Are the classic Atari systems worth revisiting?
Would you ever revisit them? Do you already play them alongside other consoles? I noticed atari gets a lot of flak in general.
I think one of the reasons why it isn't as popular as it was may be due to having a lot more access to many versions of arcade originals and other versions of the games. Another thing might be the endless scoring which may not give everyone a sense of finishing the game.
I remember a while back atari collecting was pretty popular.
I think one of the reasons why it isn't as popular as it was may be due to having a lot more access to many versions of arcade originals and other versions of the games. Another thing might be the endless scoring which may not give everyone a sense of finishing the game.
I remember a while back atari collecting was pretty popular.
Comments
Would you ever revisit them?
I still do if the gameplay is fun.
Let's be honest. There are a LOT of bad Atari 2600 games. It might have the biggest bad/good discrepancy of any major console that had a large library.
That being said, there are games still worth it. I think Space Invaders, Yars Revenge, Haunted House (Hi, Ozzy!), Kaboom!, and select others are fine. I think the history of the system and its bad games are interesting. Though I would only play the bad ones just to see how bad they are. Wouldn't go out of my way to get them.
Originally posted by: pixelsmash
Even though I have tons of boxed up atari 2600 games, I've always wondered if there are common high scores, published or online, divided by rank. Ex. Points : 2000 - Very Good, 6000 - Excellent, 10,000 - Outstanding for the classic atari consoles particularly the 2600. So you have a sense of where you are headed, and can work towards something reasonable, to feel like you've accomplished something with one game, and move one if you want, not just completing with the insane high scores out there, or casually playing against your friends.
That's the catch for me. Even for the games that I enjoy, only 1 or 2 have an end screen (can be completed).
So you're basically just playing for scores, which gets very boring if you're not playing with a friend.
Even though I have tons of boxed up atari 2600 games, I've always wondered if there are common high scores, published or online, divided by rank. Ex. Points : 2000 - Very Good, 6000 - Excellent, 10,000 - Outstanding for the classic atari consoles particularly the 2600. So you have a sense of where you are headed, and can work towards something reasonable, to feel like you've accomplished something with one game, and move one to the next one if you want, not just only completing with highest scores out there, or casually playing against your friends.
Did you check that other age site? you know the Atari one? I thought they had some running scores on games there for high player and all.
I kept my 7800 since that was my console of choice when up against the NES ( yeah ok as a kid you make bad decisions sometimes). I broke it out played some games and it still feels pretty good. Same with the 2600 stuff not all of it was high score some games had definative ends E.T.,Raiders of the Lost Ark, Adventure for a few but always there are the fun ones like Kaboom, Tunner Runner, Asteroids, Defender, Missle Commmand. I guess its a matter of play time for me atari is a hey I got 30 minutes to burn lets plug in and go.
Even though I have tons of boxed up atari 2600 games, I've always wondered if there are common high scores, published or online, divided by rank. Ex. Points : 2000 - Very Good, 6000 - Excellent, 10,000 - Outstanding for the classic atari consoles particularly the 2600. So you have a sense of where you are headed, and can work towards something reasonable, to feel like you've accomplished something with one game, and move one if you want, not just completing with the insane high scores out there, or casually playing against your friends.
That's the catch for me. Even for the games that I enjoy, only 1 or 2 have an end screen (can be completed).
So you're basically just playing for scores, which gets very boring if you're not playing with a friend.
Most serious Atari gamers keep a score notebook. So you can try to beat your personal best if you are solo. Plus there are weekly high score contests on AtariAge.
Even though I have tons of boxed up atari 2600 games, I've always wondered if there are common high scores, published or online, divided by rank. Ex. Points : 2000 - Very Good, 6000 - Excellent, 10,000 - Outstanding for the classic atari consoles particularly the 2600. So you have a sense of where you are headed, and can work towards something reasonable, to feel like you've accomplished something with one game, and move one if you want, not just completing with the insane high scores out there, or casually playing against your friends.
That's the catch for me. Even for the games that I enjoy, only 1 or 2 have an end screen (can be completed).
So you're basically just playing for scores, which gets very boring if you're not playing with a friend.
Most serious Atari gamers keep a score notebook. So you can try to beat your personal best if you are solo. Plus there are weekly high score contests on AtariAge.
Yeah I used to beat my own score and I would write them down or take pics a few years back, it still felt kind of aimless, as you would need a 3-6 months on one game to start competing for expert level high scores if you are actually good at it. I was wondering if there was a publication with a common high score rankings for the 2600, that provide reasonable high scores that can be attained by any kind of player, that indicate that you've reached far in a game according to different ranks, as I described.
Not just the highest possible scores.
I love Atari. I still play it often. I have kids and not much gaming time. I can pick up and instantly be playing, and then I can quit anytime I need to and still feel like I got my gaming fix. I would recommend getting a 7800, since that is backwards compatible with the 2600 library. Also, you can use a Genesis controller if you are not a fan of joysticks. (I even have a NES controller that was rewired to plug into Atari)
I want to emphasize that the Genesis controller won't work right with native 7800 games due to the additional button and the wiring. You'll need to wire something custom else just get a CX-78.
Originally posted by: G-Type
Originally posted by: Br81zad
Originally posted by: pixelsmash
Even though I have tons of boxed up atari 2600 games, I've always wondered if there are common high scores, published or online, divided by rank. Ex. Points : 2000 - Very Good, 6000 - Excellent, 10,000 - Outstanding for the classic atari consoles particularly the 2600. So you have a sense of where you are headed, and can work towards something reasonable, to feel like you've accomplished something with one game, and move one if you want, not just completing with the insane high scores out there, or casually playing against your friends.
That's the catch for me. Even for the games that I enjoy, only 1 or 2 have an end screen (can be completed).
So you're basically just playing for scores, which gets very boring if you're not playing with a friend.
Most serious Atari gamers keep a score notebook. So you can try to beat your personal best if you are solo. Plus there are weekly high score contests on AtariAge.
lol, I am by no means a serious Atari player. I was raised on it though, so I at least appreciate it.
I doubt I'll ever get back into it enough to warrant a notebook, but I'll keep that it mind. That is a very good idea.
it might go over like a fart in church, so I'm getting jewelry, etc, and the above mental glitch will be from her friends at Bleep Bop Records (for taxable purposes!).
i'm super interested in the 2600 because of ready player one/armada, and the ET documentary. All this stuff is in my office and I'm dying to fire it up, joined atariage and, funny enough, and doing a deep dive on the number of production atari games, which seems to be somewhat controversial, as all things nerd are.
Yeah I used to beat my own score and I would write them down or take pics a few years back, it still felt kind of aimless, as you would need a 3-6 months on one game to start competing for expert level high scores if you are actually good at it. I was wondering if there was a publication with a common high score rankings for the 2600, that provide reasonable high scores that can be attained by any kind of player, that indicate that you've reached far in a game according to different ranks, as I described.
Not just the highest possible scores.
Well here is the high score requirements for the Activision patches (videogaming's original achievement)
http://www.digitpress.com/archives/cc_patches_2600.htm
You can also look through past high score challenges on AtariAge which has always had a mix of average to exceptional scores
You can also check rankings here:
http://www.jvgs.net/2600/top50.htm
or on Twin Galaxies
or here http://highscore.com/
Originally posted by: barrelsAndRivets
Originally posted by: G-Type
I love Atari. I still play it often. I have kids and not much gaming time. I can pick up and instantly be playing, and then I can quit anytime I need to and still feel like I got my gaming fix. I would recommend getting a 7800, since that is backwards compatible with the 2600 library. Also, you can use a Genesis controller if you are not a fan of joysticks. (I even have a NES controller that was rewired to plug into Atari)
I want to emphasize that the Genesis controller won't work right with native 7800 games due to the additional button and the wiring. You'll need to wire something custom else just get a CX-78.
Yea, its not for 2 button games. (you can use an edladdin seagull-76 adapter to fix that) But for 1 button games it doesn't need anything
Yeah I used to beat my own score and I would write them down or take pics a few years back, it still felt kind of aimless, as you would need a 3-6 months on one game to start competing for expert level high scores if you are actually good at it. I was wondering if there was a publication with a common high score rankings for the 2600, that provide reasonable high scores that can be attained by any kind of player, that indicate that you've reached far in a game according to different ranks, as I described.
Not just the highest possible scores.
Well here is the high score requirements for the Activision patches (videogaming's original achievement)
http://www.digitpress.com/archive...
You can also look through past high score challenges on AtariAge which has always had a mix of average to exceptional scores
You can also check rankings here:
http://www.jvgs.net/2600/top50.ht...
or on Twin Galaxies
or here http://highscore.com/...
Thanks for the links. However the scores seem like expert level high scores, as opposed to commonly accepted high scores that indicate rankings ( Ex. very good, excellent, outstanding etc) and that are practical to obtain.
Thanks for the links. However the scores seem like expert level high scores, as opposed to commonly accepted high scores that indicate rankings ( Ex. very good, excellent, outstanding etc) and that are practical to obtain.
Well, they do tend to attract the best of the best, so to speak. Were you looking for something more casual?
.
Thanks for the links. However the scores seem like expert level high scores, as opposed to commonly accepted high scores that indicate rankings ( Ex. very good, excellent, outstanding etc) and that are practical to obtain.
Well, they do tend to attract the best of the best, so to speak. Were you looking for something more casual?
Not necessarily casual or easy, just range of high scores that would indicate you've reached far and done well in the game according to a common standard. Such scores would be practical to obtain within a reasonable amount of time with practice, for any kind of gamer, and once obtained gives you some kind of sense of having finished the game (since the games themselves are endless) and allows you to feel like you can move to the next game.
Even the lowest ranking, that would be agreed would still be regarded as challenging but reasonable to obtain and as sort of a marker of some sort of completion of the game.
As opposed to just dedicating months on one game for the highest scores humanely possible.
I find most atari games quite aimless as is.
Not necessarily casual or easy, just range of high scores that would indicate you've reached far and done well in the game according to a common standard. Such scores would be practical to obtain within a reasonable amount of time with practice, and once obtained gives you some kind of sense of having finished the game (since the games themselves are endless) and allows you to feel like you can move to the next game.
Well, that's the big problem with 2600 games. Not many of them have that sort of metric. Once you get the basics down, they're more of an endurance match (with some skill) to see how high of a score you can rack up. There are exceptions of course.
The Activision games have the score patches (they're in the first link) that a reasonably skilled player can achieve. Imagic games had similar patches. That's probably as close as you'll get.
If you're looking for ones with actual endings, we did have a discussion awhile back:
http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=147000
Edit: holy shit, that was almost exactly a year ago.
Not necessarily casual or easy, just range of high scores that would indicate you've reached far and done well in the game according to a common standard. Such scores would be practical to obtain within a reasonable amount of time with practice, and once obtained gives you some kind of sense of having finished the game (since the games themselves are endless) and allows you to feel like you can move to the next game.
Well, that's the big problem with 2600 games. Not many of them have that sort of metric. Once you get the basics down, they're more of an endurance match (with some skill) to see how high of a score you can rack up. There are exceptions of course.
The Activision games have the score patches (they're in the first link) that a reasonably skilled player can achieve. Imagic games had similar patches. That's probably as close as you'll get.
Yeah but we aren't talking about skilled players. We are talking about gamers who want to explore the system, and who are willing to spend a month, and "finish" pacman on the 2600, by reaching some kind of a common score that indicates you're done according to this basic score, with a clear range of the best scores that somewhat practical to obtain.
I'm sure someone can do the math or maybe even find such as system for atari games, as I described. Maybe it already exists.
Yeah but we aren't talking about skilled players. We are talking about gamers who want to explore the system, and who are willing to spend a month, and "finish" pacman on the 2600, by reaching some kind of a common score that indicates you're done according to this basic score, with a clear range of the best scores that somewhat practical to obtain.
I'm sure someone can do the math or maybe even find such as system for atari games, as I described. Maybe it already exists.
Yeah, but the problem with, like, Pac-Man, once you clear the first maze, the game loops. Most don't even scale up the difficulty. Then it just becomes a consensus on how many mazes to clear (see: endurance match.) I don't think I've ever seen a consensus on what constitutes "finished" for that game, or Asteroids, or Centipede, etc. beyond clearing the first level. Which isn't that hard for most of these games.
Even something like Space Invaders, the aliens drop down a row for the first several playthroughs, then stay at the lowest possible level until you shut the game off. Most players, even first time ones, can reach that level, and you can mark that as "finished." But most of the Atari games don't have that. It's just score, score, score.
Yeah but we aren't talking about skilled players. We are talking about gamers who want to explore the system, and who are willing to spend a month, and "finish" pacman on the 2600, by reaching some kind of a common score that indicates you're done according to this basic score, with a clear range of the best scores that somewhat practical to obtain.
I'm sure someone can do the math or maybe even find such as system for atari games, as I described. Maybe it already exists.
Yeah, but the problem with, like, Pac-Man, once you clear the first maze, the game loops. Most don't even scale up the difficulty. Then it just becomes a consensus on how many mazes to clear (see: endurance match.) I don't think I've ever seen a consensus on what constitutes "finished" for that game, or Asteriods, or Centipede, etc.
Even something like Space Invaders, the aliens drop down a row for the first several playthroughs, then stay at the lowest possible level until you shut the game off. Most players, even first time ones, can reach that level, and you can mark that as "finished." But most of the Atari games don't have that. It's just score, score, score.
But you can still figure out a range of scores that are practical to obtain and could indicate that you can move on as you're up there.
But you can still figure out a range of scores that are practical to obtain and could indicate that you can move on as you're up there.
But then people would have different definitions of "practical to obtain" because it just becomes a test of stamina. The games themselves don't give any indication.
But you can still figure out a range of scores that are practical to obtain and could indicate that you can move on as you're up there.
But then people would have different definitions of "practical to obtain" because it just becomes a test of stamina. The games themselves don't give any indication.
There could be a common agreement, or a way to assess this.