Activision Anthology on GBA

[lazyhoboguy]

I absolutely love this game. It has like 50 atari games/ homebrew games/ and a few unfinished games in it. I never owned an atari so this is great for me, especially since it saves high scores. I was wondering though what you gamers that played these games on atari thought. Like, if using the control pad is a completely different experience then using the original joysticks. I find for some games like activision decathlon, the control pad sucks.
My favorite games so far on the collection are spider fighter, crackpot, beamrider, oink, starmaster, boxing, and dolphin (just played for the first time today).

[boatofcar]

Does it save high scores when the power's turned off?

[Leo_A]

I don't particularly enjoy it, the GBA wasn't quite up to the task of emulating the 2600 and as a result many games like River Raid run slow. However, I think the d-pad is just fine for it (With the obvious exception of Kaboom).

The game has a cartridge save and tracks high scores and patches earned.

[lazyhoboguy]

Does it save high scores when the power's turned off?

Yep, it even lets u unlock patches to look at once u reach a certain score. Plus game box art and manuals are viewable for every game.

[lazyhoboguy]

I don't particularly enjoy it, the GBA wasn't quite up to the task of emulating the 2600 and as a result many games like River Raid run slow. However, I think the d-pad is just fine for it (With the obvious exception of Kaboom).

The game has a cartridge save and tracks high scores and patches earned.

Is stampede one of these games with slowdown? It seems like a great concept but your character moves way too slow up and down.

[boatofcar]

Are you sure they run slow? River Raid runs pretty slow in it's orignial 2600 form too...same with Stampede.

[Leo_A]

I've played many hours of River Raid. Its running significantly slower than it would on 2600 hardware. Some games are almost perfect and are probably running at least at 90% full speed, but many others suffer significantly. Another way to easily pick up on it almost immediately is listen to the sound effects as your refueling. Due to how slow its running, it sounds like the audio is being played back in slow motion. River Raid on the 2600 is my favorite game if that helps to reinforce my statements any.

Here's an excellent example that I think will be immediately obvious to anyone that ever played much Barnstorming (The game turns from a challenge to a cakewalk at the slower speeds its running at in this collection).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99ZOqZQrbXU

Youtube used to have a nice video of River Raid in action on the GBA, but it seems to be MIA.

As for Stampede, the game so quickly becomes impossible (For me at least) that I've never played it much and I'm not really one to ask about the accuracy of the GBA running it. However, the titles that involve scrolling of some sort seem to be the ones that tend to be the slower runners in this compilation, so I suspect Stampede suffers accordingly.

Here are a couple of long threads at AA about this game if anyone wants to learn more about it.

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39322&hl=Activision+Anthology

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=66760&hl=Activision+Anthology

I should add that its a great collection and many of the games remain fun and enjoyable to play despite slower speeds. The quality of the title, inclusion of homebrews, etc., make for a nice package. The slower speeds and frame skip in games like River Raid and HERO are unfortunate and dragged it down for me, but the developers did a admirable job with hardware that is barely able to emulate the 2600. So don't shy away from picking it up if anyone is considering it.

[DigitalSpace]

the developers did a admirable job with hardware that is barely able to emulate the 2600.

Agreed.

Imo, this is the best retro compilation on the GBA. I'm glad that high scores are saved - one of the few flaws of the PS2 version was that they weren't.

The homebrews are also a nice bonus. Dangerboy did the cover art for Climber 5, so make sure to take a look at it.

[lazyhoboguy]

@leo ames thanks for those atariage links was interesting to read others impressions about it. This is my favorite gba game so far because of the insane amount of replayability. I love how it saves high scores as well and motivates you to keep improving at games. Really cool when you unlock a patch too and that awesome victory music plays.

[Mayhem]

This sums up how awesome it is...! ;)


http://www.mayhem64.co.uk/photos/photos29g.jpg


(and yes, playing it is pretty good too, despite the slowdown as mentioned. It's usually stuck in the bottom of my fat DS)

[boatofcar]

Leo, thanks for the informative writeup. I'm kinda torn too, because River Raid is one of my favorite 2600 games...

[heybtbm]

No Pitfall 2 :(

[DigitalSpace]

No Pitfall 2 :(

It's on there.

[slapdash]

Is my name in the credits like it is in the PS2 version? :-)

[Poofta!]

i dunno what you guys are talking about with the gba not being powerful enough to be able to emulate a 2600. a gba can perfectly emulate an NES 100%, among other consoles.


the developers just fucked up with their code/port.

[Leo_A]

The Atari 2600 is a much more difficult system to emulate. It's not merely a reflection of the power of a console, but the complexity of a system.

The Atari 2600 is one of the most difficult systems to effectively program for, and its been pushed further than just about any other piece of hardware out there, and have had many things like bugs and its many quirks taken advantage of by developers over the years to push it far beyond what it was initially designed to do by playing things like Pong and Tank.

Not only does the program have to emulate a complex piece of hardware architecture (Though just a relatively weak piece of 1970's hardware), it needs to be nearly perfect to correctly run games due to what companies like Activision did by pushing the console to its limits. Also I've been told the video signal makes 2600 emulation more difficult where the hardware is constructing the video signal one scanline at a time, adding a layer of complexity that most console emulation doesn't have to worry about.

The NES architecture is pretty simple and straightforward and not terribly difficult to replicate, and doesn't need to be as accurate since it doesn't draw the picture on the fly. They can use more tricks and short cuts to speed up emulation that can't be used on 2600 emulators due to the architecture of the console and how far developers eventually pushed the hardware.

I'm not a tech guru that's intimately familiar with the 2600's hardware so my answer isn't the best, so hopefully someone else can chime in and do a better job of wording what I was trying to get across.

[Poofta!]

The Atari 2600 is a much more difficult system to emulate. It's not merely a reflection of the power of a console, but the complexity of a system.

The Atari 2600 is one of the most difficult systems to effectively program for, and its been pushed further than just about any other piece of hardware out there, and have had many things like bugs and its many quirks taken advantage of by developers over the years to push it far beyond what it was initially designed to do by playing things like Pong and Tank.

Not only does the program have to emulate a complex piece of hardware architecture (Though just a relatively weak piece of 1970's hardware), it needs to be nearly perfect to correctly run games due to what companies like Activision did by pushing the console to its limits. Also I've been told the video signal makes 2600 emulation more difficult where the hardware is constructing the video signal one scanline at a time, adding a layer of complexity that most console emulation doesn't have to worry about.

The NES architecture is pretty simple and straightforward and not terribly difficult to replicate, and doesn't need to be as accurate since it doesn't draw the picture on the fly. They can use more tricks and short cuts to speed up emulation that can't be used on 2600 emulators due to the architecture of the console and how far developers eventually pushed the hardware.

I'm not a tech guru that's intimately familiar with the 2600's hardware so my answer isn't the best, so hopefully someone else can chime in and do a better job of wording what I was trying to get across.

no shit youre not a tech guru. there are 100% 2600 emulators for the gba, and many other similarly weak/strong system.

[Leo_A]

There was no halfway decent 2600 emulator for the GBA at the time of this games release, largely due to the underpowered nature of the GBA.

You're saying there is homebrew development in 2600 emulation now for the GBA and its 100% and runs everything (Besides maybe a few exceptions like Pitfall 2) at full speed?

I'm doubtful when these guys didn't achieve it, and homebrew 2600 emulation on the much more powerful DS as of a year or two ago was painfully slow. But it wouldn't surprise me if its been accomplished now, considering how close Aspyr managed to get there in a short development cycle. I'm sure with a bit more optimization and development time, they'd of gotten it close to perfection.

But I suspect you just don't have a clue.

But in the end, I really don't know and don't particularly care since I have no intentions of buying a GBA flashcart and trying it. All I was trying to get across is that the 2600 is a difficult console to emulate and the abilty for a platform to emulate another isn't solely based on how capable the console being emulated is. Nothing more, nothing less. I stand by my statement that 2600 emulation is more difficult than NES emulation, requiring more resources, and is why this wasn't 100% while it can do NES emulation nearly perfectly. If you disagree, it just shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

I suspect anyone that has any technical knowledge in emulation would say, for example, that its much more difficult to emulate the Atari Jaguar than a Sony Playstation. The same thing is taking place in regards to the 2600 and NES.

[lazyhoboguy]

I just started playing frostbite on this collection within this past week. That game is so addicting. I hate those damn bears guarding my igloo though!

[Leo_A]

I've been playing the collection quite a bit as well. Despite its flaws, I enjoy keeping it in my DS for something to come back to often (And has the side benefit of keeping dust out of the cartridge slot).

[Leo_A]

i dunno what you guys are talking about with the gba not being powerful enough to be able to emulate a 2600. a gba can perfectly emulate an NES 100%, among other consoles.


the developers just fucked up with their code/port.
The Atari 2600 is a much more difficult system to emulate. It's not merely a reflection of the power of a console, but the complexity of a system.

The Atari 2600 is one of the most difficult systems to effectively program for, and its been pushed further than just about any other piece of hardware out there, and have had many things like bugs and its many quirks taken advantage of by developers over the years to push it far beyond what it was initially designed to do by playing things like Pong and Tank.

Not only does the program have to emulate a complex piece of hardware architecture (Though just a relatively weak piece of 1970's hardware), it needs to be nearly perfect to correctly run games due to what companies like Activision did by pushing the console to its limits. Also I've been told the video signal makes 2600 emulation more difficult where the hardware is constructing the video signal one scanline at a time, adding a layer of complexity that most console emulation doesn't have to worry about.

The NES architecture is pretty simple and straightforward and not terribly difficult to replicate, and doesn't need to be as accurate since it doesn't draw the picture on the fly. They can use more tricks and short cuts to speed up emulation that can't be used on 2600 emulators due to the architecture of the console and how far developers eventually pushed the hardware.

I'm not a tech guru that's intimately familiar with the 2600's hardware so my answer isn't the best, so hopefully someone else can chime in and do a better job of wording what I was trying to get across.
no shit youre not a tech guru. there are 100% 2600 emulators for the gba, and many other similarly weak/strong system.

Never forgot your rude and uninformed post and thought of you when I stumbled across this article. It was written by one of the main members of the Digital Eclipse team that worked on such things as Atari Anthology, Midway Arcade Treasures, and the upcoming pair of Nintendo DS Atari compilations.

Basically confirms everything I stated. And I'm still waiting to find out where these 100% 2600 emulators for such things as the GBA and other underpowered platforms are located...

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2185/back_to_the_classics_perfecting_.php

Some choice quotes from it...

"The "modest" Atari 2600 platform, in fact, is so alien to just about every console and computer platform that came after it, that the code necessary to explain it is extremely convoluted. So, emulating an Atari 2600 is much more challenging than, say, emulating Bally/Midway's Rampage, which was released nine years later."

"By modern standards, the Atari 2600 is extremely unusual. The program code and the generation of video signal are completely intertwined."

"The 2600 is additionally challenging because it would build the video signal on the fly as the raster scanned down the TV screen. There was no video buffer, so the content of the registers never contained the whole picture. You had to look at what was in the registers whenever it changed and know exactly where the raster was supposed to be in order to know how the image was built. Essentially, there were several pages of emulation code that had to be processed at run time to deal with each pixel on the screen. It was such a drain on the CPU that, for a time, it looked like the PS2 wasn't going to be able to pull off the double-speed effect we wanted as a game variation [So Sherlock, it sounds like it was a bit of a task just to even have the PS2 run a 2600 emulator at 2X speed.]."

"That's the big irony about the 2600. What appears to be the simplest machine to emulate is actually one of the hardest and most CPU intensive. It only had 128 bytes of RAM and most games were 2048 bytes of ROM but every cycle counted."

So in summary, you're just an ignorant idiot.