94 replies to this topic

[BrianC]

Quote

Like the omission of full levels in Gorf? These are all things that were only left out because of deficiencies in the hardware, the programmer's abilities, or both

That level (not levels) was left out of all official versions due to copyright reasons, nothing to do with hardware or the programmers.

[littleman jack]

Night Driver, Solar Fox, Missile Command, Jr. Pac-Man, Cross Bow, Gravitar, Moon Patrol, Space Invaders, Sea Wolf.

[maiki]

Moon Patrol... this thread has become a ridiculous joke...

[Cynicaster]

thegoldenband, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:30 PM, said:

Cynicaster, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:50 AM, said:

If you find that you prefer watered down versions of certain games to their originals I guess I can't tell you you're wrong in feeling that way

And here's the rub: you seem to be arguing from the stance that the job of a home port is to represent the arcade original as faithfully as possible, and every deviation tends to be a form of "watering down". I can understand that point of view, but the problem is that I don't agree: not every change is "watering down", and not every change is going to be for the worse. Some ports are super-faithful, and are great because of it; others change the gameplay dramatically, and are actually pretty cool in their own right -- maybe even better than the original.

Yes, I think any omission of a level, weapon, move, or gameplay element is watering down. It's akin to doing a cover version of a Led Zeppelin song and leaving out a verse because the singer can't hit the high notes. And yes, if we're strictly talking about "ports" as opposed to "games that simply use the same IP", the measure of quality is how faithfully it represents the original. Now, if the port includes additional things over and above the original, that can be cool. A great example of this is the additional level that was added to Golden Axe when it was ported to the Genny. That game, to me, is a port done right.

When I distinguished ports from "games that use the same IP" I was talking about the cases where the home versions are completely different from the originals. When that approach is used, the comparison becomes apples to oranges. The discussion becomes kind of pointless if the two games you're comparing share nothing but a name.

Ninja Gaiden for NES is a prime example of this, as it doesn't even try to be the arcade game. I don't know the story behind that game, but I'm guessing that they would have stuck to the look and feel of the arcade game if the NES was up to the task. The developers (Tecmo was it?) probably figured that if they tried to "port" the arcade gameplay the product would suck, so they devised a whole new game. I don't really care for either game, but if I had to pick, I think I like the NES version better.

Quote

But if your attitude is "It has to be arcade-perfect or it's crap" from the get-go, then there's really no conversation to be had: no port will ever live up to that standard, because the arcade game itself is perfection by your definition.

Not being a perfect arcade copy does not in and of itself make a port better or worse. Slightly different level designs and graphics, for example, can be made to work if the spirit of the game remains intact. I will say that one certain type of difference, for me, invariably makes a port second-rate, and that's an omission.

Cynicaster, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:50 AM, said:

But arcade games continued to be made and desired by home gamers long after 1980. Primitive stuff like Space Invaders and Circus are one thing, but bear in mind that with each day you move ahead into the 80's you see the technical gap widening between arcade games and their 2600 counterparts. Anybody up for a rousing game of 2600 Rampage? I think I'd rather put a campfire out with my face.

Quote

How is that relevant, though? You're moving the goalposts here, by now implying that early arcade games are irrelevant, and that the real arena is games like Rampage. But I don't see any justification for doing that.

I'm not saying that early arcade games are irrelevant. I'm simply saying that in a general discussion of "arcade ports", it's worth pointing out that arcade games continued to be made and ported to the VCS for years after that narrow window of time where the VCS could hold its own against arcade hardware (Space Invaders, Berzerk, etc.). I can't stand Rampage in any form, I just cited that as an example because it was a late 80's title ported to the Atari.

[Impaler_26]

rmaerz, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:28 AM, said:

Someone mentioned Crystal Castles being better on the VCS - are there warps on the VCS version?

Who cares about warps? I like the 2600 version better because it's very different from the arcade version and it is just more fun to play IMO.

[NE146]

There are other threads on what arcade versions are most accurate and whatnot. The question of this thread is simply which one do you prefer.

So you could say you prefer the 2600 version of Amidar over the arcade and it'd be perfectly valid.

[AtariLeaf]

Cynicaster, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:14 AM, said:

For example, when you take a game designed with a trackball in mind and turn it into a joystick game, it just feels like a compromise (and it is, IMO).

I find that many times the 2600 control scheme on certain games is far superior. Asteroids and Defender for example play much better and have better control due to using a joystick to move instead of buttons.

[jjsonique]

maiki, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:07 PM, said:

Moon Patrol... this thread has become a ridiculous joke...

Ridiculous because....littleman jack *should* like the original better? That seems a tad...ridiculous. We're talking about personal reactions to games here. I don't prefer the 2600 version of Moon Patrol to the original, but why should he feel the same?

There are many objective ways of measuring how the arcade originals are more technically advanced, more graphically detailed, richer and more varied in content, and more important historically than their 2600 ports.

But this thread is about personal reactions... "Do you like any 2600 ports better than the arcade original?" You can't call someone's personal preference invalid, unless you're claiming they're deluding themselves about what they consider more fun.

(Hm, perhaps there could be treatment for that rare form of delusion: "It took me years of therapy to admit I actually had more fun playing the stand-up arcade version of Moon Patrol. I was too attached to my Atari - blinded by Stella love!" )

[Curious Sofa]

And on that note, I agree with Tempest that I really enjoy the 2600 port of Tutankham to the arcade game. But not because it is technically comparable by any means, it's almost a wholly different game. But I find it addictive, weird and fun, whereas I find the arcade game to be cool but missing the addictiveness of the 2600 version.

I won't say that I prefer the 2600 version of Tapper, in fact I kind of think it sucks. The bonus stage in particular is nearly unplayable. But I find the off-key music on the 2600 to be absolutely hilariously awful, and it gets major points for this badness.

I also think the person who prefers the 2600 version of Moon Patrol is insane, but hey, it's just an opinion, you likes what you likes.

And I'm in the boat of people who prefer the 2600 Space Invaders. I don't even mess with the variations, I just like how it looks by comparison. I like the blockiness, the movements, the sound effects, the control, all much much better for me than the bland arcade game, but know it's a divisive game and issue.

[Ransom]

I like the 2600 version of Space Invaders better than the arcade version, too, for many of the reasons people have already cited. Unfortunately, I played it too much when I was a kid and even today I can play it for so long that I get bored. At least on the default level. Thank goodness for all the different variations!

And that's what I really, really like about the early 2600 carts -- tons of variations. So many, many choices that it really does keep the games fresh for decades.

[Keatah]

I'm sure there are many examples of 2600 home versions being better than the arcade versions.
I personally preferred Phoenix on the 2600 because the graphics were better, they may have been lower-res than the arcade, but they were more colorful and much smoother and fluid in motion. A pleasure to look at no doubt. There was an aire of sophistication in how Atari used shades of colors to soften the edges during movement. And that was nice.

Strictly speaking about gameplay, I would tend to go with Missile Command. I always liked having one point of origin for my missiles. I could concentrate and much more easily predict where they would explode, thus improving my game. Having to manually select which base fired was a big annoyance to me.

And not only that, Missile Command (as did many other VCS games) had a Children's Mode where gameplay was made easier. And that rocked.

There are other games I liked better on the 2600, Space Invaders and Moon Patrol come to mind. Again for various graphical and difficulty reasons. With Space Invaders I enjoyed the graphics, the amber colored invaders were so much easier to look at as opposed to the stark white of the arcade edition. Moon Patrol, this is a game playability thing for me. The way the buggy would jump and stuff, much better at home.

There are others, and I'll post them as I recall them. The one overriding factor in all the games, was, at home I could hit the reset button and not have to pay a quarter. I could also sit my fat ass on a beanbag and have chips and dip and coke all sprawled out during a gaming session. At the arcade you had to stand all the time, and no junk food!

[Tempest]

Can we just agree that everyone is entitled to their own option as to which version of a game they like? Just because the home port may be 'technically inferior' to the arcade port doesn't mean it's not as good or maybe even better. Gameplay is a huge part of what makes a game enjoyable and sometimes just simplifying the controls can make a game that you detested in the arcades one of your favorites on the 2600.

Let's keep this thread civil. If you're going to ask someone their opinion on something and then get upset because it's not the same as yours, why bother asking in the first place?

Curious Sofa, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:57 PM, said:

And on that note, I agree with Tempest that I really enjoy the 2600 port of Tutankham to the arcade game. But not because it is technically comparable by any means, it's almost a wholly different game. But I find it addictive, weird and fun, whereas I find the arcade game to be cool but missing the addictiveness of the 2600 version.

I also loved the manual that came with the game. It gave descriptions of all the various treasures in the game which gave them some personality over the generic rings in the arcade version. I would purposely go out of my way to get a treasure because it had such a cool description.

Oh and for what it's worth I like the 2600 version of Moon Patrol, I find it easier to play than the arcade version. I'm not sure I like it MORE than the arcade version, but I'd put them on equal ground.

[rmaerz]

Tempest, on Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:52 AM, said:

Can we just agree that everyone is entitled to their own option as to which version of a game they like?

No!

Just kidding.

I'm done with this thread...cya

[Cynicaster]

AtariLeaf, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:04 PM, said:

Cynicaster, on Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:14 AM, said:

For example, when you take a game designed with a trackball in mind and turn it into a joystick game, it just feels like a compromise (and it is, IMO).

I find that many times the 2600 control scheme on certain games is far superior. Asteroids and Defender for example play much better and have better control due to using a joystick to move instead of buttons.

Ah, well this helps me understand a bit better how somebody could prefer a VCS port of a classic game over the original.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, but my position on the matter is this. I think that creative and purposefully-designed control schemes are a major aspect of what gives an arcade game its soul. It's like, the interface between player and machine is unique to that specific game. Thus, developing proficiency on that specific game--in large part by fighting and mastering the controls--represents one of the defining challenges of classic arcade gaming, and classic arcade gaming is arguably where our hobby started. Are some classic control layouts a tad unwieldy? Of course--in comparison to the one-size-fits-all paradigm ushered in by the console gaming industry, some of the old control schemes are downright complicated. For somebody walking up to the game for the first time, a joystick would probably be "easier" for Asteroids, Space Fury, Star Castle, etc. but I at least hope we can agree that "easier" and "better" are separate and distinct adjectives.

The flagship example of challenging classic controls has to be Defender. Even a gamer with a fair bit of raw skill is not likely to last more than 30 seconds on the first several credits, but the controls are conquerable if you're up for the challenge. And when you do get the hang of it, it's damn fun--almost gratifying--in a way that, to me, just can't be replicated on a platform that is forced to shoe-horn any type of gameplay imaginable into one of two generic control interfaces (joystick and paddle).

I guess some people go into a sushi restaurant and ask the server for a fork, because it's easier, and that's what they're used to eating with. Others will learn the chopsticks.

Some might say there is an air of hypocrisy in what I've said here, considering I play these classic games on my MAME cabinet, which obviously has a generic control panel itself. But, to that I'll say that I at least attempt to set up the controls for each game to match the originals as closely as possible. For example, I use buttons only on Asteroids (left/right rotate on player 1 side, thrust/fire/hyperspace on player 2 side), and I similarly configure Defender to use buttons on both sides of the panel to mimic the original.

Again, I don't intend to imply my view is the only view on this topic--just offering a counterpoint to the comments about preferring VCS controls because they're easier.

Edited by Cynicaster, Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:44 AM.

[Ransom]

I'm with you on the original controls -- they're part of the game when it comes to Defender, Tron, Tempest, and so many other games that had unique control schemes. That said, I can also enjoy the home version if the new control scheme is well-thought-out. And if, on top of that, the game has other features that were lacking in the original (options for difficulty, more interesting graphics, etc.), then the end result may be a better implementation of the abstract idea represented by the original game. The original will always be the original, but the home version can be better overall -- depending on the individual gamer's criteria, of course.

[NE146]

Yeah most people don't realize this but, aside from the video game itself, a big part of the arcade Defender experience IS the controls. I 100% agree. Once you get the hang of it, the amount of control it gives you is awesome.

That being said comparing it to the 2600 version doesn't really make sense because for what it is (one of my favorite VCS games by the way) the simplified joystick control scheme fits it perfectly.

[thegoldenband]

Well, it's an interesting philosophical question. Is the purpose of a control scheme to allow for maximum precision, to be maximally intuitive, and/or to provide some of the challenge in and of itself? It's easy to answer that question when you're talking about Tron or Tempest, since both games have fantastic controls that are both intuitive and super-accurate, and are perfectly suited for their input type: you can't duplicate a spinner's function with a joystick.

Other games have controls that are hard to learn at first, but once you get the hang of them, you realize they're ideally suited for the game. Battlezone is a perfect example of this; Crazy Climber is another. People get freaked out by the control schemes in these games at first, but ultimately it's the best way to play and gives you precision that would otherwise be impossible. So intuitive, no; precision, yes.

Defender is less clear to me. Sure, it feels good to master its control scheme -- it feels good to master ANYTHING that's unintuitive at first -- but once you've mastered it, if you then replaced it with a standard control scheme, would your scores improve? Do the unusual controls cause your brain to hesitate for a split-second, or your fingers to fumble at just the wrong time, in a way that a standard control scheme wouldn't do? Or did the designers intend for the unusual controls to be part of the challenge -- to get in the way of what you want to do?

Music is a great analogy here. There are things about playing an instrument that feel really weird to a beginner. Try playing a violin -- totally counterintuitive! But we do things that way because though it's hard to learn at first, it's been proven to work and yields musical dividends that are concrete and that pay off in the long run. Same thing with tennis: people learn to hold a racquet in all kinds of weird ways because they let you do things you can't otherwise do.

Is the same true of Defender? I don't know. Maybe the controls do pay dividends in the end. But people don't just play games to chase high scores, they play them for fun. My memory of the arcade game (it's been a long time) is that the unusual controls made the game less fun, not more fun.

I'm all for the immersive experience of the arcade -- I grew up not far from Funspot, after all! Home consoles can't replicate the diamond pinpoints of light when you shoot in Asteroids, or the fun of whirling your ship around in Tempest, or the tandem hilarity of Fire Truck. But when you feel like the control scheme is fighting you instead of working with you, it tends to take that fun away unless you believe it's going to be worth it.

I'm not good enough at Defender to know whether it is worth it for that particular game. But I do know that the idea that, for me, the arcade version of a game is some kind of Platonic ideal is less important than how much fun I have actually playing the game. So sometimes it's not really about "easier" vs. "better", but about "more fun" vs. "less fun".

And sometimes -- at least for me, but clearly for others as well -- the VCS version is just more fun!

[NE146]

thegoldenband, on Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:43 PM, said:

Defender is less clear to me. Sure, it feels good to master its control scheme -- it feels good to master ANYTHING that's unintuitive at first -- but once you've mastered it, if you then replaced it with a standard control scheme, would your scores improve? Do the unusual controls cause your brain to hesitate for a split-second, or your fingers to fumble at just the wrong time, in a way that a standard control scheme wouldn't do? Or did the designers intend for the unusual controls to be part of the challenge -- to get in the way of what you want to do?

Is the same true of Defender? I don't know. Maybe the controls do pay dividends in the end. But people don't just play games to chase high scores, they play them for fun. My memory of the arcade game (it's been a long time) is that the unusual controls made the game less fun, not more fun.

I'm not good enough at Defender to know whether it is worth it for that particular game. But I do know that the idea that, for me, the arcade version of a game is some kind of Platonic ideal is less important than how much fun I have actually playing the game. So sometimes it's not really about "easier" vs. "better", but about "more fun" vs. "less fun".

I've spoken about this before but Defender is kind of a good example where the controls were truly meant for the game itself. However this doesn't become very obvious unless you get to the very difficult advanced stages of play.. e.g. free space, and are able to play it well.

It's easy to mock up an emulated Defender with a simplified control scheme (i.e. point the joystick in the direction you want to move), and I believe Mame does it by default. However it presents 2 problems on the original arcade game logic. 1) Fast and frequent 'reversals" won't work often and you're ship will get stuck and not move despite pushing the joystick left/right. 2) With 8-way joystick control, you lose the ability to move up or down slightly while thrusting forward (i.e. thrusting and just tapping up or down). You can only move straight left/right or diagonally down.

The first point could probably be fixed on any port of the game (or some code tweaking on the arcade version) but the 2nd point can't really be addressed. And with Defender when you get to something intense like FREE SPACE, with dozens of mutants swarming around you, you need pinpoint flight control that an 8-way just won't allow.

However like I said above the VCS version of Defender works wonderfully with joystick control. And I did love playing that thing a lot. But the arcade Defender is a whole different beast, and not many people get it today. But the controls are not only fun, but integral to the game. And note, people played Defender to chase high scores which is fun in and of itself.

[save2600]

I like Breakout and Super Breakout MUCH better on the 2600 than their arcade counterparts. No comparison really. 2600 has better graphics, sounds and gameplay IMO.

[Keatah]

I learned to play Defender with a standard 2600 joystick on the 400/800. I could play that game for hours straight. Or almost as long using just a standard keyboard. To me, the arcade controls were indecipherable and worst of anything I had ever tried.

[AtariLeaf]

Well as a kid with limited money to spend at arcades, I always disliked games that killed me in mere seconds because the controls were too complicated. Yes, I was 10 or 11 at the time but it pissed me off and I swore off Defender until the 2600 version came out and, although it looks like a dog turd, is much more fun to play. And for me, "fun" is the ultimate point of this argument. However I realize that "fun" means different things to different people but for me, playing the game and enjoying it trumps some vague notion of conquering complex control schemes.

Edited by AtariLeaf, Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:18 PM.

[chuckwalla]

Actually, I like most of the Galaxian ports more than the arcade game - the 2600, 5200, Atari 8-bit, ColecoVision - except the C64 version I played as a kid. I can't last more than a minute playing the arcade game.

Berzerk on the 2600 and Atari 8-bit are awesome. Again, I can't last more than a minute playing the arcade game.

Defender on the 2600 is good (scaled down a bit too much to compare directly to the arcade game but the 5200/Atari-bit is the best Defender ever made.

[PFL]

I prefer Galxaian on the 2600. Purely and simply due to investment of time. The Atari version feels like the 'proper' one to me. I also prefer the single base in Missile Command and I am choking to try the Trak Ball hack (it doesn't work in Stella. ). I found Breakout to be dull in the arcade whereas at home the game became a time sink.

[brojamfootball]

One more vote for Space Invaders and Berserk.

[BydoEmpire]

There are a lot of home versions of games I like better than the arcade originals. For the 2600:

Space Invaders (love the game variations, plays very similarly)
Berzerk (looks great and has a better difficulty ramp up for me)
Circus Atari (color graphics and plays great)

Quote

There's just zero chance the 2600 version matches the arcade. And if you think it does you might as well play Intellivision Space Armada because it's about the same as the arcade as the VCS version is and maybe it will be better for you

The question isn't "how accurate is the 2600 version compared to the arcade" it's "do you like it better than the arcade." To me that's part of the charm of the 8 bit arcade ports - each version had its own charm, it's own interpretation of the original.