Arcade to 7800 comparison

[Gregory DG]

Now resurrected from the Lost Articles, the Arcade to 7800 comparisons is now available again! Check out what the 7800 could do!

Edited March 29, 2007 by Gregory DG

[mimo]

thats neat, with pmc beefdrop and new homebrews on the horizon, it's nice to see what the 7800 can still do!

[almightytodd]

The screenshots on the link provided really illustrate an issue that I brought up in the 2600 Forum... the issue of portrait vs. landscape orientation. In that discussion thread, Supercat makes the very valid point that the 2600 has severe limits that affect objects sharing the same horizontal line differently than objects aligned vertically. The Spectravision game "Planet Patrol" is able to get around this somehow, and plays as a vertical scroller turned sideways:

 

 

For "dot-eater" games such as Pac-Man, I noted that the NES port captured the screen orientation of the original coin-op, by putting the scoring information off to the side:

 

 

This tactic obviously wouldn't work for the 2600, but I wonder about whether a 7800 port could get away with it?

 

Any thoughts?

[Trip_Cannon]

You know, I still don't know why Abobo didn't break through the wall on the 7800 version of Double Dragon...

[mimo]

The screenshots on the link provided really illustrate an issue that I brought up in the 2600 Forum... the issue of portrait vs. landscape orientation. In that discussion thread, Supercat makes the very valid point that the 2600 has severe limits that affect objects sharing the same horizontal line differently than objects aligned vertically. The Spectravision game "Planet Patrol" is able to get around this somehow, and plays as a vertical scroller turned sideways:

 

 

For "dot-eater" games such as Pac-Man, I noted that the NES port captured the screen orientation of the original coin-op, by putting the scoring information off to the side:

 

 

This tactic obviously wouldn't work for the 2600, but I wonder about whether a 7800 port could get away with it?

 

Any thoughts?

Possibly, but to be honest I don't think it would be worth it, Pac-man collection is just about the best thing that has ever been released for the 7800.

[PacManPlus]

WOW - thanks mimo! That is a HUGE compliment!

[atomickneedrop]

You know, I still don't know why Abobo didn't break through the wall on the 7800 version of Double Dragon...

Yeah, really. The Abobo is there, the wall is there, the hole is there... why not have the hole be a graphic change on the screen? Oh well, spilled milk I guess... until Double Dragon II 7800!

[DracIsBack]

You know, I still don't know why Abobo didn't break through the wall on the 7800 version of Double Dragon...

[/quote

 

Half assed developers with a half asses development budget.

 

Oh, how I wish Sculptured Software or Blue Sky Software did that game.

[almightytodd]

Possibly, but to be honest I don't think it would be worth it, Pac-man collection is just about the best thing that has ever been released for the 7800.

 

I think I'm inclined to agree with you, Mimo. Awesome programming, Bob!

[gdement]

For "dot-eater" games such as Pac-Man, I noted that the NES port captured the screen orientation of the original coin-op, by putting the scoring information off to the side:

 

 

This tactic obviously wouldn't work for the 2600, but I wonder about whether a 7800 port could get away with it?

 

Any thoughts?

 

The 7800, like the 2600, can take advantage of vertical separation. If the score is above/below the playfield, then you can change resolutions and palette colors midscreen to make everything look it's best. With the score sharing scanlines with the playfield, you have to make compromises. Also, you force the graphics chip to do more work on those lines where it has to draw both gameplay and the score info. In high-resolution that could be a problem.

 

I think it would work though with Pac-Man, because you'd already want to render it in high-resolution anyway, and you don't need very many colors. There's adequate rendering time because there's not much stuff moving around. But for games involving more animation, color, or scrolling, it probably would be a bad setup.

[Lord Helmet]

I think many of the 7800, 5200 and 2600 arcade ports would have been better if they had at least tried to maintain the correct aspect ratio. There is no reason why the playfield has to fill the whole screen. Why not just leave the extra room on the left and right blank?

Edited April 4, 2007 by Lord Helmet

[jaybird3rd]

Why not just leave the extra room on the left and right blank?

Probably for the same reason that widescreen movies were only available for the longest time in Pan and Scan: people would somehow think they're missing something and would complain about the "black bars."

[ZylonBane]

I think many of the 7800, 5200 and 2600 arcade ports would have been better if they had at least tried to maintain the correct aspect ratio. There is no reason why the playfield has to fill the whole screen. Why not just leave the extra room on the left and right blank?

You do understand that the 2600's horizontal playfield resolution is almost cripplingly limited, yes? Throwing even more of it away for any reason is almost unthinkable.

[Robert M]

I think many of the 7800, 5200 and 2600 arcade ports would have been better if they had at least tried to maintain the correct aspect ratio. There is no reason why the playfield has to fill the whole screen. Why not just leave the extra room on the left and right blank?

 

 

I think a better solution would be to implement the games turned 90 degrees. Many games (like Galaxian and Pac-man) in the arcade have the monitor turned 90 degrees. It is very easy to make vertical strips of enemies on the 2600 and 7800. A sideway galaxian would be much nicer looking and much easier to implement. Trying to squeeze the extended veritcal detail of arcade games into the low horizontal resolution of the 2600 is a poor choice IMO.

 

Cheers!

[accousticguitar]

And then turn your TV on its side? That would be a pain having to tip your TV every time you wanted to switch games

[Gorf]

Not to mention the deguassing you would need to do after

changing its orientation.

[+Propane13]

And then turn your TV on its side? That would be a pain having to tip your TV every time you wanted to switch games

 

Aw c'mon. I already have to do this for Merlin's Walls.

 

-John

[almightytodd]

I think a better solution would be to implement the games turned 90 degrees. Many games (like Galaxian and Pac-man) in the arcade have the monitor turned 90 degrees. It is very easy to make vertical strips of enemies on the 2600 and 7800. A sideway galaxian would be much nicer looking and much easier to implement. Trying to squeeze the extended veritcal detail of arcade games into the low horizontal resolution of the 2600 is a poor choice IMO.

This is what I'm thinking also. Here are some mock-ups:

 

 

 

As you can see, you wouldn't have to physically turn your TV sideways (...or lie on your side) because the scoring/status information would still be oriented horizontally. But I would think the actual gameplay would be a more accurate representation of the coin-op versions, because the spacial relationships of the on-screen objects would be preserved.

[Captain Beard]

Pac-man collection is just about the best thing that has ever been released for the 7800.

I concur (and I've never really been much of a Pac-Fan.)

Whenever I have someone new over to check out my Atari, I invariably load up the Pac-Man Collection to collective oohs and ahhhs.

The only other cart I always whip out to impress people is Gunfight, just so they can hear "Ring of Fire."

[Lord Helmet]

I think a better solution would be to implement the games turned 90 degrees. Many games (like Galaxian and Pac-man) in the arcade have the monitor turned 90 degrees. It is very easy to make vertical strips of enemies on the 2600 and 7800. A sideway galaxian would be much nicer looking and much easier to implement. Trying to squeeze the extended veritcal detail of arcade games into the low horizontal resolution of the 2600 is a poor choice IMO.

This is what I'm thinking also. Here are some mock-ups:

 

 

 

As you can see, you wouldn't have to physically turn your TV sideways (...or lie on your side) because the scoring/status information would still be oriented horizontally. But I would think the actual gameplay would be a more accurate representation of the coin-op versions, because the spacial relationships of the on-screen objects would be preserved.

 

I think Pac-Man works OK like this (since the original 2600 version uses that aspect) but I don't know that Galaga would really be Galaga without the aliens swoping down at me rather than flying at me from the side. It would be a fun experiment though.

[jpfalcon2003]

The 7800 does a fine job in recreating the classic arcade games.

[+MrFish]

I think many of the 7800, 5200 and 2600 arcade ports would have been better if they had at least tried to maintain the correct aspect ratio. There is no reason why the playfield has to fill the whole screen. Why not just leave the extra room on the left and right blank?

 

I disagree. The arcade conversions I enjoy the most, use the entire screen (Commando, Donkey-Kong, etc.). When they don't, I feel like I'm getting jipped. The games feel cramped and restricted (Ms. Pac-Man, Dig Dug, etc.). Don't get me wrong, these are great conversions in other respects. But I've always enjoyed conversions that take advantage of what a system has to offer, rather than trying look exactly like another. These systems have very limited pixel resolution to begin with, so why give more pixels away? I think you'll get both types when it comes to any system, but I'll take the widescreen version any time...