Unpopular Opinions (2600)

[Cebus Capucinis]

D'oh, realized this was 2600-specific. In that case.....Lost Luggage is a pretty good game.

[keithbk]

5 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

Some of these probably aren't that unpopular since a few of them have been posted already:

 

11. Sssnake isn't as terrible as you think.

 

That's enough for now, I think. ?

LOL, I rank this in the bottom 10 Atari 2600 games released in that era. The only thing going for it (maybe) is the box art...

 

It's worse than Dishaster and Picnic, which are two of the WORST concepts for a video game.... you're a teen in the 1980's... would you buy these titles at full price?

[BassGuitari]

1 hour ago, MrTrust said:

 

...

5.  I don't know, once they stopped doing all those game variations, what's the point?

...

10.  Careful what you wish for.  Some of those late-stage Atari games that ended up on both were actually better on 2600.

11.  That's not saying that it isn't terrible.

...

5. What's the point of deceptive artwork that looks nothing like the game?  I just like the look of text labels. They look more sophisticated, befitting a sophisticated-sounding console such as the Video Computer System.  (The artwork on the picture labels is pretty great though.)

 

10. Now there's a hot take! Which of Atari's cross-platform 2600/7800 games do you think were better on the 2600? Looking at Atari Corp.'s 7800 lineup, I'd need some convincing that any of their games were better on the 2600. Except maybe Realsports Baseball. (But anyway, my comment was more intended to the effect of "I disagree with siphoning development from a supposed flagship console to aging bargain bin system.")

 

11. *Taps nose* 

4 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Maybe we should rename this thread Elite Opinions Held Only by Truly Discerning Individuals (2600).

Get on it, mods!

14 minutes ago, FujiSkunk said:

1. Nah.  The Vader is the best looking of them all. (Another unpopular opinion?)

...

7. Define "better".  More capable, certainly.  Better executed, heck no.

8. ...and Kaboom, and Seaquest, and Frostbite, and Chopper Command, and Stampede, and Megamania, and...

...

14. Disagree.  Some would be better served, certainly, but for games like Space Invaders and Galaxian, part of the strategy is figuring out when to move and where, knowing you only get one speed.  Of course that didn't stop Atari from paddle-izing Galaxian on the 5200 to a certain extent, but then they changed so many other things in that port that it almost wasn't Galaxian.  Still fun to play, just not really Galaxian.

...

16. Haven't played the stand-alone console, so I can't comment, but I do find it hard to believe it could improve on Midnight Magic.

...

18. What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

1. I had the woodgrain units in mind here, but if we were to compare "v.4" iterations...Video Arcade II > Vader. 

 

7. You just defined it yourself!  The controller could have been better built--namely with conductive metal key/button contacts instead of carbon, but I don't see much else to criticize from a hardware execution standpoint. Or software; there are very few stinkers in the 5200 library. Atari arguably and/or notoriously mishandled it, though, effectively positioning the 5200 as a complementary high-end model rather than a true successor to the 2600 before the Crash made it a moot point. Regardless, it remains a "luxury" gaming experience compared to the 2600. In my unpopular opinion, of course. 

 

8. ...and Spider Fighter. And maybe Beamrider, Robot Tank, Starmaster, Keystone Kapers, and Enduro, depending on who you ask. Probably not so much Freeway, Sky Jinks, Laser Blast, or a whole lot else from the remaining 60-something percent of the Activision lineup. (Decathlon? Space Shuttle? Some people really like Dragster for some reason.) Not that there isn't good stuff in there but who hears "Activision" and thinks Oink! or Dolphin? (Sidebar: I do actually like Dolphin. )

 

14. True, it wasn't really Galaxian; it was better than Galaxian.   Which, I would counter, would have been better off as a paddle-controlled game in the arcade in the first place. Not only for the gameplay, but think of the awesome/cheesy spaceship steering yoke it could have had!

 

16. You'd be surprised! Video Pinball certainly is more primitive, but with independent flipper buttons, it plays more like pinball (which isn't to say it actually comes close to real pinball), with the addictiveness to match. 

 

18. *Taps mic* So anyway...what's the deal with airline food?

[+Nathan Strum]

On 2/26/2022 at 8:05 AM, keithbk said:

Robot Tank is better than Battlezone

Yes it is. And Battlezone is my all-time favorite arcade game, too. (I was disappointed by how far the 2600 version missed the mark.) 

 

A few other unpopular (and completely personal) opinions:

• I never liked Adventure. Still don't to this day. Dragging a square through poorly designed mazes randomly looking for badly flickering items isn't on my list of fun things to do.
• I never liked Atlantis. The graphics are cool, but that's all it has going for it. You shoot three guns in fixed positions at the same targets over and over and over and over... it's Imagic's Laser Blast. There. I said it. 
• Encounter at L-5 is actually kind-of fun, in a mindlessly hypnotic sort-of way. The control scheme is really clever, and it would be great to see it used in a homebrew.
• Challenge of Nexar is one of the best shooters on the 2600. It's likely the closest you'll get to a Tempest-like game on the system, and could've been a hit if published by a higher profile company (like Imagic).
• Reactor is one of the best arcade ports on the 2600. The arcade game is too obtuse and obscure for the 2600 version to have been a hit, but it's an incredibly fun and well-done game.
• I hate E.T. Not the game - but the movie. I've never seen it, and have no interest in ever seeing it. I was immediately and permanently put off from it by the trailers/commercials where E.T. and the little girl were screaming at each other, and couldn't figure out why this bizarre, uglier knock-off of Yoda had its own movie. The marketing campaign was ever-present and obnoxious and I resented it from knocking Star Wars off the #1 all-time box office spot. Since then, I've only strengthened my resolve to avoid it. Consequently, whatever bashing the 2600 game gets (deserved or not) is fine with me. (Yes - this is all completely unfair. I also don't care.  )

[MrTrust]

2 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

What's the point of deceptive artwork that looks nothing like the game?

 

To evoke a mood.  Does anyone play Missile Command on an Atari console and not mentally envision little guys in brown jumpsuits talking on phones and pushing all kinds of buttons down inside the missile base?

 

2 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

Now there's a hot take! Which of Atari's cross-platform 2600/7800 games do you think were better on the 2600? Looking at Atari Corp.'s 7800 lineup, I'd need some convincing that any of their games were better on the 2600. Except maybe Realsports Baseball.

 

Crossbow looks better on 7800, but is slower and chunkier.  2600 version is more challenging and has faster action.  Dark Chambers on 7800 is a joke; it's boring and you can just go on and on forever.  2600 version is a fairly decent maze-game with Berzerk elements.  Xenophobe is not great on either machine, but on the 7800 it is slow and chunky and ugly and takes forever for the difficulty to ramp up enough to be fun.  2600 version is smoother and more challenging, much like Crossbow.  Yeah, yeah, two-player simultaneous mode... just makes the game even less challenging and more boring.  Winter Games was better on 2600 than pretty much anything else, and 7800 is no exception (not exactly and Atari game, but still).

 

There were some others, like the Baseball games, that I guess were negligibly better on the 7800, but given the difference in horsepower between the two machines, one has to wonder why they even bothered with some of these.

 

If we're talking about the old arcade stuff, the Centipedes, the Asteroids, etc., yes that stuff was all better on 7800.

[+FujiSkunk]

Good grief, some terrible opinions are coming out of the woodwork!

 

Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

Anyway, moving on with disagreeing...

 

7 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

1. I had the woodgrain units in mind here, but if we were to compare "v.4" iterations...Video Arcade II > Vader. 

Once again, define "better", or in this case, "greater than".  Yes, the Video Arcade II's are neat little systems, and Atari should have found some way to sell the combination joystick and paddles (jaddles? padsticks? joypads! ...what?) by themselves, but I still say the Vaders are more aesthetically pleasing.

 

7 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

7. You just defined it yourself! 

No, I didn't, I asked for your definition.  Then I explained why I asked by giving two examples, one where I would agree and one where I would very much disagree.

 

7 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

8. ...but who hears "Activision" and thinks Oink! or Dolphin? (Sidebar: I do actually like Dolphin. )

Not many, to be sure, and I actually like Oink!.  But if the original statement was meant to imply Activision was nothing more than their Big 3, then I would disagree.  If nothing else, it was a Big 4, with Kaboom! included.  But even then I would say there was more than that.

 

7 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

14. True, it wasn't really Galaxian; it was better than Galaxian.  

Ehhh...

 

Opinions.  We haz 'em.

 

7 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

16. You'd be surprised! Video Pinball certainly is more primitive, but with independent flipper buttons, it plays more like pinball (which isn't to say it actually comes close to real pinball), with the addictiveness to match. 

Actually Midnight Magic can be played with independent flipper buttons as well.  Kind of.  You have to swap the joystick for a pair of paddles, then you can use the paddle buttons for flippers.  Coincidentally this also makes Midnight Magic play more like the original Apple II David's Midnight Magic, which is where the artwork came from.  That's why there are paddles in the artwork.  The problem is you have to do the controller swap after launching the ball, because the paddles can't be used to control the plunger.  I was actually a little surprised and disappointed the game didn't support this, since implementing it would have been (relatively) trivial.  Oh well, perhaps there's a hack out there somewhere...

 

5 hours ago, Nathan Strum said:

I never liked Adventure. Still don't to this day. Dragging a square through poorly designed mazes randomly looking for badly flickering items isn't on my list of fun things to do.

Either you like dungeon crawlers or you don't.  I'm not the biggest fan of them, but even I can appreciate Adventure for what it is and what it managed to be in only 4kB.  Calling the mazes poorly designed when they were sufficiently complex to navigate yet also easy enough to memorize, successfully made the world of Adventure a fairly large place to explore, and left enough room in the cartridge for everything else the game needed to do, is a wee bit unfair.

 

5 hours ago, Nathan Strum said:

I never liked Atlantis. The graphics are cool, but that's all it has going for it. You shoot three guns in fixed positions at the same targets over and over and over and over... it's Imagic's Laser Blast. There. I said it. 

Either you like twitch shooters or you don't.

 

Actually I get the frustration with Atlantis, but again, I can appreciate it for what it is.  Once in a while I get the hankerin', pop it in for a few minutes, start losing all my targets, and then decide, "Okay, moving on..."

 

5 hours ago, Nathan Strum said:

Reactor is one of the best arcade ports on the 2600. The arcade game is too obtuse and obscure for the 2600 version to have been a hit, but it's an incredibly fun and well-done game.

Fully agreed.  I actually got to play an arcade Reactor for the first time a couple of years back, at the annual Houston Arcade Expo.  Parker Bros. did an excellent job with the conversion, and I think it's cool how they were willing to explore and offer more obscure titles like Reactor.  Pity they couldn't do the same justice to Sky Skipper...

 

4 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Crossbow looks better on 7800, but is slower and chunkier.  2600 version is more challenging and has faster action. 

2600 Crossbow suffers the same problem Activision's 2600 arcade ports do.  The programmers were so determined to avoid flickering that enemy patterns become very easy to figure out.  In a matter of minutes you'll know what you need to shoot and what you can either ignore or shoot at your leisure.

 

I was impressed they actually made Crossbow for the 2600, just like I was impressed they actually tried Rampage, Double Dragon and so on.  I was also impressed with just how close these games are to being good.  It's not the technical limitation of the system that did them in, nor was it the talent of the programmers.  It was the intentional decision to hamstring themselves.

 

As for Dark Chambers, I consider it too slow and way too easy on both systems, so here we are.

[Atariperson23]

(kinda) unpopular opinion: It's a miracle both financially and technologically 1984+ Atari 2600 games even exist, as the console was designed to play primarily Combat like 2K games.  It's amazing how games like Double Dragon and Dark Chambers can be made with stuff like multiple sprites, somewhat skilled AI, and recognizable graphics. Never mind the quality, the fact that they tried should be a merit in and of itself.

[MrTrust]

9 hours ago, FujiSkunk said:

2600 Crossbow suffers the same problem Activision's 2600 arcade ports do.  The programmers were so determined to avoid flickering that enemy patterns become very easy to figure out.  In a matter of minutes you'll know what you need to shoot and what you can either ignore or shoot at your leisure.

 

Yup, that's a problem.  Same thing with Vanguard, a lot of the third-party games, etc.  If you aren't going to have any flicker, you're going to have this problem unless you build the entire game around it, like Turmoil or Taz.  Or, you do like Stampede have such a fast and unpredictable vertical pattern that you don't notice it, at least for a while.  Then again, you just make it hard to actually hit the target, which in Crossbow's case I think rescues it from being a bad game.  You're still going to need pretty good reflexes for those fireballs on the volcano level no matter what.  Not sayin' it's great, but the 7800 version offers almost no resistance.

 

9 hours ago, FujiSkunk said:

I was impressed they actually made Crossbow for the 2600, just like I was impressed they actually tried Rampage, Double Dragon and so on.  I was also impressed with just how close these games are to being good.  It's not the technical limitation of the system that did them in, nor was it the talent of the programmers.  It was the intentional decision to hamstring themselves.

 

Commando and Ikari Warriors weren't so bad on the system, especially given the technology in use at the time.  They would have been better off just designing something from the ground up for these ports that was inspired by the originals rather than try to distill the actual arcade designs down into a 2600 cart.  You're going to be unfaithful to the original either way.

[youxia]

11 hours ago, FujiSkunk said:

The programmers were so determined to avoid flickering that enemy patterns become very easy to figure out.  In a matter of minutes you'll know what you need to shoot and what you can either ignore or shoot at your leisure.

 

I was impressed they actually made Crossbow for the 2600, just like I was impressed they actually tried Rampage, Double Dragon and so on.  I was also impressed with just how close these games are to being good.  It's not the technical limitation of the system that did them in, nor was it the talent of the programmers.  It was the intentional decision to hamstring themselves.

Isn't flickering a technical limitation?

[keithbk]

I don't know if this is unpopular or not, but Atari Superman is in my top 3 Atari 2600 games of all time.

[zzip]

On 2/25/2022 at 10:35 PM, Video said:

Pacman is a good game. Yes it doesn't "match the arcade" for exactly the same reasons no early 2600 arcade game matches the arcade. And yes, the modern (post internet) idea is it somehow not only sucks, but always did

The issue isn't that it didn't match the arcade,  the issue is it didn't even make the effort to try to be like the arcade and did its own thing instead.   Ms Pac Man still falls far short of the arcade version, but unlike Pac Man, it feels like it made the effort to represent the arcade game.

 

On 2/25/2022 at 10:35 PM, Video said:

No, it doesnt, it was perfectly acceptable for its time, coming at the end of the ultra chunky graphical era

It wasn't.   But I think it boiled down to whether you fell in love with Pac Man in the arcades.   Lots of people who didn't play the arcade version found the 2600 fun.  Which is understandable.   For those of us who had caught 'Pac Man fever', the 2600 version was a bitter disappointment

 

On 2/25/2022 at 10:35 PM, Video said:

It wasn't till Mrs pacman that the idea that it could have been better even cropped up. Nobody bitd thought it sucked,

Wow!   No I thought it sucked from the first time I saw it.   In fact I remember when I heard Atari released Ms Pacman for the 2600 my reaction was something like "Oh God, why?"   I was surprised it wasn't awful and they learned from their mistakes.

[zzip]

On 2/25/2022 at 5:07 PM, MrTrust said:

Well, they weren't all that.  They did have some truly great games.  Stampede, H.E.R.O., Pressure Cooker, Frostbite, River Raid... They also made some unplayable trash.  Double Dragon, Ghostbusters, Laser Blast... In between you have some pretty good stuff (Enduro, Kabbom!, Dolphin), some pretty boring stuff (Dragster, Freeway, Checkers) and a lot of low-rent copies of other popular games (Starmaster, Chopper Command, Robot Tank).  It's a mixed bag; no different than any other label at the time.

Yeah every company has hits and misses.   What stands out about Activision is the sheer number of games they produced, and how few of their games are truly great, but yet they have this halo around them as some exceptional purveyor of quality.

 

BTW Checkers isn't supposed to be exciting ?

 

On 2/26/2022 at 12:27 PM, BassGuitari said:

The keyboard controllers were underutilized, especially when games started using the second joystick for menu/item selection.

True, but I suppose availability of the controllers was a problem.    They only came with Star Raiders and BASIC Programming, right?

 

On 2/26/2022 at 2:00 PM, Jasonhrb said:

I already had Space Invaders, Bezerk and Frogger in my collection at this time, and loved all three. All of them to some degree or another fell short of the originals in terms of graphics

I always thought Berzerk was one of the most graphically true arcade conversions for the 2600

[+pboland]

This is a topic is great reading and I love how no one is having a cow over anything being said. A great reflection of the people on this forum. 

 

With that stated however I can't help but think how a topic like this would go if you changed out the system from "Atari 2600" to "NES".

 

Something tells me it would be a totally different experience. ?

 

 

Almost forgot:

Flash Gordon is a fun game!

[zzip]

18 hours ago, Nathan Strum said:

I never liked Adventure. Still don't to this day. Dragging a square through poorly designed mazes randomly looking for badly flickering items isn't on my list of fun things to do.

heh.   I remember seeing this game being played on department store kiosks and always thought it looked hideous and extremely dated even back then (82/83ish)

 

But yet in spite of that, somehow I ended up owning it and it hooked me and my friends.  It's almost sandboxy in there's a bunch of creative things you can do outside the objective,  rare in 2600 titles.   Like if the bat is carrying a dragon, and you are holding the bat and the dragon eats you,  you can take a flying tour of the kingdom and guide the bat's movement to some extent.   Sometimes you'll find the bat motionless or not carrying an object and you may see if you can get through the game and keep it that way.   Or maybe build a collection of dragon trophies in your castle with both difficulties on A.   Those are all things we tried, and we kept coming up with new challenges.

 

  I still play it from time to time today.

 

18 hours ago, Nathan Strum said:

Reactor is one of the best arcade ports on the 2600. The arcade game is too obtuse and obscure for the 2600 version to have been a hit, but it's an incredibly fun and well-done game.

Never saw the arcade version, but always enjoyed the 2600 version anyway

[+FujiSkunk]

32 minutes ago, zzip said:

Yeah every company has hits and misses.   What stands out about Activision is the sheer number of games they produced, and how few of their games are truly great, but yet they have this halo around them as some exceptional purveyor of quality.

But yet some of us have a different opinion of what defines "few".

 

32 minutes ago, zzip said:

True, but I suppose availability of the [keyboard] controllers was a problem.    They only came with Star Raiders and BASIC Programming, right?

They were also sold separately.

 

1 hour ago, youxia said:

Isn't flickering a technical limitation?

Yes, but not one that necessarily hampers game play.  Games on the NES and SMS were flickerfests at times too, so clearly it was an acceptable compromise to many developers and players.

[moycon]

Sneak and Peek was an interesting game with awesome graphics 

[+sramirez2008]

19 hours ago, Nathan Strum said:

Yes it is. And Battlezone is my all-time favorite arcade game, too. (I was disappointed by how far the 2600 version missed the mark.) 

 

A few other unpopular (and completely personal) opinions:

• I never liked Adventure. Still don't to this day. Dragging a square through poorly designed mazes randomly looking for badly flickering items isn't on my list of fun things to do.
• I never liked Atlantis. The graphics are cool, but that's all it has going for it. You shoot three guns in fixed positions at the same targets over and over and over and over... it's Imagic's Laser Blast. There. I said it. 
• Encounter at L-5 is actually kind-of fun, in a mindlessly hypnotic sort-of way. The control scheme is really clever, and it would be great to see it used in a homebrew.
• Challenge of Nexar is one of the best shooters on the 2600. It's likely the closest you'll get to a Tempest-like game on the system, and could've been a hit if published by a higher profile company (like Imagic).
• Reactor is one of the best arcade ports on the 2600. The arcade game is too obtuse and obscure for the 2600 version to have been a hit, but it's an incredibly fun and well-done game.
• I hate E.T. Not the game - but the movie. I've never seen it, and have no interest in ever seeing it. I was immediately and permanently put off from it by the trailers/commercials where E.T. and the little girl were screaming at each other, and couldn't figure out why this bizarre, uglier knock-off of Yoda had its own movie. The marketing campaign was ever-present and obnoxious and I resented it from knocking Star Wars off the #1 all-time box office spot. Since then, I've only strengthened my resolve to avoid it. Consequently, whatever bashing the 2600 game gets (deserved or not) is fine with me. (Yes - this is all completely unfair. I also don't care.  )

You had me at "I never liked Adventure. Still don't to this day" 

[+Cafeman]

20 hours ago, Nathan Strum said:

I never liked Adventure. Still don't to this day. Dragging a square through poorly designed mazes randomly looking for badly flickering items isn't on my list of fun things to do.

 

Even though I spent years working on a homebrew sequel, I was also one of those not interested in actually playing Adventure BITD.  It seemed crude and frustrating. I would rather play a more arcade-like action game.  Later on I was surprised at finding rabid fans of it.  I certainly appreciate and respect the game's design and programming now, though.  

 

20 hours ago, Nathan Strum said:

Reactor is one of the best arcade ports on the 2600. The arcade game is too obtuse and obscure for the 2600 version to have been a hit, but it's an incredibly fun and well-done game

Agreed.  I did play the coin op original a few times, and loved the 2600 port. Played it heaps! 

[Cynicaster]

21 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

 

 

7. You just defined it yourself!  The controller could have been better built--namely with conductive metal key/button contacts instead of carbon, but I don't see much else to criticize from a hardware execution standpoint. 

 

 

A system released in 1982 with a joystick design so poorly suited for bread-and-butter arcade experiences like Pac-Man and Frogger and dozens of others seems rather out-of-touch on Atari's part, IMO.  The main allure of the 5200 for me was the prospect of higher quality arcade ports.  Surely, I'm not alone in that sense...?  I know it's been beaten to death but I'm genuinely at a loss as to what Atari may have been thinking or trying to achieve with the 5200's sloppy, non-centering analog joystick.  How many of the most sought-after early/mid 80s arcade games legitimately play well because of that stick and not in spite of it?  It's made even more puzzling by the fact that many of the hot games of the day were Atari arcade games.  When you consider there was already a separate trackball controller for games that benefit from such a thing, why put all your eggs in the analog basket for the standard pack in controller?                

 

12 hours ago, Atariperson23 said:

(kinda) unpopular opinion: It's a miracle both financially and technologically 1984+ Atari 2600 games even exist, as the console was designed to play primarily Combat like 2K games.  It's amazing how games like Double Dragon and Dark Chambers can be made with stuff like multiple sprites, somewhat skilled AI, and recognizable graphics. Never mind the quality, the fact that they tried should be a merit in and of itself.

 

I never cared much for this angle, because as a paying customer, why do I care if a programmer is skilled enough to cram something called "Double Dragon" onto the 2600?  The only fact that matters to me is that the game is terrible, it doesn't matter why.  Sure, many years later we can look back at games like this as an academic curiosity... but I felt pretty ripped off back in the 80s.  

 

 

[+Nathan Strum]

3 hours ago, zzip said:

Yeah every company has hits and misses.   What stands out about Activision is the sheer number of games they produced, and how few of their games are truly great, but yet they have this halo around them as some exceptional purveyor of quality.

Early on though, Activision games genuinely stood out from what was being released by Atari, and for awhile they were the only alternative to them. Their first third-party competitor? Apollo. With Skeet Shoot. I remember seeing each new Activision game and playing them in our local store (Video Hut), and being impressed by the visuals far more than Atari's stuff. Activision's games were crisp, bright and colorful at a time when the competition wasn't. I remember wanting to buy more of their games than anyone else's (I couldn't afford them, so I had to be choosy). Certainly, some of Activision's stuff didn't interest me, but that applied to everyone else to a greater degree. The difference was that Activision felt like they were producing "better" games for the 2600 than anyone else for awhile, at least until Imagic came along (and one of their first three - Trick Shot - was a flickery mess).

 

Looking through Random Terrain's excellent list of 2600 game release dates (especially in 1981), you can see Activision's head start. It took until well into 1982 before others started to catch up. That head-start is what cemented their legacy. Everyone else had to measure up to them. Even Atari.

 

I remember when Grand Prix came out and nothing else looked even close to it. Atari was still a couple of months out from releasing the laughably bad Math Gran Prix, which shows how far off the mark they were at the time. I looked forward to what Activision was doing next. Even when the glut started in '82, Activision was still ahead of the competition with its consistency. They put out Chopper Command at the same time Atari released Defender. The only thing I could think at the time was "why couldn't Atari make their game look this good?"

 

A lot of Activision games held up over time. Some didn't. I think Grand Prix is completely un-fun, and didn't play it much after my initial purchase. It doesn't really capture the feel of a racing game - it's just dodging stuff. Laser Blast is... well, Laser Blast.   And while I loved spending hours mapping out Pitfall!, Pitfall II was an agonizing grind. But because of what they represented back-in-the-day, their reputation at that time, and my memories associated with them from that era, they'll still always have that "halo" around them to me. Deserved or not.

[zzip]

5 minutes ago, Nathan Strum said:

Early on though, Activision games genuinely stood out from what was being released by Atari, and for awhile they were the only alternative to them. Their first third-party competitor? Apollo. With Skeet Shoot. I remember seeing each new Activision game and playing them in our local store (Video Hut), and being impressed by the visuals far more than Atari's stuff. Activision's games were crisp, bright and colorful at a time when the competition wasn't. I remember wanting to buy more of their games than anyone else's (I couldn't afford them, so I had to be choosy). Certainly, some of Activision's stuff didn't interest me, but that applied to everyone else to a greater degree. The difference was that Activision felt like they were producing "better" games for the 2600 than anyone else for awhile, at least until Imagic came along (and one of their first three - Trick Shot - was a flickery mess).

 

Looking through Random Terrain's excellent list of 2600 game release dates (especially in 1981), you can see Activision's head start. It took until well into 1982 before others started to catch up. That head-start is what cemented their legacy. Everyone else had to measure up to them. Even Atari.

 

I remember when Grand Prix came out and nothing else looked even close to it. Atari was still a couple of months out from releasing the laughably bad Math Gran Prix, which shows how far off the mark they were at the time. I looked forward to what Activision was doing next. Even when the glut started in '82, Activision was still ahead of the competition with its consistency. They put out Chopper Command at the same time Atari released Defender. The only thing I could think at the time was "why couldn't Atari make their game look this good?"

 

A lot of Activision games held up over time. Some didn't. I think Grand Prix is completely un-fun, and didn't play it much after my initial purchase. It doesn't really capture the feel of a racing game - it's just dodging stuff. Laser Blast is... well, Laser Blast.   And while I loved spending hours mapping out Pitfall!, Pitfall II was an agonizing grind. But because of what they represented back-in-the-day, their reputation at that time, and my memories associated with them from that era, they'll still always have that "halo" around them to me. Deserved or not.

But this is what my issue is,  many Activision games are all visual flash and little substance. 

 

Yes they set a new visual standard for 2600 games,  and it was exciting.   The games actually looked like the box cover art for once!

 

But the games themselves-  Tennis is just a pretty Pong, Freeway is "poor man's Frogger"   "Sky Jinks" and "Skiing" are the same game, just a basic slalom.   I agree that Grand Prix is one of the best looking 2600 games I had ever seen, but I also agree that it is a very basic racing game and doesn't stay fun very long.

 

I remember  BITD my friends were always getting new Atari carts, many were from Activision.   We'd play they hell out of them for a few days,  but then a new game would come along and everything else fell back into the backlog and would only get played occasionally.

 

Still I believed in the greatness of Activision, until I got a PC and picked up one of the Activision Anthologies.   That's when it hit me how shallow many of the games were.   There were only a few games in the Anthology that I felt held up.   The graphics and novelty is why we played them in the first place, but the gameplay wouldn't have held our interest even back then.  We just didn't notice because as I said, there was always someone in our friends group getting a new game before we had a chance to get bored with the old ones.

[Atariperson23]

7 hours ago, zzip said:

But this is what my issue is,  many Activision games are all visual flash and little substance. 

 

Yes they set a new visual standard for 2600 games,  and it was exciting.   The games actually looked like the box cover art for once!

 

But the games themselves-  Tennis is just a pretty Pong, Freeway is "poor man's Frogger"   "Sky Jinks" and "Skiing" are the same game, just a basic slalom.   I agree that Grand Prix is one of the best looking 2600 games I had ever seen, but I also agree that it is a very basic racing game and doesn't stay fun very long.

 

I remember  BITD my friends were always getting new Atari carts, many were from Activision.   We'd play they hell out of them for a few days,  but then a new game would come along and everything else fell back into the backlog and would only get played occasionally.

 

Still I believed in the greatness of Activision, until I got a PC and picked up one of the Activision Anthologies.   That's when it hit me how shallow many of the games were.   There were only a few games in the Anthology that I felt held up.   The graphics and novelty is why we played them in the first place, but the gameplay wouldn't have held our interest even back then.  We just didn't notice because as I said, there was always someone in our friends group getting a new game before we had a chance to get bored with the old ones.

Yes, some Activision secondary games are just like "time trials" or do this this much times. Fancy graphics and good music should come second, gameplay always first. Who wants to buy a game all style and no substance?

[+FujiSkunk]

Just remember some people disagree on how much substance there is.  No, not every Activision game is a classic.  I'm certainly not about to start playing Laser Blast every day.  Still, for what was one of the first third-party games for the system, it was impressive, both in style and substance.  Keep in mind Atari was still putting out "winners" like Slot Machine and Hangman at the time.  Laser Blast easily tops them.  But beyond defending Activision's legacy, I actually put my game time where my mouth is.  Just recently I had Seaquest, Stampede and Frostbite in regular rotation while on a classic gaming kick.

[Cynicaster]

18 hours ago, zzip said:

But this is what my issue is,  many Activision games are all visual flash and little substance. 

...

But the games themselves-  Tennis is just a pretty Pong, Freeway is "poor man's Frogger"   "Sky Jinks" and "Skiing" are the same game, just a basic slalom.   I agree that Grand Prix is one of the best looking 2600 games I had ever seen, but I also agree that it is a very basic racing game and doesn't stay fun very long.

...

Still I believed in the greatness of Activision, until I got a PC and picked up one of the Activision Anthologies. That's when it hit me how shallow many of the games were.   There were only a few games in the Anthology that I felt held up.   The graphics and novelty is why we played them in the first place, but the gameplay wouldn't have held our interest even back then.  

 

The "little substance" angle seems rather strange for an Atari 2600 fan to take.  If you're going to characterize Activision's games en masse as having a "lack of substance" then, if you are to be consistent, you pretty much have to say the entire Atari 2600 library lacks substance.  Let's get real here: early 80s videogame design almost always involved selecting or adapting a few gameplay mechanics, wrapping them in a visual theme, and challenging the player to use their skills and reflexes.  Rinse, repeat.  From an objective standpoint, games from those days are not exactly brimming with substance and depth.  The question then becomes, which games manage to transcend those limitations and still provide a fun experience?  There are many on the 2600 that do, and Activision is very well-represented in this lot.       

 

Regarding your last comment above.  Let's pretend for a moment that every single Atari 2600 game publisher released an Anthology CD for PC and you picked up several of them at the same time as the Activision one.  You spend a long weekend in 1995 playing through all of these anthologies in succession and conclude that Activision's games are, overall, rather shallow and do not hold up.  I'm genuinely curious: which anthology is in the CD-ROM drive when you finally say to yourself "dang, it's amazing how nuanced and timeless this company's games are compared to Activision!" 

 

 

[zzip]

28 minutes ago, Cynicaster said:

The "little substance" angle seems rather strange for an Atari 2600 fan to take.  If you're going to characterize Activision's games en masse as having a "lack of substance" then, if you are to be consistent, you pretty much have to say the entire Atari 2600 library lacks substance.

A lot of the 2600 library does lack substance.  Not all of it.    I don't single out Activision because they made worse games than other publishers (they didn't, there's enough to go around).   I'm simply saying the Activision library is held in higher regard than it deserves.  They have some gems, but a lot of games that just don't hold up.  Same as other publishers.

 

51 minutes ago, Cynicaster said:

Let's get real here: early 80s videogame design almost always involved selecting or adapting a few gameplay mechanics, wrapping them in a visual theme, and challenging the player to use their skills and reflexes.  Rinse, repeat.  From an objective standpoint, games from those days are not exactly brimming with substance and depth.  The question then becomes, which games manage to transcend those limitations and still provide a fun experience?  There are many on the 2600 that do, and Activision is very well-represented in this lot.       

This is all true, it was a time of experimentation,  a time of just taking any concept that pops into mind and turning it into a game.   Also a time of rushing these ideas to market.   So there's a lot of failed concepts and rush jobs that don't hold up.   Also some concepts were fun BITD because they were novel aren't fun now because we have much more sophisticated games.   I do find a fair chunk of the 2600 library isn't worth playing anymore even if we had fun with those games in the 80s.

 

56 minutes ago, Cynicaster said:

Regarding your last comment above.  Let's pretend for a moment that every single Atari 2600 game publisher released an Anthology CD for PC and you picked up several of them at the same time as the Activision one.  You spend a long weekend in 1995 playing through all of these anthologies in succession and conclude that Activision's games are, overall, rather shallow and do not hold up.  I'm genuinely curious: which anthology is in the CD-ROM drive when you finally say to yourself "dang, it's amazing how nuanced and timeless this company's games are compared to Activision!" 

Well the ideal 2600 compilation would be cross-publisher, but barring that:

 

CBS - they don't have a lot of games, but I enjoy at least half of them

Parker Bros - all those arcade ports and Star Wars games, and Montezuma's Revenge

Atari - Their overall ratio is probably not much better than Activision,  but they have more games I like to replay.