Is there really a convincing argument for the 7800 over NES?

[boatofcar]

I was reading the latest issue (vol 2, iss 2) of Retro Gamer magazine, and they had a big expose on the 7800, including an interview with one of the guys who designed the machine. He said that graphically, the 7800 was better than the NES, yet not as good as the SMS. Maybe I just haven't been looking at the right games, but I have never seen the 7800 display the kind of sprites that the NES is capable of.

Case in point- score display. The score display on 7800 arcade conversions is laughable. While miles ahead of the VCS, the numbers are big and blocky, not at all like the polished rounded numbers found on NES arcade conversions.

Anybody want to prove me wrong on this one?

[TheHammerGod]

God, I doubt it.

And that is from a guy who picked the 7800 over the NES way back in the day.

My bad. I thought the Impossible Mission screen shot on the box was Rolling Thunder, lol.

[Gapporin]

Is there really a convincing argument for the 7800 over NES?

From a marketing standpoint: Yes. Name recognition.

Atari had been making consoles and arcade games since the mid-70's. What did Nintendo have? Donkey Kong? They even had other companies (most notably, Coleco) port that game to the various systems at the time.

I think Atari was basically trying to make an effort to rely on their name and their slew of arcade titles. All of those games people had played before, and knew how to play and they liked them. Nintendo was something new, something different.

[swlovinist]

I still say that that Nes was graphically superior, but it is hard to compare the two, as the 7800 had such a limited library and very few companies other than Atari make games for it. The Nes was on the market far past its prime and had astonishing progammers making games for it(Battletoads comes to mind) in which developers had years and years of time to know the ins and outs of the system.

[Ze_ro]

I've always been under the impression that the arguement here is that the 7800 is theoretically more powerful than the NES, but was never really pushed to it's limits like the NES was.

In any case, where else can you play a good round of Ninja Golf other than on the 7800?!?

--Zero

[Algol]

The 7800 might have had an advantage over the NES early on, but the more advanced NES games had mapper chips inside the cartridges which made it far more powerful. The 7800 on the other hand had a small library and many of its games seemed to be rushed out the door.

[Flack]

I've always assumed that the NES had "tricks" whether it were mapper chips or other methods of improving its output. Case in point, many of the NES games looked better than C64 games, and if you look at the resolution, the C64's was higher.

[Kid Ice]

One look at Galaga for both systems tells me a lot.

[Graham Mitchell]

From what I've heard, though, the 7800 really could be pushed a lot farther than it was. Yes, the later NES games all had extra chips and mapper tricks, but from what I can tell, nearly EVERY 7800 cart had extra processors. The machine was designed so that the whole system could be customized for the game you were playing.

For example: I guess the sound chip in the 7800 is basically identical to the 2600's (or maybe worse), and it only has 2 channels. If developers wanted more than 2 sound channels, they had to put an extra sound processor in the cartridge. Any 7800 game that said "Super Game Cartridge" on the label had something extra, whether it was a sound or an extra graphics chip. Ballblazer, Dark Chambers, and Karateka all have that label, although the only game that could take on the NES out of those three would be Ballblazer--and it is AWESOME. If only other designers were as ambitious as Lucasarts was.

BTW--if you've played Tower Toppler, you'd know that thing was capable of some pretty impressive graphics. It's not as colorful as your average NES game, but as you move around the tower (which is supposed to be round) the whole playfield kind of "warps" or rotates in faux-parallax animation. Every object on the screen seems to have a front, a back, and a couple side angles making for a very realistic appearance, almost like watching a cartoon. Though the NES has some great-looking titles, I never saw anything like this on it. (Although, to be fair, I think Tower Toppler was ported to the NES as Castelian or something--they could have used the same effect there, but I haven't played it.) Anyway, this is just an example of what that 7800 could have been if anybody gave a shit.

[Archenemy]

Well as many of you I have both systems, I find both appealing, but it is the controller what makes the difference. If the 7800 should have more buttons here and there, then you could have had better gameplay, because the 7800 controllers are superb for the time but does lack of the "Start" and "Select" buttons needed in many NES games- Or does someone REALLY like the boxes the NES had for controllers?

It is a shame we will never know how far the 7800 could had gone. :/

[omnedon]

I believe the 7800 could handle larger numbers of moving sprites than the NES ever could, but few 7800 games ever took advantage.

Therefore any strengths the 7800 may have had, were never really used.

I love underdogs, and the 7800 is definitely one of those.

If you include the 2600 library, the 7800 is worth owning and AV modding http://www.oldschoolgamer.ca/information.aspx?SID=18, as it's a two for the price of one end result.

[stevec1636]

Im sorry but the NES blows the 7800 away. yes i have both systems but the graphics on the 7800 don't come close the NES. I might be sounding like a Fanboy for Nintendo. I am not believe me, but Remember it was the NES who saved video games and the 7800 was one of the systems that led to it's decline.

[imanerd0011]

Im sorry but the NES blows the 7800 away. yes i have both systems but the graphics on the 7800 don't come close the NES. I might be sounding like a Fanboy for Nintendo. I am not believe me, but Remember it was the NES who saved video games and the 7800 was one of the systems that led to it's decline.

I gotta agree. The NES absolutly dominates the 7800 as far as graphics go. I have heard that the 7800 is more powerful. If that is true, then the programmers did a REALLY bad job using the systems power.
Just compare games that were on both the NES and the 7800. Double Dragon looks pitiful on the 7800, and looks pretty good on the NES. As someone already mentioned, Galaga looks pretty bad on the 7800 and the opposite on the NES.

[Dr. Morbis]

One look at Galaga for both systems tells me a lot.
It tells me that the NES version is more faithful to the arcade original.

Anyway, the only instance I've ever seen of superior software on the 7800 is Commando. It puts the NES version to shame. I hear that Xenophobe is also superior on the 7800 but I haven't found that game yet to verify it. Every other instance where pro-Atari people or anti-Nintendo people make arguments for the 7800 vs the NES, it is always blatantly false. 7800's Double Dragon is inferior in every way. Tengen's Ms. Pac-Man is superior to the 7800 version (and yes I know the 7800 version was developed by Ms. Pac-Man's original creators).

The 7800 was better at pushing sprites on single screen playfields with no backgrounds, something that was passe by the time NES was in full swing.

Atari 7800 is a case of woulda, coulda, shoulda. Great NES games were a reality.

[ubersaurus]

The 7800 writes the screen completely differently than the NES or the SMS. It's much more effective at manipulating many sprites without slowdown.

Furthermore, the NES had one major advantage over the 7800-support. Nintendo simply put money into R&D for the system, and as a result, you had dozens upon dozens of different mappers that can be used to give the system more power. Nintendo also would do additional things, such as larger cart sizes, or battery backed save files. Early NES games were 128k sized-last gen 7800 games were that big. Atari's owners at that time simply didn't want to put any money into the system that they didn't have to, forcing programmers to make inferior looking versions of games in smaller space, with less RAM, or crummy sound. The 7800 was practically built to have additional RAM or POKEY chips in damn near every game, and schematics have been found, as I understand it, for cart sizes up to one meg. But again, never pushed it.

The 7800 is capable of NES style graphics, though. Take one look at later releases, like Scrapyard Dog, Commando, Alien Brigade, Tower Toppler, or Ikari Warriors. Even earlier games like Xevious, Donkey Kong, and Donkey Kong Junior can all compare visually with the NES counterparts.

Make no mistake, the NES was utilized MUCH better than the 7800. But to say that the 7800 was outclassed entirely coems down to judgement on various multisystem ports, of which the NES makers simply had more to work with financially.

Edit: Tengen Ms. Pac-Man sucked ass compared to 7800. 7800 had the speed of the original. Tengen had that stupid Pac-Booster, if I remember correctly.

[James]

Remember it was the NES who saved video games and the 7800 was one of the systems that led to it's decline.

I agree, Nintendo did save the North American video game industry with the release of their NES in 1985, which was a great system and stepped video gaming into a new and in many ways a better realm, but the system isn't without its own problems, like any. I don't agree that Atari 7800 helped thwart the video game crash of the early 1980's as it was released in 1986 in an a failed attempt to combat Nintendo’s NES after the crash was pretty much over.

Nintendo probably had the better marketing team at the time as Atari was no longer solely run by the founders that made it glorious which made a big difference and Nintendo also had the way more talented development team on hand as well to pump out those great games we all loved then and now. Nintendo also had the booming Japanese video game industry on their back to get new games made and released for the audiences abroad to enjoy, something the weakened North American development market was lacking.

It is true that Atari 7800 is more graphically powerful than NES; the system also is weaker in other areas and is exactly the same in others as well. The two systems use different versions of the same CPU running at the exact same clock-rate (a custom Motorola 6502 8-bit CPU running at 1.79MHz or a little less depending on what video standard you’re using), so there's no advantage either way there. Atari 7800 does have twice the RAM NES has (7800 – 4 KB, NES 2 KB) but NES also has 2 KB of video RAM in addition to its main memory. 7800 is capable of 100 sprites on screen at once; NES is capable of 64 sprites at once. They both are capable of the same colours on screen at once but 7800 has a palette of 256 colours and NES has a palette of only 52 colours. Check out this great site for more info on all console specs from every generation:http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consoles/gen3.php

Nintendo’s NES has one of the best sounding sound processors in video game history, most NES games sound more appealing and in a lot of cases even better than that of what Genesis/MegaDrive was able to offer and it’s a 16-bit system and for some reason has one of the worst sounding sound processors in video game history. Atari 7800 has the same sound processor as Atari 2600 did as mentioned earlier. Now from a marketing and development standpoint this seems like a stupid decision but as mentioned earlier as well the system is capable of having separate CPUs for both sound and processing built into the cartridge, which was a cool and expensive way of making games better. NES did similar tricks for mappers and size limitations, etc. SNES did this even more than NES did much the way 7800 was designed to do.

The controllers are another determining factor in the success of a console, both now and then. Atari 7800 used a tried and true method, albeit a little outdated but it worked just fine, it could have however used a couple more buttons. Nintendo revolutionized controllers with their amazing 2 action, 2 function and 1 directional pad design which made gaming a lot more intuitive and logical from a control standpoint. Many people say now they don’t like that controller design, but without it we wouldn’t have what we have today. We might even be stuck with the more limited spinner paddle design, although the joystick has returned in analog form thanks to Nintendo again which makes true 3D movement possible.

Overall Nintendo’s Entertainment System looks graphically better than Atari’s 7800 does for the most part but NES also did way way better than 7800 did which never really got off the ground.

[Graham Mitchell]

The controllers are another determining factor in the success of a console, both now and then. Atari 7800 used a tried and true method, albeit a little outdated but it worked just fine, it could have however used a couple more buttons. Nintendo revolutionized controllers with their amazing 2 action, 2 function and 1 directional pad design which made gaming a lot more intuitive and logical from a control standpoint. Many people say now they don’t like that controller design, but without it we wouldn’t have what we have today. We might even be stuck with the more limited spinner paddle design, although the joystick has returned in analog form thanks to Nintendo again which makes true 3D movement possible.


I don't think it had any extra buttons, but I think the PAL version came with a pad instead of a joystick, with the two buttons on the same surface as the D-pad. It looked kind of like the SMS controllers.

In any case, yes the NES was capable of more, but don't sell the 7800 short. Looking at still pictures don't do it justice; it's impressive when it's moving. If you're into the early, 2600-style gameplay, the 7800 is as good as it gets for that type of thing. But if you're going to compare it with the NES version of Double Dragon, the 7800 isn't going to compare because it wasn't designed to handle games like that. Before the advent of the really involved NES games (ie-before the disk system had it's hits like Zelda and Castlevania 2), the difference in comparison between the 7800 and the NES might have been similar to the comparison between a PS2 and an Xbox. The NES did quickly come and kick it's ass, though.

[WanganRunner]

I dunno....the 7800 LOOKS cooler than the NES does.

I'd say that's about it, lol.

I guess at the time, the backwards-compatibility was worth something, you could play hundreds of 2600 games, while the NES's library was probably (at the time) far smaller.

[boatofcar]

One look at Galaga for both systems tells me a lot.
It tells me that the NES version is more faithful to the arcade original.

Anyway, the only instance I've ever seen of superior software on the 7800 is Commando. It puts the NES version to shame. I hear that Xenophobe is also superior on the 7800 but I haven't found that game yet to verify it. Every other instance where pro-Atari people or anti-Nintendo people make arguments for the 7800 vs the NES, it is always blatantly false. 7800's Double Dragon is inferior in every way. Tengen's Ms. Pac-Man is superior to the 7800 version (and yes I know the 7800 version was developed by Ms. Pac-Man's original creators).



Here's a quick aside. Two MIT students had found success with building boards that increased the difficulty of existing arcade games, the most successful being those for Missile Command and Pac-Man. The board for speeding up Pac Man was eventually bought by Atari and worked into subsequent releases of Pac Man and became the groundwork for the speed of Ms. Pac Man. Becasue of the success of these boards, Atari tried to sue the two MIT students, but eventually failed and just hired them instead to produce their new game console, which became the Atari 7800.

<shameless plug>

Read Retro Gamer Magazine!

http://www.livepublishing.co.uk/uploads/retro14.jpg

[boatofcar]

double post.

[Lady Jaye]

Here's a quick aside. Two MIT students had found success with building boards that increased the difficulty of existing arcade games, the most successful being those for Missile Command and Pac-Man. The board for speeding up Pac Man was eventually bought by Atari and worked into subsequent releases of Pac Man and became the groundwork for the speed of Ms. Pac Man. Becasue of the success of these boards, Atari tried to sue the two MIT students, but eventually failed and just hired them instead to produce their new game console, which became the Atari 7800.

<shameless plug>

Read Retro Gamer Magazine!

http://www.livepublishing.co.uk/uploads/retro14.jpg

You're mixing up two events in the career of General Computer Corp. Yes, they did get caught by Atari for enhancement boards of games like Missile Command, but were also caught by Bally/Midway for their Pac-Man boards. With Atari, they worked on Atari 2600 games, developped the Atari 7800 hardware and made many (if not most) of the 5200 and 7800 games.

As for Bally/Midway, they settled out of court with them and made Ms. Pac-Man for them.

See this text (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53101&highlight=general+computer+corp) I wrote in February about GCC.

[fishsandwich]

So, ahd the 7800 been given a chance with developers, it would have had better-looking games? I suppose its best games would have been those that took advantage of its sprite-pushing capabilities, like shooters? It's too bad Food Fight or Robotron didn't appear on the NES or SMS... those look like games the 7800 would have dominated due to the amount of sprites being thrown around.

Too bad we never saw a title that really pushed the 7800!

:(

[Lady Jaye]

Keep in mind that Food Fight was one of the GCC games in question (developed by GCC, published by Atari Corp), so there's no question that it wouldn't have been published on either the NES or SMS.

[Aswald]

Unless you are a fan of Food Fight, or several other specific games- absolutely not.

I got a 7800 in 1988, and did not get an NES until 2000.

[Raccoon Lad]

The 7800 has a horizontal resolution of 160 pixels.

Compare that to the NES and SMS which both had a horizontal resolution of 256 pixels.

That's probably the best arguement against the 7800, the graphics are a little blockier.

[Aswald]

What about colors shown/resolution?

Atari used to brag about how the 5200 was "better than the CV because it was 320 to 256." But what they didn't say was that, while in that mode, the 5200 could only show black and white, with maybe artificial green and purple. So it was the CV that could actually put prettier pictures on the screen.

And, of course, the 7800 could handle much more on-screen movement.

So was this a case of technical superiority, or just that the SMS and NES were utilized more effectively, like the way Opcode can program impossible-seeming games on the CV?

[ubersaurus]

What about colors shown/resolution?

Atari used to brag about how the 5200 was "better than the CV because it was 320 to 256." But what they didn't say was that, while in that mode, the 5200 could only show black and white, with maybe artificial green and purple. So it was the CV that could actually put prettier pictures on the screen.

And, of course, the 7800 could handle much more on-screen movement.

So was this a case of technical superiority, or just that the SMS and NES were utilized more effectively, like the way Opcode can program impossible-seeming games on the CV?

I'd go for the latter choice, although it's more simply a case of the 7800 architecture being so damn different from that of the other two, that making an effective strengths and weaknesses chart against them is a pain.

The resolution of the 7800 was mentioned, but unmentioned was that it had multiple resolution modes, most of which were never used for a whole lot due to less depth of color. Interestingly enough, the 7800 can display different resolution on different parts of the screen-I'm not aware that the NES can do that without the help of mappers.

[boatofcar]

This is getting too technical! :P Just kidding, tech specs are part of the argument, but to me the proof is in the pudding.

I know someone mentioned Commando, are there any other games that look better on the 7800 than on the NES? Screenshots would be great :)

[Dr. Morbis]

I know someone mentioned Commando, are there any other games that look better on the 7800 than on the NES? Screenshots would be great :)
Actually, I forgot to mention Joust. The NES version is good, but damn, the 7800 version is PERFECT. If you are a fan of Joust, it's worth getting a 7800 for that alone. Also, 7800 Ballblazer mops the floor with the famicom version, but that's a pretty obscure game anyway.

All in all, the 7800 is worth getting if you are fan of the NES/SMS era. It completes the trinity of 8bit systems from that era and it has definitive versions of some of Atari's great arcade games (ie: Ateroids rocks).

[ubersaurus]

This is getting too technical! :P Just kidding, tech specs are part of the argument, but to me the proof is in the pudding.

I know someone mentioned Commando, are there any other games that look better on the 7800 than on the NES? Screenshots would be great :)

Screenshots are tough since 7800 emulators tend to have colors off from the actual console. As far as multiplatform releases, let me think...

7800 looks better:
Commando
Ballblazer
Joust
Ikari Warriors
Tower Toppler(vs Castelian or whatever the fuck the NES port was called)
Winter Games
Xenophobe

Comparable graphics:
Xevious
Donkey Kong
Donkey Kong Junior
Dig Dug
Klax
Kung Fu/Kung Fu Master

Nes looks better:
Double Dragon
Rampage
Galaga
Ms. Pac-Man
Mario Bros

[bangtango]

Dug up from the dead.

[BydoEmpire]

the 7800 controllers are superb for the timeWow. I bought a 7800 shortly after getting a NES. I never, EVER thought the controllers were superb. Barely usable, actually. And the lack of buttons have nothing to do with. My apologies if you're talking about the Euro 7800 joypads as I hear those are pretty decent. The stock ProLines are probably my least favorite controllers ever.

I think the 7800 was capable of much more than it showed, it just didn't have enough support for people to push it the way they did the NES. I don't know that you can make a convincing argument for it over the 7800, though.

[DefaultGen]

.....

[MarioMania]

The 7800 has more power then the NES

Atari or 3rd Comp didn't take the 7800 to it's Limit, They only used like 50% of the Hardwear..

[boatofcar]

Dug up from the dead.

Thanks for bumping this--I had no idea I started this 2 years ago! :)

[Arcade Antics]

Come. On. Fhqwhgads.

[idrougge]

7800 is capable of 100 sprites on screen at once; NES is capable of 64 sprites at once.

That is only half the truth. The NES could display only 8 sprites on a row, leading to flicker when that limit was surpassed. I don't know if the same is the case with the 7800.

[idrougge]

I've always assumed that the NES had "tricks" whether it were mapper chips or other methods of improving its output. Case in point, many of the NES games looked better than C64 games, and if you look at the resolution, the C64's was higher.

The C64 halved its horizontal resolution when using multi-colour. Only few C64 games used the high resolution mode, since it made the screen look more like the ZX Spectrum with attribute clash. Some did it to great effect though, especially those mixing high and low res sprites and backgrounds.

[idrougge]

One thing in particular makes me think that the 7800 had a lot of hidden potential, and that is its younger sibling, the Lynx. Lynx games tended to look quite bad, even if you take its low resolution into account. But there are games, especially the winter sports game released a few years ago, that go to prove how much wasted potential the Lynx had, thanks to Atari's tendency to port old in-house titles and use less than excellent subcontractors.

[Aswald]

In a practical, realistic way, absolutely not.

You can argue back and forth about the techno-this-and-that, but what ultimately matters is the practical.

The NES had far more games than the 7800.

The NES and its games and accessories (e.g. light gun) were far easier to find than those of the 7800.

The NES had a much bigger VARIETY of games than the 7800. RPGs? Scrolling Level/Boss games? One-On-One fighters? Board games?

The NES had many current or recent games, something the 7800 was just too lacking in- and of those more or less recent games it did have, those could be found on the NES anyway.

The NES had a number of games found on the 7800. Joust, Xevious, Galaga, Rampage, Double Dragon, One-On-One Basketball..

Service for the NES was better.

Nintendo was big enough back then to, shall we say, "persuade" many stores to sort of not try too hard for the 7800.


Granted, the 7800 was better at handling on-screen motion- in fact, it was better at it than the SMS- but it wasn't enough. Atari was really finished in 1984.

[Rob2600]

Lynx games tended to look quite bad, even if you take its low resolution into account.

I received a Lynx in 1990 as a gift and eventually owned several games. I thought the graphics were great in many of the games, like California Games, Electrocop, Klax, Ninja Gaiden, etc. When I take into account the Lynx was a portable console and it was released in 1989, that makes the graphics even more impressive to me. Overall, the few developers that were supporting the Lynx made good use of its capabilities.

Regarding the 7800, the technology and support just wasn't there. What good is having a console that can display over 100 sprites simultaneously if they all consist of two colors each and are very blocky? Similarly, what good is having a "high resolution" mode if it limits the entire screen to only two colors?

Compare games like Super Mario Bros. 2, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!, Mega Man 2, Track & Field II, etc. on the NES to the equivalent games on the 7800. Overall, which ones look, sound, and play better? My answer is the NES games.

[idrougge]

Compare games like Super Mario Bros. 2, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!, Mega Man 2, Track & Field II, etc. on the NES to the equivalent games on the 7800. Overall, which ones look, sound, and play better? My answer is the NES games.

My argument is that those games wouldn't have looked very good if they had been developed by the outfits who did the 7800 catalogue.

[Aswald]

Too true.

Look at a game like Tower Toppler. THAT was what the 7800 could do.

The 7800 was "the little system that could have." Had it been released in late 1984 (we'll assume nobody was mad about the 5200 for a moment), then it would have had a two year head start on the NES. Honestly, I don't think the NES would've stood a chance; the 7800 would have been too firmly established.

But I've said this before, and I'll say it again- looking at some of Opcode's games for the ColecoVision, and the incredible Lord of the Dingeon, and at the Sean Kelly-released Millipede and Super Pac-Man (not to mention Adventure 2 recently released), as well as my own digital controller (Atari could therefore have easily done it!) for the 5200, and it becomes obvious that those two THIRD-GENERATION systems, had they not been victims of that stupid 1984 crash, could have easily matched the NES.

[Rob2600]

My argument is that those games wouldn't have looked very good if they had been developed by the outfits who did the 7800 catalogue.

You may be right, but based on the specs I've seen for the NES and the 7800, the NES can produce overall better graphics and sound.

[Rob2600]

Look at a game like Tower Toppler. THAT was what the 7800 could do.

The NES had long, involved games like The Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Castlevania II, Super Mario Bros. 3, etc. What were the equivalent games on the 7800?

Could the 7800 produce the same level of graphics found in Track and Field II, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!, Contra, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, etc.?

Could the 7800 produce the same level of audio in Ninja Gaiden, Mega Man II, Blades of Steel, Blaster Master, etc.?

Another issue is the control. Did good 7800 games play as smoothly as good NES games?

I don't have nearly as much experience with the 7800 as I do with the NES, so I'm curious to hear the answers.

[theoakwoody]

Too true.

The 7800 was "the little system that could have." Had it been released in late 1984 (we'll assume nobody was mad about the 5200 for a moment), then it would have had a two year head start on the NES. Honestly, I don't think the NES would've stood a chance; the 7800 would have been too firmly established.


How could the Nes have not stood a chance because of the 7800 being in the market place? Look at how many systems have been released earlier but still failed to win that generation's console war. TG16, Saturn, Dreamcast. In fact, the 360 is starting to buck this trend although I think the Wii and PS3 will end up selling more units. Back in the mid 80s video games weren't popular so there may not have been room for more than one system to succeed. Up to that point there had only been an Atari monopoly so if the Tramiels hadn't shelved the 7800s in '84 it might have seen a little more success. The real problem is that there was too much focus on giving people that arcade experience at home. The Nes took a different approach and made games that were different and deeper. Arcade games are what I call "ADD" type games. Fast paced action, try to get the highest score, simple straight forward gameplay. It seems like Atari fell in love with their arcade ports and forgot about what their 3rd party competitors like Activision were doing.

The 7800 would have had to focus more on "must have" titles that were unique to the system. A killer pack-in wouldn't have hurt either. Super Mario Bros. single handedly sold millions of NES's. How many 7800 titles were system sellers? I guess Playstation did okay with Ridger Racer but Pole Position II is kind of weak. Bottom line, the NES would have still done well in the US regardless of the 7800 having success in '84 and '85.

[Ed Oscuro]

[The designer said] that graphically, the 7800 was better than the NES, yet not as good as the SMS.
So this is one of the guys from the "lol moar colors = BETTER" camp, eh?

I'd like to see somebody port Recca to the 7800, then (SMS, too, but Power Strike II gives it street cred).

[ubersaurus]

So this is one of the guys from the "lol moar colors = BETTER" camp, eh?

I'd like to see somebody port Recca to the 7800, then (SMS, too, but Power Strike II gives it street cred).

So would I. It'd be pretty badass. I've no doubt the system could handle it(although the high res mode would probably be a better option for a game like that).

[Aswald]

How could the Nes have not stood a chance because of the 7800 being in the market place? Look at how many systems have been released earlier but still failed to win that generation's console war. TG16, Saturn, Dreamcast. In fact, the 360 is starting to buck this trend although I think the Wii and PS3 will end up selling more units. Back in the mid 80s video games weren't popular so there may not have been room for more than one system to succeed. Up to that point there had only been an Atari monopoly so if the Tramiels hadn't shelved the 7800s in '84 it might have seen a little more success. The real problem is that there was too much focus on giving people that arcade experience at home. The Nes took a different approach and made games that were different and deeper. Arcade games are what I call "ADD" type games. Fast paced action, try to get the highest score, simple straight forward gameplay. It seems like Atari fell in love with their arcade ports and forgot about what their 3rd party competitors like Activision were doing.

The 7800 would have had to focus more on "must have" titles that were unique to the system. A killer pack-in wouldn't have hurt either. Super Mario Bros. single handedly sold millions of NES's. How many 7800 titles were system sellers? I guess Playstation did okay with Ridger Racer but Pole Position II is kind of weak. Bottom line, the NES would have still done well in the US regardless of the 7800 having success in '84 and '85.



Yes, but you forget- we are talking about Atari in the 1980s here.
Back then, Atari was one of the most beloved names in video gaming. Since the disaster known as "Tramielitis" had not yet occurred, Atari was not yet the bad joke it became after 1984.

If you were around then, then you remember how "Atari" was one single big entity- it included home computers, home consoles, AND the arcade division.

This was a key difference between the days of the 2600/5200 and the 7800: during the days of the 5200, 5200 owners could expect any popular Atari arcade games to appear on the 5200, at least first. This is why Centipede, for example, did without any problem, and Tempest was what "everyone knew" would appear.

Compare this to the 7800 days. "Atari" was now two entities; one for home consoles, one for arcade games. No longer could you automatically expect games, like Klax, Rolling Thunder, and Rampart to appear on an Atari console just because "Atari" was on the arcade game- it might just as well have said "Mongomuladasa, Inc."


As for the variety- how many times haven't I said just that, including right in this thread? It is inconceivable to me as to why at least one RPG, at least one Gradius-style game- hell, even put Vanguard out for the 7800, at least it would have been SOMETHING!- did not appear on the 7800 during those crucial years.

There were a number of computer games and obscure arcade games that could have been available.


As for graphics- the 7800 was actually much better than you'd think. Ignore screenshots; they never get it right. THE strength of the 7800 was its ability to handle plenty of on-screen motion. So, if you want a more colorful character, merely superimpose 2 or more together. Your character in Joust had 10 different colors.

The real problem for the 7800 was the fact that it wasn't really released until after the NES was established. By then, they were the only real name in town, closing off many game routes for Atari- something that would not have happened if it had been released in 1984. The NES would have been up against an iron wall here, because by then, Atari would have had the contracts and the presence. You speak of Pole Position 2, but don't forget; in those two or three crucial years, Atari would've had the rights to later games- that "connection" I spoke of would have been there. 1984- 1985- who do you think the game companies would have made their deals with? We can look back with hindsight at what WOULD soon happen; but back then, it was Atari, because who could have seen the NES coming? It didn't really exist yet, as far as anyone here knew!

[theoakwoody]

The real problem for the 7800 was the fact that it wasn't really released until after the NES was established. By then, they were the only real name in town, closing off many game routes for Atari- something that would not have happened if it had been released in 1984. The NES would have been up against an iron wall here, because by then, Atari would have had the contracts and the presence. You speak of Pole Position 2, but don't forget; in those two or three crucial years, Atari would've had the rights to later games- that "connection" I spoke of would have been there. 1984- 1985- who do you think the game companies would have made their deals with? We can look back with hindsight at what WOULD soon happen; but back then, it was Atari, because who could have seen the NES coming? It didn't really exist yet, as far as anyone here knew!

It doesn't matter who would have signed on with atari because Nintendo brought the Japanese companies with them. Namco, Konami, and Capcom would not have signed on with Atari. I'm not saying that American developers and publishers would not have made the 7800 more of a success but they didn't do much for the NES. The games that stand out in most people's minds are the first party games and other Japanese companies. I guess Rare made quite a few great games but I don't see how they would have had a relationship with Atari either. I just think to say the NES was going up against an iron wall is going a bit far. They already did in that no stores wanted to touch a video game with a ten foot pole. If Atari had managed to avoid the video game crash I think it would have actually helped Nintendo to become popular, faster. They wouldn't have had to worry about the stigma of the crash or marketing the NES as an entertainment system with a robot instead of a video game machine.

[Gentlegamer]

Yes, but you forget- we are talking about Atari in the 1980s here.
Back then, Atari was one of the most beloved names in video gaming. Since the disaster known as "Tramielitis" had not yet occurred, Atari was not yet the bad joke it became after 1984.I dunno, I think the crash had vastly tarnished the name "Atari" along with "video games" as the two were synonymous during that era. It took Nintendo to revive console gaming in more than one way (and it too became synonymous with "video games" during its era).

[Aswald]

No, no, you have to keep in mind that, well, we take for granted that the NES was THE console of the late 1980s, because there was nothing else at that point.

What I'm saying is that if Atari, as far as such things went, did NOT drop off of the map for those crucial years, the 7800- or even the 5200- would have expanded, had better games (the learning curve!), by 1986. You must try to put yourself back in 1984; if Atari had not fouled up EVERYTHING back then but had actually acted like competent business people, would you not have gone with them? Remember, it's 1984, did you know about the NES? Was there an NES to know, even?

But it's actually a moot point. They did foul up, and Nintendo jumped in. And the rest, is history, and a pathetic case in this country, once again, of what could've been.

[theoakwoody]

No, no, you have to keep in mind that, well, we take for granted that the NES was THE console of the late 1980s, because there was nothing else at that point.

What I'm saying is that if Atari, as far as such things went, did NOT drop off of the map for those crucial years, the 7800- or even the 5200- would have expanded, had better games (the learning curve!), by 1986. You must try to put yourself back in 1984; if Atari had not fouled up EVERYTHING back then but had actually acted like competent business people, would you not have gone with them? Remember, it's 1984, did you know about the NES? Was there an NES to know, even?

But it's actually a moot point. They did foul up, and Nintendo jumped in. And the rest, is history, and a pathetic case in this country, once again, of what could've been.

So what you are saying is that Atari would have dominated 1984 and 85 to the point where any other company would have been too intimidated to even try to introduce a new system to compete with the 5200/7800. Your logic is backwards. When a company has success others try to capitalize on their success by copying them.

And yes, there was a nes to know. It was called the famicom in Japan and was introduced in before the 7800, in 1983. So it was just a matter of whether Nintendo decided to test the American market or not.

[gdement]

I think this is the longest post I've ever written anywhere. But here we go, if anyone's interested about how the 7800 works.


That is only half the truth. The NES could display only 8 sprites on a row, leading to flicker when that limit was surpassed. I don't know if the same is the case with the 7800.



Regarding the 7800, the technology and support just wasn't there. What good is having a console that can display over 100 sprites simultaneously if they all consist of two colors each and are very blocky? Similarly, what good is having a "high resolution" mode if it limits the entire screen to only two colors?


Could the 7800 produce the same level of graphics found in Track and Field II, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!, Contra, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, etc.?

Could the 7800 produce the same level of audio in Ninja Gaiden, Mega Man II, Blades of Steel, Blaster Master, etc.?

Another issue is the control. Did good 7800 games play as smoothly as good NES games?


On sprites: The type of games which we all loved in the late 80's just happen to be what works best on the NES hardware. The NES supports a static background and eight 8-pixel sprites rendered on top per scanline. The screen is divided into a grid of tiles. It has a pretty thorough definition of how your graphics need to be constructed, and provides the hardware acceleration to make those types of games run efficiently. I'm not sure if scrolling is a console feature or not - it seems that's an issue that influenced the use of external MMC chips. I need to say up front that I don't know much about NES programming, so I might get some stuff wrong about it.

The 7800 is interesting to me because it takes a very generic approach. Everything is a sprite - there's no distinct concept of a background. It's also a scanline oriented machine, like the 2600. You can reconfigure the machine any way you wish between scanlines, so all of it's limitations apply at the scanline level, not the screen level. You can change resolutions, colors, etc. as long as there is vertical separation.

How many sprites it can draw is simply a function of available time. The graphics chip will keep drawing objects until either it's finished or the scanline has expired. The number of sprites you can get drawn depends on how big they are, how many colors they use, resolution, etc. Various factors will affect how long something takes to render. The characteristics of a sprite are very flexible, they're not as rigidly defined as they are on the NES.
Mike Tyson's Punch Out would work very well on the 7800, as it can handle large sprites natively. It wouldn't need a special mapper chip like the NES game used. Everything on the screen could animate as far as the 7800 is concerned - it doesn't care.
The downside is that if you want something to scroll, you have to do it yourself. Horizontal scrolling takes longer, vertical scrolling is easy.

Colors/Resolution:
My understanding is that the NES supports a 13 color background layer and 12 colors for the sprites (3 colors available per sprite). These are chosen from a total color set of 52 colors. I don't think the colors can be arbitrarily changed mid-screen, but I'm unsure about that. I do remember reading something about being able to darken or lighten the scanline somewhat. Resolution is 256 pixels wide.

The 7800 has a few different video modes. The most practical mode is 160 pixels wide. It supports 25 colors per scanline chosen from 256 total. However, those 256 colors are not as vibrant as the ones on the NES. Each sprite can use either 3 colors or 12 (slower).
There are 2 versions of 320 pixel mode. (Some would say 4 but not really - 320A/C objects can both be used on the same scanline, as can 320B/D). These modes are confusing, but as I recall I think you get either 9 colors or 7, depending which mode you pick. There are limitations with regard to how adjacent pixels are colored and this mode is also slow to render. The most useful application is the score display - most games did this at 320 with the rest of the screen in 160 mode.

The high-res modes are somewhat mysterious, there are few examples of them being used and people programming the 7800 today have struggled to figure out the quirks. 320 modes are not as colorful as the NES, while 160 mode is somewhat more colorful but lower resolution.


The score display on 7800 arcade conversions is laughable. While miles ahead of the VCS, the numbers are big and blocky, not at all like the polished rounded numbers found on NES arcade conversions.
There's really no reason for this to be the case. The 7800 can easily draw text at 320 pixel resolution, which is higher than the NES horizontal resolution of 256 pixels. There are some games that drew the score display in low resolution, but that's just lazy programming. Karateka comes to mind.

Vertical resolution is just a function of what fits in 1 field of an interlaced television, so you get in the range of 192-224 lines or so on NTSC. I believe the NES is the same way. Both consoles can draw more lines than what actually fits in the screen.


Sound:
The 7800 only has the 2600 compatible TIA chip to rely on for sound, so it's very inferior to the NES. The designers screwed up IMO - they intended to integrate better sound with the video chip but realized too late they didn't have room to squeeze it in. They didn't have time to redesign the board to fit a separate sound chip, so they left it out. They put an audio pin on the cartridge connector and rationalized that you could put sound chips in the game cartridges. They were working on a cheap sound chip for this purpose but it was never finished as a result of the 1984 cancellation. When Tramiel restarted the 7800 a couple years later he wasn't interested in any real R&D for the console. A POKEY chip (legacy tech) was used in Ballblazer and Commando, and they sound comparable to the NES. Everything else just uses the TIA.

CPU:
Although they both run a 1.79MHz 6502, the NES is quite a bit faster in practice. The 7800 has to halt the CPU while rendering graphics, but the NES can run continuously. As a result, the NES has more usable CPU time.

Memory capacity:
Both machines have 4KB of ram. The NES allocates exactly 2KB of this for video, leaving the programmer with 2KB for their own use. The 7800 allows the programmer to decide how much ram is needed for video, so you can tailor the allocation according to need. On average, I don't think you'd need quite 2KB for video on the 7800, but it depends what you're trying to do. Both systems can have ram in the cartridges if they wish.

Cartridge sizes:
I could be wrong, but I think the NES allocates 32KB of address space for use by the cartridges. The 7800 allocates 48KB, and it might be 52KB technically. Both systems can use bankswitching to get larger ROMs. NES games were larger in practice, but that has nothing to do with the design of the consoles. The size of the cartridge address space dictates how much information you can have available at once. There were a few 48KB games on the 7800 since that was essentially the limit without needing bankswitching. They also had some 144KB games, which seems weird until you realize that 128KB was bankswitched into a 32KB window, and the other 16KB was fixed alongside that to use the rest of the 48KB address space.



...schematics have been found, as I understand it, for cart sizes up to one meg

There is an Atari document listing some bankswitched ROM configurations, which might be what you're thinking of. The max they mention is 1 megabit (not byte) so that's only 128KB. There's nothing stopping them from going bigger, but they didn't.

Controllers:
This is pretty subjective, but in my opinion the NES had the most revolutionary controller I ever used. It was easy to use, durable, and had plenty of buttons for the time. I had a 7800 at first, and I really hated those joysticks. They were awkward to use and somewhat fragile. The joystick responds at the lightest touch. I learned not to push the stick too hard, but others who used the machine abused the joysticks without even meaning to. Eventually the joystick becomes unresponsive because of this. The buttons are hard to operate with any precision and are uncomfortable. To put it simply, playing Contra on the proline stick would be impossible.

My console got replaced after a couple years, and to this day I still have those newer joysticks in good condition - because I avoid using them and don't let anyone else touch them at all.
Anyway, controllers are easy to change. Atari could have designed new ones easily enough (and did in Europe).

[Ed Oscuro]

Thanks, gdement! That's really helpful.

[goemon]

I looked at some screenshots in the ORG and I'm impressed by what the 7800 could actually do. Some of the games look NES quality (Screens of Motorpsycho look better than Mach Rider) but I've never actually played a 7800 so I don't know first-hand.

Does anyone know if there are any interesting things being done with the 7800 in the homebrew scene?

[boatofcar]

Thanks, gdement! That's really helpful.

I agree. Great post!

[Rob2600]

The 7800 allows the programmer to decide how much ram is needed for video, so you can tailor the allocation according to need.

This is similar to the Nintendo 64. Some developers made great use of this freedom and flexibility, like Rare, Factor 5, Boss Game Studios, etc., but it seemed like most developers felt more comfortable working with rigid and defined specs.

[Aswald]

So what you are saying is that Atari would have dominated 1984 and 85 to the point where any other company would have been too intimidated to even try to introduce a new system to compete with the 5200/7800. Your logic is backwards. When a company has success others try to capitalize on their success by copying them.

And yes, there was a nes to know. It was called the famicom in Japan and was introduced in before the 7800, in 1983. So it was just a matter of whether Nintendo decided to test the American market or not.


You are missing the whole point- again...really!

I was there in 1984. I was there when it was all about Pong, the 2600, the pre-programables, the CV and 5200...really, if you were not there, it is impossible to understand what was actually going on, any more than I could fully understand the mentality in this country during the British Invasion of the 1960s.

The "Famicom," if what you say is true, was like the "Internet" (though not commonly known by that name just yet) in 1983- it may have been "there," but so few had heard of it- esp. among GAMERS- that it didn't matter. In all of my several dozen video game magazines from 1983 and 1984, there is not one single mention of it anywhere.

Of course companies may go against established consoles and companies in a particular field- ever hear of "ColecoVision?"

But the point I've been trying to make is this:


Its 1984. Nobody knows anything about the NES, in any name, except maybe a few "insiders," but NOT gamers. Many are not even aware of the Crash.

ColecoVision is still around; I remember comercials into 1985, and maybe a few into 1986. Stores still carried CV games as late as 1987.

Now, consider this: at least two of my late Spring/early Summer 1984 game magazines had extensive articles about the 7800. NOTHING about the "Famicom." Therefore, the "hot new system" was the 7800. This was just before the dreaded Tramiel takeover, and man, are we impressed by Desert Falcon ("Sphinx"), 7800 Joust, Xevious, and Dig Dug. This system was due to be released in late Fall of 1984.

You must lose any lingering technonerd reasoning to understand how this works at this point: the Tramiel takeover would've eased 5200 owner anger at their system being abandoned after 1 1/2 years. After all, it was "NEW" Atari, and there is something in the typical human mind that would NOT blame the Tramiels for going on strictly with the 7800, and leaving behind the 5200. After all, they are not the same people. So AT THAT CRUCIAL POINT IN TIME, many angered 5200 owners would have been more forgiving.

In 1984, "Atari" was NOT the pathetic joke it would later become.

So, what would have happened? Although the ColecoVision was still around, Coleco itself was effectively out of the picture. Intellivision? Gone. Odyssey? Always a lesser presence, and now gone. Likewise Vectrex, and...

So, what's left?

Even if the arcade, and other, game manufactuers are aware of the "Famicom," it is not here, and I hope my numerous Off-Topic posts, as well as the way things have been run for the past 27 years, have shown you that foresight is not a strong point in the WW2 and Baby Boomer generations. In other words, the Famicom is not here, so it may as well not exist. To guess otherwise would require foresight, which, as I just illustrated...

This leaves Atari.

During that crucial, all-important, determine-the-future-of-video-gaming time, Atari was THE ONLY game in a town called America. Why do you think Nintendo wanted to sell the NES to Atari in this country? They themselves never thought they had a real chance!

Atari blew it. Man, there is no word or phrase to describe how badly they blew it. In spite of everything, they were in a position of great strength then. Who do you think game manufactuers would've gone to then? Atari was the only home console maker around, the 7800 was IT. No more 2600/Intellivision. No more 5200/Colecovision. For at least the next couple of years, it was Atari 7800, period.

So, had Atari actually played the game like they knew what they were doing, they would've gone on ahead. But, and this is important, so memorize it 100%, they believed that home gaming was dead. Why? Nobody ever asked US, the post-Baby Boomers; no, they consulted among themselves, replacing knowledge with stupid theories and guesses. We WANTED HOME GAMES, ON HOME CONSOLES!!!!!!!!!!!

And, had Atari simply bothered to admit that Baby Boomers do not know everything and simply found out the truth, they would've known that there was a giant gold mine right there.

Had they gone on with the 7800 in the Fall of 1984, they, the only ones left, would've gotten the contracts. They would've gotten the games. They would've come out with Gradius and RPG-type games. The learning curve would've happened, and over the next two years their abilities with the 7800 would've increased beyond belief. Who do you think we would've gone along with? As someone who was there, I can almost swear that it would've been the 7800, if anything new.

Nintendo, which was already too nervous to go it alone in 1984, would've been just too late. Sure, they could've tried, and gotten somewhere- like the ColecoVision did!- but by then, the 7800 would've been firmly established, with a good variety of numerous games, from the arcade, computers, and themselves (such as Desert Falcon). There was just no way they would've so dominated the market.

No way. THAT, I can assure you.

As for technical superiority of the NES...was it, really? The 7800 did have vastly superior abilities with on-screen motion. And remember, Atari Gaming Headquarters has a big section "proving" the superiority of the 5200 over the ColecoVision, but the CV still pounded the 5200 in sales. Hell, ever since 1988, I've found numerous CVs at garage sales and the like, but in all of those years...one and only one 5200, back in 1997. So "superiority" at that point would've meant absolutely nothing.

[Aswald]

To be fair, I cannot truly comprehend the excitement over the X-Box 360 and Playstation 3. To me, it does not look as though they are much better than the previous generation of home consoles. Maybe such things are mostly for younger people, in this different era?

[Gentlegamer]

You paint a vivid hypothesis, Aswald, but I say "thank god!" for Nintendo coming to America. If Atari had stayed in the console business during that time we might have had to suffer through generations more of uncomforable, hand-cramping joysticks. The d-pad and the four button controller is in itself a revolution that is sometimes overlooked.

[vintagegamecrazy]

If you check out the screenshots for M.I.A. on the 7800 you can see what the console was capable of, those graphics look amazing.

[Ed Oscuro]

This is similar to the Nintendo 64. Some developers made great use of this freedom and flexibility, like Rare, Factor 5, Boss Game Studios, etc., but it seemed like most developers felt more comfortable working with rigid and defined specs.
Wait, wait, wait. Are you reading from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64#Architecture_and_software_development) ? It mentions those three same companies.

This is what I see:

The N64 was horribly straitjacketed by an infernally low texture cache; 4 kilobytes! Conker only looks as good as it does because they used tiny patches to build up better looking, larger "mega-textures" from the bits, but this approach has some obvious drawbacks in how much detail can be used.

There were also problems with the video processor's microcode being too accurate, which led to needless waste of CPU cycles. Nintendo did eventually allow outside developers access to (primitive) tools to program microcode by themselves, but that was too late in the game to make much of a difference.

[GarrettCRW]

NOTHING about the "Famicom." Therefore, the "hot new system" was the 7800. This was just before the dreaded Tramiel takeover, and man, are we impressed by Desert Falcon ("Sphinx"), 7800 Joust, Xevious, and Dig Dug. This system was due to be released in late Fall of 1984.

And that's because the gaming press cared nothing about what was happening in Japan. In fact, I suspect that even the best of reporters in the early '80s would have assumed that Pac-Man was made by Bally/Midway, and Pole Position by Atari, when they were in fact produced by the same Japanese corporation-Namco. Couple this ignorance with a healthy xenophobic streak (which was exposed when Coca-Cola sold Columbia Pictures to Sony), Nintendo's pre-recall issues with the Famicom, and the CES disaster with Coleco and their unauthorized ADAM port of Donkey Kong, and it's easy to see why the gaming press of the time foolishly ignored the Famicom.

[theoakwoody]

Aswald,

I have no idea how you are stuck on this idea about how Atari could have somehow been successful if they had released the 7800 in '84. You can't pick and choose what events did or didn't happen. You talk about Atari being the only game in town but why was this? Did the Tramiels cause the video game crash? No, Warner F'ed everything up by having zero quality controls with their licensing. The reason Atari was the only one left is because they caused the crash which killed all the "little guys".

Let's say people were able to forgive Atari for its PacMans and ETs. Let's say that Warner didn't sell and that the shiny new 7800 made it onto the shelves of every Toys R Us and Sears in the land. The NES doesn't exist here even though it does in Japan. So we've set the table for 7800 domination.

The 7800 sets records for console sales at release and continues strong sales throughout 1985 and 1986. Then a funny thing happens. Competition. The 7800 should have 2nd and 3rd gen games on the 7800 by now which should give it an advantage. The only problem is that Atari makes arcade games. Their whole focus is on porting their arcade games to the 7800. However, luckily for them there are third party developers who have taken notice and are jumping on the 7800 bandwagon.

Competition has arrived in the form of Sega and Nintendo in 1986. Nintendo doesn't approach Atari because they know the 7800 is established. Sega doesn't approach Tonka because I say so because this is my alternative-history. Yes, Sega and Nintendo have their arcade ports to fall back on but they also have the support of the japanese developers. These systems introduce new genres such as RPGs, platformers, horizontal shooters, and sports games worth playing. It would take a while for these two systems to catch on but eventually these systems would surpass the 7800 because of one reason. Pro Line controllers suck and gamepads don't. Pro Line controllers are horrible for most gaming genres that were introduced by Sega and Nintendo. But wait, in Europe the 7800 had gamepads. Well guess what? THEY DON'T EXIST HERE!

[Greg2600]

It's kind of hard to compare, since the 7800 should have been released at the same time as the NES but wasn't. When it was finally released, Nintendo and Sega had the market, and it quickly died off. So we never got to see a full compliment of new and original 7800 games, like SMS or NES. That said, I can't imagine the 7800 ever being better.

[idrougge]

The 7800 was "the little system that could have." Had it been released in late 1984 (we'll assume nobody was mad about the 5200 for a moment), then it would have had a two year head start on the NES. Honestly, I don't think the NES would've stood a chance; the 7800 would have been too firmly established.

No, the 7800 would not have done much differently had it been released in 1984. It would still be the same old Atari system with the same old catalogue of rehashes of games which were quickly becoming old and had been reiterated since the 2600. And the environment for a new (Atari) console wasn't there in America, as we all know. Only if it had had the kind of games that the NES had could it have stood a chance, and being an Atari console, it would never have received such games.


But I've said this before, and I'll say it again- looking at some of Opcode's games for the ColecoVision, and the incredible Lord of the Dingeon, and at the Sean Kelly-released Millipede and Super Pac-Man (not to mention Adventure 2 recently released), as well as my own digital controller (Atari could therefore have easily done it!) for the 5200, and it becomes obvious that those two THIRD-GENERATION systems, had they not been victims of that stupid 1984 crash, could have easily matched the NES.

The Famicom crushed the Sega SG-1000, which was identical with the Colecovision. Even though they sort under the same "generation" (which is as unscientific a classification as ever "bits" were), the NES had a technological gap to its predecessors similar to the difference between a PSX and a Dreamcast. More colours, more sprites, multicolour sprites and scrolling makes a definitive difference.

[idrougge]

I'd like to see somebody port Recca to the 7800, then (SMS, too, but Power Strike II gives it street cred).

Actually, I think Recca might come off quite well on the 7800. Doesn't the 7800 have powerful sprite capabilities?

Still, what I think we really lack for this kind of discussion is a game for the 7800 that did what Recca did for the NES. Something which pushes the boundaries enough to show what the console is really capable of.

If you look at the 7800 catalogue, you notice how sloppy everything is. If the sprites look so sloppy, why shouldn't the coding be equally sloppy?

[idrougge]

Had they gone on with the 7800 in the Fall of 1984, they, the only ones left, would've gotten the contracts. They would've gotten the games. They would've come out with Gradius and RPG-type games. The learning curve would've happened, and over the next two years their abilities with the 7800 would've increased beyond belief. Who do you think we would've gone along with? As someone who was there, I can almost swear that it would've been the 7800, if anything new.

This is where it's time to disagree. There wouldn't have been any Gradius, no RPGs. Because there wouldn't have been any Japanese developers. Atari would, even in this scenario, have relied on the American developers – you know, those who failed to make even the slightest impression on the NES.

[Aswald]

Like Mario Bros. (5200), Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong Jr. (CV), etc.? No- if Nintendo did not want to "go it alone" in 1984, which was obvious or they would not have approached Atari in the first place, then the only way at that point Japanese arcade game manufactuers would have made money on home versions would have been- in America, at least- with Atari.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't've gone with Nintendo if they had (in this probability) finally released the NES here, but Japanese companies do compete too, so not all of them would've gone with Nintendo. Either way, The Atari 7800 would've been a powerful presence in the American home market, and there's a big difference between filling in a void (which was the case, so who else could one have really gone with- I'd say the one with 90% of the market!), and challenging an established thing like the 7800 could have been.

Remember that much of the CV's dominace was because it got a jump of only a few months on the 5200- in the case of the 7800 and NES, it would have been absolutely no less than a year, in the best-case scenario.

Funny, how you look back. Atari threw away a gold mine. Just as Xerox did with what we know now as "Windows."

[theoakwoody]

Remember that much of the CV's dominace was because it got a jump of only a few months on the 5200- in the case of the 7800 and NES, it would have been absolutely no less than a year, in the best-case scenario.

Funny, how you look back. Atari threw away a gold mine. Just as Xerox did with what we know now as "Windows."

Getting a jump has nothing to do with anything. The first console released doesn't always win the console war. Sony has always been the 2nd to market with each of their consoles and have had a lot of success. Although the PS3 isn't outperforming the Wii it is still on pace to overtake the 360 at some point.



I'm not saying that they wouldn't've gone with Nintendo if they had (in this probability) finally released the NES here, but Japanese companies do compete too, so not all of them would've gone with Nintendo. Either way, The Atari 7800 would've been a powerful presence in the American home market, and there's a big difference between filling in a void (which was the case, so who else could one have really gone with- I'd say the one with 90% of the market!), and challenging an established thing like the 7800 could have been.


The reason why japanese companies would have gone with Nintendo is because they already had in the japanese market. The only costs they would have to worry about is localization. Did the 7800 have any presence in Japan? There is no cost effective way to port a Nes game to the 7800 without doing a complete re-coding of the entire game. This is why there's no way these companies would prefer the 7800.

So that leaves the American publishers like Activision, Midway, etc. I actually think that activision would have made a huge difference for the 7800 but not enough to make consumers choose their exclusives over the Nes's. Remember, Nintendo didn't allow their publishers to develop games for other systems so these companies would have been having to choose one of the two systems. Konami, Capcom, Namco, Square, Enix, Hudson, Technos, Tecmo, Jaleco, Sunsoft, Kemco, Irem, Falcom, SNK, Taito. Nintendo brought with them the dream team and there is nothing Atari could have done to compete against this Japanese Goliath.

[cyberfluxor]

I keep looking back at this thread and well, the only two major games to look at for the 7800: Ninja Golf and Food Fight. Need I say more? Of course there are 2600 titles to go with it but I just concentrate on what was actually made for the system and fit in the 8-bit era.

As for the grounds of hardware and all (BTW nice read gdement) the NES is just the way to go. Today is today and overall the NES product just has a wider and better selection than the Atari system period. As collectors though there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't get one and its games! I might get one eventually to replace my 2600 but that'll be all in due time.

Oh, and as a reminder, what I own:
~40 2600
7 5200
0 7800

~130 NES
All Nintendo systems: ~400 games.

[theoakwoody]

As for the grounds of hardware and all (BTW nice read gdement) the NES is just the way to go. Today is today and overall the NES product just has a wider and better selection than the Atari system period. As collectors though there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't get one and its games! I might get one eventually to replace my 2600 but that'll be all in due time.



I think the point is where the 7800 would have ended up had it been released in '84 not which system is better today.

[MarioMania]

If it was released in 84..it would of done better

OT..Does anyone have the site where NES repos are made, I don't feel like making a topic just for that

[bangtango]

If it was released in 84..it would of done better

OT..Does anyone have the site where NES repos are made, I don't feel like making a topic just for that

The 7800 would have had a slight head start. That's all. It isn't as if Nintendo would have released Super Mario Bros. for the 7800 instead, though, so it is a moot point.