Agent X

Yeah, that was one heck of a find in the wild for such a good price.

I also agree with rockman_x_2002, in that the 7800 version of the game is outstanding. The graphics and sounds are reproduced nicely, and they even added some gameplay enhancements over the arcade and NES versions.

Indiana Quack, on Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:35 PM, said:

I am in agreement with what Retro Rogue said above.

Although I don't think Game Informer's article was written with a deliberately malicious slant, it certainly comes off as though the writers really didn't care that much about Atari to even begin to take the time to properly research it. They are currently the highest circulating video game magazine in the US, and have somewhat of a reputation as an authority on the subject. If they did not witness the system launches first-hand, then they needed to speak with people who did and/or invest much more comprehensive research on the subject, instead of pretending and "playing the part" of being disappointed about the releases. If they weren't experienced with systems like the 5200 and 7800, then they would have been better off ignoring them in the article altogether.

8th lutz, on Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:49 PM, said:

The article (at least in the Web-based version that I'm viewing) admits "we're not 100 percent certain whether the legendary Super Mario Bros. was at the New York launch of the system". Personally, if you asked me on the spot, I would have said that it was available in the test market in late 1985 (as I was in the test market area), but maybe my memory is a little hazy.

Regardless of whether or not SMB was a "true" NES launch title, what's rather irritating is that when they run down the launch lineups, they give the NES great leeway by qualifying the extended list of "national launch" games for the NES...yet for the 7800 they rag on it for having a "paltry day-one selection of three titles". Their research is so thin and stilted that they forgot about the pack-in game!

They made a critical mistake here of not measuring all systems by the same yardstick. Perhaps the three games they named were the 7800's very limited 1984 test market lineup (minus the pack-in), but I don't know, and it doesn't matter. From what I recall of the "real" 7800 launch in 1986, there were 10 games available (as others have also mentioned above). If they granted the NES the luxury of rattling off a full slate of games for its "national launch", then they should have extended the same benefit to the 7800, and listed all 10 of its "national launch" games.

There were numerous other errors in the article as well. They only listed three games for the 5200, and I remember that having some other big games like Star Raiders and Pac-Man early on. Several other systems have had launch titles omitted, while others (3DO being a good example) had games listed as launch titles that didn't actually come out until a year or more later! All in all, it was a very poorly researched article.

Tempest, on Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:06 AM, said:

Raiden and Dino Dudes weren't launch games. They didn't come out until nearly a month later. Then again, I'm not sure if Game Informer's supposed to be using the "test market launch" or the "national launch" here.

After reading up on this situation, I'm thinking both sides might be handling this the wrong way.

The author of the game admits to originally requesting to develop an officially licensed Battlezone game, but since Atari didn't accept his offer, he went ahead and made a clone of the game anyway. While his intentions might have been good in making the game as a tribute to one of his favorite early arcade classics, he should have been aware of any consequences if the game bore a strong resemblance to Battlezone. I watched a video of the game, and it's instantly evident that he's attempting to replicate the "look" of classic Battlezone. For whatever reason, Atari wasn't interested in working with him, and he should have moved on in a different direction instead of continuing to poke at the sleeping bear.

On the other hand, you have Atari. While they haven't done anything legally or morally wrong in defending their properties, I have to say that it's just monumentally stupid that sending cease-and-desist letters is the extent of their involvement. It's not like Atari's got a better Battlezone cooking (at least not one that we know of). Most of their classic game sequels/remakes of the last few years haven't been so hot (to put it mildly), and they could really use another high quality game in their stable right about now. If Vector Tanks was a love letter to Battlezone, then Atari should have dressed up for a Saturday evening date.

As Retro Rogue said above, this could have been a great opportunity for both sides to shake hands, and perhaps rebrand this game (and/or the next iteration) as an official Battlezone game with Atari's blessing. It would have the crossover effect of allowing fans of Mr. Hirschberg's games to look forward to his continued work on the franchise, and for Atari to rebuild their reputation and reinforce feelings of goodwill among their own fanbase.

Atari doesn't do much (if any) internal development anymore. If anyone's going to release updated versions of classic games, then let it be done by developers who are capable of pouring love and devotion and talent into the project. As a longtime fan of Atari, I'd hate to see them go under again (perhaps for the final time) on a sour note, clinging to fading memories of a previous incarnation of the company from three decades ago.

With the rise of downloadable game services on PCs, video game consoles, smartphones, and tablets, Atari has the opportunity to meld past and future, and reinvent itself as a forward-thinking company that can revitalize beloved games in new and exciting ways. It's a shame that Atari doesn't see itself that way.

UberArcade, on Thu Nov 3, 2011 2:12 PM, said:

To be fair, though, during the period that the 5200 was actively marketed (1982-1984), most of its arcade conversions would have been considered "modern" at that time.