Would Super Mario Bros 3 be possible on the 7800?

[8bitdude]

They say this system wasn't really pushed, so do you guys think that the 7800 was able to handle a game like this? Oh using the pokey chip for sound and a nes/sms like controller for gameplay.

I see that the 7800 had a stronger CPU.

[InsaneDavid]

No. The 7800 ProSystem is a great console that has some great exclusives but come on.

[boatofcar]

and a nes/sms like controller for gameplay.

You mean like this?
http://www.atariage.com/7800/controllers/con_Atari7800Joypad.jpg



I see that the 7800 had a stronger CPU.

Both systems used the 6502.

Dude, the 7800 couldn't even handle the scrolling in SMB1, let alone a game that pushed the NES to its limits.

EDIT: Here's (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57569) a thread I started two and a half years ago that sums up all the NES vs. 7800 questions you might have.

[Bratwurst]

Now hold on gentlemen- both platforms were conceived and manufactured around the same time frame. 82-84. Arguably the 7800 had an R&D advantage since it was developed a little later.

The NES looked rosy in comparison mostly because of its popularity. More companies worked on it, more technical tricks were figured out, it had a longer run.

Put that behind the 7800's hardware and an SMB3 facsimile surely would have followed.

[Leo_A]

I'd say the biggest question isn't if the 7800 is superior hardware wise, but if the 7800's cartridges could physically fit such things as the mappers many Nintendo games such as SMB3 used to enhance the NES's capabilities. Just looking at the specs of each system, I'd say most individuals would give the edge to the 7800.

If the 7800 could've benefited from such enhancements, I'd say it had a chance. But 7800 carts are much smaller than a NES cart, and you already have to have a Pokey in there if we're talking about matching the NES. So I'd say the biggest question would be if the 7800 can take advantage of such additions in the cartridge like the NES could after already having the addition of a Pokey sound chip in order to expand their memory capabilities.

[7th lutz]

As an owner of booth systems, the nes is stronger then the 7800.

I have to say the nes was not capable of doing Super Mario 3 without the MMC3 chip. The Nes depended on extra chips in cartridges. Those chips made the nes better in capabilities then it is without the chips. The MMC chips helping the nes is like roids to professional athletes. The chips performance enhancers for nes games. Without the different types of MMC chips, the nes wouldn't be able to do 1024k games. That is the size of a 1991 genesis game. That is the roid analogy comes in.

The Atari 7800 didn't have much in extra chips for improving scrolling and other great stuff like the nes had. Sounds chips does not have much of an impact as graphic chips and increasing the size the cartridge capabilities at the same time.

The 7800 did backswitching to an extent with a games going 144k. The 7800 was capable of doing 512k games, but the owners of Atari were to cheap to do it.

The 7800's problem was the system was not built with enough rom and ram inside the system.

The Atari 7800 also was at a disadvantage of starting to have games released in 1986 instead of 1984. That is a big game of system that was only released due to the Tramiel family seeing how well the nes was selling. They prevented the 7800 to be realeased in 1984 despite being ready.

That is why there was 1984 games being released in 1986 for the 7800. Tramiel only care about making money without putting money into something. The 7800 would have been better in graphics due to the programmers being in middle of creating games for a system that is 2 years old.

The other problem was the Tramiel family had atari supporting 3 game consoles at the same time. The atari XEGS was a computer acting like a game console. Tramiel was putting money into the XEGS and the 2600 at time they should've been give the money for R&D to the 7800. The XEGS was weaker in graphics then the 7800 was.

The tramiel family was having Atari games competing against other Atari game systems. That does not make sense from a bussiness standpoint.

We don' know the entire capabilities over the 7800 since the Tramiel family was cheapskates and didn't have clue on how to run a video game company by having 3 systems compete against each other.

The chances are the 7800 is unlikely to pull of Super Mario with advanced technology coming from chips, but we don't know for sure. The 7800 might of have been able to pull of Super Mario Brothers due to how good Commando was for the 7800.

[swlovinist]

Sometimes, I think the Atari Fans are smoking some good stuff. I too, love the 7800, but of the three(SMS, NES, and 7800), the 7800 was by far the weakest on scrolling games. Dont get me wrong, on pure sprite based games, the 7800 could hold its own. I know that "on paper" it was a superior system, but on paper and reality are two different things. Mario 3 on the 7800 would look like shit and play like shit.

[miaandjohnrule]

Sometimes, I think the Atari Fans are smoking some good stuff. I too, love the 7800, but of the three(SMS, NES, and 7800), the 7800 was by far the weakest on scrolling games. Dont get me wrong, on pure sprite based games, the 7800 could hold its own. I know that "on paper" it was a superior system, but on paper and reality are two different things. Mario 3 on the 7800 would look like shit and play like shit.

That pretty much sums it up.

[MrRoboto19XX]

While I fully agree with the idea that the Tramiel family was the primary reason for the 7800's failure (Since they decided to hold it, and therefore ensured Nintendo's market saturation in a way) we've also got to remember that the NES was technically released before the 7800 should have been. After all, the Famicom was released in 1983, and some of the 1983-84 games were among the first released for the NES in America.

I love Atari, and if you ask me from 1978 to 1982 they were king in my book, but I've got to wonder if by even 84 the magic was just gone in several ways.

Today I don't think we could see an SMB3 clone on the 7800 even with some really impressive homebrew. However, if the thing had just a little bit more time...


...well then we may have seen something to the quality of a later Master System game. Poor thing just didn't have much going for it. Still, I've got to say I do love my 7800, and nothing beats a good game of Food Fight.

Imagine if Atari had said yes to Nintendo's offer...

[MrRoboto19XX]

Double Post... Bah.

[tomaitheous]

I see that the 7800 had a stronger CPU.

You mean because it's the CMOS revision to the original 6502? They both run at the same speed and the same performance. The NES is faster in the sense that it doesn't halt the CPU while processing sprites on screen and such. Not to mention most 7800 games I've seen run in 160x240 mode.

[boatofcar]

The XEGS was weaker in graphics then the 7800 was.


I don't believe that. Look at the XEGS version of Mario Bros. vs the 7800.

[7th lutz]

I don't believe that. Look at the XEGS version of Mario Bros. vs the 7800.
It does look like the xegs version is closer to the arcade version in graphics.

I think Commando is a better comparision, since it one the better games from a graphic standpoint.

I own the 7800 version of Commando and it looks better then the Prototype of Commando for the XEGS. The XEGS proto was the final version. Here is the link: http://www.atariprotos.com/8bit/software/commando/commando.htm

[j_factor]

Super Mario Bros. 3 wouldn't be possible on the 7800, but it wasn't possible on the NES either -- hence the need for a chip in the cartridge.

[xaer0knight]

It does look like the xegs version is closer to the arcade version in graphics.

I think Commando is a better comparision, since it one the better games from a graphic standpoint.

I own the 7800 version of Commando and it looks better then the Prototype of Commando for the XEGS. The XEGS proto was the final version. Here is the link: http://www.atariprotos.com/8bit/software/commando/commando.htm

i would have to say.. WHOA that is awesome work on a 7800. Pretty great for its time.

[Aswald]

With some kind of cartridge-chip enhancement, probably yes. Just like a number of NES games.


The single biggest problem with the 7800 was the way it was marketed. When it first appeared in the video game magazines around mid-1984 (I still have them), we were thrilled by the pictures of games like Joust and Desert Falcon. Xevious was a recent enough game, and so the initial lineup was pretty impressive...for 1984...especially if you didn't have the 5200 versions.

And that was the real problem. Ms. Pac-Man, Robotron: 2084, and a couple of others were better on the 7800, but absolutely NOT enough so to make you want to abandon the 5200 versions.

Worse yet, the 7800, even in the more heavily populated area I used to live in, didn't really appear until 1988. Those four years made a tremendous difference; even Xevious was aged. Most of the 5200 games were recent for the time, as were the ColecoVision and 2600 games. That was a tremendous plus in their favor. But the 7800? That "oh, man, cool, that great new(ish) arcade game is on that home system" just wasn't there.

As a result of this and several other things, the 7800 got off to a weak start. Those idiot Tramiels never properly supported the 7800, and so it never was really fully utilized. All of this, in such an industry, is interconnected.

[8bitdude]

With a extra chip , I also believe the 7800 could have pulled it off.

For one most of the games on the system were first generation and even those titles weren't pushed.

Really nothing was pushed. But we still like alot of the games on the system, so that says there, if the system was pushed, we would probably be talking about 7800 vs SMS and not 7800 vs Nes.

These Tramiels people really fucked up, heads all up in the computer world.

[boatofcar]

With a extra chip , I also believe the 7800 could have pulled it off.


And you are wrong. There is no way

No Way

NO WAY

the 7800 could do SMB3. The very idea is laughable. It's ok to be a fan of a system, but part of being a fan is realizing the system's limitations.

[boatofcar]

When people talk about the graphical abilities of the 7800, they always bring up Commando. Commando looks very good on the 7800. It's also one game. One game you're comparing to a proto of a XEGS game. Give me one more example of a 7800 game that's graphically superior to an XEGS game and then we'll talk.

[Ed Oscuro]

What the heck, this is an interesting topic.

The 7800 is doing fairly well for its palette (25 of 256), and I think games like Midnight Mutants could have shown that off, but didn't for some reason (most of the time...did the game just use colors poorly? There's more colors onscreen when the Game Over logos show up).

Both games seem to have futzed around with the graphical system somewhat...I understand that the NES deals with the first number of scanlines differently, and looking at the 7800 MM game it's apparent that the text on the top of the screen is higher-res than the gameplay screen [link url=http://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-7800/midnight-mutants/screenshots/gameShotId,82911/](example)[/quote].

On the whole, I think the 7800 would've done much better with an expansion chip. Early NES games without any expansion chips (like Wild Gunman) are pretty laughable, after all. On the other hand, the 7800 was around at the same time as the NES, so you'd have thought some of the 6502 knowledge in the gaming market would've helped the system. I think unfamiliarity with or bottlenecks in the graphics CPU might've been a major factor (plus, who's going to develop for the 7800 anyway?).

[Zap!]

This is a great topic I found accidentally while searching for something else. While I love my 7800, I can't see how anyone can seriously debate this. A better question would be "Would the original SMB be possible on the 7800?" Even with that question, I still say no. The fast scrolling and fast-paced action, pastel colors, and music don't seem possible. However, if someone makes a homebrew and proves me wrong, I'd be happy to admit it.

[Leo_A]

Your reply can't be taken serious if you don't look beyond what was actually produced for the 7800. This thread is about speculation on what might've been had the 7800 had the financial and human resources behind it that the Famicom/NES enjoyed. It's not a thread for someone to quickly compare the 7800 library with the NES library and then state, no, it couldn't be done.

Atari focused on things like arcade ports from the early 80s, they never went beyond 1984 for the most part with this console. And cartridges were always as cheaply produced as possible, with minimum amounts of memory. It's a miracle there were even two titles released that had a POKEY sound chip.

And after the first round of titles that was produced before the home division was sold and the console was temporarily shelved, the console never had top programming talent or even development teams the size of anything on the NES side. They were still largely being programmed by teams of just a handful of individuals, unlike most top NES titles. Games were being developed as if it was still the early 1980s, rather than the late 1980s in a era where games were becoming far more advanced.

I'd say if you compared the 7800 with the Famicom during it's early days, they compare very well. Sadly, Atari never took it further, prefering to use the 7800 as a cash cow to gleen profits off consumers that couldn't afford a NES, with the minimum financial investment possible. And there was little 3rd party support to help further the console along.

In other words, they never pushed the system. Imagine the NES without the advanced multi-memory controllers like the MMC3 that made things like Super Mario Brothers 3 possible, battery backup saves, all that 3rd party development, etc. Most NES favorites that are well remembered and are used as a basis for comparison today used special chips designed to extend the capabilities of the NES and make it possible for NES titles that were far more advanced than the original console could offer. The 7800 had nothing of that.

Sadly, Atari never even pushed the 7800's basic capabilities. We can just speculate what might've been had Atari been able to push the console to it's limits, and even extended those limits when necessary through creative cartridge solutions, such as what Nintendo routinely did throughout the NES and SuperNes eras.

You can't know what was possible when they never even tried. Technical specifications (In some aspects, the console is actually more powerful), certain gems in the 7800 library, and even incomplete titles like Rescue on Fractalus, suggest far more could've been achieved from the 7800.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the Atari 7800 could've had something like Super Mario Bros. 3 developed for it. What I am suggesting is that we'll never know because the console never even came close to being pushed to it's limits, and that perhaps efforts on par with many of the more advanced efforts we witnessed on the NES might've been possible had it been on a more equal footing with the NES.

[Steve W]

It amazes me when people talk badly about the 7800's scrolling capabilities but nobody ever brings up Scrapyard Dog, a game that has perfectly fine scrolling and graphics more complex than SMB 1.

[j_factor]

Atari focused on things like arcade ports from the early 80s, they never went beyond 1984 for the most part with this console. And cartridges were always as cheaply produced as possible, with minimum amounts of memory. It's a miracle there were even two titles released that had a POKEY sound chip.

This was a Tramiel thing. Everything had to be cheap, cheap, cheap. I think he had the right idea for hardware (C64 and to a lesser extent Atari ST worked out well), but he had no idea how to manage a game company.

You could even go further and argue that Tramiel didn't even want the 7800 and had no intention of really supporting it at all. After all, he had wanted to buy only the computer aspect of Atari, but they'd only sell him the entire computer and console division. So the 7800 just got thrown out there unceremoniously.

Then again, that explanation doesn't make sense when you think about Atari's later failings, but I'm not sure when Sam Tramiel took over.

[7th lutz]

This is a great topic I found accidentally while searching for something else. While I love my 7800, I can't see how anyone can seriously debate this. A better question would be "Would the original SMB be possible on the 7800?" Even with that question, I still say no. The fast scrolling and fast-paced action, pastel colors, and music don't seem possible. However, if someone makes a homebrew and proves me wrong, I'd be happy to admit it.

There is a scrolling demo for the Atari 7800. It is found at http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/153178-some-of-the-demos-i-was-developing-6-years-ago/page__view__findpost__p__1884122 .

The Megaman style demo that features scrolling. Since the demo shows the Atari 7800 is capable of Megaman game, it means it is capable of Super Mario Brothers besides Scrapyard Dog.

Scrapyard Dog is the only scrolling platform game for the Atari 7800 that isn't a demo.

[GrandAmChandler]

The 7800 did Mario 3, it was called Scrapyard Dog.

http://www.atariage.com/7800/screenshots/s_ScrapyardDog_3.png

vs.

http://www.christopherchandler.net/old/images/videogamereviews/SuperMario3firstlevel.gif

[Ed Oscuro]

Looks a bit one-dimensional. Kind of like Mario Bros. without the platforms (or the Bros.). There any cloud cover or platforms later in that game? I'm interested in seeing more, don't get me wrong.

Looking back at my '07 post (the previous last one in the thread lol) I wonder if the game over screen in Midnight Monsters isn't a different resolution mode than in gameplay. Possibly a slow highres and high-color mode (if the 7800 had such a thing).

[7th lutz]

It is possible that Scrapyard Dog didn't show all the potential doing a Super Mario Bros. style game. The Atari 7800 didn't exactly have great programmers back in the day like the person that did Karateka, Hat Trick, and Choplifter!. The homebrew games done for the Atari 7800 are better than a lot of the games released back in the day. I think we might better off not to judge if the Atari 7800 is capable of Super Mario 3 until a 2nd scrolling Atari 7800 platform game is being worked on.

There has been homebrew games for the Atari 7800 that has Scrolling and are great games. That means a Super Mario Bros. style game isn't out of the question for a homebrew game. The homebrew games that has scrolling are the following:

Jr. Pac-man - it is released in Cartridge form.
Apple Snaffle - found at http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/144344-apple-snaffle-7800s-25th-birthday-game/
Failsafe - Countermeasure sequel that is a work in progress and has the scrolling. Information on it is found at http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/154189-failsafe-7800-wip/ .


It is possible to see a homebrew Super Mario bros. style game for the Atari 7800 down sometime down the road. If a such a game will be worked on, it is likely to come from GroovyBee or Propane13. The only way PacManPlus could do a Super Mario bros. style game is if he does Pac-Land.

PacManPlus is doing a sequel to countermeasure, but he usually does arcade ports since he likes doing arcade ports.

Propane13 is doing Arkanoid, he did a scrolling demo prior to that. Propane 13
might do some more homebrew Atari 7800 games that aren't arcade ports like GroovyBee does.

[BetaWolf47]

Let me ask, why are people bumping up "x system vs. NES!" threads lately? C'mon, don't fuel the fire guys.

[Carey85]

Threads like this make the baby Jesus cry. Don't get me wrong, I love the Atari 7800 and all that noise, but c'mon...

[chrisbid]

the upper limits of the 7800 were never reached and they never will be. can smb3 be recreated on the 7800? likely no... BUT had the 7800 been 100% exploited, it likely could've produced a game that the NES could not replicate.

[Jorpho]

Considering there was an HK attempt to port SMB3 to the B&W Game Boy, sure, it would be at least vaguely possible to put something vaguely like SMB3 on the 7800. Mind you, that GB port was pretty pathetic.

[Sonicwolf]

Does anyone have any picture or video of what is considered to be the most exceptional graphics on the A7800? I have always been curious to see what that thing could chug out but Google failed to help me find anything.

[ApolloBoy]

the upper limits of the 7800 were never reached and they never will be.

And you know they'll never be reached how? Considering the growing homebrew scene for the 7800, I don't think I'd doubt that as a possibility.

[Carey85]

Does anyone have any picture or video of what is considered to be the most exceptional graphics on the A7800? I have always been curious to see what that thing could chug out but Google failed to help me find anything.

Ballblazer is a pretty game on the 7800, and has exceptional sound thanks to its onboard POKEY chip. Alien Brigade, Commando, and Ninja Golf are also fairly impressive.

[Compute]

While the base hardware may be fully exploited by homebrewers at some point, I can't imagine someone sitting down and designing mappers and stuff like that. If they are, the system options are endless. I suppose one could do some crazy magic with fpga's. Anyone up for making a 7800 3D board?

Mind, I am only referring to possibilities, not what made it to market or would have likely made it to market given more $$$ support,etc.

[Ricochet]

There is one game that was made for both systems that, in Nintendo's case, didn't use any additional hardware: Donkey Kong. If the 7800 version didn't carry any chips, we can make a reasonable comparison between the base systems.

[chrisbid]

While the base hardware may be fully exploited by homebrewers at some point, I can't imagine someone sitting down and designing mappers and stuff like that. If they are, the system options are endless. I suppose one could do some crazy magic with fpga's. Anyone up for making a 7800 3D board?

Mind, I am only referring to possibilities, not what made it to market or would have likely made it to market given more $$$ support,etc.


right, the homebrew scene rarely goes beyond a single person programming a game. to exploit the 7800 to the degree the famicom was exploited, you would need a team of programmers and hardware designers and a sizeable budget. i cant see anyone taking up a project with the size and scope of say pier solar (see their mixed results on a much bigger platform) for the 7800.



and in the end im fine with that. fact is, the 7800 is open enough that there are good homebrews being released for it. the NES homebrew scene by comparison is pretty lacking.

[blue lander]

The custom mappers in games like SMB3 are essentially just MMU's to give the NES access to more memory and blitters to help it scroll data around in the video memory without using the CPU, right? The MMU part is easy, that can be done with a couple of 10 cent 74xx series chips and expand memory out to a megabyte. The blitter part would be more difficult. Does anybody know if the bus in the 7800 even allows for DMA?

[Nature Boy]

Considering the growing homebrew scene for the 7800, I don't think I'd doubt that as a possibility.

The 7800 was fun but it's so very niche. It's not exactly hanging on a limb to doubt there'd ever be enough critical mass to get the software to the pinnacle of what the system could do.

I will say that if the 7800 was as popular as the NES was then you'd have seen some amazing things out of it. They'd've been adding chips to carts to push the hardware too, no doubt about it.

[guitargary75]

No. The 7800 couldn't reproduce the sound! That is where the definite advantage to the NES comes into play!

[Thrillo]

No. The 7800 couldn't reproduce the sound! That is where the definite advantage to the NES comes into play!
Ah, but the 7800 allows for external sound chips to be used in the cart, while the NES doesn't (although the Famicom does).
Still, tossing sound chips into carts isn't cheap. 7800 games would be quite pricey if they all came with sound chips in them...

[Leo_A]

The NES didn't really have a need for one though. The 7800 did.

A Pokey chip wasn't expensive, but to a Tramiel era Atari, something that added $1-2 to the manufacturing cost of a game was unacceptable no matter what its benefit was.

It's too bad they just didn't integrate it with the hardware like it is on something such as the 5200, but legend has it that there wasn't any room in the casing for it so they decided to push it to cartridges since it was cheap and there was room for it. But then the crash happened and Jack Tramiel showed up.

[Zap!]

Ah, but the 7800 allows for external sound chips to be used in the cart, while the NES doesn't (although the Famicom does).
Still, tossing sound chips into carts isn't cheap. 7800 games would be quite pricey if they all came with sound chips in them...

Did any 7800 games do this?

[Leo_A]

Commando and Ballblazer both had a Pokey sound chip (The same used by the Atari 5200, their line of 8 bit computers, and some of their coinops).

Other than those two, that capability went unused until recent years when the 7800 started to see some excellent homebrew development occur.

[Thrillo]

It's too bad they just didn't integrate it with the hardware like it is on something such as the 5200, but legend has it that there wasn't any room in the casing for it so they decided to push it to cartridges since it was cheap and there was room for it. But then the crash happened and Jack Tramiel showed up.
I heard that too, and that just seems plain silly. It makes no sense: if the mobo was too big with a sound chip included, why not just widen the case?
I think the real reason for not including one was that Atari took a look at the rapid development of sound chips (ie. TIA -> Pokey -> SID) and realized that whatever they tossed in there would sound like crap within a few years. They 7800 was supposed to be their flagship for years to come, so they wanted it's sound capabilities to be able to keep up with the times. Why spend a lot of expensive R&D developing and including a pricey and impressive sound chip in the 7800 when most programmers wouldn't always use it's capabilities? It'd be cheaper to force the devs to use custom chips if they wanted better audio, and it gives them more flexibility. And it's just like '80s Atari to give the developer a flexible platform to program on.

[BydoEmpire]

Of course it's possible to do a version of SMB3 on the 7800. If you can do arcade games like Tutankham or Defender or Ms Pac Man on the 2600, you can do an NES game like SMB3 on the 7800. Will it look and sound the same? No. I guess if depends if you're asking "can you make the exact same game" or "can you do a version of the game?"

I always liked the pre-crash arcade-to-home ports. They had their own charm and unique way of interpreting the game.

[vintagegamecrazy]

Check out these protos, it proves that the 7800 was more than capable in the right hands. Missing in Action and Sirius looked pretty cool as does plutos, all third party. The 7800 would probably be capable of advanced graphics had they made a larger cartridge with more chips like Nintendo did. But again we'll never know. To say that the 7800 could never do mario 3 is just harsh, what if the NES failed in its first year with no cart expansions or whatnot and the 7800 succeeded, we'd probably be saying that the Nes could never have handled the games that it does now.

check these 7800 games out (http://www.atariage.com/software_list.html?SystemID=7800)

[jb143]

Can these extra chips on the cart consist of a Mario 3 ROM, an NES on a chip, and a video pass though calbe a la the 32X? If so, then yes, it's completely possible.

[Leo_A]

They 7800 was supposed to be their flagship for years to come, so they wanted it's sound capabilities to be able to keep up with the times. Why spend a lot of expensive R&D developing and including a pricey and impressive sound chip in the 7800 when most programmers wouldn't always use it's capabilities? It'd be cheaper to force the devs to use custom chips if they wanted better audio, and it gives them more flexibility. And it's just like '80s Atari to give the developer a flexible platform to program on.

First of all, a Pokey chip was already in existence and was extremely cheap. It was already being used in all their 8 bit computers, the Atari 5200, and many of their arcade cabinets. It wasn't expensive and there was nothing to develop, so it blows that theory away as to why it wasn't included. And it would be far more expensive (Not cheaper) for every cartridge to have a custom sound chip. And if everything needed, at a minimum, the already existing Pokey for decent audio, why not just include it in the console itself?

Atari was as focused on things like the outward appearance of their hardware as they were things like fuctionality. I suspect they designed and approved a casing for the hardware and manufactured the expensive dies (Or whatever the term is, somehow that doesn't sound right) necessary for production of the console casing, and discovered afterwards that they wouldn't have the space to integrate a Pokey into it. Or perhaps they had to revise the internal hardware after the casing had already been designed and the expensive production tooling having been created, and eliminated the Pokey for room knowing it would be cheap to just have on the cartridges, rather than scrap the production tooling.

After all, by 1984, Atari and the industry as a whole were already in big trouble. Something like eliminating a sound chip, knowing that it would be cheap to include in games where it was necessary and that developers could scrape along with 2600 quality audio in many cases, just to save having to scrap the tooling for the casing of the console, sounds very much like Atari to me. We're talking about a company that was routinely making foolish mistakes that we've long been puzzled about.

Producing a console casing and tooling up to produce it before realizing what the hardware designers had created wouldn't fit within it's confines, sounds very "Atarish" to me. It also sounds very much like an urban legend, so I wouldn't be surprised at all that it wasn't true.

[Steve W]

I heard that too, and that just seems plain silly. It makes no sense: if the mobo was too big with a sound chip included, why not just widen the case?
I think the real reason for not including one was that Atari took a look at the rapid development of sound chips (ie. TIA -> Pokey -> SID) and realized that whatever they tossed in there would sound like crap within a few years.
They Pokey chip wasn't included because of backwards compatibility with the Atari 2600, from what I remember. There's an audio interview with the guys who formed GCC and designed the 7800 somewhere on this site, but I can't seem to find it.

[Leo_A]

They Pokey chip wasn't included because of backwards compatibility with the Atari 2600, from what I remember. There's an audio interview with the guys who formed GCC and designed the 7800 somewhere on this site, but I can't seem to find it.

I'd be interested if you could locate that, I'm unsure why inclusion of a Pokey would affect 2600 compatibility as long as the necessary 2600 hardware was also still present (Such as the TIA). But if someone from GCC says it, it has to be true since they knew what they were doing back then better than most anyone else.

[tomaitheous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIAgkAZShvw&feature=related

MSX hack of something similar to SMB3. MSX 1 uses the same video chip as the Coleco. If the Coleco/MSX can do this pirate game, then the 7800 should be able to do at least something comparable, if not better. While I don't think the 7800 could pull off SMB3 to the tee, that's not to say it couldn't do a "version" of it. Half/low vertical res (a turn off for me), but maybe some improvements else where. A pokey chip on the cart would be nice.

Also, the mapper in SMB3 isn't really some magical chip that beefs up the NES. The samples in the music is just native NES DPCM. And the mapper mostly is used for the rom space. Mapper for rom space are very common. It doesn't all anymore sprites or colors or such to the game.

[vivaeljason]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIAgkAZShvw&feature=related

MSX hack of something similar to SMB3. MSX 1 uses the same video chip as the Coleco. If the Coleco/MSX can do this pirate game, then the 7800 should be able to do at least something comparable, if not better. While I don't think the 7800 could pull off SMB3 to the tee, that's not to say it couldn't do a "version" of it. Half/low vertical res (a turn off for me), but maybe some improvements else where. A pokey chip on the cart would be nice.

Also, the mapper in SMB3 isn't really some magical chip that beefs up the NES. The samples in the music is just native NES DPCM. And the mapper mostly is used for the rom space. Mapper for rom space are very common. It doesn't all anymore sprites or colors or such to the game.

Oh, come on.

This hack looks awful, sounds awful and (probably) plays awful. Also, watching the speedrun video, it's only 2 worlds. I suppose if the question was whether the 7800 could handle this, then sure. But the spirit of the discussion is whether it could handle the real thing or a very close facsimile. This hack is nowhere near close to the real thing.

[Great Hierophant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIAgkAZShvw&feature=related

MSX hack of something similar to SMB3. MSX 1 uses the same video chip as the Coleco. If the Coleco/MSX can do this pirate game, then the 7800 should be able to do at least something comparable, if not better. While I don't think the 7800 could pull off SMB3 to the tee, that's not to say it couldn't do a "version" of it. Half/low vertical res (a turn off for me), but maybe some improvements else where. A pokey chip on the cart would be nice.

Also, the mapper in SMB3 isn't really some magical chip that beefs up the NES. The samples in the music is just native NES DPCM. And the mapper mostly is used for the rom space. Mapper for rom space are very common. It doesn't all anymore sprites or colors or such to the game.

That is very impressive for the MSX since it does not have hardware support for smooth scrolling, at least in the horizontal.

[swlovinist]

The 7800 is a great machine, cabable of doing amazing arcade ports. Scrolling platform titles was something that it was never really designed to do well, and I doubt that a "decent" version could ever be done. With that being said, I am sure someone will try, for that I wish the programmer or programmers luck.

I agree that that a "quality port" is in question. I am sure that it could be done, but how good could it be really?

[tomaitheous]

Oh, come on.

This hack looks awful, sounds awful and (probably) plays awful. Also, watching the speedrun video, it's only 2 worlds. I suppose if the question was whether the 7800 could handle this, then sure. But the spirit of the discussion is whether it could handle the real thing or a very close facsimile. This hack is nowhere near close to the real thing.

Then you miss the whole point I was trying to make. If the MSX 1 (the original, which is basically just a Coleco system) can pull *that* off, surely the 7800 could do much better. Or do you think the 7800 is just comparable to the Coleco/MSX 1 ?

[Rob2600]

do you think the 7800 is just comparable to the Coleco/MSX 1 ?

If I remember correctly, the 7800 features the same CPU as the 5200. The difference is the 7800 has less RAM, but a more powerful graphics chip. Based on those specs, how much better was the 7800 than the 5200, XEGS, or ColecoVision?

Also, wasn't there a laser disc add-on in the works for the 7800? I wonder if that would've boosted its performance at all.

Anyway, going by early games only, the graphics in NES games still look better than 7800 games. To me, the NES's higher resolution makes a huge difference. I hate the 7800's low-res, stretched out pixels. Compare games like Pro Wrestling, Mach Rider, Kung Fu, Excitebike, Galaga, etc. to the equivalent 7800 games. Even Donkey Kong and Mario Bros. look a bit better on the NES.

[tomaitheous]

Anyway, going by early games only, the graphics in NES games still look better than 7800 games. To me, the NES's higher resolution makes a huge difference. I hate the 7800's low-res, stretched out pixels.

Yeah, same here. Another reason why I don't care for C64 stuff too (the "fat" pixel look).

[vivaeljason]

Then you miss the whole point I was trying to make. If the MSX 1 (the original, which is basically just a Coleco system) can pull *that* off, surely the 7800 could do much better. Or do you think the 7800 is just comparable to the Coleco/MSX 1 ?

No...I got your point. What I'm suggesting is that while a 7800 version would undoubtedly be much better than that pirate, I don't think it would be anywhere near the quality of the actual NES version.

We've already established how poorly the 7800 handles scrolling, but even overcoming that, it seems really unlikely to me that a 7800 version of SMB3 would be on the same level as the real thing.

[Leo_A]

It hasn't been established at all that the Atari 7800 wasn't good at scrolling.

All we've had is a handful of people stating that scrolling titles were something the console wasn't designed to do well. And their entire basis for that statement is because platformers were nearly absent on the platform due to Atari not ever bringing the console much past early 1980s single screen arcade titles.

The fact that a genre doesn't really exists doesn't make their statements on the 7800's hardware accurate. There are plenty of 7800 releases with scrolling that work very well, such as the port of Xevious. Even the Atari 2600 could handle scrolling very well, as dozens of releases like River Raid show.

[GroovyBee]

We've already established how poorly the 7800 handles scrolling, but even overcoming that, it seems really unlikely to me that a 7800 version of SMB3 would be on the same level as the real thing.

You've obviously not played my 7800 homebrew game Apple Snaffle then? It scrolls in 4 directions in 1 pixel increments.

[tomaitheous]

You've obviously not played my 7800 homebrew game Apple Snaffle then? It scrolls in 4 directions in 1 pixel increments.

That's not anything to brag about - lol

[7th lutz]

We've already established how poorly the 7800 handles scrolling, but even overcoming that, it seems really unlikely to me that a 7800 version of SMB3 would be on the same level as the real thing.

Not at all. You need to play GroovyBee's Apple Sniffle. It is one of the best example of scrolling for the Atari 7800.

The last Work in progress available for Apple Sniffle is found at http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/144344-apple-snaffle-7800s-25th-birthday-game/page__view__findpost__p__1799150 .

[7th lutz]

I think some of you also need to play PacManPlus's Failsafe. It scrolls left/right for all 6 Levels. The game scrolls forward, and you can't go backwards.

The latest availble version of Failsafe is found at http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/154189-failsafe-7800-wip/page__view__findpost__p__1896615

[Rob2600]

I think some of you also need to play PacManPlus's Failsafe. It scrolls left/right for all 6 Levels. The game scrolls forward, and you can't go backwards.

The latest availble version of Failsafe is found at http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/154189-failsafe-7800-wip/page__view__findpost__p__1896615

This:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/uploads/monthly_11_2009/post-1787-125955226361_thumb.png

http://www.atariage.com/forums/uploads/monthly_11_2009/post-1787-125955226815_thumb.png

vs. this:

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/a/ac/SMB3-gameplay.gif

http://www.bowsershrine.com/Images/Media/Screenshots/smb3_bowser.jpg

The 7800's scrolling capabilities may be fine, but it obviously needs to be able to do more than just that.

[Ed Oscuro]

Just to stir things up, it was years (and a hardware revision) before the MSX series did *good* scrolling comparable to the NES. The MSX2 can do it in software - not pretty, but it gets the job done. Bioman 4 for the MSX looks and probably plays nicely but the scrolling would drive me nuts.

[GroovyBee]

This :-

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/a/ac/SMB3-gameplay.gif

11 colours

vs

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2729&stc=1&d=1261045568

30 colours

[Ed Oscuro]

The image data reports 30 colors but that doesn't mean there were 30 in the source (or, more accurately, that anybody can tell). About half are wasted as fake gradients between the gradients already in the source image. Don't know about the tricks necessary to bring the color count above 25 or if they will slow down the action.

It also looks half-rez and just as importantly doesn't seem to be set up for scrolling.

[GroovyBee]

The image data reports 30 colors but that doesn't mean there were 30 in the source (or, more accurately, that anybody can tell).


There are 30. I should know. I wrote the game LOL.



About half are wasted as fake gradients between the gradients already in the source image. Don't know about the tricks necessary to bring the color count above 25 or if they will slow down the action.


The game engine will top out at about 64 colours on screen at the same time. It does not slow the action down.



It also looks half-rez and just as importantly doesn't seem to be set up for scrolling.

Its the 7800's 160A mode so thats 160 pixels across the screen. I agree its not a scrolling game.

[Ed Oscuro]

Thanks for those clarifications! I wonder why the colors tend to be so closely grouped together (which prompted my comment) - I take it this was an artistic issue? At a glance, you'd think that SMB was the more colorful game simply because it's using all its colors to create a more "full" world, whereas the colors in your game seem mainly intended to flesh out extra detail (but some of those are barely visible).

[gdement]

The image data reports 30 colors but that doesn't mean there were 30 in the source (or, more accurately, that anybody can tell). About half are wasted as fake gradients between the gradients already in the source image. Don't know about the tricks necessary to bring the color count above 25 or if they will slow down the action.

It also looks half-rez and just as importantly doesn't seem to be set up for scrolling.
The 7800 is scanline oriented. Graphical limitations on the 7800 are most appropriately expressed in terms of a scanline, not the screen. You can reconfigure anything between scanlines and the graphics chip doesn't care. This isn't really a new trick - the system has built-in support for interrupts that fire at the end of programmer-selected scanlines. The original docs recommend using this feature to change palette colors. It can also be used to change the video mode.

In low-res mode, the limit is 25 colors per scanline. There's a rom that displays all 256 colors with their corresponding hex values (16 per line).

====
The biggest advantage the 7800 has for color, in my opinion, is the 4bpp support. Normally an object uses 2-bits per pixel, for 3 colors + transparency. That's the same as a NES. However, you can also use 4-bits, which gives 12 colors + transparency. This is controlled at the object level, so you can still use 2bpp on other objects sharing the scanline.

I don't really like the choice of video modes though. One is low resolution with lots of color, and the others are high resolution with much less color. The NES has a better compromise IMO.

[GroovyBee]

Thanks for those clarifications! I wonder why the colors tend to be so closely grouped together (which prompted my comment) - I take it this was an artistic issue?

The graphics are not all final yet. Some are just placeholders so I can layout rooms.



At a glance, you'd think that SMB was the more colorful game simply because it's using all its colors to create a more "full" world, whereas the colors in your game seem mainly intended to flesh out extra detail (but some of those are barely visible).

The emulator screenshots don't do my game justice :(. The extra colours together with the anti-aliasing caused by the TV make the game much more 3D looking than it comes across.

Anyways... I've thread jacked enough. I was just trying to point out that the 7800 back catalogue didn't push the machine as much as people think. Back over to the SMB3 argument LOL.

[DracIsBack]

Oh wow - we've had so many of these discussions over at Atariage - I forget that these topics haven't always been discussed elsewhere.

First, it's important to remember that the NES and 7800 are essentially good at opposite things. The NES is strong on tiles and sound, weak on sprites and display tricks. The 7800 is strong on sprites and display tricks, weak on sound and tiles.

That said, I am kind of amused by some of the "all or nothing" statements here. Even the "no - it can't do Super Mario 3" seems all or nothing to me. Could it replicate Super Mario 3 100% in every way? No. I don't think the SMS could either. No systems are 100% in every way.

The real question is how close or not the 7800 would get, in the right hands, under the right conditions.

There have also been great points raised in the thread, though I wanted to comment on a few that I've seen.


“I see that the 7800 had a stronger CPU.”

The 7800 and NES are both 6502 based systems. Comparing one 8-bit 6502 based system running at 1.79 mhz against a second 8-bit 6502 based system running at 1.79 mhz is probably not the right comparison. Really, the discussion is around the differences in graphics and sound hardware.


“the nes is stronger then the 7800.”

Again, that's a black or white statement, all or nothing statement. It's not that simple.


“The 7800's problem was the system was not built with enough rom and ram inside the system.”

Not really sure how "ROM" plays into this. RAM, you could argue a bit though it should be in the context of how the system works and not a simple comparison of how much RAM it had vs. other 8-bit systems. For example, the NES only has 2K video RAM and 2K RAM while the 5200 had 16K.


“That is a big game of system that was only released due to the Tramiel family seeing how well the nes was selling.”

I thought this for a long time too, but it was pointed out to be incorrect. The NES didn't have a particularly successful 1985 and the 7800 was released early in 1986 because of strong 2600 sales.


“but of the three(SMS, NES, and 7800), the 7800 was by far the weakest on scrolling games.”

I own all three too. I lean towards the SMS and NES in this department given their architecture but I also believe that SMS and NES were pushed more and the 7800 was not. Therefore, I don't think the comparison is entirely fair.


“I don't believe that. Look at the XEGS version of Mario Bros. vs the 7800.”

Fine. Look at the XEGS version of TOWER TOPPLER vs. the 7800. Or COMMANDO. Or DESERT FALCON. :-)

Seriously though, you're actually raising a good point here.

As others have noted, the Tramiels were really cheap. They hired cheap dev houses, they paid for short development cycles. They refused to allow larger cartridge sizes, additional RAM, POKEYs, Battery Backups etc due to cost.

With the XEGS, many games on that system were cartridge ports of existing disk based games licensed after the sales had dried up. Tramiel didn't "fund" the development, just the license and distribution rights. In some cases the quality was typically higher.

With the 7800, he funded the license and distribution rights and then paid for the development. Especially in the early days, you can see where he cheaped out. Compare the awful 7800 Karateka port. Look at Summer Games which has fewer events on the 7800 than the XE.

To give a reverse example: look at "DESERT FALCON" on the 7800 and XEGS. On the 7800, it was designed by the original developers of the 7800. On the XEGS, it was quickly ported after the fact and it sucks.




“When people talk about the graphical abilities of the 7800, they always bring up Commando. Commando looks very good on the 7800. It's also one game. One game you're comparing to a proto of a XEGS game. Give me one more example of a 7800 game that's graphically superior to an XEGS game and then we'll talk.”

Feel free to show the XEGS running ALIEN BRIGADE, TOWER TOPPLER, SCRAPYARD DOG, MIDNIGHT MUTANTS, BASKETBRAWL, NINJA GOLF, SIRIUS, PLUTOS, and most of the later 7800 games. The XEGS is a good machine but there are most definitely areas where the 7800 is stronger in the graphics dept.


“Scrapyard Dog is the only scrolling platform game for the Atari 7800 that isn't a demo.“

Just to be clear though - there are LOTS of 7800 games that scroll - with colorful backgrounds and without. People sometimes mistake the tile issue for it not being able to scroll. The thing has hardware assisted scrolling and many games show it - Xevious, Desert Falcon, Dark Chambers, Scapyard Dog, Midnight Mutants, Commando, Ikari Warriors, Impossible Mission, Jinks, Ninja Golf, Sirius, and Tower Toppler all scroll. :-)




“The Atari 7800 didn't exactly have great programmers back in the day like the person that did Karateka, Hat Trick, and Choplifter!.”

I think the other issue as well was that Tramiel put a lot of constraints - get it done fast, get it done cheap, don't ask for extras.

The head of GCC had a funny quote about Jack wanting games on the system but "not really wanting to pay people to make them".

The other challenge was the NES issue. Nintendo locked people out of making their games for competing consoles. Naturally, companies would go to where the money is, as the best developers did. That move barred them from taking the same talent to competitive consoles later. While games commonly come out on all three major systems now, they didn't then.


“BUT had the 7800 been 100% exploited, it likely could've produced a game that the NES could not replicate."


Stick the NES on something like RESCUE ON FRACTALUS or with a lot of moving objects and you'll see its own limits.



“The NES didn't really have a need for one though. The 7800 did. A Pokey chip wasn't expensive, but to a Tramiel era Atari, something that added $1-2 to the manufacturing cost of a game was unacceptable no matter what it's benefit was.”

There were actually plans to have a low cost chip (GUMBY) but that was cancelled.


“Commando and Ballblazer both had a Pokey sound chip”

Commando actually uses both the POKEY and the TIA for sound. That's why the music is a little bit broader in that game than the XEGS. The POKEY does the music, the TIA does the sound effects.


“There's an audio interview with the guys who formed GCC and designed the 7800 somewhere on this site, but I can't seem to find it.“

http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/7800-20th/


“If I remember correctly, the 7800 features the same CPU as the 5200. The difference is the 7800 has less RAM, but a more powerful graphics chip. Based on those specs, how much better was the 7800 than the 5200, XEGS, or ColecoVision?”

RAM is not the best comparison. The NES has less RAM than the 5200 too.


“To me, the NES's higher resolution makes a huge difference. I hate the 7800's low-res, stretched out pixels.”

I never noticed it (and I owned multiple systems) until a few people brought it up. Regardless, both are pretty "low res" systems.



“We've already established how poorly the 7800 handles scrolling”

I don't think we have.


“I was just trying to point out that the 7800 back catalogue didn't push the machine as much as people think.”

GroovyBee has it.

[Rob2600]

This :-

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/a/ac/SMB3-gameplay.gif

11 colours

vs

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2729&stc=1&d=1261045568

30 colours

In those screen shots, Super Mario Bros. 3 still looks better to me. I think it's because of the higher resolution of the NES.

Again, I hate the stretched out look of 7800 and C64 games. Those wide pixels drive me nuts.