Home Consoles vs. Arcade: A Bit More Specific...

[Aswald]

I know I brought this up not too long ago, but the answers weren't exactly what I needed.

It was my fault for not being specific enough. This is what I should've asked:


Was there ever a time when a home console came out that it matched THE MOST ADVANCED arcade game of that year? If not, by how much did it fall short- or, in the unlikely event that it was ahead, by how much? For both the ColecoVision and Atari 5200, as well as the Arcadia 2001, I'd imagine Zaxxon was the yardstick. You could even bring up the Vectrex, if you are talking about a 1982 vector game.


Clearly, this is a question for the more technically-minded here.

[mailman187666]

I think the first and best REAL arcade conversions were on dreamcast. I'm not sure how close Vectrex or anything else was....but in all my years, home consoles matched the arcade durring the dreamcast, especially with its fighting games.

[diskoboy]

Actually, I think this began in the C-64/Apple 2 days.

You would constantly see better games on the Commodore, than some arcade games, at the time. But to avoid lawsuits, they'd change the gameplay or graphics just enough... Gorf, Kickman, and Wizard of Wor on the C-64 were almost exactly like their arcade counterpart. If I remember correctly, some versions of WoW even came with a speech synth attachment.

And there was one game on the Apple 2, it was a Battlezone type tank game, it had a more futuristic setting, it clearly blew away even Battlezone (this was 1982, I believe - I think the game was called 'Stellar 7')

[Technosis]

This is a really good question. I think for the most part, up until maybe the Dreamcast era or so, the console games were usually inferior to the arcade games they were based upon. Often I can't think of a good reason for it. The classic gaming magazines of the day used to always say that this was because "coin-ops were programmed to play a single game, while the consoles had to play multiple titles".

It's interesting that you mention Zaxxon on the ColecoVision, because if you'll play the game on MAME or track down a coin-op, you'll see that the second level on the ColecoVision version differs completely from the arcade version. Play action wise, and graphically I definitely prefer the coin-op. Same goes for Donkey Kong on the ColecoVision. While much more advanced than say the 2600 version, its still lacking the elements that make the arcade game great. I consider it a very watered down (and slimmed down) version of the coin-op. Even the NES didn't get a complete Donkey Kong since it was missing the conveyor level.

[cyberfluxor]

Clearly, this is a question for the more technically-minded here.

http://onnetworks.com/videos/play-value/the-death-of-arcades
Sega Genesis man!

[XxHennersXx]

http://onnetworks.com/videos/play-value/the-death-of-arcades
Sega Genesis man!

shit's inaccurate

[cyberfluxor]

shit's inaccurate

I couldn't help myself, had to post it!

Genesis > $$ Neo-Geo $$
Genesis = Arcade @ home experience

LOL

I don't hate the Genesis or the Nintendo and many other systems they mention and they do an alright job at times, but their views are not just inaccurate but screwed up interpretations of the history of gaming. Just watch if you can those other two videos, it's just so bad and out of touch with reality.

[ccovell]

Arcade games have almost always been more advanced, not because they were "dedicated to one game", but because since they were going to be sold to arcades for a thousand bucks, they could put any hardware they wanted in -- plenty of RAM, ROMs, etc.

Consoles had to be affordable, so they'd always skimp on the RAM and hardware goodies. Take a look even at the Dreamcast/NAOMI(?) hardware -- apparently they're identical, but the home version has half the RAM/VRAM to save on cost.

[Ed Oscuro]

Arcade games have almost always been more advanced, not because they were "dedicated to one game", but because since they were going to be sold to arcades for a thousand bucks, they could put any hardware they wanted in -- plenty of RAM, ROMs, etc.
Thread over! I certainly can't say anything else.

One can talk about the Coleco with its "just like last year's arcade games but at lower resolution" releases (no knock on the system - it's nice to look at), but some of the genres traditionally needed far more powerful hardware than was available at home - a good example of this are 3D games (Space Harrier up to Galaxy Force), which often took a long time to get ported correctly (in GF's example, a Sega Ages release should finally give the world a correct full-speed release).

At the moment arcade hardware seems to be mostly off-the-shelf low-cost and well-documented PC parts, since there's a lot of flexibility and attention to graphics in those systems. I can think of at least one Taito game from 1995 that used PC hardware, but a number of new multi-purpose cabinets are using PC hardware.

[XxHennersXx]

I couldn't help myself, had to post it!

Genesis > $$ Neo-Geo $$
Genesis = Arcade @ home experience

LOL

I don't hate the Genesis or the Nintendo and many other systems they mention and they do an alright job at times, but their views are not just inaccurate but screwed up interpretations of the history of gaming. Just watch if you can those other two videos, it's just so bad and out of touch with reality.

the girl with the tattoos and glasses though is freaking hot and she can dog the neo-geo as much as she wants in my book. :wink 2:

[Moo Cow]

the girl with the tattoos and glasses though is freaking hot and she can dog the neo-geo as much as she wants in my book. :wink 2:

...no she's not.

[Aswald]

This is a really good question. I think for the most part, up until maybe the Dreamcast era or so, the console games were usually inferior to the arcade games they were based upon. Often I can't think of a good reason for it. The classic gaming magazines of the day used to always say that this was because "coin-ops were programmed to play a single game, while the consoles had to play multiple titles".

It's interesting that you mention Zaxxon on the ColecoVision, because if you'll play the game on MAME or track down a coin-op, you'll see that the second level on the ColecoVision version differs completely from the arcade version. Play action wise, and graphically I definitely prefer the coin-op. Same goes for Donkey Kong on the ColecoVision. While much more advanced than say the 2600 version, its still lacking the elements that make the arcade game great. I consider it a very watered down (and slimmed down) version of the coin-op. Even the NES didn't get a complete Donkey Kong since it was missing the conveyor level.


Well, I didn't mean the CV Zaxxon...to the best of my (increasingly older) memory, Zaxxon- the arcade version- was the most technically-advanced game of 1982.


One problem, I'd imagine, was back in those days considerable strides were made in graphics and sound. This is not too hard to understand, since just a few years before we were still playing simplistic black and white games. Therefore, unless the CV or 5200 was well ahead of the Zaxxon arcade machine, they were already behind- or doomed to be within a year.

These days, however, it's different. Graphics, sound, and memory are so advanced in home games- you could fit hundreds of the old arcade games on one CD (or is it DVD now?) for the Playstation or X-Box. You would have to go very, very, far indeed for there to be any noticeable difference between arcade and home formats. This was not so back in the day.

Also, arcades have another, predictable problem- it's almost impossible for an arcade game to have anything that has not been done before. There used to be a lot of virgin territory out there; hey- check it out- a game with this little orange guy jumping on a pyramid to change colors! Let's call it...Q*Bert! So that area of advancement has pretty much run dry. It is ironic that the once-considred-to-be-inferior home format has the edge here, because it is so much more flexible. RPGs, for example. Games like chess, and any game which, by their very nature, require complexity and many hours to play. Arcade games must be fairly easy to learn, and not last too long, due to economic considerations: an arcade isn't going to stay in business very long if that machine you pay $2,000 for only makes about 75 cents a day because some kid can play for 8 hours straight on it for a quarter (which is why owners liked Ms. Pac-Man so much more than Pac-Man).

[Ed Oscuro]

You would have to go very, very, far indeed for there to be any noticeable difference between arcade and home formats.
Well, that's the law of diminishing returns, I suppose. That doesn't mean that arcade hardware (like Taito's cabinet running Half-Life, or other systems) don't have pumped-up specs compared to a home console.

[diskoboy]

Well, I didn't mean the CV Zaxxon...to the best of my (increasingly older) memory, Zaxxon- the arcade version- was the most technically-advanced game of 1982.

That can be debated.... You also have Robotron: 2084.

Hundreds of sprites on the screen at once, excellent blitter particle effect, etc, and with all that going on, the game never slows down once... And it didn't recieve it's first home translation until 2 years after it's release. Zaxxon was released soon after the arcade game became popular.

[idrougge]

Also, arcades have another, predictable problem- it's almost impossible for an arcade game to have anything that has not been done before. There used to be a lot of virgin territory out there; hey- check it out- a game with this little orange guy jumping on a pyramid to change colors! Let's call it...Q*Bert! So that area of advancement has pretty much run dry. It is ironic that the once-considred-to-be-inferior home format has the edge here, because it is so much more flexible. RPGs, for example. Games like chess, and any game which, by their very nature, require complexity and many hours to play.

Ah, but chess and adventure games have been available for home formats as long as there has been such a thing as home formats. That hasn't changed.

By the laws of evolution, arcade games have evolved into occupying whatever niche is still open to them. Due to their custom hardware nature, they still have some advantages over home formats. If you want to land an airliner with an authentic rudder and throttle sitting in a nice seat with a cockpit view made up of three screens side by side, you must go to an arcade. And that is the dominant trend in arcade games nowadays; bigger cabinets with custom parts such as dance pads, steering wheels or multiple screens.

[XxHennersXx]

...no she's not.

I just happen to have a thing for girls with tattoos glasses and strange hair styles.

[Trebuken]

The 3DO was probably the closest. Hech, I think it cost more than the arcade machines of the time. You might make an arguement for the Laseractive LD games too.

[Sothy]

I dont like tattoos on chicks but ya she is cute.

Course Im a Velma guy. Daphne is vapid and uninteresting.