ataribox

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-30-2017, 06:36 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by zetastrike

You know, I bet if I walked into Lunar Silver Star or Wolfenstein 3D expecting all the trappings of a modern JRPG or FPS and I thought they were crap because if that, you'd probably think I had a pretty bad attitude.

The difference with Lunar and Wolfenstein is that they still have far more depth than just about any 2600 game and are still enjoyable. And those aren't arcade games that were ported to just about every console in existence. They're their own games that still hold up and the few remakes they've had differ enough from the originals to justify playing both versions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zetastrike

And how is someone porting an arcade game to the MD/PCE and making compromises any different than Atari arcade ports? It's not like anyone was porting Rolling Thunder or Galaxy Force to it. The arcade games of the time translated well to it.

And they translated even better to other systems. If I want to play those arcade games, I have better options than the 2600. It's not like say the Genesis ports of Ghouls and Ghosts that have gameplay improvements, or the NES ports of games like Strider that are almost entirely different games. Were talking about the same game but with worse graphics and sound. Why would I choose that version when I have better options available on various other consoles like the Colecovision, NES, Genesis, Master System, etc.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zetastrike

If that's how you feel, I assume you must play all your arcade games on MAME then? No reason to bother with ports.

I made no mention of MAME. I simply said why bother playing them on the 2600 when there's better ports available even on hardware from the same time period? I'm not going to play the 2600 version of Donkey Kong or Mario Bros when I could play the NES versions. I'm not going to play Pac-Man, Galaga, Galaxian, Space Invaders, etc. on the 2600 when I have versions on the Colecovision, Master System, Gameboy, NES, etc. to play.

Likewise I'm not going to play Street Fighter 2 on the Genesis or SNES when I have the Saturn and Dreamcast ports available.
07-30-2017, 06:42 PM
Gogogadget

You know whats awesome? Kaboom.

Kaboom is a damn addictive game.
07-30-2017, 07:00 PM
Raijin Z

Demons to Diamonds is pretty good, too. The two of those games are the main reason you should replace the potentiometers in your paddles. Well, okay, add in Breakout 1 & 2.
07-30-2017, 07:47 PM
QuickSciFi

^agreed.

There plenty of 2600 games that are utter, mindless fun.
07-30-2017, 08:05 PM
Black_Tiger

The kind of variety-devoid repetitive games that Trekkies is trying to paint all 2600 and by extension pre-8-bit console games as are more popular today than ever.

The 2600 has a variety of genres covered by enjoyable titles, many of which have recognizable graphics, complete with parallax, raster and misc special effects.

Quote:

I'm not going to play Pac-Man, Galaga, Galaxian, Space Invaders, etc. on the 2600 when I have versions on the Colecovision, Master System, Gameboy, NES, etc. to play.

You're not going to play any of those versions either though.

Quote:

Likewise I'm not going to play Street Fighter 2 on the Genesis or SNES when I have the Saturn and Dreamcast ports available.

Everyone has their own personal taste in games, but this sets you apart from most people here, who appreciate the 16-bit Sega console games for what they are and don't limit themselves to a single version of any given game.
07-30-2017, 08:32 PM
Barone

Quote:

Originally Posted by zetastrike

Earlier this week I played 2600 Galaxian for over a freaking hour.

I played it to death when I was a kid. Very addictive.
Like you said, for quick bursts of mindless fun, the 2600 library is pretty good. IF you know how to navigate in its library and how to handle that kind of raw gameplay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

You're not going to play any of those versions either though.

Everyone has their own personal taste in games, but this sets you apart from most people here, who appreciate the 16-bit Sega console games for what they are and don't limit themselves to a single version of any given game.

This.

Also, it's just unrealistic to assume or imply that every gameplay session will be focused on the accuracy of the arcade ports or the level of graphical detail in games.
I have several means to play the SFII iterations, both on real hardware and with emulation, and the MD version is by FAR the one that I get to play most. Because that's the one me and my friends are used to and willing to play most of the time. Cart-based systems are also usually better-suited for game parties than CD-based systems.

I don't know how can anyone talk about audiovisual fidelity and then cite the Game Boy. It's like citing Hitler in political discussions, you automatically lose your point right there.
07-30-2017, 08:43 PM
Raijin Z

You may yet live to see Godwin's Law overturned.
07-30-2017, 08:53 PM
gamevet

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Pheonix - Same 5 or so enemy waves, some of which are just palette swapped, repeated ad naseum.

4 waves and then the giant mothership. It's the same as the arcade game, minus the wave of birds with the Mothership.

Quote:

Mountain King - Done better on other systems such as the Colecovision

So, it was better on the C64 than it was on the Colecovision. I pointed that game out, because it did what you claimed the 2600 wasn't doing. Pitfall 2 looks way better on the C-64, but it doesn't make the 2600 version more boring.

Quote:

Warlords - A 4 player breakout clone. Yay?

That's like calling Columns a bad Tetris Clone. Warlords is way more enjoyable than Breakout.

Quote:

Again, none of those games make me want to play a 2600. None of them other than maybe Mountain King look like something I'd have fun playing for more than 30 seconds. And Mountain King has better versions on other consoles. And even then that's a stretch to say that game would really keep my interest very long.

Ms. Pac-Man is just as fun on the 2600, as it is on the Lynx, Genesis and C-64. There's nothing wrong with playing all of those versions, because they all have their own unique little quirks. Same with Jr. Pac-Man.

Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't your typical 2600 game either. If anything, the game is pretty difficult until you figure out where to be and at what time. It's a decent game about exploring.

Quote:

Oh, and they all still look like pixel vomit.

What are you, 12?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

The pre-8-bit consoles are no different, people just need to try the right games with the right controllers.

The 2600 is an 8-bit console (I think that is what you were referring to here), and it shares a very similar CPU to that of the C64 and NES. It's just that it has about 128 bytes of RAM to work with (2K for NES) and the CPU has to do twice the work of the NES.
07-30-2017, 10:00 PM
Azathoth

Quote:

Originally Posted by zetastrike

Good arcade gameplay is it's own reward, credits lasting longer, scores going up.

I think there lies the rub. It's not "game X > game Y", it's more "I like FPS games and the SMS has none so it obviously sucks." The majority of 2600 games were score attack games, a genre that pretty much died in the late 80's. You go into the 2600 expecting JRPGs or a RTS you might as well also be disappointed in lack of achievements or online multiplayer. A 40 year old system with a finite library of equally old games should let you know what to expect.

Some complaints remind me of the scene in Clerks; "Whaddya mean there's no ice? You mean I gotta drink this coffee hot?!?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

Everyone has their own personal taste in games, but this sets you apart from most people here, who appreciate the 16-bit Sega console games for what they are and don't limit themselves to a single version of any given game.

I've made this comparison to music before. For the bands/songs I truly love, I'm always interested in hearing a live version, rough demo, cover version, remix, whatever. None of these might actually be "better" than the original studio version but I can still appreciate them all for what the bring to the table, all of them teach me something new about the original, and at the very least all of them make me appreciate the final version even more. If one totally outright dismisses a demo tape or live bootleg of a song as redundant trash simply because it doesn't have the polish of the original then they probably weren't a big fan of it to start with.
07-30-2017, 10:43 PM
Black_Tiger

I literally put 8 & 16-bit soundtracks on my 360 when it was current, to play in games which allowed custom soundtracks. Modern games don't have signature hardware with a unique aesthetic voice. Genesis versions of games are worth experiencing just for the unique aesthetics, even games which aren't great. I don't play games I don't like many times or often more than once, but I like to judge each one by actually playing through once, instead of dismissing entire libraries.
07-31-2017, 12:59 AM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

The kind of variety-devoid repetitive games that Trekkies is trying to paint all 2600 and by extension pre-8-bit console games as are more popular today than ever.

Which is probably why I hate mobile phone gaming as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

The 2600 has a variety of genres covered by enjoyable titles, many of which have recognizable graphics, complete with parallax, raster and misc special effects.

If pixel vomit and ear rape are recognizable than I guess they do have that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

You're not going to play any of those versions either though.

Not going to emulate them either. If I were to ever get a Colecovision though, I'd definitely pick up this release of Pac-Man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEij8U_9nMI

That beats the pants off of just about any Atari version on the 2600, 5200, and even the 7800. The point is, I have far better options for most of those old 80's arcade games than the 2600. And that's completely ignoring emulation. I see no reason to go buy a 2600 and carts to play ports of Arcade games that are significantly inferior to versions available on systems I already own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

Everyone has their own personal taste in games, but this sets you apart from most people here, who appreciate the 16-bit Sega console games for what they are and don't limit themselves to a single version of any given game.

I'm not limiting myself to a single version of any game. I'm simply saying if I want to play Arcade games I want to play a version that's as close to the Arcade as possible. If it's not, it better bring something else to the table to make up for it. Most 8/16 bit conversions do just that. They usually add additional modes, new characters, update gameplay, add a new level, etc. to make up for the lack of a perfect conversion. Atari 2600 conversions typically don't, because at the time there was no need to. Yeah that worked fback then, but these days I see little reason to go back and play them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barone

Also, it's just unrealistic to assume or imply that every gameplay session will be focused on the accuracy of the arcade ports or the level of graphical detail in games.
I have several means to play the SFII iterations, both on real hardware and with emulation, and the MD version is by FAR the one that I get to play most. Because that's the one me and my friends are used to and willing to play most of the time. Cart-based systems are also usually better-suited for game parties than CD-based systems.

I call bullshit. I have people over constantly and my Saturn and Dreamcast get played quite heavily with games like Bomberman, Marvel vs Capcom, X-Men vs Street Fighter, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Fighters Megamix, etc. My cart based systems get played a lot too. It all depends on the game people want to play. And again if people want to play Street Fighter, we typically go for the Saturn and Dreamcast conversions over the Genesis and SNES conversions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barone

I don't know how can anyone talk about audiovisual fidelity and then cite the Game Boy. It's like citing Hitler in political discussions, you automatically lose your point right there.

Easy, Atari 2600 Pac Man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=XdT0lrm4b2s

Gameboy PacMan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FnJZRJ382k

I'm not one to usually be a Graphics and Audio snob, but there's a bare minimum level of quality that needs to be there for me to enjoy a game. The Atari 2600 almost never hits it. When I call it pixel vomit, that's pretty much what it looks like to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

4 waves and then the giant mothership. It's the same as the arcade game, minus the wave of birds with the Mothership.

Which is fine for an Arcade game that I'm going to play for maybe a few minutes at most. For a home console I'd easily become bored and stop playing. Those kind of Arcade games never really gave me much enjoyment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

So, it was better on the C64 than it was on the Colecovision. I pointed that game out, because it did what you claimed the 2600 wasn't doing. Pitfall 2 looks way better on the C-64, but it doesn't make the 2600 version more boring.

And in trying to point that out you pointed to another issue I mentioned but I guess you ignored in your rush to defend the 2600's honor. Why should I play the 2600 versions when there are better versions of those games available? What do the 2600 versions bring to the table other than pure rose-tinted nostalgia?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

That's like calling Columns a bad Tetris Clone. Warlords is way more enjoyable than Breakout.

And I don't see something going on that could keep my interest for more than a few minutes, let alone something I could get people to actually want to play with me. Honestly I find Breakout/Breakdown on the Odyssey 2 a more interesting take on the formula:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBtFOlqG-d0

Oh, and that game doesn't look like pixel vomit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Ms. Pac-Man is just as fun on the 2600, as it is on the Lynx, Genesis and C-64. There's nothing wrong with playing all of those versions, because they all have their own unique little quirks. Same with Jr. Pac-Man.

Ok, what unique quirks do the 2600 versions have that make it worth playing over the other versions? Why should I play a version that looks awful and sounds awful over versions that are more accurate on other platforms? Please inform me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't your typical 2600 game either. If anything, the game is pretty difficult until you figure out where to be and at what time. It's a decent game about exploring.

And this falls into the same category as E.T. in my book. Far too ambitious for the hardware and too abstract to the point where you're not going to figure out what to do unless you have some sort of guide to tell you. I'd rather play a more polished adventure game than a vague prototype.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

What are you, 12?

Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to play something that looks like my TV is vomiting random shaped blobs of pixels at me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azathoth

I think there lies the rub. It's not "game X > game Y", it's more "I like FPS games and the SMS has none so it obviously sucks." The majority of 2600 games were score attack games, a genre that pretty much died in the late 80's. You go into the 2600 expecting JRPGs or a RTS you might as well also be disappointed in lack of achievements or online multiplayer. A 40 year old system with a finite library of equally old games should let you know what to expect.

It's not even that. I'm not expecting it to have modern style games. I just think that when you remove the games from it's library that are done better on other systems there's just not a whole lot left worth playing. I'm fine with the NES, and SMS. I'm fine with the MSX, SG-1000 and the Colecovision. I can even bring myself to play the Magnavox Odyssey2 depending on the game. The Atari 2600 is just something I can't bring myself to play. Nothing on it looks remotely entertaining to me. It's either way too simple and repetitive, or on the complete opposite side of the spectrum and is way too ambitious and abstract for the hardware. What good arcade games there are on it I can get better versions on other systems, some of which are Atari's own 5200 and 7800. I just don't have any desire to play it. I'm sorry if this upsets some of you here, but I didn't grow up with that system so I have no nostalgic attachment to it. I can respect it for what it is and for it's time, but it's just not something I want to own and play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

I don't play games I don't like many times or often more than once, but I like to judge each one by actually playing through once, instead of dismissing entire libraries.

What makes you think I haven't played an Atari 2600 or even some of the games mentioned here? I've had friends that collect it as well as family members who bought the flashback systems because they grew up with one. Every time I've been given the opportunity to play one it just didn't capture my interest.
07-31-2017, 01:02 AM
Sik

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gogogadget

You know whats awesome? Kaboom.

Kaboom is a damn addictive game.

Honestly I find that one pretty boring. Several of the other Activision games are definitely more worth checking out (H.E.R.O., Pitfall I and II, etc.). They're more like early 3rd generation games though.

For the record, the games I mentioned were ported to the SG-1000 (・ω・`)
07-31-2017, 01:31 AM
Raijin Z

With patience comes deliverance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIpu-aJp4Ms
07-31-2017, 08:28 AM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raijin Z

With patience comes deliverance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIpu-aJp4Ms

I'm aware of fan made versions that are better than the original release. However it's still worse when compared to what's available on other systems, even ones from roughly the same time period such as the Colecovision. I appreciate that fans put the time in to making it, but again unless your a diehard fan of the system or have nostalgia from growing up with it I don't see a reason to buy it over other versions on other systems.
07-31-2017, 09:20 AM
Black_Tiger

Gameboy Pacman like many other ports of the game, is unplayable by your standards, as the core gameplay is broken by having small scrolling window for a single-screen maze based game.
07-31-2017, 10:00 AM
gamevet

Why even bother playing PAC-Man on the 8 and 16 bit consoles at all, when there's a near perfect PlayStation version of the game on Namco Museum?:roll:

Oh, and, don't bother playing Tetris on Gameboy. The NES version is better.
07-31-2017, 10:10 AM
GohanX

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gogogadget

You know whats awesome? Kaboom.

Kaboom is a damn addictive game.

Hell yeah! In 2017 for me, a 2600 is basically just a consolized Kaboom game. I might as well just solder it in.
07-31-2017, 01:31 PM
MrMatthews

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

And in trying to point that out you pointed to another issue I mentioned but I guess you ignored in your rush to defend the 2600's honor. Why should I play the 2600 versions when there are better versions of those games available? What do the 2600 versions bring to the table other than pure rose-tinted nostalgia?

Trekkies, I don't particularly agree with you but I'm on your side, and I think ^this^ is the point that your entire argument hinges on, so I wanted to quote this.

I think I had maybe two year's playing the 2600 before the NES came out. As such, I have a certain level of affection for the system and still enjoy it now, but I understand that the 2600 (and, to an extent, any of those old systems) is a really really tough sell. There are quite a few 2600 that are still quite playable (I've found Missile Command to be one of the best games in my library), but at the end of the day, there isn't anything the 2600 did that other systems didn't do better.
07-31-2017, 02:36 PM
gamevet

I think it's splitting hairs, just for the sake of it.

I'd argue that there is absolutely no need for any console version of the arcade games, since MAME exists, but that is just wrong. The home ports offer a different take on the arcade game and have their own charm because of it. Yeah, I'd say Kangaroo and Donkey King are pretty bad on the 2600, while Ms. PAC-MAN, Missile Command and Frogger are well worth a play.
07-31-2017, 03:01 PM
Gryson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barone

Also, it's just unrealistic to assume or imply that every gameplay session will be focused on the accuracy of the arcade ports or the level of graphical detail in games.
I have several means to play the SFII iterations, both on real hardware and with emulation, and the MD version is by FAR the one that I get to play most.

I agree totally. I have a nice MAME setup but more often than not will just fire up SFII on the Genesis. It might not look as nice, but it's still fun and I just "know" it better from playing it so much, if that makes sense.

Sometimes going for the most accurate version also takes you down a long, winding one-way street filled with trying to make things as accurate as possible (CRT, resolution, controller, input lag, and so on). It it's between SFII on the Genesis and SFII on vanilla MAME on an LCD, I'd go with the Genesis simply because the input lag on vanilla MAME on an LCD is quite bad.
07-31-2017, 03:02 PM
MrMatthews

See, I think it's tough, that's why I'm inclined to side with Trekkies in this particular debate. If you are the type of person who can enjoy the Atari 2600, then there are a ton of games to choose from.

Pitfall was a must-have back in the day and there's still some enjoyment to be taken from it, but if you're someone who's first gaming experience was something like Super Mario Bros, you just might not have it in you to appreciate Pitfall's more primitive gameplay.

Keystone Kapers if you enjoy primitive platforming games (I find this one almost hypnotic, I can play it for a good amount of time)

River Raid if you can enjoy primitive shooters. This one benefits from playing more like an obstacle course than a shooter.

I think the port of Centipede was pretty solid. Ditto Asteroids. I loved Jungle Hunt. But honestly, I played the shit out of Pac-Man, too.

In this day and age, I don't know if the 2600 should be considered "required reading." It's okay if you can't get into it, and I don't think there are many people who can... even the ones who were there at the time.
07-31-2017, 04:22 PM
gamevet

I've played far worse on handheld games with color LEDs and a red LED to represent a player or object. My cousin had a neat little handheld shooter that had colored LEDs to draw everything like a game and watch, but it was much cooler than that, because everything was scrolling along. I'd like to know what he ever did with it, but knowing him, he probably strapped black cats to it and Kaboom!

It was a handheld like this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8K5R3vPX3Pg
07-31-2017, 05:04 PM
xelement5x

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

I've played far worse on handheld games with color LEDs and a red LED to represent a player or object. My cousin had a neat little handheld shooter that had colored LEDs to draw everything like a game and watch, but it was much cooler than that, because everything was scrolling along. I'd like to know what he ever did with it, but knowing him, he probably strapped black cats to it and Kaboom!

It was a handheld like this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8K5R3vPX3Pg

That does look pretty cool actually!
07-31-2017, 06:29 PM
NeoZeedeater

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

It's okay if you can't get into it.

I'm okay with people not being into it. I just don't agree when people say it's shitty or too old to play. That's not true for fans of those kind of games (and I see it happening more and more on the internet with NES/SMS era games as well). I'm not into music from the 1930s but I acknowledge that that's a personal preference, not that the music is bad.
07-31-2017, 06:53 PM
gamevet

Yeah, it's the calling it shitty I take offense to. Hell, might as well call the golden age of arcades shitty while they're at it.
07-31-2017, 08:08 PM
Barone

It's kinda fucked up to point each and every flaw of the 2600 library when you don't do the same for the other systems.

It really boils down to what level of technical limitation you accept and which kinds of gameplay appeal to you.
07-31-2017, 08:50 PM
MrMatthews

Gamevet, this is exactly what I pictured with your last post.

I super want all of these:

https://youtu.be/yaz275iQI0o?list=PL4E12A3A83A29B2C6

Back on topic, I'll let Trekkies defend himself from here on out, but all I'm saying is that most of us have that "retro wall" that we can't get over.
07-31-2017, 09:08 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

Gameboy Pacman like many other ports of the game, is unplayable by your standards, as the core gameplay is broken by having small scrolling window for a single-screen maze based game.

It's still better than the 2600 version. And you can make it have the full screen available if you want. You all seem to be completely missing the point in your blind defense of the 2600. If the bulk of the system's bread and butter is old arcade ports, and those arcade games have superior ports on other consoles, why should I bother with the 2600 versions? No one has answered that simple question in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Why even bother playing PAC-Man on the 8 and 16 bit consoles at all, when there's a near perfect PlayStation version of the game on Namco Museum?:roll:

Oh, and, don't bother playing Tetris on Gameboy. The NES version is better.

Possibly, though the Gameboy one does at least have the iconic music that's not in the other versions. And maybe I would take the PS1 version of Pac-Man, but considering most versions from the NES onward are Arcade Perfect for all intents and purposes, you really can't go wrong with any of them. Even the Colecovision has a version that is almost if not completely arcade perfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

I think it's splitting hairs, just for the sake of it.

I'd argue that there is absolutely no need for any console version of the arcade games, since MAME exists, but that is just wrong. The home ports offer a different take on the arcade game and have their own charm because of it. Yeah, I'd say Kangaroo and Donkey King are pretty bad on the 2600, while Ms. PAC-MAN, Missile Command and Frogger are well worth a play.

One is legal, the other is not. And some of those emulators are far from perfect. And again what special aspects do the 2600 versions of those games bring to the table to justfiy playing them over other versions other than 2600 nostalgia? I'll remind you that you've yet to answer this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryson

I agree totally. I have a nice MAME setup but more often than not will just fire up SFII on the Genesis. It might not look as nice, but it's still fun and I just "know" it better from playing it so much, if that makes sense.

Sometimes going for the most accurate version also takes you down a long, winding one-way street filled with trying to make things as accurate as possible (CRT, resolution, controller, input lag, and so on). It it's between SFII on the Genesis and SFII on vanilla MAME on an LCD, I'd go with the Genesis simply because the input lag on vanilla MAME on an LCD is quite bad.

And if you have access to the Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, or PS2 ports? What then? Input lag, CRT displays, resolution, controller, etc. all go out the window then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

See, I think it's tough, that's why I'm inclined to side with Trekkies in this particular debate. If you are the type of person who can enjoy the Atari 2600, then there are a ton of games to choose from.

Pitfall was a must-have back in the day and there's still some enjoyment to be taken from it, but if you're someone who's first gaming experience was something like Super Mario Bros, you just might not have it in you to appreciate Pitfall's more primitive gameplay.

Keystone Kapers if you enjoy primitive platforming games (I find this one almost hypnotic, I can play it for a good amount of time)

River Raid if you can enjoy primitive shooters. This one benefits from playing more like an obstacle course than a shooter.

I think the port of Centipede was pretty solid. Ditto Asteroids. I loved Jungle Hunt. But honestly, I played the shit out of Pac-Man, too.

In this day and age, I don't know if the 2600 should be considered "required reading." It's okay if you can't get into it, and I don't think there are many people who can... even the ones who were there at the time.

See those games I don't have an issue with playing, it's just that there's better versions available on other systems. I don't see a reason in playing the 2600 version when there's better versions available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Yeah, it's the calling it shitty I take offense to. Hell, might as well call the golden age of arcades shitty while they're at it.

I didn't really say they were shitty. I said they were simplistic or too ambitious for the hardware to appeal to me. The closest I came to calling it shitty was describing the graphics as pixel vomit and the sound as ear rape. Which lets be honest here, the vast majority of games in it's library do fall into that category. Heck that's even still an issue moving onto the 5200 and 7800.

I've said it over and over again in this very thread. I respect the system for what it is, but I have no desire to go out and buy one to play. If you can't handle that argument then maybe you need to step back and think about if you're being blinded by nostalgia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barone

It's kinda fucked up to point each and every flaw of the 2600 library when you don't do the same for the other systems.

It really boils down to what level of technical limitation you accept and which kinds of gameplay appeal to you.

Well when the bulk of the system's library that gets brought up time and time again is made up of mostly arcade ports that are done better on other systems, you have to ask yourself what do the 2600 versions bring to the table to justify playing them over other versions. Just because I have a clear head that has no sense of nostalgia in this argument doesn't make mean my argument fucked up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

Back on topic, I'll let Trekkies defend himself from here on out, but all I'm saying is that most of us have that "retro wall" that we can't get over.

Exactly. I can still see the appeal in systems like the MSX, Colecovision, etc. The Atari 2600 is just something I can't get into.
07-31-2017, 09:32 PM
gamevet

Here's the problem with your broken point of view Trekkies. The arcade game is always better than the home game, unless we are talking about a game that was totally changed like Ninja Gaiden. Why play any of the home conversions of arcade games when MAME can do it better? I play them because they are different. I've played Ms. Pac-Man on about a half dozen platforms and it didn't matter to me that the C64 version was better than the 2600 version, or that the Lynx version was better than the C64 game, because the same gameplay that made the original fun, can still be found in each of those editions. The same with Centipede, that has stupid blocks for the mushrooms on the 2600, but is still just as fun as the arcade game.

I have not played every 2600 game on the planet, but to say that the bulk of the library is made up of poor arcade ports is just totally wrong. The 2600 library was made up of stuff like Hangman, Combat, Circus, Checkers, Poker, Chess, Golf and just about every other generic game you could think of. Atari didn't start going into the arcade ports until after the huge success of Space Invaders, which was a pretty big deal to have in the home at the time. Activision and Imagic made a ton of great games for the 2600, and none of them were arcade ports, though you could say that Demon Attack was a better version of Phoenix. I have several 2600 games sitting on my bookshelf that I have never played, like Solaris (highly rated), Space Shuttle and Eggomania. I'll get around to them some day, even if the graphics aren't 32,000 colors on screen.

The 2600 may have been my second gaming console (Pong came 1st), but it is nowhere near my favorite console, or one that I'm most nostalgic for. My nostalgic gaming console is actually a computer, the C64, and I'd dare to say that it's library (along with the other 8-bit computers) had a way more diverse library than any console that has come and gone. As a matter of fact, I never got a Colecovision, or 5200, because 95% of their library was on the C64, and often it was the same conversion put onto all 3 platform, but the consoles often got stuff taken away, like Zaxxon missing the space sequence on the Colecovision, or all of the console versions of Donkey Kong not having the pie factory, while the 8-bit computers did.

I'm not saying to anybody, or expecting anybody, to just run out and buy a 2600 based on its library and technology. All I'm saying is that a person could have a good time playing some of the better games on the console, despite its deficiencies.

And yes, calling the 2600 games Pixel Vomit is insulting. Would you like me to call most of the music from the Genesis, ear vomit?
07-31-2017, 09:57 PM
Gryson

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

And if you have access to the Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, or PS2 ports? What then? Input lag, CRT displays, resolution, controller, etc. all go out the window then.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The port of SFII Turbo on the PS2 Capcom Classics Collection, for example, has notoriously high input lag compared with the arcade:

A newer, more authentic port doesn't always translate to a better playing experience.
07-31-2017, 10:17 PM
Barone

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Well when the bulk of the system's library that gets brought up time and time again is made up of mostly arcade ports that are done better on other systems, you have to ask yourself what do the 2600 versions bring to the table to justify playing them over other versions. Just because I have a clear head that has no sense of nostalgia in this argument doesn't make mean my argument fucked up.

I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Among the games I played the most on the Atari 2600 are Enduro, River Raid, Chopper Command, Seaquest and Atlantis. None of them are ports.
07-31-2017, 10:50 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Here's the problem with your broken point of view Trekkies. The arcade game is always better than the home game, unless we are talking about a game that was totally changed like Ninja Gaiden. Why play any of the home conversions of arcade games when MAME can do it better? I play them because they are different. I've played Ms. Pac-Man on about a half dozen platforms and it didn't matter to me that the C64 version was better than the 2600 version, or that the Lynx version was better than the C64 game, because the same gameplay that made the original fun, can still be found in each of those editions. The same with Centipede, that has stupid blocks for the mushrooms on the 2600, but is still just as fun as the arcade game.

Because I don't want to use an emulator with it's own slew of issues and inaccuracies? I'm ok with an Arcade perfect port on a console. I'm ok with ports that aren't perfect but bring something new to the table to make up for it. But I'm not going to waste my time playing an old version on the Atari 2600 that's significantly inferior to other versions and brings nothing new to the table just for a trip down Memory Lane that doesn't even apply to me. When you remove Nostalgia from the equation, there's little reason to play those games on the 2600. That's the point. It's not a broken point of view, it's just an unbiased view that's not skewed by rose-tinted glasses. You like the 2600 and have nostalgic memories of it? Good for you, I don't. So I see no reason in playing the vast majority of it's library when I can play many of those games in better forms on other systems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

I have not played every 2600 game on the planet, but to say that the bulk of the library is made up of poor arcade ports is just totally wrong. The 2600 library was made up of stuff like Hangman, Combat, Circus, Checkers, Poker, Chess, Golf and just about every other generic game you could think of. Atari didn't start going into the arcade ports until after the huge success of Space Invaders, which was a pretty big deal to have in the home at the time. Activision and Imagic made a ton of great games for the 2600, and none of them were arcade ports, though you could say that Demon Attack was a better version of Phoenix. I have several 2600 games sitting on my bookshelf that I have never played, like Solaris (highly rated), Space Shuttle and Eggomania. I'll get around to them some day, even if the graphics aren't 32,000 colors on screen.

And those generic games are just that, generic. You can only play so many early pre-NES iterations of golf, chess, poker, etc. before you get bored and have no desire to play others. Sorry but I got my fill of those on my old DOS PC and Magnavox Odyssey. As for the Activision stuff, a lot of that I can again get better versions of on other systems. So what's the appeal of the 2600 versions other than pure nostalgia?

And again you seem to not understand what I mean when I say pixel vomit. It's not an issue of the number of colors. I'm fine with Colecovision and SG-1000 stuff after all and those are equally low color. It's the horribly low resolution sprite work that ends up looking like incoherent blobs most of the time. It's just something I can't get over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

The 2600 may have been my second gaming console (Pong came 1st), but it is nowhere near my favorite console, or one that I'm most nostalgic for. My nostalgic gaming console is actually a computer, the C64, and I'd dare to say that it's library (along with the other 8-bit computers) had a way more diverse library than any console that has come and gone. As a matter of fact, I never got a Colecovision, or 5200, because 95% of their library was on the C64, and often it was the same conversion put onto all 3 platform, but the consoles often got stuff taken away, like Zaxxon missing the space sequence on the Colecovision, or all of the console versions of Donkey Kong not having the pie factory, while the 8-bit computers did.

But that's just it, it was your 2nd console. Regardless of if it's your favorite or the one you have the most nostalgia for, you still do have some kind of nostalgic connection to it regardless of how small. That changes your outlook on it. Take that all away and I doubt you'd find it as appealing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

I'm not saying to anybody, or expecting anybody, to just run out and buy a 2600 based on its library and technology. All I'm saying is that a person could have a good time playing some of the better games on the console, despite its deficiencies.

Possibly, but how much fun to justify having one? That's the real question. I could have a few minutes of fun maybe, but not enough to justify having the system or to keep my interest. After the novel curiosity wore off I'd lose all interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

And yes, calling the 2600 games Pixel Vomit is insulting. Would you like me to call most of the music from the Genesis, ear vomit?

And the Genesis does have a lot of games that borderline sound like ear rape. Especially a lot of western ports and multiplatform titles. It also has a lot that sound pretty good to buck that trend.

The 2600 however is bit different. Almost every game I've seen ranges from borderline pixe lvomit to full on "WTF am I even looking at?" Show me more than a handful of games on the 2600 that don't fall into that range and I'll stop saying the bulk of it's library looks like that. And when I say pixel vomit, I mean good clean well defined background objects and sprites. They don't have to be high resolution or high color, they just have to at least form some kind of coherent object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryson

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The port of SFII Turbo on the PS2 Capcom Classics Collection, for example, has notoriously high input lag compared with the arcade:

A newer, more authentic port doesn't always translate to a better playing experience.

Then play the PS1, Saturn, or Dreamcast versions? Has thorough input lag testing been done on the Genesis, SNES, and PCE ports? For all you know they might also have some input lag issues. And that's not even getting into all the cut frames of animation. You think missing frames of animation isn't going to have some kind of impact on how well the game plays?

Again just because the port is older and on a CRT doesn't mean it's necessarily going to play better than a newer port.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barone

I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Among the games I played the most on the Atari 2600 are Enduro, River Raid, Chopper Command, Seaquest and Atlantis. None of them are ports.

But they do either have ports on other systems or have so many similar clones it pretty much nullifies them.
07-31-2017, 11:06 PM
Gryson

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Then play the PS1, Saturn, or Dreamcast versions? Has thorough input lag testing been done on the Genesis, SNES, and PCE ports? For all you know they might also have some input lag issues. And that's not even getting into all the cut frames of animation. You think missing frames of animation isn't going to have some kind of impact on how well the game plays?

Again just because the port is older and on a CRT doesn't mean it's necessarily going to play better than a newer port.

Really, my point was that sometimes it's just not worth it to get the absolute most accurate experience. I certainly don't have the time to see which port/emulator has the least input lag for hundreds of games. I'd rather just enjoy the games, even if I'm playing on a somewhat less accurate console.

I understand if people want to hunt down the best version of each game, but again, they shouldn't just stop at frame rate or graphics but consider the whole package including input lag, and that really is a daunting task.
07-31-2017, 11:25 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryson

Really, my point was that sometimes it's just not worth it to get the absolute most accurate experience. I certainly don't have the time to see which port/emulator has the least input lag for hundreds of games. I'd rather just enjoy the games, even if I'm playing on a somewhat less accurate console.

I understand if people want to hunt down the best version of each game, but again, they shouldn't just stop at frame rate or graphics but consider the whole package including input lag, and that really is a daunting task.

Then if that's your stance why do you care about a few frames of input lag? Even with that ~1 frame of input lag the Dreamcast port still beats the pants off the Genesis and SNES versions. Same goes for the Saturn and PS1 versions. Heck I doubt you'd really even notice the input lag on the PS2 port if you could care less about all the cut down issues in the 16-bit ports. My point is, I own the Saturn and Genesis versions. Why would I want to play the Genesis version when I can play the Saturn version?

Why would I want to go out of my way to get an Atari 2600 and play the games mentioned here when I already have systems capable of playing better versions? What do the 2600 versions bring to the table to justify that. 3 pages after this started no one has answered that basic question.
07-31-2017, 11:59 PM
cabear

from reading all these posts, the 2600 has other games besides ports that can capture the gamer. sure there are better ports and you're free to play them, but for games native to the 2600, there is a certain charm and simplicity to those games, a true pick up and play for 10 minutes game.

i have no interest in playing any arcade ports to the 2600 but i'll damn sure get down on some combat or meteor x. hell my ex's kid and i used to spend at least an hour a day playing combat on her ouya because it was so easy to grasp and play. Sure, it's archaic as hell but the 2600 does have games that are fun to play, games you won't find on other platforms BESIDES the ports.
08-01-2017, 12:35 AM
gamevet

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Because I don't want to use an emulator with it's own slew of issues and inaccuracies? I'm ok with an Arcade perfect port on a console. I'm ok with ports that aren't perfect but bring something new to the table to make up for it. But I'm not going to waste my time playing an old version on the Atari 2600 that's significantly inferior to other versions and brings nothing new to the table just for a trip down Memory Lane that doesn't even apply to me. When you remove Nostalgia from the equation, there's little reason to play those games on the 2600. That's the point. It's not a broken point of view, it's just an unbiased view that's not skewed by rose-tinted glasses. You like the 2600 and have nostalgic memories of it? Good for you, I don't. So I see no reason in playing the vast majority of it's library when I can play many of those games in better forms on other systems.

Right... you're okay with that, but chose to turn your nose up towards a pretty solid port of Omega Race on the 2600. The ColecoVision version doesn't try to emulate the look of the Vector Based arcade game, and went with goofy solid colored sprites instead. Gottlieb's Reactor was on no other console than the 2600.

The "I don't want to use an emulator" excuse in nonsense. Every one of those games from that time era, and on the NES and Master System, would get stomped into the ground by the MAME version of the real arcade game. I can play the arcade version of Punchout!!! on a pretty weak PC with arcade perfect graphics, but I still have no objections with playing the much inferior NES game.

Saying that I have rose-tinted glasses view of the 2600 isn't accurate at all. My family had around a dozen games for the console, and my old man stopped buying carts for the system after he got a 32k TRS-80 CoCo. I'd bought a few games for the system myself, but ended up getting a C64 around 1985. I picked up an Atari Flashback 7 from a Half-Price Books for $10 not too long ago; it was the 1st time that I'd ever played Jr. Pac-Man on the console. I'd like to try some of the titles on the Odyssey 2, even though I have absolutely no nostalgia for the console.

Quote:

And those generic games are just that, generic. You can only play so many early pre-NES iterations of golf, chess, poker, etc. before you get bored and have no desire to play others. Sorry but I got my fill of those on my old DOS PC and Magnavox Odyssey. As for the Activision stuff, a lot of that I can again get better versions of on other systems. So what's the appeal of the 2600 versions other than pure nostalgia?

My point was that the console had very little to do with arcade ports, and it was because of the popularity of Space Invaders, that a lot of arcade ports started showing up on the console. Still, the lion's share of games on the console were not arcade ports, and it had a lot of unique titles that got overlooked after the system exploded on the scene.

Quote:

And again you seem to not understand what I mean when I say pixel vomit. It's not an issue of the number of colors. I'm fine with Colecovision and SG-1000 stuff after all and those are equally low color. It's the horribly low resolution sprite work that ends up looking like incoherent blobs most of the time. It's just something I can't get over.

What part of Pitfall has an incoherent blob?

What part of Elliot in ET was an incoherent blob?

What part of the ship and enemies in Omega Race was an incoherent blob?

What parts of Mountain King contain an incoherent blob?

What part of Demon Attack contain an incoherent blob?

What part of Kaboom! contains incoherent blob?

Quote:

But that's just it, it was your 2nd console. Regardless of if it's your favorite or the one you have the most nostalgia for, you still do have some kind of nostalgic connection to it regardless of how small. That changes your outlook on it. Take that all away and I doubt you'd find it as appealing.

Nope, because I've never owned the Intellivision, Atari 5200, Colecovision or Atari 8-bit computers, but I still have an interest in what they have to offer.

Quote:

Possibly, but how much fun to justify having one? That's the real question. I could have a few minutes of fun maybe, but not enough to justify having the system or to keep my interest. After the novel curiosity wore off I'd lose all interest.

That's not the point. The point is that you could have fun playing the system if you sat down with someone to try it.

Quote:

And the Genesis does have a lot of games that borderline sound like ear rape. Especially a lot of western ports and multiplatform titles. It also has a lot that sound pretty good to buck that trend.

As does the 2600 with games like Pitfall, Demon Attack, Omega Race, Ms. Pac-Man, Jungle Hunt, Frogger, Star Master, Solaris and Phoenix. They aren't full of sprite blobs.

Quote:

The 2600 however is bit different. Almost every game I've seen ranges from borderline pixe lvomit to full on "WTF am I even looking at?" Show me more than a handful of games on the 2600 that don't fall into that range and I'll stop saying the bulk of it's library looks like that. And when I say pixel vomit, I mean good clean well defined background objects and sprites. They don't have to be high resolution or high color, they just have to at least form some kind of coherent object.

There are plenty of games that buck that trend, as I've noted above.
08-01-2017, 01:29 AM
Sik

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

Pitfall was a must-have back in the day and there's still some enjoyment to be taken from it, but if you're someone who's first gaming experience was something like Super Mario Bros, you just might not have it in you to appreciate Pitfall's more primitive gameplay.

Not sure, the two Pitfalls completely wreck SMB when it comes to exploration (which is like their main grab pretty much).
08-01-2017, 02:04 AM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Right... you're okay with that, but chose to turn your nose up towards a pretty solid port of Omega Race on the 2600. The ColecoVision version doesn't try to emulate the look of the Vector Based arcade game, and went with goofy solid colored sprites instead. Gottlieb's Reactor was on no other console than the 2600.

The Colecovision version is more pleasant to look at and doesn't make my ears bleed. Does it try to mimic Vector based graphics? No, but it's a raster based system that's low resolution so I can see why they didn't go that route. It still for the most part captures the look and feel and I'd say looks to be the more appealing version of the two systems.

As for Reactor, the 2600 game looks to be a stunning example of pixel vomit and ear bleeding noise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

The "I don't want to use an emulator" excuse in nonsense. Every one of those games from that time era, and on the NES and Master System, would get stomped into the ground by the MAME version of the real arcade game. I can play the arcade version of Punchout!!! on a pretty weak PC with arcade perfect graphics, but I still have no objections with playing the much inferior NES game.

Funny thing, I typically don't like using emulators. I find it harder to get into the game and enjoy it. I'd rather have a good port or the real thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Saying that I have rose-tinted glasses view of the 2600 isn't accurate at all. My family had around a dozen games for the console, and my old man stopped buying carts for the system after he got a 32k TRS-80 CoCo. I'd bought a few games for the system myself, but ended up getting a C64 around 1985. I picked up an Atari Flashback 7 from a Half-Price Books for $10 not too long ago; it was the 1st time that I'd ever played Jr. Pac-Man on the console. I'd like to try some of the titles on the Odyssey 2, even though I have absolutely no nostalgia for the console.

You still grew up with one. Whether you want to admit it or not you have some nostalgia for it. You grew up in that era of games. You have nostalgia for that overly simplistic repetitive gameplay style. You have nostalgia for those overly ambistious and abstract games like ET and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I didn't grow up with that so I have no nostalgic attachment to those games. I look at those and see early games I can appreciate for what they are, but have absolutely no desire to play. The graphics are too primitive for me and end up being a distraction. The sound quality is awful and is again distracting. And the games just aren't something I find entertaining. You grew up then and have some nostalgic attachment to those games and that era. Good for you. But understand I didn't and as a result I have no attachment to any of that. None of it appeals to me and it's not something I want to play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

My point was that the console had very little to do with arcade ports, and it was because of the popularity of Space Invaders, that a lot of arcade ports started showing up on the console. Still, the lion's share of games on the console were not arcade ports, and it had a lot of unique titles that got overlooked after the system exploded on the scene.

If they're not arcade ports then they're still usually ported to almost every other system of the time and if not there's about 5 clones and knock-offs floating around on other systems. You're not truly missing out by skipping the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

What part of Pitfall has an incoherent blob?

Just about all of it. While it's one of the better looking games it's still on the borderline of pixel vomit to me. Sprites are questionable and the color choices are awful too. Colors blend in to the backgrounds or clash horribly. Being color blind that's a huge problem. It ends up being a hideous looking game to me. I'd rather play the Colecovision version as the colors are more appealing and the sprites are a bit cleaner looking. Oh and again the sound is obnoxiously earbleeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

What part of Elliot in ET was an incoherent blob?

Are you joking? ET is the very definition of pixel vomit. And if you mean just one sprite, then all I have to say is one ok sprite in a sea of pixel vomit doesn't make the game any less pixel vomit. If anything it makes it an inconsistent mess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

What part of the ship and enemies in Omega Race was an incoherent blob?

Am I looking at ships or boxes? Hell if I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

What parts of Mountain King contain an incoherent blob?

The main character is somewhat coherent, but it's still a bit of a mess. The rest of the game is just lines and dots so that's pretty incoherent. The Commodore 64 version looks better

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

What part of Demon Attack contain an incoherent blob?

Just about all of it? The worst part on this one is again the color choices. They clash badly especially on the enemy sprites. And again being color blind this really causes issues. It just makes for an ugly looking game to me. There's other versions that still look bad but at least try to rework things to make it a little less painful to look at. I'd say the best looking one of that era is the C64 version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

What part of Kaboom! contains incoherent blob?

Well I'd say what I assume are the bombs are pretty much incoherent blobs. What are they? Bombs or falling rats? Hell if I know. What the hell is the thing you're supposed to collect them in too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Nope, because I've never owned the Intellivision, Atari 5200, Colecovision or Atari 8-bit computers, but I still have an interest in what they have to offer.

But you still grew up in that era and have nostalgia for that style of gaming. I didn't. And the Colecovision I wouldn't say is a good defense here seeing as how I've said time and time again that I don't have any issues with that system. The graphics most of the time on that system are passable and the sound quality is better too. That and most games seem to be more polished on it. I have no nostalgia for that system but I can still have interest in what it has to offer. The issue is really that the Atari 2600 is my cutoff point. That's where things just get too old and simplistic for me to bring myself to play it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

That's not the point. The point is that you could have fun playing the system if you sat down with someone to try it.

I have sat down with people and tried it you dimwit. Multiple times at that. I didn't have fun playing it for more than 5 minutes and I got bored. It's not something I have an interest in playing. And on top of that I'm the one making the point here, I think I know what the hell point it is I'm trying to make.

Sure you can have a few minutes of fun playing an Atari 2600, is that enough though to keep my interest in the system to justify having one? No, it's really not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

As does the 2600 with games like Pitfall, Demon Attack, Omega Race, Ms. Pac-Man, Jungle Hunt, Frogger, Star Master, Solaris and Phoenix. They aren't full of sprite blobs.

For someone looking at it with rose-tinted nostalgia goggles I guess you wouldn't see that. Someone like me though who has no nostalgic connection to the thing, I just see pixel vomit and hear ear rape.

Why would I want to play this version of Frogger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmOzLQFBBCs

When I can play this version on my Genesis?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTftp4Cam5k

Same goes for Pitfall, Demon Attack, Omega Race, Ms. Pac-Man, and Jungle Hunt. Why should I play the 2600 versions when there's better versions available. Can you give a good reason for that?

Out of the rest you listed, the only one that looks remotely good is Solaris, which surprise surprise doesn't look like pixel vomit and doesn't sound like ear rape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

There are plenty of games that buck that trend, as I've noted above.

The only one you listed that truly bucked that trend was Solaris.
08-01-2017, 02:21 AM
gamevet

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnit118

Funny thing, I typically don't like using emulators. I find it harder to get into the game and enjoy it. I'd rather have a good port or the real thing.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your bullshit, because it is just that, bullshit.

I highly doubt that you have any of these arcade games in your home. MAME absolutely destroys any home console version of those games, without a doubt.

A good example is Virtua Racing, that is absolutely horrid on the home consoles. MAME does a perfect conversion of this game, and it runs without any hitches on my PC with a racing wheel.
08-01-2017, 03:02 AM
MrMatthews

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sik

Not sure, the two Pitfalls completely wreck SMB when it comes to exploration (which is like their main grab pretty much).

Yeah... I don't know about that.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page