Atari Flashback 3

16KVIC20 · Post by **16KVIC20** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:51 am

Thanks for the link RobertBe. I also took a look on YouTube.

Surely the C64 could not only copy that, but have an even better version. I'd have thought even the Lil old Vic could pull off a decent version of that with either a Cartridge or 16K or so of RAM.

buzbard · Post by **buzbard** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:49 am

16KVIC20 wrote:For instance, Battle Zone on the 2600 is a pretty decent looking game, but the VIC 20 version is dire. Why are they so different?

The original Battlezone arcade game uses a vector screen to draw the game field, the Atari and Commodore home systems were designed to use your home television which is raster.

The Commodore versions of Battlezone attempted to mimic the original vector graphics probably because they had a higher resolution graphics display an more RAM. The 2600 does not mimic vector graphics very well, even Asteroids on the 2600 was done with colored blobs.

There are a few hacks of Asteroids that try to mimic the original vector graphics but the 2600 just doesn't have the graphics power to pull it off. It's just the same old colored blobs that have been hollowed out.

Post by **Jeff-20** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:36 pm

16KVIC20 wrote:There are many anomalies though, which maybe I don't understand because I'm not a programmer.

For instance, Battle Zone on the 2600 is a pretty decent looking game, but the VIC 20 version is dire. Why are they so different?

I think that case was more about ambition than programming skills. VIC programmers must have felt the VIC was capable of imitating the arcade, and the final product is attempting to be faithful to the original.

Atari programmers knew the 2600 couldn't do anything close to the arcade, so the final product just attempts to capture the spirit of the original game. I think the 2600 way was the best way to go. The Atari had nothing to prove at this point and could just focus on fun.

I really enjoy Battlezone, and I would also recommend Activision's Robot Tank. It's not "better" but a fun variation on the same theme.

missinglenk · Post by **missinglenk** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:55 pm

I bought an Atari Flashback 3 from Salvation Army here for $20. It was in the box almost new. Not a bad deal because the 2 joystick controllers could be used with my VIC-20, Atari computers, and the C-64 and 128 machines (oh, and my real Atari 2600).

Pedro Lambrini · Post by **Pedro Lambrini** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:58 pm

missinglenk wrote:I bought an Atari Flashback 3 from Salvation Army here for $20. It was in the box almost new. Not a bad deal because the 2 joystick controllers could be used with my VIC-20, Atari computers, and the C-64 and 128 machines (oh, and my real Atari 2600).

Are the controllers any good? I've been tempted to pick one up cheap just for the sticks but I'm a little concerned that they're just rubbish.

rhurst · Post by **rhurst** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:00 pm

Jeff-20 wrote:I think that case was more about ambition than programming skills. VIC programmers must have felt the VIC was capable of imitating the arcade, and the final product is attempting to be faithful to the original.

IF ambition = time-to-market THEN yes.

As an original VIC owner, I never had delusions that this home computer could imitate an arcade game. I did have Atari VCS color envy over VIC's 8-color palette, however. I relished back that VCS consumed more CPU processing in order to drive its display than VIC, thus its blockier pixels (was that because of memory interleaving between CPU and VIC making that possible, or am I misremembering?) Anyway, VCS produced mostly flicker-free games, which was outstanding to me because I had never run across a flicker-free video game for VIC (back at the time). I would learn later about hardware sprites and raster interrupts on C64 and piss my pants.

VCS game play was so simple, but that was kind of the point. No 30-second LOAD from tape, cartridges were plenty and cheaper, and the artwork design was epic. But we had Scott Adams text games.

Post by **Jeff-20** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:24 pm

rhurst,
I agree! There's a whole game aesthetic lost to the medium now. Atari games were meant to be quickly swapped and played. It's in everything from the angle of the cartridge port in front to the simple to understand rules. That's a whole art form in itself.

I always felt computer games were more serious. After waiting for the duration of a load or the struggle to insert a VIC cart, one expected to sit and play for a while.

Pedro Lambrini wrote:Are the controllers any good? I've been tempted to pick one up cheap just for the sticks but I'm a little concerned that they're just rubbish.

At first, I loved the Atari FB2 sticks, but quickly found out the the screw-in sticks will twist loose when you get into playing. I've even had one break off.

16KVIC20 · Post by **16KVIC20** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:50 am

Pedro Lambrini wrote:
missinglenk wrote:I bought an Atari Flashback 3 from Salvation Army here for $20. It was in the box almost new. Not a bad deal because the 2 joystick controllers could be used with my VIC-20, Atari computers, and the C-64 and 128 machines (oh, and my real Atari 2600).
Are the controllers any good? I've been tempted to pick one up cheap just for the sticks but I'm a little concerned that they're just rubbish.

They seem OK. I don't have any originals to compare them with. From what I remember real atari joysticks seem a bit harder to move. Put it this way, they seem better made than those awful commodore joysticks (not the atari copy, but the second one with the triangular stick).
I got some competition pro clones from Protec, they're pretty good.