I didn't doubt you were there, and I too was also gaming at the time.Originally Posted by James
My comment on a few 2600 games being "arcade quality" were in regard to the early titles of 1977-1978, which usually matched or bettered their arcade counterparts in the way PS2 and X-Box games do today.
After a couple years, when arcade technology improved to the point where there was a sizeable gap between the arcade machines and the 2600's abilities, the focus shifted on improving the gameplay. Even though the 2600 games didn't look exactly like the arcade games, they often played very well, and (due to the inclusion of multiple modes or gameplay options which were not available in the arcade games) sometimes turned out better than the arcade versions (or versions on other consoles) despite the lower-quality graphics. Yes, that's an opinion, but you'd really have to play some of these 2600 games to understand where I'm coming from. With that in mind, I have to disagree with your blanket statement that 2600 games were "less" than their arcade counterparts.
Well, you can get caught up on great 2600 games now!Originally Posted by James
I recommend you look at the 2600 games offered by Activision or Imagic if you want some of the better original titles. Those companies were upstarts that didn't have the benefit of a back catalog of arcade titles, or lots of money to spend on licensing games from other companies, so they created their own hits from scratch. Since they were founded by and employed a lot of experienced ex-Atari programmers, they had a great handle on the hardware compared to most other third-party game companies, so many of their games were colorful and appealing to look at.


Reply With Quote



Bookmarks