BS schemes. The only thing we thought "special" was the Arcadia SuperCharger. It was huge, it had the "full-size" chips in it. Therefore it was capable and smart. As time rolled on technology advanced. And we never ever said no to extra stuff in a cart. Memory, processor, sound chip, mappers, clock, more firmware, whatever. It was all welcome.

 

We were happy to experience progress in whatever form it came. We loved experiencing the improvements - it lent a sense of time and structure - a timeline. Tangible progression. The system grew with us.

 

My first baby games were like the original carts in the first catalog, Surround, Combat, StarShip, Air-Sea Battle, Basic Math. Great times.

 

And my more grown-up games might've been Missile Command, Asteroids, Video Chess, Video Pinball, Miniature Golf, Phoenix, Demon Attack, Space Invaders. And more!

 

Today the ARM-enhanced games are just extensions and progressions. They tend to retain the flavor of what's come before. That's key, retain the flavor.

 

2 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Though, I guess there are more to the coprocessor games than just graphics.

There's animation and complexity - if you care to think of those qualities being different from "graphics". More game rules, more collision detection. more comprehensive sound.

 

 

2 hours ago, s0c7 said:

For me, nostalgia plays a large part of it and I specifically have 1977-1982 or so in mind when I think of it. Like a lot of people, I moved on to home computers at that point and never really saw the later era 2600 stuff until much later. So if I create something, that's the time frame I'm mostly trying to emulate.

Same here. For a long time the VCS sat beside my Apple II, seeing regular usage. But that all stopped when I started chasing after the 16-bit era. A lot of wasted time doing that. So I missed a good portion of what became available in the waning years of its lifecycle.

 

The tech gap between Amiga, ST, IIgs, and the VCS was enormous - with every single discussion pointing to computers being the future.

 

Today I play VCS exclusively through emulation. And there isn't a PC in the house that can't handle it - save for my vintage 486 which will only play early emulators, crude & rough emulators.

 

2 hours ago, s0c7 said:

I don't have an issue with people making ARM games, etc. It's just from my perspective that if a mostly pixel perfect port of a game requires modern hardware add-ons, I'd just as soon play the real thing in MAME. However, I'm in the minority on that and I totally get why everybody goes nuts for the ARM stuff.

It holds true IF I played a game a lot in the arcade, yes, then I want the original on MAME. At the same time I like some of the ports. Especially modern ARM-enhanced ones or other 8-bit versions on C64 or Atari 400/800.

 

2 hours ago, s0c7 said:

I think the current entity known as Atari really missed the boat with their new VCS system. If they had contracted out some ARM style 2600 games and marketed it as an upgraded 2600 for the 21st century it might have been something interesting. Of course licensing and whatnot would come into play, so that probably wouldn't have worked in the end.

I cannot imagine present day atari doing good with ARM-enhancement. I'm happy to watch what homebrewers do with it. It's their platform anyways.

 

2 hours ago, KaeruYojimbo said:

I generally feel that way as well, but I own some of the ARM ports because sometimes it's more fun to play on the 2600 than my laptop (I've never been motivated enough to build a MAME cab), and because some of them have features that aren't in the arcade (like the co-op mode in Galagon).

MAME cabs aren't for everyone. Personally I think nothing is more elegant than an X-Arcade stick and a NUC. Along with traditional handheld controller, keyboard, and mouse to round it all out. You can easily play in the environment of your choice. Position that TankStick on your $8,000 cocktail table!

 

There are several games I prefer to jam on the VCS as opposed to their arcade brethren. Space Invaders, Dintar's Pac-Man, Draconian, Super Cobra, Missile Command. And more. More variety of options. And more kid-friendly. Not forgetting the softer graphics and vintage sound.

 

2 hours ago, KaeruYojimbo said:

That's the thing that gets me about the posts wanting ARM games labeled as a warning instead of as promotion. They're basically saying "I refuse to buy any 2600 game with a co-processor. Now please tell me which games those are because I can't tell." If you can't tell, why does it matter?

That's terrible and ridiculous. A warning?!? OMG... No no. Just no.

 

A simple "ARM-enhanced" text badge discretely placed in the corner could (and should) act as an indicator of sophistication. ARM-enhanced games made so far have not been out of vintage VCS character. All of us here felt like we were playing something from back in the day. They feel like that natural progression.

 

An ARM-enhanced badge should be worn with honor. After all. CBS made their RAM-enhanced games known that they're enhanced. And we loved it!

 

Now consider Doom on the NES via R-Pi. That doesn't seem quite right as a game. So much is missing when consolized. But it is nice as a tech demo. No doubt. There's contention among the eras. Doom and NES are each from another time. And Doom was (and always will be) a PC-486 game. That's where it shines. That's where the most development has taken place, both professional and hobbyist/homebrew alike.

 

1 hour ago, littaum said:

What is the difference between Atari 2600 games using ARM chips to enhance the game vs. the common practice in NES times to use mapper chips to enhance NES 8-bit games (or SNES enhancement chips)?

Not a whole hell heckuva lot.

[Keatah]

One thing I'd like to see finished is this.

ZaxxonHDDemo_150927_NTSC.bin ZaxxonHDDemo_150927_PAL60.bin

[kisrael]

3 hours ago, Keatah said:

on technology advanced. And we never ever said no to extra stuff in a cart. Memory, processor, sound chip, mappers, clock, more firmware, whatever. It was all welcome.

 

We were happy to experience progress in whatever form it came. We loved experiencing the improvements - it lent a sense of time and structure - a timeline. Tangible progression. The system grew with us.

But, we also said "yes" to progress in the form of whole new systems! So going back to the Atari 2600 as a base is a certain form of "no" - which is why I'm intrigued by people's answers about Why Still Atari 2600, and what if any cart cramming tech advance would make it feel NOT Like Still Atari 2600. 

Anyway, well put thoughts there, Keatah.
 

[+KaeruYojimbo]

4 hours ago, Keatah said:

A simple "ARM-enhanced" text badge discretely placed in the corner could (and should) act as an indicator of sophistication.

Exactly. But there are a few posts earlier in this thread from those who want it to be some sort of scarlet letter, branding the game as unauthentic and preventing them from accidentally enjoying it.

 

17 hours ago, littaum said:

What is the difference between Atari 2600 games using ARM chips to enhance the game vs. the common practice in NES times to use mapper chips to enhance NES 8-bit games (or SNES enhancement chips)?

As has been said, the difference is all timing. The "extra hardware is cheating" crowd pretty quickly amends that to "extra hardware is cheating only if it's from after the commercial life of the platform" when you remind them their favorite classic games used some form of enhancement.

 

I don't have any problem with new tech being used to make VCS games because I don't view the VCS as a retro console. I just view it as a console, with new games still being developed for it as well as an extensive back catalog. 

[kisrael]

9 minutes ago, KaeruYojimbo said:

Exactly. But there are a few posts earlier in this thread from those who want it to be some sort of scarlet letter, branding the game as unauthentic and preventing them from accidentally enjoying it.

There's a middle course too, that just wants to make sure there's recognition that it's not a level playing field if you're interested in an accurate view of how much to admire a coder (or, what to admire them for, rather, since it's a different set of challenges and having to learn a wider spread of tech to do a good augmented cart) 

Of course, if your goal is purely setting expectations of a more fleshed out, detailed game, the scarlet letter would not be of shame but an advertisement of likely extra goodness!

9 minutes ago, KaeruYojimbo said:

As has been said, the difference is all timing. The "extra hardware is cheating" crowd pretty quickly amends that to "extra hardware is cheating only if it's from after the commercial life of the platform" when you remind the their favorite classic games used some form of enhancement.

yeah, the amended view might be "extra hardware from decades after the retail life of the system is cheating". Or if not cheating, at least a different flavor of challenge for coders. 

[+KaeruYojimbo]

1 hour ago, kisrael said:

There's a middle course too, that just wants to make sure there's recognition that it's not a level playing field

It's been said, I doubt most of the people who need a label to know the playing field isn't level care that the playing field isn't level.

[+Karl G]

5 minutes ago, KaeruYojimbo said:

It's been said, I doubt most of the people who need a label to know the playing field isn't level care that the playing field isn't level. It makes me wonder if there's a little bit of "protect the innocent" reasoning behind wanting a warning label. "My cousin who hasn't touched an Atari since 1984 just found a video of Galagon and posted to Facebook and everyone is commenting what an awesome 2600 game it is! I have to let them know it isn't a real 2600 game, it's an ARM-assisted fraud!"

Has anyone actually said there should be a "warning label" for ARM games? Some, like me, said that labeling ARM games with something like "ARM-enhanced" could be beneficial, but I at least definitely did not mean it as a warning of any kind, or a mark of anything negative.

 

I personally think an "ARM-enhanced" logo could be of benefit to both makers of ARM-assisted games, and those who do not use the ARM. I can't really see such a designation scaring off potential buyers, and it might give them more information about why ARM-assisted games look and sound a bit different, as well as why they have a slightly higher price tag.

 

The idea was not a popular one, but I wanted to be clear for the record that I at least was never thinking of such labelling as a "warning".