Here we go . Atari 2600 vs Intellivision

[+Random Terrain]

What games in particular have weird graphics to you guys?

Here are some related posts from other threads:

 

 

When I saw store displays back then, Intellivision graphics just looked weird. Atari 2600 graphics looked more 'real' in a way and seemed to belong on the screen. Intellivision graphics looked 'fake' and seemed to float over the screen like it knew it was trespassing and could be chased away at any moment.

 

Intellivision graphics slightly remind me of a lot of online Flash games we have today where the graphics don't seem real. Flash game graphics are usually kind of stretchy, weird, and unsubstantial. I get the same kind of icky feeling from many Flash games that I got from Intellivision. Just give me good old solid, sturdy Atari 2600 graphics. Although certain Imagic games for the Atari 2600 had magical, colorful, Defender-style arcade-like graphics, they still had a substantial feel to them. They felt like they belonged on the screen.

 

 

. . . The ITV has a hard time at moving objects fast. Just compare Astroblast to Astrosmash. Astrobalst is a better game imho and much faster than anything the INTV can do.

 

 

The speed makes all the difference. There's just such a fluidity/quickness of movement in a lot of the 2600 "twitch" games in the way it's drawn on the screen that was hard to match.

 

 

I think its biggest problem is the gameplay... all of the games seem really SLOOOOW to me.

 

That's because the Intellivision wasn't built for speed. Better graphics and more memory than the 2600, yeah, but speed, hell no!

[jaybird3rd]

Here are some related posts from other threads:

I think I understand what these quotes are referring to, and while I won't argue with anyone's perceptions, I think I can explain what accounts for them.

 

As most of us know, the Atari 2600 display hardware made it necessary to code very close to the television screen: "chasing" the raster beam, changing colors with every scanline (or even in the middle of a scanline), etc. One positive consequence is that skilled programmers could create incredibly smooth graphics on the 2600 because, out of necessity, the graphics had to be reconstructed in software with every frame. The Intellivision hardware is also capable of doing this, but in general, programmers used the graphics and I/O routines in the Intellivision's internal "operating system" (called the EXEC) instead. This gave the Intellivision certain advantages over the 2600: it meant that these routines didn't have to be included in the cartridges (which made them smaller and cheaper), it made the games easier to create (because it wasn't necessary to build a custom kernel for each one), and since all the graphics-specific code was built into the console, it also meant that Mattel didn't have to produce separate PAL and NTSC versions of their games.

 

Unfortunately, the EXEC had to be very small and couldn't push the display hardware to its limits, so the early Intellivision games which relied entirely on the EXEC used only a fraction of what the Intellivision's display hardware could do. As cartridge ROMs got larger and more affordable, later Intellivision games could use their own optimized display routines instead of the ones in the EXEC. If you compare those games with the earlier ones, you'd think you were looking at two different systems, just as you would if you compared (for example) Star Ship and Solaris on the 2600. That's why you'd have to consider games that came in similar places in the development timelines of both systems if you want a true apples-to-apples comparison; in other words, you wouldn't compare the graphics in 2600 Solaris (one of the last 2600 games) with those in Intellivision Armor Battle (one of the earliest Intellivision games).

[+cmart604]

I got a bargain on an Intellivision which was the only way I was going to buy it...

 

From the little that I've played, BurgerTime and Lock N Chase look real nice...

 

I forget which one looked and played horrible - Pac-Man? Donkey Kong?

 

In any event, at the time the Intelli came out we were already invested heavily in the 2600 to buy one. And by that time graphics and games were getting better on the 2600 anyway.

 

Pac Man was actually done very well for the INTV by Atarisoft, DK was done horribly by Coleco. The good news is that there will be a much better four screen version of DK released for the INTV in late August/early Sept.

[Jess Ragan]

(watches Running Man sprite)

 

"Wow, that's really well animated for 1982!"

(five minutes later)

"Has he reached the other side of the screen yet?"

[mtshark7]

I would say they are both fun to play and both offer different unique experiences

[Stan]

Listen to Mark T over here with the 'everybody hug' approach. SCREW THAT!!!!!! I forgot to mention how god awful the Intellivision's controllers were. Seriously, who came up with that shite?

[BrianC]

Hm 8 bit vs 16 bit.

 

But I have to concur with Random, Inty has weird graphics

 

What games in particular have weird graphics to you guys?

 

Some of the games are pretty much similar to the 2600, such as Pitfall and Frogger.

 

I agree on Pitfall (though that one is a little too similar), but disagree on Frogger. Frogger makes an odd use of the sprites and some of them look very ugly (the sprite for the frog in the goal is a good example). Sound could have been done better too. Still a nice version, though.

[+Gemintronic]

InTV was more advanced. Some of the pick-up-and-play was lost with a controller that had more buttons. Atari 2600 joysticks always gave me pains. I think comparing colors and sprites is more subjective than anything.

[SpaceDice2010]

I got a bargain on an Intellivision which was the only way I was going to buy it...

 

From the little that I've played, BurgerTime and Lock N Chase look real nice...

 

I forget which one looked and played horrible - Pac-Man? Donkey Kong?

 

In any event, at the time the Intelli came out we were already invested heavily in the 2600 to buy one. And by that time graphics and games were getting better on the 2600 anyway.

 

Pac Man was actually done very well for the INTV by Atarisoft, DK was done horribly by Coleco. The good news is that there will be a much better four screen version of DK released for the INTV in late August/early Sept.

 

Why is Donkey Kong still green?

[BillyHW]

I agree with the above posters that the Intellivision graphics are strange and ugly. I'm not sure why that is. Even if they might be technically superior to the Atari, they just have this weird oddity to them and lack artistic beauty. You can tell Intellivision graphics right away by their consistent across the board ugliness. Even the built-in character font is hideous. Is it something to do with the system's resolution, or perhaps since most of the games were designed in-house, they had the same person designing the graphics for all the games?

 

On the other hand, the guy in Adventure for the Atari was just a square.

 

The first home system to have truly eye-pleasing, beautiful graphics was the ColecoVision.

[+LS650]

Six-month resurrection thread!

The response is strongly pro-2600, but that's not surprising given that the question was posted in the 2600 sub-forum on an Atari site.

 

I posted a similar thread in the "Classic Gaming" sub-forum recently, entitled "Vectrex vs Intellivision?" where I wrote that I was looking at getting a 'new' classic console for something different. I thought there were pros and cons to both platforms, and the voting seemed to be split 50-50. I ended up buying an Intellivision simply due to cost more than anything else.

 

As for Atari vs. Intellivision, it's a matter of personal taste. I think if you want to play more involved games, such as a sim like Utopia or the D&D games, you only have one choice. If you want arcade-style shooters, the Atari is the better way to go.

[Ransom]

I'll say what I say to most of these topics: I like 'em both. There are good games for each. And, personally, at this point, it doesn't matter to me whether, say, Donkey Kong is better on one or the other. I'm just happy when there's a good implementation of a game I like on ANY of the platforms I own. I don't need 17 different implementations of the same game, just one good one. What matters most to me are the platform exclusives like AD&D and Yars' Revenge.

 

And when it comes to those, both systems shine. I wouldn't want to give up either of them (nor my Colecovision, 5200, Vectrex, Odyssey2, etc.)

 

I did, however, find recently that I'm just fine without NES, SNES, N64, and Genesis.

[BillyHW]

Six-month resurrection thread!

The response is strongly pro-2600, but that's not surprising given that the question was posted in the 2600 sub-forum on an Atari site.

 

I posted a similar thread in the "Classic Gaming" sub-forum recently, entitled "Vectrex vs Intellivision?" where I wrote that I was looking at getting a 'new' classic console for something different. I thought there were pros and cons to both platforms, and the voting seemed to be split 50-50. I ended up buying an Intellivision simply due to cost more than anything else.

 

As for Atari vs. Intellivision, it's a matter of personal taste. I think if you want to play more involved games, such as a sim like Utopia or the D&D games, you only have one choice. If you want arcade-style shooters, the Atari is the better way to go.

 

Utopia was a great game, and very original. I remember playing it at my cousin's house.

[NE146]

I agree with the above posters that the Intellivision graphics are strange and ugly. I'm not sure why that is. Even if they might be technically superior to the Atari, they just have this weird oddity to them and lack artistic beauty. You can tell Intellivision graphics right away by their consistent across the board ugliness.

 

I don't know how anyone could think the Intelivision had ugly graphics unless they're looking back with retro-tainted lenses. I also don't know how old you are but when we were kiddies, this looked like friggin Hi-Def graphics back then.

 

 

I of course loved my Atari but I knew "better" graphics when I saw it, and Intellivision had it. Just saying. That being said of course the Colecovision blew us all out of the water later.. but again that was years later.

Edited January 6, 2012 by NE146

[+Gemintronic]

Both joysticks sucked. One caused cramps - the other was stolen from a walkie talkie.

INTV had better graphics but less games.

 

I guess the real winner is the one still on my coffee table: 2600. Anything that old still being played and new peripherals bought for (Harmony cart) must be the King. Even the Aquarius gets more love as I just got the multi cart.

[Phredreeke]

I would say the Intellivision (not counting Coleco games) is more consistent while at their best the Atari 2600 beats it.

[atari_envy]

I have both systems and find the 2600 to be more fun. The graphics of the INTV often looked impressive, but 2600 games were more fun to play. I love the CX-40 controllers, and do not care for the INTV controller: The cord is too short, hard-wired to system, and the tiny buttons on the side are painful. I am also not a fan of the disc, but swapped the disc for a small joystick and like it fine now. For some games the keypad and overlays are nice.

 

That said, one of my all-time favorite games is Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. It is about the only game I regularly play on the INTV.

 

[Ransom]

I agree about the shortness of the INTV cords. I'm thinking of getting a Sears version some day so I can solve that. Problem is, I haven't seen a nice Sears Super Arcade in years. I remember there was one on eBay when I was just starting to collect Intellivision stuff, and it was too expensive for me at that time given all the money I was spending just getting set up. Wish I'd splurged on it now.

 

I did buy a couple of spare controllers for the Super Arcade at the time, though, "just in case" I ever got one.

[guy767]

I know this topic is cliché but I'm going with the 2600 as well. The controllers for the Intellivision really are quite horrific; they feel so cheap plus thin and literally are a pain to use. At least with the Colecovision the controllers felt sturdy and not flimsy. The Intv has my vote for the worse controller of all time; dishonorable mention goes to the USA Atari 7800 "controller".

 

The 2600 was more colorful and fluid while Intv was blocky and slow. The Flash analogy was apt IMO as most Intv games tend to look the same, share the same sounds and used the same font. Atari games had more variety and distinguishing characteristics.

 

The cancel/clear sound that most Intv games had was particularly disturbing to my ears; it sounds like a duck getting castrated. I remember trying to play Boxing for the Intv and that annoying unholy duck sound was repeating over and over again. The Atari never caused me such auditory pain so it's better in my book.

 

What the Intv had was superior music. Games like Snafu, Thunder Castle, He-man and Burgertime had fantastic sound and were vastly superior to the 2600. A few gems do not excuse the terrible controls plus cookie cutter visuals and sounds though. The 2600 beats the Intv IMO; no contest.

Edited January 8, 2012 by guy767

[+LS650]

I recently picked ip an Inty. Some games seem better designed for the controllers than others. For example, I thought Qbert would be horrible, but I think the controller works better than the 2600 version. On the other hand I think Lock n Chase just doesn't take disc input well.

[BassGuitari]

Intellivision has games like Thunder Castle, Tower Of Doom, Diner, Hover Force, Dreadnaught Factor, Sewer Sam, Beauty and The Beast, Sea Battle, Mind Strike, B-17 Bomber, Mission X, AD&D: Treasure Of Tarmin, Utopia, Nova Blast, and a casino game that features Wayne Newton as the dealer. It also has games like Space Hawk, Truckin', Blockade Runner, and the Intellivision version of Donkey Kong Jr. The Atari 2600 does not.

 

Atari 2600 has games like Ms. Pac-Man, Galaxian, Breakout, Air-Sea Battle, Starmaster, Solaris, Secret Quest, Escape From the Mindmaster, Video Olympics, Star Ship, Alien, Star Wars: The Arcade Game, and Subterranea. It also has games like Scuba Diver, Karate, Picnic, Squeeze Box, Fire Fly/Sorcerer/Star Fox, Bachelor Party, Cosmic Corridor, and Tax Avoiders. Intellivision does not.

 

Intellivision's versions of Atlantis, Demon Attack, Centipede, Pac-Man, Defender, Commando, River Raid, Stampede, Beamrider, Q*Bert, and Bump 'N' Jump are arguably superior to their 2600 counterparts.

 

Atari 2600's versions of Pole Position, Frogger, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Astroblast (Astrosmash), and Donkey Kong/jr. are arguably superior to their Intellivision counterparts.

 

Both systems' versions of Pitfall and Zaxxon are interchangeable.

 

Intellivision has a voice module and a computer adapter. Atari 2600 has the Supercharger and rare/useless Compumate unit.

 

Atari 2600 has controllers and accessories out the wazoo. Intellivision has the mega-rare Videoplexer and Wico joystick controller (for Intellivision II/Super Video Arcade), and little joystick attachments for the discs, and not much else.

 

Combat > Armor Battle/Triple Action (Biplanes, Tanks)...advantage: Atari

Space Invaders > Space Armada...advantage: Atari

Super Pro Football > Football/Realsports Football/Super Football...advantage: Intellivision

Adventure < AD&D...advantage: Intellivision

Star Raiders < Space Battle < Starmaster...advantage: neither?

Street Racer > Road Race (Triple Action)...advantage: Atari

Space Hawk < Asteroids...advantage: Atari

World Series Championship Baseball > Home Run, Realsports Baseball, Super Baseball, and Pete Rose Baseball combined...advantage: Intellivision

Chip Shot: Super Pro Golf > Golf...advantage: Intellivision

Body Slam: Super Pro Wrestling > Titlematch Pro Wrestling...advantage: Intellivision

Auto Racing < Indy 500...advantage: Atari

 

So which is better? They're both better. They both have pros and cons and strengths and weaknesses (although the Intellivision's "slowness" and controllers are overblown). Both have great games, not-so-great games, and "meh" games. Both are worth playing and owning, and in many ways they're perfect complements to one another. I myself am a huge fan of both and can't image a collection without either one.

 

[GameGirl420]

Atari 2600 for me!!!

 

 

I have an Intellivision but rarely play it. Only game I ever liked on it is Lock N Chase,Bowling is kinda cool, but the rest kinda bores me. And such boring titles like Horse Racing(LOL) and all these sports and card games that I kinda don't care for. Yes Donkey Kong is freaking terrible on Intellivision,but DK on 2600 is awesome,not the best DK I've ever played but it is still fun to play while the INTV version just sucks.

 

I even have the voice module for INTV and B52 Bomber,but whenever I plug that in all I can think about is the AVGN's review of it and that funny sounding voice....B52 Bomberrrrr lol.

[Phredreeke]

Intellivision has a voice module and a computer adapter. Atari 2600 has the Supercharger and rare/useless Compumate unit.

 

Intellivision actually has two computer adapters. The extremely rare original keyboard component and the later ECS

[Pioneer4x4]

So which is better? They're both better. They both have pros and cons and strengths and weaknesses (although the Intellivision's "slowness" and controllers are overblown). Both have great games, not-so-great games, and "meh" games. Both are worth playing and owning, and in many ways they're perfect complements to one another. I myself am a huge fan of both and can't image a collection without either one.

 

Very nice summation!

I have a limited experience with Inty, I do have 2, one of each model and the voice module. One thing I do remember being cool back in the day was Sea Battle, good comprimise of action and stradegy.

[+Random Terrain]

So which is better? They're both better.

 

Wrong! Begin the smashing!

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzCbxYpvo0Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzCbxYpvo0Y

 

It's OK. the Intellivision in the video had severe water damage. Probably from the tears of the children who got it for Christmas instead of the Atari 2600 that they begged for.