On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Piero Cavina wrote:
> At 22:09 -0800 2-03-1999, Glenn Saunders wrote:
>
> >In a lot of ways, the 2600 is like one of the pre-Warner analog Atari
> >arcade games with a CPU driving it. The style of the electronics, the use
> >of poly counters and delays and strobes and such all came from coin-op.
> >That's why it's so vastly different from a computer-style archetecture such
> >as the Bally Astrocade.
>
> Which Atari arcade games from the '70s have never been ported to the 2600?
> I think it's just Stunt Cycle. Hey, it would be a nice little project!
There are numerous Atari and Kee games (remember, Kee was a subsidary fo
Atari) that were never ported. Games like Pursuit, Domminos, and many
others that I can't recall at the moment. Stunt Cyle was ported. It looks
very similar to the Stand alone home game. As I recall, someone found two
copies along with a Dukes of Hazzard game which was like Stunt CYcle, but
different graphics (i.e., a pond as opposed to busses).
In any event, the Atari 2600 does have a different look and feel to the
game play than the other machines out at the same time. I still feel like
the gameplay on the Colecovision seems sluggish by comparison as did the
7800, SMS and NES. I am not sure if Glenn's prognosis is correct, but it
does point out to me one possibility as to why the 2600 had more
playability than the others (if you know what I mean). The Bally and the
Coleco seem to have more of a computer feel than a game machine. Not to
start any battles here, but I feel that the Playstation has captured much
of the same look and feel of a gamemachine, like the 2600 did.
Most of the other counsoles seem to be more (for lack of a better term)
"computerish" or a scaled down computer, which is what the Bally and
Coleco were.
The above is just my opinion of course,
Lee
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
