2nd generation console discussion(Intellivision, Colecovision, 2600, Odyssey 2)

[axel]

To me console generation refers to "what did it compete against during its lifespan?" and not the hardware itself. The Wii was competing against the PS3 and 360 even if it was closer to an XBox technologically.

[Black_Tiger]

To me console generation refers to "what did it compete against during its lifespan?" and not the hardware itself. The Wii was competing against the PS3 and 360 even if it was closer to an XBox technologically.

This is how I look at many generations, but it opens up interpretation to the definition of "competing". Some consoles like Neo Geo were never meant to compete commercially. The performance of some consoles from an earlier generation compare favourably to the following generation.

The Famicom was meant to compete against plug 'n plays, the Genesis was meant to compete with the NES and the SNES was Nintendo's console for half of the 32-bit generation.

Consoles like the Intellivision, PC Engine and Neo Geo were supported for over a decade, spanning several generations.

[gamevet]

Honestly, I don't see why the likes of the Vextrex, Colecovision or 5200 get lumped into the 2nd generation, when they really were the next level of console gaming before the crash. They were far superior to the Intellevision, which came out 3 years before them.

Just look at these 2 lists. The Japanes Sega SG-1000 gets put in the 3rd Gen, even though it's pretty much the same hardware as the Colecovision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second..._game_consoles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_..._game_consoles

[Yharnamresident]

Honestly, I don't see why the likes of the Vextrex, Colecovision or 5200 get lumped into the 2nd generation, when they really were the next level of console gaming before the crash. They were far superior to the Intellevision, which came out 3 years before them.

Just look at these 2 lists. The Japanes Sega SG-1000 gets put in the 3rd Gen, even though it's pretty much the same hardware as the Colecovision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second..._game_consoles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_..._game_consoles

Yes, I haven't researched the Vextrex, but the Colecovision and 5200 aren't true 2nd generation consoles. They're only a bit below the NES in hardware.

Its only because they were released before the game crash that they get classified as 2nd gen.


I still haven't determined my favourite true 2nd generation console. I gotta try the Bally Astrocade.

[goldenband]

Honestly, I don't see why the likes of the Vextrex, Colecovision or 5200 get lumped into the 2nd generation, when they really were the next level of console gaming before the crash. They were far superior to the Intellevision, which came out 3 years before them.

I think that analysis is too simplistic, especially Intellivision vs. ColecoVision, since the CV is clearly inferior to the Intellivision in several aspects (sound chip, no hardware scrolling, no hardware collision detection). Admittedly, the CV has higher-res graphics, more RAM, and a faster processor, but overall I'd say they're at least comparable.

Vectrex vs. Intellivision, or Vectrex vs. anything, is inevitably going to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. The 6809 is a fantastic processor, though.

Atari 5200 vs. Intellivision is the closest to a clear win, since the 5200 is basically an Atari 8-bit and was the most powerful console hardware of that generation. I don't know of anything the Intellivision can do that the 5200 can't. Crazy how much RAM it had -- 16K is a lot for a console of that era.

[axel]

I think that analysis is too simplistic, especially Intellivision vs. ColecoVision, since the CV is clearly inferior to the Intellivision in several aspects (sound chip, no hardware scrolling, no hardware collision detection). Admittedly, the CV has higher-res graphics, more RAM, and a faster processor, but overall I'd say they're at least comparable.

Vectrex vs. Intellivision, or Vectrex vs. anything, is inevitably going to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. The 6809 is a fantastic processor, though.

Atari 5200 vs. Intellivision is the closest to a clear win, since the 5200 is basically an Atari 8-bit and was the most powerful console hardware of that generation. I don't know of anything the Intellivision can do that the 5200 can't. Crazy how much RAM it had -- 16K is a lot for a console of that era.

I don't get the 5200, some of the games look pretty good and others are like barely upgraded ports of 2600 titles. Was it just that hard to program? Also did any game from back then even use 16K of RAM?

[j_factor]

To me console generation refers to "what did it compete against during its lifespan?" and not the hardware itself. The Wii was competing against the PS3 and 360 even if it was closer to an XBox technologically.

The Wii wasn't very powerful, but it was still new hardware in 2006. Its constituent parts aren't literally from 2001, they're contemporary to 2006, just on the low end. That may sound like splitting hairs but that's where I'd draw the line, rather than what it "competed" against because I think that's a bit nebulous. WRT the 3rd generation, while we obviously didn't have a globalized consumer market in 1982-1983, at the chip level the same stuff was available in North America and Japan. The engineers who worked on the Atari 5200, Famicom, Colecovision, and SG-1000 all had roughly the same mix of available parts to choose from, some parts being exactly the same in the latter two. That to me means they're the same "hardware generation" in a sort of literal sense.

[gamevet]

I think that analysis is too simplistic, especially Intellivision vs. ColecoVision, since the CV is clearly inferior to the Intellivision in several aspects (sound chip, no hardware scrolling, no hardware collision detection). Admittedly, the CV has higher-res graphics, more RAM, and a faster processor, but overall I'd say they're at least comparable.

Vectrex vs. Intellivision, or Vectrex vs. anything, is inevitably going to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. The 6809 is a fantastic processor, though.

Atari 5200 vs. Intellivision is the closest to a clear win, since the 5200 is basically an Atari 8-bit and was the most powerful console hardware of that generation. I don't know of anything the Intellivision can do that the 5200 can't. Crazy how much RAM it had -- 16K is a lot for a console of that era.

The Intellevision isn't comparable to the ColecoVision at all. Just play the arcade conversions from Atari, and the Intellevision versions are choppy and look like slightly better versions of the VCS game. The sound certainly isn't better either. Even the 2600 could do voice samples with the right amount of cart space.


Now, look at these 3 versions of Centipede from Atari for the Intellevision, ColecoVision and 5200. The 5200 nails the sound (the arcade game is using simular sound hardware), but, I'd say that the CV version actually improves the graphics. Intellevision version? Pfff! Tthere isn't a single arcade game from the time that looked or played better on the Intellevison. It just looked way outclassed by the 5200 and CV.

[gamevet]

I don't get the 5200, some of the games look pretty good and others are like barely upgraded ports of 2600 titles. Was it just that hard to program? Also did any game from back then even use 16K of RAM?

The C64 (1982) had games that could take up 32K, while the Atari 800XL had 48K of usable memory for gaming. A lot of those games were ported to the 5200, Colecovision and NES.

[goldenband]

The Intellevision isn't comparable to the ColecoVision at all. Just play the arcade conversions from Atari, and the Intellevision versions are choppy and look like slightly better versions of the VCS game. The sound certainly isn't better either.

The Intellivision (that's how it's spelled, BTW) has an empirically better sound chip than the ColecoVision for a very simple reason: it has actual bass frequencies and the CV doesn't (without arcane tricks, anyway). That tinny, shitty Master System PSG sound is a serious black mark against the CV, SG-1000, and SMS, and it's all because of that damned SN76489.

[Black_Tiger]

The Intellevision isn't comparable to the ColecoVision at all. Just play the arcade conversions from Atari, and the Intellevision versions are choppy and look like slightly better versions of the VCS game. The sound certainly isn't better either. Even the 2600 could do voice samples with the right amount of cart space.


Now, look at these 3 versions of Centipede from Atari for the Intellevision, ColecoVision and 5200. The 5200 nails the sound (the arcade game is using simular sound hardware), but, I'd say that the CV version actually improves the graphics. Intellevision version? Pfff! Tthere isn't a single arcade game from the time that looked or played better on the Intellevison. It just looked way outclassed by the 5200 and CV.

I'm surprised that it still needs to be pointed out that bad games prove nothing and the most impressive games for a platform only prove a quantified minimum of potential. Arcade conversions aren't a good metric and only show your ignorance of the Intellivision's history. There are multiple reasons why the Intellivision didn't receive more arcade ports and it's already been explained in this thread why some Intellivision games perform differently from others. Why didn't the 5200 and Colecovision receive a variety of quality original software and genres?

The general consensus of Burgertime fans is that the Intellivision port is the best version of the game, playing better than even the arcade. The Colecovision can't even run Pac Man without flicker and games like Tropic Trouble, Dracula, Stadium Mud Buggies, etc would be impossible to do on Colecovision, both for the scrolling and 16-way gameplay.

I can't even post accurate videos of Intellivision games as most online suffer from random framerates and most are in practice mode. Here are a few examples from bitd:











There's a reason that the massive amount of impressive Intellivision homebrew doesn't rely on new hardware while so much Colecovision homebrew requires the SGM.

[gamevet]

It's funny that you mentioned Burger Time, because I was about to point out that the music cuts out during sound effects and the burgers are green. I'll give the nod to the better pacing of the music, which is a plus for the Intellivision, but the rest is way behind. Neither game is on the same level as the arcade game though.








And as far as scrolling goes, the ColecoVision handles it just fine.








Yeah, let's put the blame on Activision for River Raid not scrolling as smooth on the Intellivision.

[j_factor]

Why didn't the 5200 and Colecovision receive a variety of quality original software and genres?

There's a few reasons for that. Coleco was really focused on arcade ports because they felt that was the best angle to get people to upgrade from the 2600. In late 1982 and 1983, more people were buying Colecovisions than 5200s or Intellivisions, so I think their approach was at least somewhat vindicated. Activision and Imagic, the two biggest console third parties at the time, never gave the Colecovision their focus as the 2600 remained their bread and butter. And of course, both systems were cut very short. But still, there are some interesting things there, including some shooters, one of the world's first side-scrolling platformers, a good early strategy game, etc. The 5200 received even less support but it did shine with some games it had in common with Atari 800/XL. The first two Lucasfilm Games releases were both developed for the Atari 8-bit computer and 5200 in tandem.

The general consensus of Burgertime fans is that the Intellivision port is the best version of the game, playing better than even the arcade. The Colecovision can't even run Pac Man without flicker and games like Tropic Trouble, Dracula, Stadium Mud Buggies, etc would be impossible to do on Colecovision, both for the scrolling and 16-way gameplay.

It's not really that crazy for a "last-gen" console to have some advantage over newer systems. When consoles are designed, decisions have to be made and prioritized. No console could match the Intellivision's 16-way d-pad until analog pads came out in 1996. Also in 1996, the first console to match the Atari 5200's four controller ports. The Dreamcast, PS2, and Gamecube all required the purchase of a memory card to save any games despite the last-gen Saturn's built in save memory. The PS4 doesn't even play audio CDs. Neo Geo games didn't translate perfectly to the Playstation or Saturn. The SNES's form of pseudo-transparency is difficult to match on Saturn or N64. Hell, how about the N64 using cartridges a generation after PC Engine CD, Sega CD, and CDi. There are PC Engine CD games that would be impossible on N64.

There's a reason that the massive amount of impressive Intellivision homebrew doesn't rely on new hardware while so much Colecovision homebrew requires the SGM.

Pretty much everything remotely impressive on the NES requires a mapper chip. A strict "no additional hardware counts" stance puts the Colecovision and NES closer together if anything.

[gamevet]

Yeah. There were a lot of 8-bit computer games ported to the 5200, ColecoVision and NES. I remember playing Miner 2049’er on my friends ColecoVision, and it was nearly identical to my C64 version. The NES cart for Donkey Kong was only 32k, so like the CV version of the game, the cement factory was left out.

The 2600 was a console with a lot of maze games and stuff like Hang man. It was not selling well until Atari licensed Space Invaders for the VCS and during the holiday season of 1979, Atari was selling millions of units. Meanwhile, the Intellivision got a very boring Space Armada to try to lure in Space Invaders fans. The golden age of arcades was from 1979-1984. It was the most popular style of games at the time.

[j_factor]

The original MSX line is very similar in capabilities to the Colecovision, including the lack of smooth hardware scrolling. It was pretty well-supported in the mid-80s, especially in Japan. Looking at later MSX1 games is a good guide to what the Colecovision could have shown if it had lasted longer.

Ballblazer, incidentally, was ported to both the MSX and Famicom in Japan. Both versions look roughly equivalent to each other and the Atari and C64 versions.


MSX at 3:41 and Famicom at 6:55. It's hard to imagine a successful port of this game to the Intellivision.

The Intellivision technically lasted to the end of the decade, but it has hardly any computer ports. Colecovision and Atari 5200 were cut short in early 1984 but they were fairly equivalent to the platforms that lasted and really held their own compared to the NES. Looking at the Intellivision games that came out circa 1987, I certainly would not say that the Intellivision held its own. The best of that bunch is probably Diner, the unofficial Burgertime sequel.



It's fun and a good addition to the Intellivision library, but the attempted isometric graphics really aren't in the same league as other isometric games that were coming out at the time. It looks clearly worse than the 3-4 year old Colecovision port of Congo Bongo. Intellivision continued to offer things that looked a bit better than what was on the Atari 2600, and that's it.