2600 vs 8-bit games, hall of fame and shame!

[Megamaniac]

I noticed in many cases there was either a great deal of difference between the same game on 2600 vs. 8-bit or pitifully, very little! What games stand out in your memory of having HIT or MISSED the mark in this regard?

 

Better:

Donkey Kong on the Atari 400 rocked. My opinion of the 2600 game hasn't changed.

River Raid had significant improvements, I thought.

 

Same old:

Kaboom added the 1812 overture. Yee haw. Then again, simplicity defined this game!

Joust gameplay seemed infintely better on the 8-bit versions

[Goochman]

ACtivision and Imagic were notorious for not improving the 800 versions over the 2600 releases. However in most cases the 800 versions of everything rocked

[Nukey Shay]

Maybe they thought it wasn't important to make a good game?

 

The 2600 versions came first (regarding the above Activision games), so there was no reason to change that. 2600 DK, on the other hand, had different gameplay than what it was based on (the arcade game)...so the computer versions were just taking advantage of the resources afforded to them to make them more closely resemble the original.

 

If somebody had made the 8-bit DK look and play exactly like the 2600 version, that would have flopped badly.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

River Raid had significant improvements, I thought.

Which?

 

IMO Nukey is right. If a game is specially designed for the 2600 first, then it generally looks better when compared with later conversions.

[mos6507]

River Raid had significant improvements, I thought.

Which?

 

IMO Nukey is right. If a game is specially designed for the 2600 first, then it generally looks better when compared with later conversions.

 

Activision deliberately tried to enforce unity across their ports.

 

This might seem insane to set the standard on the 2600 and NOT take advantage of the fancier features on other platforms, but in a way, it's a good approach to take.

 

Reason being that this restraint forced them, even 20 years ago, to avoid the pitfalls (no pun intended) with focusing on eye candy rather than gameplay.

 

I think most of the improvements they did make were subtle enough not to impact the gameplay too much to significantly alter the spirit of the game, unlike most remakes on more modern consoles which are like totally different games because of the 3D and the huge levels.

 

But as far as comparing the 2600 vs. 8-bit ports, there are few cases where the 8-bit can't do a pixel-accurate port. The only major feature the 8-bit doesn't have that the 2600 does is the sprite copies. But this can often be simulated via software sprites using characters and/or playfield, or just using more sprites in general, since the 8-bit has 4 players and 4 missiles to work with.

[Nukey Shay]

..or interrupts in the display list. But since you already have twice as many player objects, there is less need to in order to make a 2600 clone.

 

And designing the 2600 version first solves the problem of trying to bend the game concept to fit within the limitations of the 2600 platform. 8-bit ports would be easy by comparison...especially since the underlying logic routines could mostly remain the same (besides the I/O routines).

[NE146]

Activision deliberately tried to enforce unity across their ports.

 

This might seem insane to set the standard on the 2600 and NOT take advantage of the fancier features on other platforms, but in a way, it's a good approach to take.

 

I dunno. I didn't think that and neither did a lot of other people.. back in 1982. But back then... I couldn't understand WHAT was the deal. Why didn't they add at least some graphical flair to the already existing gameplay? Sort of like Imagic! Look at Keystone Kapers and Kaboom.. those are the biggest offenders in my humble opinion. I couldn't believe Keystone Kapers... you can't tell me they couldn't have dressed that title up more in the 8-bit world to at least put some glitz to the already dry gameplay. And Kaboom! Let's not even go there... even some of the most rudimentary graphical flair on that would've been cool, but they chose not to go that route. It made me wonder.. here I am with this powerful gaming hardware and their stuff is the same as on my 2600! "wtf!?!?"

 

But anyway, now of course they ALL look old so it's sort of a moot point. I still love 'em though

[Cootster]

Well, they did, inexplicably, change the look of KK on the Colecovision . . . And made it 8 billion times less attractive as a result . . . Perhaps that's why the 2600 authors didn't want any significant changes made to ports?

[ZylonBane]

The point of this topic confuses me. AFAIK, only a handful of Activision, Imagic, and 20th Century Fox titles were ported straight to the 8-bits. Everything else was done from scratch for their respective platforms.

 

Donkey Kong's inclusion here is especially absurd, since that's an arcade game. The 2600 and 8-bit versions have nothing to do with each other.

[adams_ale]

Is the atari technically a 4-bit system? Obviously I am not a technical guru..... I was wondering could an atari game be as graphically good as an 8-bit game if there was added rom to the atari game? What is the biggest rom game on atari and does it compare well to the graphics of an 8-bit system? Just curious as to what the Atari can do? Are games like pitfall II, Star Wars Arcade, Xenophobe, and others the pinnacle of what the Atari can do graphically? I haven't purchased or played any recent homebrews so I don't know if they are pushing the limits today or not.

[sku_u]

River Raid had significant improvements, I thought.

Which?

 

IMO Nukey is right. If a game is specially designed for the 2600 first, then it generally looks better when compared with later conversions.

 

Activision deliberately tried to enforce unity across their ports.

 

What about Pitfall II? The later versions have an entirley new mission where the 2600 version does not.

[SS]

Kaboom added the 1812 overture.  Yee haw.  Then again, simplicity defined this game!

 

I never owned Kaboom for the 2600 back in the day; I only had it for the 8bit line. Thus, I always assumed that the 1812 Overture was an inherent part of the game. I was rather disappointed in the 90s when I finally picked it up for the 2600 and discovered that the music was not there.

[JB]

Is the atari technically a 4-bit system?  Obviously I am not a technical guru.....  

Nope. The processor used is an 8-bit one. In fact, it's a close relative of the same CPU used in the NES(and Althena knows what all else).

 

I was wondering could an atari game be as graphically good as an 8-bit game if there was added rom to the atari game?  

"Bittage" has nothing to do with game size or quality.

See the IntelliVision, a 16-bit machine that's technically inferior to the 8-bit NES.

 

What is the biggest rom game on atari and does it compare well to the graphics of an 8-bit system?  

ROM size doesn't determine graphical quality really.

Hardware restrictions become relevant far before then.

 

Just curious as to what the Atari can do?  Are games like pitfall II, Star Wars Arcade, Xenophobe, and others the pinnacle of what the Atari can do graphically?  I haven't purchased or played any recent homebrews so I don't know if they are pushing the limits today or not.

I say this about every system, but it seems more true of the VCS than most: If someone claims they've reached the limit, then they haven't.

[incog]

Is the atari technically a 4-bit system?

 

I've wondered about it myself... I've been told it wasn't an 8-bit system but the info I got from DigitalPress is:

 

Processor: 6507 (8-bit)

Processor Speed: 1.16 MHz

Screen RAM: 128 bytes

Screen Resolution: 192 x 160

Color Palette: 16 colors, 4 max on-screen

Max Sprites: N/A; player-missle graphics (5-max)

Sound: 2 sound channels

 

so I thought it was 8-bit... can anyone enlighten me?

[Blackbird]

The Atari 2600 was an 8-bit system-- it had an 8-bit data bus. Same with the NES, Commodore 64, the Atari 8-bit computers, 5200, and 7800. They all used some variant of the 6502 chip. Atari has multiple versions of this chip, the 6507 being used in the 2600-- which was somewhat less powerful than a stock 6502-- and the 6502c in the 5200 and 7800-- which was somewhat more powerful. It was only the hardware and the other chips used in the console that made it more or less powerful. The processor was basically the same.

 

As far as I know, the only time a real 6502 was used was in the 8-bit computers?

[NovaXpress]

Every single 400/800/5200 game was superior to the 2600 version except for Super Breakout and Space Invaders.

 

Activision was just lazy and crapped out ports rather than use their skills to push the new generation of systems. It made them look bad and made the 5200 look bad.

 

The kids today really think that more bits equals better graphics and play. When you tell them that the X-Box is a 32-bit system they don't believe you. That's just one small factor, the amount of code the CPU can chew on per line. But how fast is the processor? How much RAM? many things to consider.

[JB]

As a note, 1,2, 3, and 4 bit processors aren't really possible. There's not enough bits there to pass the processor a meaningful instruction.

 

As far as I know, 8-bits is about the minimum, at least for a gaming machine.

[Blackbird]

4-bit processors were the first ones, anyhow-- the Intel 4004 was 4-bit. So anything less is just absurd (not that 4-bits is that much better, but in a sense, it is).

 

I never really understood what "bits" meant in a system until I looked at classic systems. It's become such a mishandled term lately.

[adams_ale]

Oh....I never really understood all that bit mumbo-jumbo and I guess I still don't, but thats okay. Thanks for clearing up some of my confusion. I remember the NES touting the fact that it was 8-bits of "power" and every other system since then has advertised it's bit power. I

[JB]

4-bit processors were the first ones, anyhow-- the Intel 4004 was 4-bit. So anything less is just absurd (not that 4-bits is that much better, but in a sense, it is).

I don't believe 4-bits offers enough commands for an effective gaming machine, though. Hence my qualifier.

 

I never really understood what "bits" meant in a system until I looked at classic systems. It's become such a mishandled term lately.

Part of the problem is that the manufacturesr have never decided on a uniform "bittage" measurement point.

 

NEC used the video chipset.

 

Sony uses CPU.

 

Sega used the CPU AND video chipset, depending on system.

 

Nintendo used processor, then decided to let the media make up a bittage label for the 'Cube(saves them false advertising PR).

 

Microsoft... have they made an official bittage statement?

 

The Jaguar... who KNOWS where you're supposed to measure that one?

 

And SNK used the sum of the processors, which is one of the very few agreed-upon incorrect methods(WHOO! NEOGEO is 24 BITS! MORE THAN GENESIS! Errr, boss? Genesis has the exact same processor setup. SHUT UP PEON!).

 

 

 

Not that it really matters. A machine is more than a CPU.

[Blackbird]

I don't believe 4-bits offers enough commands for an effective gaming machine, though. Hence my qualifier.

Mhmm. I just meant, even the earliest technology used at least 4-bits. And not long after that did they go up to 8.

 

Not that it really matters. A machine is more than a CPU.

If only that was common knowledge... I know of many times where I've seen people incorrectly state one system's better than another just because of its bits, and they won't even listen when I try and explain it. Oh well.

[Bad Panda Bear]

I noticed in many cases there was either a great deal of difference between the same game on 2600 vs. 8-bit or pitifully, very little!  What games stand out in your memory of having HIT or MISSED the mark in this regard?

 

I remember being impressed with the 400/800 version of E.T. There were no pits, and the end spaceship animation was cool.

 

OTOH, the new Starfire homebrew on the 2600 is just as good as the version I played on my 800xl.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I've wondered about it myself... I've been told it wasn't an 8-bit system but the info I got from <a href="http://www.digitpress.com/">DigitalPress</a> is:

 

Processor: 6507 (8-bit)

Processor Speed: 1.16 MHz

Screen RAM: 128 bytes

Screen Resolution: 192 x 160

Color Palette: 16 colors, 4 max on-screen

Max Sprites: N/A; player-missle graphics (5-max)

Sound: 2 sound channels

A few corrections:

Processor Speed: 1.16 Mhz may sound quite impressive, but ~70% is used for display generation

Screen Ram: there is no Screen Ram at all (only a few hardware registers), the total RAM is 128 bytes

Color Palette: 128 colors, 4 hardware registers for colors which can be overwritten at any time. So you can (quite easily) display all 128 colors on screen, but it costs you some valuable CPU time

Max. Sprites: there are two 8 bit sprites and three 1 bit particles, all only a single line tall. So you have to permanently rewrite those on the fly (=in sync with the videobeam) to generate complex graphics.

[Megamaniac]

River Raid had significant improvements, I thought.

Which?

 

IMO Nukey is right. If a game is specially designed for the 2600 first, then it generally looks better when compared with later conversions.

 

The River Raid for the computer seemed to play more smooth;y asnd the walls were not straight lines. In retrospect, I guess this isn't a groundbreaking revalation but I do recall playing the 8-bit version so much more!

[Megamaniac]

The point of this topic confuses me. AFAIK, only a handful of Activision, Imagic, and 20th Century Fox titles were ported straight to the 8-bits. Everything else was done from scratch for their respective platforms.

 

Donkey Kong's inclusion here is especially absurd, since that's an arcade game. The 2600 and 8-bit versions have nothing to do with each other.

 

Which is why I specifically used the term version and not PORT. Regardless of who did it, it is intended to be an emulation of the same game, Donkey Kong. And they are so vastly different on the two platforms.