Is there even a single worthwhile game on the Atari 2600? Not something you play just to get some historical knowledge about games but something fun you would even nowadays buy the 2600 for.
I have barely seen any atari game related threads on this board since creation while the next generation of video games directly after the atari gets discussed daily on here.
>since it's creation
I wonder just how old you think this board is, since when this board first started there were a lot of Atari threads, just now they are impossible without people yelling that all games for the systems are shit so people don't bother, it's kinda like why you don't see many N64 threads any longer as well.
Your fellow trolls push thread topics like Atari and such off the board with 999 "LoZ is overrated" and "which FF do I play" crap.
The only reasons you derps come here are to regurgitate Youtube opinions and troll. You haven't been here since this board's creation. Go away, /v/ child. And if you're not from /v/, grow up.
RPGs and shoot em ups tend to be the best on really old systems because the genre isn't really something that immediately benefits from increased graphical capabilities. Since they're basically just "maths with fantasy text" and "maths with some bullets"
All great games. Your "something fun you would even nowadays buy the 2600 for" comment makes you sound like you're not really interested in retro games.
>you're not really interested in retro games
The motivation for posting this thread is kinda obvious, and no, it's not to find games to play.
Anyway, I'd add Kaboom, it loses something without the controller though
No one disagrees. /v/ is even worse than reddit.
But calling everything you dislike /v/ is /v/ behavior of the finest caliber.
There are boards on here of high quality on which people never disregard posts as bait or redirect to some shithole.
The VCS suffers from a number of handicaps in the court of public opinion. First, it's quite primitive even for a second generation system and it lacks the pedigree of something like Odyssey 2. Nolan Bushnell was no Ralph Baer but it's good that he wasn't.
The VCS had enormous commercial success to the point of ubiquity. Even by the third generation Sega challenged the reigning champion and never again did EVERYONE know that "We haven't played our pong much since we got our Atari but we're going to get a Nintendo soon" That success, combined with their wide open licensing caused their to be an insane amount of garbage games available in ridiculous quantities so most VCS lots you grab on Craigslist are 95% shit, and shit games on a primitive console are doubly bad.
Second gen video games don't have the ROM space to include things like story or instruction. Those things are in the manual and pretty much nobody ever reads manuals anymore so many of the best games confuse people who expect to just fire up a game and go, so they also get discounted pretty quickly if you're just going through a complete romset especially when you're pretty sick of all the shit games already.
But yes, obviously there are good games on the system. It wouldn't have been so successful if it wasn't right? There are even hidden gems but of course some genres were not technically feasible on the hardware so you have mostly arcade style games with some simple platformers and adventure games.
A lot of the best games are available in better versions at the arcade or on other consoles but you can't really fault the old warhorse for that and if you fully love a game it's usually worth it to play the VCS version.
I still play chopper command all the time. It's a great time waster. I mean, I don't know what you can possibly expect from a 2nd gen console. Most of the games are simple arcade style action games. Their high tech arcade counterparts are usually better too, but that doesn't make atari games any less fun.
Just face the facts: 95% of this board started playing games with the NES. They dont give a fuck about something older than that. I have tried to make some atari threads but they never get more than 10 replies without dying.
surprised that no one has mentioned pitfall 2. that game is probably the most impressive atari 2600 game I can think of. Had a looping soundtrack with multiple screens to explore that weren't just different colors over and over.
Secret Quest was a late release which also stands out in sophistication, with it's RPG type gameplay and password system. Created by Nolan Bushnell's Axlon too, appropriately enough for one of the last 2600 titles:
Problem with the 2600 is that a lot of its good games are arcade ports that have more advanced versions on other systems and a lot of the system's library is shit. There's still some good 2600 games worth checking out of course, but it's not the best system out there.
There are still tons of titles available new in shrinkwrap for cheap too. An NES cart NIB shrinked is something to fucking encapsulate in a plastic tomb like a comic book or baseball card and sell for $$$ sadly.
>I have barely seen any atari game related threads on this board since creation while the next generation of video games directly after the atari gets discussed daily on here.
Because most Atari gamers are in their late 30's / early 40's an /vr/ is mostly teenagers.
Which is funny, /v/ says 'reddit pls go' then circlejerks about their chink cartoons and how they hate every video game. it is impossible to find a comfy thread there because everybody is bickering over stupid bullshit.
/g/ is almost as bad, its saving grace is its based wiki and the desktop threads
It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy the 2600 if they didn't grow up with it. My first console was NES, I didn't actually play atari for the first time until I was maybe 24. I've always enjoyed early arcade games and shmups, so Atari is like a goddamn playground for the sort of games I enjoy. If you're looking for unique experiences in games, most of what it did was just arcade ports that were "good enough". But the style and feel of the console is wholly unique and almost umistakeable. Also, while it had a ton of awful games that aren't worth playing, it has just as many enjoyable and frantic games that kick your ass and dare you to try again. It's basically git gud: the console. If you wanna enjoy that game then you're gonna have to learn its subtle nuances and become deeply familiar with how it plays and behaves, maybe you'll get farther next time. You have to enjoy setting goals for yourself in the game, as it wasn't until later that clear goals and objectives that weren't score-based were able to actually fit on the damn cartridge.
Anyway, here's some games I like for it that I don't usually see mentioned
>worm war 1
>adventures of Tron
>star trek (I did not expect this to be so good, it's actually better than every star wars game on the 2600)
>wizard of wor
>Tron deadly discs
>river raid 2
Also seconding the anons who mentioned turmoil, hero, Solaris, secret quest and pretty much everything recommended ITT.
Adventure, on mode 3. Random placement of items keep this game fresh.
Yars Revenge. Challenging, keeps you on your toes.
Warlords. Multiplayer only, AI is le suck (who knew?!) Get 3 or four for a smashing good time.
Wizard of Wor, because dat intense music (so what if it's only 2 notes)
Frogger. Because, balanced difficulty.
Demon Attack. Fast paced, and those lasers!
This so goddamn much. Atari is a joy to collect for, most of the must-own titles are under 10 bucks. Most lesser known games are under 5. The ones that are expensive are usually that way because they're genuinely rare and hard to find. Plus the 2600 has an absolutely fascinating history behind it. There were games coming out for it more than a decade after the console launched, and it still has a pretty bumpin homebrew community.
/mu/ is easily the worst board on the entire website, and maybe even the worst fucking board on the entire internet.
It's all top 40 pop music and really bad rap music. They discuss the same ~50 albums every single day, most of the threads are copypasta, and it's full of SJWs.
I like working with 1st and 2nd gen consoles like fixing them, modding them, making demos, etc because they're relatively easy to work with. I don't think they have stunning libraries but some games are really nice like the Intellivison D&D games
>Youre taking it too seriously, it's just s4s with different memes and a music theme
Oh, well, when you put it that way, it sounds fucking horrible, not sure if I agree that it's worse than /v/, but you'd be better off starting a music thread on any other board on 4chan than trying to talk about it on /mu/.
I've got a beat-up Atari in the closet, I'm not even sure where I got it. I don't know if I'd rather try to get it to work or just drop some money in a retro shop for a "new" one. They're not too expensive even at brick and mortar price-gouging jew prices, I think.
I've got one in my collection and there are plenty of decent games. That being said, I emulate all of them. I've had to fix mine twice and don't really feel like doing it a 3rd time. Sit's boxed in my closet in a plastic bin with some silica gel packs. My older brother bought it when it was new. I've got a decent collection but don't really do a lot of collecting these days. I like to think I'm preserving it as I don't really need the money selling it would give me.
Sure if you like the games and want to preserve a piece of retro vidya hardware. I honestly think the retro market bubble will burst soon but will still rise after that. As an investment? Nah. All these games emulate fine. It really depends on what your motives are.
This is one of the most impressive sound achievements on 2600 hardware:
It's something how people are still pushing the hardware to do shit like this kind of music.
>that game was impressive
>that soundtrack was impresive as fuck
>man that game had revolutionary graphics
>that game is still fun as fuck
>check them out
>bleep bloop with abysmal shit graphics
All concepts on the atari were remade in the third generation into something actually good. Fourth generation had better graphics, better sound but the gameplay aspect was not blatantly superior. A lot of games actually failed to grasp the super tight but simple gameplay of the NES and as games got more complex the simple and more difficult games of the NES era showed their certain charm. Early, mid and late 3D era had all their unique charm and as technology advanced and development of games got longer and longer, the standards got bigger and quality could be categorized easier and easier as video games became its own science.
There are no Atari games worth playing. Atari games were developed extremely quickly. A couple of days for a game was no rarity. Those times were not for quality games on a homeconsole, it was the first attempt at the market. The video game crash was not for nothing. An extreme amount of shit games that devastated the industry.
>There are no Atari games worth playing
Bullshit. The titles enumerated above all stand up quite well in gameplay, which is all the more remarkable given the fact that the 2600 was originally designed in the 70's to play Pong type games with specs like 128 BYTES (fraction of 1k) RAM.
By analogy, you're like some Call of Duty kid looking at NES, SNES etc. and saying "hur, hur, what garbage compared to muh 3D photorealistik graphics...nothing worth a damn there".
Your analogy doesn't make any sense and doesn't have to do anything with my post.
I'm actually directly comparing Atari games with the concepts they offered with the ones that used the same ones in the third and fourth generation.
The question was if there are nowadays games that are worth playing on the Atari. The answer is no. The atari had nothing like Mario Bros 3, Castlevania, Contra, Mega Man or plenty of other games worth playing nowadays.
When was there ever a thread about a single individual atari game? Fucking never, because there is nothing that validates its own thread.
The Atari was just too early, the technology too bad. Even nowadays the VR game attempts till now were all just maybe fun for a few seconds but there was nothing of worth you need to play.
You said it yourself. A machine made to play Pong, with a lot of experiments beyond that but it was nothing more than fucking around with the hardware.
Not just that, the 2600 had (besides a good color palete) shit grahics. The 5200 didn't really improve as much as you would think, the 7800 had terrible sound and still looked almost like the 5200. And then came the Jaguar. Honestly the only thing Atari was really good in was computers and they should just have steer in that direction.
>I'm actually directly comparing Atari games with the concepts they offered with the ones that used the same ones in the third and fourth generation
The Neo Geo can wipe the floor with NES, SNES etc in hardware terms and thus implementing the type of gameplay you use as the basis for discounting the Atari, so does that imply that those systems should be discounted too? Pulstar blows away an 8 bit R-Type, for example.
>The Atari was just too early, the technology too bad
Yet, you claim that:
>Early, mid and late 3D era had all their unique charm
Early 3D often looks like complete shit, in no uncertain terms. There's a case to be made that 2600 blockyness had a clean abstract aesthetic preferable to the muddy, jagged mess of early 3D trash which you cover for.
The Atari remains the most important console of all time, in terms of successfully creating the cartridge based home market in a form which penetrated the market definitively versus early experiments like the RCA Studio 2. The 2600 was a model of raw simplicity which good programmers could tease miracles from (e.g. above titles) as recounted in techniques from the book about the era "Racing the Beam".
Neo Geo? Games in that generation offered enough value in gameplay, graphics and music that you could actually start to argue about game aspects.
Atari is so limited that you can take the worst of the third generation and lay it up against the best of atari and atari would still look like absolute garbage compared to it.
Early 3D brought games like Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Tekken 3 and countless other examples. The technology was early but far enough that you could produce something of worth. Atari has literally nothing of worth.
>Atari is so limited that you can take the worst of the third generation and lay it up against the best of atari and atari would still look like absolute garbage compared to it.
You got greedy
I kind of get what you're saying but respectfully disagree.
While it is true that Atari games were often rushed and video games were just a new concept that design was yet to be mastered by anyone, there were a handful of devs who actually cared to do quality work and had the right instincts to get it done right.
There is a tremendous amount of garbage on the 2600, but there are also a few gems, many of which have been listed in the thread. I gotta say I think writing off 100% of the library is very shortsighted. After all, if you throw enough shit at the wall something has to stick.
im in my late twenties so I wasnt around for any of that but I have played a lot of them and no not really...after about an hour i'm done. like really done with whatever game I played. that's an hour Max....
The lack of internet hype for Atari stuff is a blessing, as others have mentioned. 2600 stuff was in a bit more demand at the turn of the millennium, as kids who grew up with it had money to relive their childhood as adults in that period, but demand has cooled off nicely.
No baseball card collecting of Atari carts, no psychopath forums like Nintendoage to trade said "baseball carts" graded and slabbed on (just writing about that idiocy makes me LOL) while artificially inflating the prices of "graded" carts like the comic book tactic, which is a good thing.
>2600 stuff was in a bit more demand at the turn of the millennium, as kids who grew up with it had money to relive their childhood as adults in that period
Those people would have been in their mid-20s at the time. Like shit anyone that age has money unless they're an inheritance case.
>Well, someone 10 years old in 1980 would have been 30 in 2000 and a teenager from the early 80's would be well into their 30's by Y2K. So, they would have had bux to spend.
Not in this day and age. Baby boomers overwhelmingly control the wealth in this country while Gen Xers/Millenials are dirt-ass poor. Fuck boomers to fucking hell.
Why do you keep pretending this isn't a shitpost thread?
>I read this a lot
Where? And why didn't you accept it and move on, instead of making a bait thread for your teengiggles?
The eBay trade was a bit stronger than that in late 90's-2K era. People thought shit like Chase the Chuckwagon was super rare and overpayed. NES and SNES shit was pretty damn cheap then too, back in the days when internet meant Usenet and Geocities, compared to the fiasco it's turned into.
The way all old videogames should be. It's nice that some things never change, and maybe the comic speculation tactics used for the newer stuff will backfire and collapse the market and restore this balance to the newer generations.
It was a console wayyy before my time, some games for it I can enjoy and others just don't do anything for me at all. That being said, I fucking love Kaboom and can play it for hours.
The limited graphics are also part of the appeal for me. It takes a childlike sense of imagination to look at a fucking triangle while playing Asteroids and see a space ship.
I'd say the main reason it doesn't get discussed much is because there isn't much to discuss with those games.
Dunno why there seems to be a conspiracy against the 2600 on /vr/. Maybe people just hate fun? There's a river of shit on the Atari, sure, but people seem to absolutely despise quick-burst excitement.
also, if you hate fun, >>>/v/
also, the graphics are cool, at least on some games
I always loved just how much damn color the 2600 puts on screen at once, in stark contrast to everything else on the market for a few years.
There's a couple. Here's two I still routinely play that aren't just straight arcade ports.
One game I really fucking love on the 2600 is Battlezone, because it's practically a different game from the arcade. No cover, two enemy tanks on screen, lots of movement strategy to survive. Shit is balls-intense.
Another is Demon Attack -- pretty simple game that follows the Galaxian-type formula, but it's fast paced, has mildly decent visuals, and the enemy attack are cooool.
and even the arcade ports are just different enough from the arcade to make them worth playing on their own merits
I like 2600 Pole Position a lot more than actual Pole Position, for one.
Asteroids 2600 is a heavier, more dangerous game -- asteroids move in straighter paths (for hardware reasons, but it also means they don't deflect from their path), it's harder to dodge because you have less thrust, the UFOs are much more dangerous than arcade, and you better be in the middle of the screen at the end of the round, since the next wave begins immediately (this should have been changed, but it does make the game harder).
Sega lost its cred, so there's less appeal.
bit of a shame, since the Genesis library is excellent and deserves recognition
but it keeps prices down, so that's good
The Jag actually did have graphics that were better than the competition, it's just a combination of shit marketing and difficult hardware (so, no games) ensured it died.
the Atari that made the 5200 and 7800 was retarded though, like pants-on-head retarded
>people seem to absolutely despise quick-burst excitement
It's interesting that you brought that up, as I was thinking the same thing. The anti Atari posts use examples like Super Mario and Mega Man as games which make later gen systems worth playing, and 2600 worthless, but I disagree. Those games require some hours investment of time to get much out of, while the earlier arcade style gameplay of the 2600 can be picked up and played for minutes worth of entertainment which is great when you just don't have the time and want a quick burst of gaming.
Sure the NES gen etc. have their share of arcade style games, but those are not the titles the 2600 bashers use for examples. Gameplay in 2600 Space Invaders actually rivals the arcade machine and beats it when you count the 100+ variations available, and the games mentioned in this thread have timeless appeal which seems to go over the head of the nay sayers.
The "all Atari games are worthless" sentiment is like saying "watching silent movies from the 20s is pointless when there are so many other movies that came out later with sound, color, and more realized narrative tools." Yes, you're correct, but that doesn't stop people from enjoying the older stuff. There are people out there who actually enjoy the simplicity and often singular focus of Atari and other games of the generation, which is why you saw so many collection discs of colecovision and intellivision and Atari games in the last couple generations of games (also the slew of Atari flashback consoles). People do actually enjoy these games, even without the story elements or more complex gameplay that came along with the NES and later. Yes, the NES is technically capabale of far more, and the games are better for it. But that doesn't immediately discount Atari games as being garbage not worth playing because there are better things. You may not enjoy them but there are plenty out there who do, so quit thinking your taste in games is the objective standard.
Worthless by your standards. Your standards are not the standards by which all games should be judged. To you, Atari is not worth your time, but to say "nope it's objectively worthless" is self-cenetered. It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy Atari, and you obviously aren't one of them.
Also you've shot yourself in the foot by saying collecting is worthless, so at this point I'd say you're past just putting in your two cents and are in full-on baitmode
>Also you've shot yourself in the foot by saying collecting is worthless
It is. It's objectively completely worthless. Collectors are the biggest cancer on this board and you can take your bait up your ass and leave to /v/ where you belong.
Because you never just bought games because the price was good so you could add it to your collection,
I could spend all day lining up your disgusting and cancerous collecting habits.
it's cool if you have nothing to say but in that case you should stop replying, the 'bait cycle' will magically end
hey everybody, best paddle controller games?
Why would I buy a game I had no interest in playing? If I find an expensive game at a good price I might buy it with the intention of selling it, but other than that there's no reason for me to own a game I'm not interested in playing at least a little.
You seem to be talking about shelf collectors, who buy games just to own a complete collection or who only collect sealed games. I'd agree with you there, that's dumb as hell.
I bought mine for the joy of repairing it but I dislike arcade oriented games. I need a story line and character development to invest myself in. It's a guaranteed 1-2 hours of fun each sitting but I get bored of the games easily.
"Shelf collectors" are people who collect shelfs
If you collect games you're just a collector of games.
If you collect games to enjoy playing but they have to CIB because you totally need the authentic experience you're a collector of games, who happens to also be a LP baby
If you have some old vidya and enjoy playing it you're a wonderful human being
Pong, Space Invaders and Frogger. The simpler, the better.
The Atari 2600 has technology in it so primitive it can't handle a proper Pac-Man port.
The Coleco-Vision however, has by far the best graphics of the 2nd gen. I'd recommend going with that instead.
2600 Pac-Man was a bad game because Atari management refused to listen to the programmer's protests that he needed 8k ROMs. The company after the Warner sale was run by bean counters of the worst kind. Guys like Ray Kassar who didn't give a crap about video games and just viewed Atari as another entry on their resume.
I wouldn't buy any system for 3 games but these are three I think are worth playing. There are a number of other good titles but most are score attack games which are hit-or-miss by taste. I wouldn't immediately suggest such things.
Not to mention Dragonstomper, one of the first console RPGs (and pretty fun in its own right).
Incidentally, do Atari flashcarts play Supercharger games? I'd like to play them when not at a convention (which is where I played Dragonstomper) but I don't want to buy the rather expensive add-on.
In this interview, Kassar pretty much admits he didn't want the job at first and he was completely in the dark about video games, but that Atari was run by a bunch of hippie California neckbeards who didn't know anything about business management and worse were massive drugbags that came into work stoned.
Also that he was from New York and had a difficult time adjusting to the laid-back hippy-dippy California culture. "That was ok, someone had to be the adult in the room. They were just a bunch of kids playing video games."
They didn't just come into work stoned, they got high at work on a daily basis and basically just did what they want. But goddamn it made for some awesome vidya games. Had Atari been allowed to run the way it was when it was starting, it's likely the company would have lasted a while longer than it did. Pac-man soured consumers because they decided to release a fucking prototype and call it good enough. ET was the nail in the coffin, had they given the game more time it may have been one of the best on the console at the time. Both of these decisions (as well as the decision to let the 7800 sit in a warehouse until long after the NES had come out) were corporate blunders that were out of the hands of all the actual engineers at Atari.
I made a recommendation pic for the VCS/2600, but it was a bit shit and I lost it.
Most of the good games for it were made by Activision, and their 2600 library has been re-released several times over the years.
My favorite port of Ms.Pac Man is the 2600 one, even if it has the worst graphics. Maybe it's the maze layout.
All of the tech upstarts in 70s California were like that - run by overly-enthusiastic hippie kids who had no idea of running a company. The reason Apple hired Mike Markkula and John Scully early on - they needed some seasoned business execs to guide the ship. Steve Wozniak had no interest in the business side of things and Jobs was too immature yet.
Empire Strikes Back
Revenge of the Beefsteak Tomatoes
>buy the 2600 for.
Well, no. But there are still games worth playing on it. Playing, not paying.
I'm quite fond of Bezerk, Frankenstein and Space Invaders, which is quite different from the arcade game.
If anyone is trying to repair an atari, I recently obtained complete schematics and field service manuals for the 2600 and 5200 and made higher quality scans than are publicly available.
I can upload on request. For now, here's a 2600 schematic. 2600A schematic (four switcher) to follow.
I have .tif images, but 4chan doesn't like those.
2600A - revisions 14-15.
r16 next, and then an interesting service bulletin on improving color saturation.
the color saturation tip.
I have all the atari documents that didn't get ordered destroyed to make room for revised pages. Yes, Atari did that.
>The Jag actually did have graphics that were better than the competition, it's just a combination of shit marketing and difficult hardware (so, no games) ensured it died.
the Atari that made the 5200 and 7800 was retarded though, like pants-on-head retarded
Debatable, from what I've seen 3DO easly outclassed it. Even if the Jag had proper developer support it would probably not come anywhere near the (bit) more smoother games of the other systems.
Honestly, I think this is a pretty good way to look at it. It seems like people in this thread are desperately trying to defend the 2600, acting like the games are amazingly fun, which simply is not the case. If a game is a burst of fun for 20 minutes at the most and nothing more, it just isn't that good. If a port of an arcade game is "playable," but every other port of that same game on other consoles is better, that doesn't really mean its good. The 2600 is a novelty to emulate, just to see where gaming has come from, but unless you're just a passionate collector, spending money on one of these is a joke.
>a burst of fun for 20 minutes at the most
>it just isn't that good
>If a port of an arcade game is "playable," but every other port of that same game on other consoles is better, that doesn't really mean its good
You just described the majority of the NES library
>spending money on one of these is a joke
Why spend money on any retro game then?
Why BOTHER playing any retro game then?
Go back to your FF thread you fucking ADD millennial
Because you can spend money on a retro system that has way better replay value? If not the NES, which you clearly don't like, than one that you prefer?
Man this board has been pretty much the only reason I still go to this website and even it is just filled with a bunch of fucking assholes now. You can't even calmly state your opinion without people explicitly insulting you. Whatever I'm done with this shit.
>Second gen video games don't have the ROM space to include things like story or instruction. Those things are in the manual and pretty much nobody ever reads manuals anymore so many of the best games confuse people who expect to just fire up a game and go, so they also get discounted pretty quickly if you're just going through a complete romset especially when you're pretty sick of all the shit games already.
I like the 2600, but this is the biggest issue. You really do need to read the manual for many games, even if it's just to figure out what game modes and difficulty settings it has.
I think ET has its bad reputation because it's incomprehensible without the manual.
>tfw you screw up your post twice
There's actually two versions of defender for the 2600. There's "Defender" which is kinda simple and there's not much to it and there's Stargate(might also be called "Defender II") which is designed to be closer to the arcade version of Defender
>better replay value
That's personal subjective opinion. I've gotten far more replay value from the likes of Kaboom, Dolphin, Beamrider, Frostbite etc because of the fast, frantic and shorter game time than say: Super Metroid or Sonic 3. But that's just my personal preference.
>If not the NES, which you clearly don't like
I never stated that I did not like the NES, I just pointed out the flaw in your "20 minute, nothing more" logic, which is comparable to a whole heap of NES titles that rely on the same arcade based gameplay and playtime.
Apart from the few "big" NES IPs and later releases, most games are relatively short high score busting affairs that share the basic arcade principles of the VCS just with prettier graphics. You know that there's people that can see through particular graphical limitations in games and appreciate them for the gameplay right? I love me some Bump n Jump, Marble Madness, Pacman and Paperboy on the NES. I could emulate the arcade versions but the NES suffices and is very good for those near-perfect arcade titles.
>Whatever I'm done with this shit
Good, maybe you'll learn not to speak for the majority and think that your opinion is lore
when you're really just a little faggot who should stick to his n64 threads
I have a pretty small collection of 2600 games from the old days but they are all fun and playable
No. Whether a game is fun or has "staying power" is entirely subjective. Games like Pong may be basic but they can still be fun. Many old games that involve 2 or more players will always be fun because it's a way to compete against each other.
It is true. There are a few oldfags here but most are younglings. Fortunately most of them act maturely and you only really notice the age thing when a few of them start shitposting. And those are usually just faggots who got laughed off another board and are just looking for someplace to act out.
I hear this all the time but I just don't see it. Me and everyone my age I know seem to be fine. Then I read shit like the average net worth a gen xer is something like $40k. If you're 40 and not even worth what a 20 something could make in a year then yeah, you're fucked.
I play its version of Battlezone a lot, but only because I'm too lazy to get the original running in MAME.
>no one mentioned the system's porn games
Not shown are the 5 times I jumped onto the ledge at the wrong time and got knocked into crocodile-infested waters by the prince.
Holy shit there is so much objectively wrong info being spurted out in this thread.
First of all, the whole
>atari games need manuals to be played right
While there are games where this is an issue, and its one you'll come across a few times, its nowhere near as big of an issue as /vr/ makes it out to be. There's maybe like 3 out of my 80+ carts that I couldn't figure out on my own.
most of this post is bullshit. especially this part
> Atari games were developed extremely quickly. A couple of days for a game was no rarity.
Atari games were one man projects with deadlines of 6 months at Atari, or two man projects with 4 month deadlines at Activision. Thats not to say programmers occasionally finished early, but the claim that they took "days" is objectively bullshit.
>When was there ever a thread about a single individual atari game? Fucking never
Solaris has had its own thread several times.
>Those people would have been in their mid-20s at the time.
you need better math skills son. as >>2758448 pointed out, people old enough to play the 2600 as kids would have been in their 30's. But thats irrelevant, because the 2600 was expensive as shit when it was released, Atari brand games would cost between $100-250 adjusting for inflation. A lot more of the people who owned a VCS were already in their late teens, early 20's.
Baby boomers are irrelevant here, because we're talking about the pre-9/11 clinton-era economy, not obama-shithole 2015.
Atari's downfall wasn't releasing a few bad games. It was a culmination of one poor marketing decision after another made by Warner. Kassar actually did a pretty good job of running things, there were times like Pac-Man's ROM fiasco. But its debatable how much of that was Kassar's decision, and how much was Warners decision. Atari had the same problem Sega of America did, in that there was a parent/sister company constantly screwing them over.
Atari isn't for everyone, and to claim that a 2600 game can hold your attention as long as later gen titles is a bit of a stretch. Personally, I think its a great party console. lots of multiplayer games that are easy to understand and long enough for the two (four) of you to get some fun together without making an serious time investment. As to collecting, I really like buying for it, but only because its so cheap and I've got no idea what I'm purchasing most of the time unlike the NES.
Gen Xers are the real cancer of our society. But because they control the media, they push their problems onto Baby Boomers and Millennials.
I could play.
donkey kong for props
defender for nestolgia
chopper command maybe
kangaroo for nestalgia
joust for nestagia
superman looks like it might be cool
et for nestagoia
ice hokey looks cool
skieing looks cool\
fishing derby might be cool
raiders of the lost arc for nestalgia
sword quest because serious buissnes
haunted house cause I like it and I remember it
an actual atari is going for 50$ on amazon. And that's for shit missing cords, our not tested. Our I would already have an atari.
This is one thing I'll agree with /pol/ on: The baby boomers are the worst generation in U.S. (and possibly world) history.
You know how WWII vets are often called "the greatest generation"? Well, it's pottery that the greatest generation would immediately be followed by the worst generation.
>an actual atari is going for 50$ on amazon. And that's for shit missing cords, our [sic] not tested
>buying vidya on amazon
>expecting anything other than maximum jew untested shit
Amazon is really only good for buying things from china, and even then aliexpress is starting to cut in on that.
Check your local craigslist or ebay, 2600's are like $20-30. Even my local game store has a few for $40 with two controllers and a set of paddles.
Gen Xers never really had a chance because of being crushed between two big generations. It was always fated that boomers would hand the keys to the store to Millenials and they'd get squat.
English is not your first language right?
Anyway, this is one of my favourite titles, it may not be for everyone but it incorporates sound into the gameplay as sonar for navigating through the reefs
Oh yeah, 3DO totally outclassed it. 3DO's almost competitive with the PS1 and Saturn, damn impressive for '93 era hardware.
but the 3DO was also over twice as expensive as the Jag
The Jag would have needed a successor by 96 or 97 if it was successful, but it could have made a bit of a splash with proper support. That shit wasn't happening with Atari of the time.
someone else recognizes how bad /g/ is
I dunno why I go there still. It's awful.
I've gotten some decent deals on Amazon, but it's never going to be your first search when looking for things.
like, I got Keio Yuugekitai for the Saturn in excellent condition for $35 on Amazon a while back (and I bought a couple other games because lol japan shipping)
and now I see it going for like $90 everywhere, fuck everything
it's a pretty different game and I love it for this
great visuals too
also, I need to get better at side dodging like that
fuck those Y shitters so much
>Baby boomers are irrelevant here, because we're talking about the pre-9/11 clinton-era economy, not obama-shithole 2015
They controlled the wealth even more overwhelmingly back then as they were still in prime working age and not retirement age.
>You know how WWII vets are often called "the greatest generation"?
They weren't perfect and did some dumb things as well, especially in the fact that they tended to believe anything the government and corporations told them without question.
The only video game my father ever played was Boxing. This was the late 1980s and we'd keep score of rounds on paper.
he's now dying of cancer
Basically if the controller uses the same pin for the common ground and the buttons are wired to similar pins it will work with an atari to some extent. The buttons might not behave as expected though.
Honestly this is the best analogy. Many people enjoy the presentation and character of silent films even if they weren't around when they were still being made, it's the same story for 2600. It does take a special kind of person though, which is not going to be the majority of people.
>Wat? If you were 7 years old in 1981, you'd have >>2758448
been 26 in 2000.
I was thinking more along the lines of like 8-14 in 1978.
>They controlled the wealth even more overwhelmingly back then as they were still in prime working age and not retirement age.
Thats nice, but they're still irrelevant here. Baby boomers were not the ones buying 2600 stuff. But even if they were, it would still be irrelevant. In the late 90's/early 2000's, we were at a high point. The dollar was worth more, and the average person had more buying power. as >>2758448
>So, they would have had bux to spend.
but even that is irrelevant, since all of this arguing was over >>2758453 use of the phrase
>Not in this day and age
which is an issue because we're not talking about "this day and age", we're talking about 15+ years ago.
Polite sage since this is bordering on /biz/.
ok, look. We were talking about how the price of 2600 games went up around 2000 due to faggots buying back nostalgia, compared with how the retro vidya market is now. We are not talking about how things with atari are going on right now. we are not talking about atari things in 1978. we were talking about 1997-2003 or so. The people buying this shit (old atari games and systems) around that time (early 2000's) was mostly early gen Xers (people born in the late 60's and early 70's, who would have teenagers or young adults in the 80's and 90's).
And people don't go to see plays or art galleries or orchestras anymore right?
Correct, beyond cultural/historical importance and significance, the average pleb looks at older things as redundant when they have prettier and newer things to capture their imagination.
There are people who don't read books, who have never heard live musicians in a proper venue, who would balk at the idea of spending a few hours in a museum.
"Our invention can be exploited for a certain time as a scientific curiosity, but apart from that, it has no commercial future whatsoever."
- Auguste Lumière
You know, when another Anon alluded to some informal "conspiracy" against discussing the 2600, at first I thought they were being melodramatic. But now, I'm pretty sure there's at least one fuckface that's hellbent on shitting up this thread until all the legit posters walk away in disgust and let it die.
O, I've never found anything worthwhile on the Atari 2600, but keep in mind I'm completely nonplussed when it comes to arcade-style gameplay (the 2600's forte, if I remember correctly). A lot of whether you enjoy it prolly hinges on that.
Google it bro, and don't perpetuate the offtopic bullshit.
Pic related, it's Pitfall 2
>The people buying this shit (old atari games and systems) around that time (early 2000's) was mostly early gen Xers (people born in the late 60's and early 70's, who would have teenagers or young adults in the 80's and 90's)
I believe one of the important distinctions between Gen Xers and Millenials is that the latter could not remember the Atari era firsthand (being that the earliest Millenials would have just been in diapers at the time and most not even born yet). The NES era would be the earliest.
gen X: early 1960s to the early 1980s
Millenials: early 1980s to the early 2000s
As is typical of the forgotten middle child, no one apparently remembers the Gen Y people who were born during the transition and don't really belong to either. The whole thing is basically a moniker that comes around every 10 years so people can bitch about the latest batch of people reaching adulthood and doing stupid shit. In the 90's, it was Generation X, becoming adults and ruining everything. In 2000, it was Generation Y, becoming adults and ruining everything. In 2010, it was Millenials, becoming adults and ruining everything. I'm sure in a few years someone is going to coin an equally condescending moniker for the newest batch of people reaching adult hood.
The point being? Nobody claims it was first in anything, but rather that it was an impressive achievement in implementing a style of gameplay from the NES era on the old 2600, at the end of the console's life.
>As is typical of the forgotten middle child, no one apparently remembers the Gen Y people who were born during the transition and don't really belong to either
Same deal that nobody remembers people born in the late 50s-early 60s in that hazy borderline between boomers and Gen X.
I think the point is that its somewhat of an indictment against the conceptual limitations people worked with on the Atari VCS, in the same vein of bunches of games using a damn black background.
Holy cow, Vectrex is out of age.
I can understand "Atari is shit", "INTV is shit", but Vectrex?
How young are you?
I adore them, to be honest
Yars Revenge is probably the best, but it doesn't stand up to even mediocre NES games. Atari 2600 is like the ZX Spectrum, something popular in its day but not worth playing now because the technology was too primitive. Other systems took all their good ideas and did them better.
This man gets it. I don't even understand how someone could dislike Beamrider.
/mu/, /g/, and /b/ are worse. /tv/ and /a/ are close. And besides, bringing it up in every thread as a boogeyman is only going to make this board more like it, so I don't see the point of your argument.
Just want to show my love for the Atari. I don't get all the haters, why do you have to shit on the console instead of just playing your favorite? I'm 22 and the VCS is easilly my favorite console.
Also Imagic made the best games
I loved this game as a kid. I only got to play the arcade version and only when my grandma had the quarters to give me. Then one day it was gone. It wasn't until the internet came around that I could research and remember what the name .