aileron Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 My brother and I had an old [what I think was] a 2600 many, many years ago, which my parents eventually sold at a garage sale, as I'm sure is the case with many of these things. Anyway, I've been feeling nostalgic and wanting to buy a 2600, and I know my memory isn't too good sometimes so I've been looking at box art and screenshots to see what sparks my memory to make sure I didn't buy the wrong thing. I've decided what we had was definately a 2600, but I also distinctly remember playing Qix on that system. Now... have I just completely flipped, or could it have been called something else? I can't seem to find info on a Qix for the 2600. Please help me become sane again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasty Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I also distinctly remember playing Qix on that system. Now... have I just completely flipped, or could it have been called something else?I can't seem to find info on a Qix for the 2600. Please help me become sane again. There's no Qix for the 2600 that I know of, but maybe, if you wait for April 1, 2004... Rasty.- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aileron Posted April 2, 2003 Author Share Posted April 2, 2003 har har :-/ My memory must have really gone then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Could have been Amidar...which is kinda sorta like Qix in a loose general way (but only remotely) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacManPlus Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I know Qix is on the 5200... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inky Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I know it's been discussed before about the feasability of Qix on the 2600 (the conclusion: no.), but with some of the recent remarkable discoveries by ADavie & Co., I wonder if that has changed.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aileron Posted April 2, 2003 Author Share Posted April 2, 2003 well it definately wasn't amidar... and after looking at lots of screenshots i'm about 97% sure we had a 2600... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+-^CrossBow^- Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Perhaps you actually had a 5200 and a VCS adapter? That would be the only logical explanation I can see. That way...you would have had a version of Qix that was playable (5200 version) and then had compatibility to play 2600 games on the 5200. However, I would imagine you would remember having such a behemoth of a console as the 5200 in your house. Just a thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I know it's been discussed before about the feasability of Qix on the 2600 (the conclusion: no.), but with some of the recent remarkable discoveries by ADavie & Co., I wonder if that has changed.. My opinion is the same as it was back then...Amidar proves it's possible to some extent. And after reading thru the Robotron thread, I'm convinced of it. Mr. Norris was convinced. I'm convinced. But how to prove it? But how to prove it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 yea, they did pull off amidar. then there is also this http://www.atarihq.com/museum/2678/games/m...isc/pepper2.jpg how feasible is that? and how far is qix from pepper 2/amidar... not 2 far.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 The big problem (and difference) is the irregular filling used in Qix. Static graphics can be done quite well with the 2600, but undetermined areas are tough. Maybe with some flicker, but I am not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 When Intellivision tried to port Disco #1 (a weird Qix-influenced arcade game by Data East) they found that the system was unable to freely draw lines and keep track of boxes. The programmers had to put the player on an invisible fixed track rather than allowing freedom to draw. The game was eventually released as Thin Ice. Is the 2600 limited by such restrictions? With both Amidar and Pepper 2 the player also is bound to a track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aileron Posted April 2, 2003 Author Share Posted April 2, 2003 wow... i didn't realize there was so much to this. i left a message with my brother... so hopefully his memery will help shed some light on my situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Qix on the 2600 would require extra RAM. I've got a mockup laying about somewhere at home that depicts an interlaced white/blue screen. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff to get rid of the fast/slow drawing speeds, especially since you only have one button anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 The big problem (and difference) is the irregular filling used in Qix. Static graphics can be done quite well with the 2600, but undetermined areas are tough. Maybe with some flicker, but I am not sure. But reading the Robotron thread, I gather that the shapes are only limited by the cart's hardware. Specifically, the part about having an unlimited number of pixel-enemies. Or did I misunderstand that part? And the 800 pauses quite a bit while filling in the shapes, so it works on a 6502. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sku_u Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 well it definately wasn't amidar...and after looking at lots of screenshots i'm about 97% sure we had a 2600... Perhaps it was Froggo's Spiderdroid then. It looks very similar to Qix and is basically Amidar with a different name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 And the 800 pauses quite a bit while filling in the shapes, so it works on a 6502. The 800 version is incompetent. The 5200 version is nearly arcade-perfect. The big problem (and difference) is the irregular filling used in Qix. Static graphics can be done quite well with the 2600, but undetermined areas are tough. Maybe with some flicker, but I am not sure. *cough*ahem* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I thought that he was referring to the "filling in" portion of the game...you have a framework of lines, and it colors in the rest (you would think that there is some way to accomplish that even on the 2600). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 The fills are no more or less random than the lines around them. It's all bitmap as far as the 2600 is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 do you have any links to your mockup/info on what 2600 qix might be like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 http://www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/qix.html there is mention there of 2600 qix being announced, before atari kicked the bucket... Just a quick second thought, I could see how, through the mists of memory, 2600 surround could be remembered as qix.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aileron Posted April 3, 2003 Author Share Posted April 3, 2003 well i talked it over with my brother tonight, and he actually remembered what the controllers looked like. so it turns out what we had was a 5200, and the memories of the 2600 actually came from grandma having one. at least my memories of the games themselves were intact. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Couldn't you break the play field into a 40x40 track set? That'd give the feeling of more or less freedom to controll where the characture goes, and allow the 2600 to fill in outlines in 1 pixel wide, by 4 pixel high playfield graphics. It should be possible, especially if you make your characture out of playfield graphics also, and the Spark could be a simple four frame animation of a spinning bar or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostalgic Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 There was an Atari 8-bit computer game that might be suited to the "track" idea. You draw lines of bricks from one wall to another. The blank areas don't get filled. There's a rotating happy face bouncing around the arena, destroying the bricks you lay down. If it contacts a line as you're drawing it, you lose a life. You move on to the next level by filling in a certain amount of the board. It felt like something out of Analog or Antic, but since I can't put a name to it, I can't easily find it. I do remember it being written in Basic. Something like this, the 2600 could do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 In this brick game, was your cursor a little square that had a kinda constant "zooming" effect going on? And at higher levels, did the happy face start turning invisible? Ah, and here's my 2600 Qix mockup. Never really got around to fleshing this one out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.