Turbo Duo...What went wrong?

[SignOfZeta]

The reason ET is so hated is because there was no How to Play video back then. The game. As it shipped, is inscrutable. It cost fifty f*cking dollars (when gas was $0.70 a gallon) and nobody had any fun with it whatsoever.

Regarding Pacman: You had to be there. You have to understand that people played a LOT in the arcade. Video games were a predominantly arcade thing in the early 80s. Pacman especially was huge. There were books published showing you how to play it. There was even a record where a guy speaks the exact pattern you need to repeat I order to kill the game. "Left, right, up, right...". Pacman 2600 doesn't even have the right f*cking maze. People were pissed because they thought it could be better, and it really could have been. IIRC there is even a homebrew port of 2600 that is much more accurate. (That might have been a dream I had though). It's quite likely that kids who's parents never let them go to the arcade, kids who only knew Pacman from the shitty cartoon and the lunch boxes and puffy stickers, those kids probably thought the 2600 ver was fine.

To use a more clear example of why 2600 sucks, play Donkey Kong on 2600, Coleco, and arcade and get back with me. Was Donkey Kong Jr on 2600? I'm assuming it was, and I'd guess that was pretty terrible as well.

Also, good arcade ports weren't unknown pre-PS2. They don't have to be good, they just have to be decent. The NES has several, Donkey Kong 3 NES is very good. Flicky on Genesis, SFII on all 16-bit systems. Anything CPS2 on Saturn was good (and sometimes even PS). Obviously everything on Neo Geo is perfect.

[Arkhan]

It exists.

and yes, the Atari 2600 version of Pac Man was a goddamn mess.   It's not like Defender where its like "ok, this isn't as good as the arcade but it's still pretty good."

It's more like

"Why is the maze like this?  What the hell kind of sound effects are these?  Why does the game never get any harder?  etc".

Defender took some liberties due to 2600 vs arcade cabinet.... Pac Man... took some liberties too.   I think it was the guy programming it being a lazy SOB.  He could have easily made the maze the right way.  Those sound effects could have been fixed.  There is 0 excuse for any of it.  The startup noise sounds like a phone having a stroke, and the pickup noise sounds like someone farting.    The death noise is ok at least.

Those idiotic noises were used as generic TV sound effects for "Kid playing game you can't see", for awhile too.

It's not like they didn't have the means to do better.  It isn't like it was a first year game and no one knew how to program the 2600.  Slot Racer was already out.  Hell, it's maze was closer to Pac Man's maze than Pac Man.  That ain't right.   The homebrew hack isn't exploiting some crazy trick that noone knew about either.  It's just someone who isn't a jackass.  I bet the hack took longer than 6 weeks (development length of Atari 2600 pacman). 

It could have been way better.  They should have let Activision have a crack at it.   The other arcade ---> 2600 ports weren't too bad.    Even Donkey Kong is playable and pretty similar to the original.  Asteroids was pretty perfect too.  Gorf wasn't too shabby, and neither was Space Invaders.  Berzerk was awesome.  Venture even!  but, Pac Man, no.  They screwed up on that one.  You can tell it was rushed.

I know people that said they had fun with ET when it came out.  They said "it wasn't bad but once you beat it, it lost most of it's fun".  I like the game.  I thought it was ok when I played it in the 90s for the first time, and I thought it was fine after the internet decided it's the worst game ever.

[Necromancer]

To me, the first system to do real transparencies, where you could just throw down a layer and change its opacity at will, numerically, with a hardware function, where slowdown would not f*ck up the effect because it wasn't based on an interlacing trick, was the SNES.

In other words: "The first system to do transparencies in the exact same manner as a SNES was the SNES."  It's hard to argue with that.

The way the PCE does transparencies is the same way its done on Genesis, Neo Geo, and other 16 bit arcade hardware. The object is there, it isn't there, it is there, it isn't there, really fast like that, so that it appears half there. In other words, it flickers.

Much of the time that is true, but go back and re-read those threads and you'll find many examples of non-flicker based transparency in PCE games.  The techniques used admittedly have limits and are not 100% analogous to the SNES's transparency capabilities, but they are transparencies; dismissing them entirely with blanket statements like "the PCE can't do transparency" is as inaccurate as saying "the PCE can't do parallax"; it can do both, albeit not in the same manner as the SNES or in a way that it could replicate any SNES transparency pixel for pixel.

On a peripherally related note, what are the 'transparencies' (for lack of a better term - it's more like looking through a net) in the hidden passages in Legend of Xanadu.  It looks like there's black/nothing alternating every-other-pixel on top of the characters.

[Arkhan]

Atari 2600 has the best transparencies.  I mean, look at those ghosts in pacman!  They're see thru!

[Necromancer]

I was one of those poor f*ckers that didn't know any better about 2600 Pac Man.  I lived in a small town and had only seen the real deal a couple of times, so I didn't know how it was supposed to be.

[Arkhan]

I was one of those poor f*ckers that didn't know any better about 2600 Pac Man.  I lived in a small town and had only seen the real deal a couple of times, so I didn't know how it was supposed to be.

I guess everyone in my family liked it, but knew it sucked compared to the arcade machine 2 blocks away.    Though, I bet that if it weren't Pac Man, and wasn't hyped up as being the arcade to home conversion of such a sweet game, I bet it wouldn't have been as anger-inducing for people.

Kangaroo, Jungle Hunt, and Frogger were what they mostly played.

And Asteroids and Berzerk.


as a game, it really isn't awful.  It plays fine.  It just sounds really stupid, and is barely like the arcade one.

There were better clones in 1982.  I guess Pakacuda for C64 was pretty awesome at the time.   I've played it (the same cracked disk they used!).  It's pretty fun.  same release year as Pac Man on Atari 2600.

I think what pisses me off the most is that the fruit is just a f*cking rectangle.  C'mon, they could've made it look like a cherry or something.

I don't even give it an A for effort, because I think the whole thing was rushed to quickly cash in on Pac Man.   

[NightWolve]

After reading through this thread, I suddenly don't feel old anymore. I'm glad this thread isn't going to a apple 2 vs commodore 64 argument, otherwise I think I would go insane.

Quiet you! Honestly, I don't think I've ever even discussed Atari 2600 publicly before this thread... Seriously, I had forgotten all about it, but then when E.T. was mentioned, it brought back memories, of the whole system in general and a sort of "trauma" (if you will) with that particular game... I remember I was excited, enjoyed the movie and wow, now I get to play the game! How cool is that?? Yay! So I put the the cart in, turn the system on, start playing and my instant reaction within seconds, "HUH? WHAT?? WTF IS THIS GARBAGE??? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?" When a game makes a first impression on ya like that, oh you remember it, alright!! And it looks like "the Internet" remembers it too, judging by this E.T. Wiki article I never knew existed prior to this thread.

E.T. is a couple of blocks of one color or so, you push the button and OK, his head moves up and down just the like movie (wow, awesome!), then you move around, you fall in a pit and sometimes, you can even get him to levitate out of it (again wow, just like the movie!), but most of the time you can't... You walk around some, you might get chased by some baddie, but you're slow, so best way to evade is to fall into a pit, then you have to try to levitate back out...if you can. Repeat! No thanks! The article does say, "the game can be enjoyable after the player has learned to navigate the pits" one of the few positive comments by Classic Gaming in support of one of videogame history's most costly debacles... I don't think learning to levitate properly would've changed my opinion or history's opinion, and so I don't think it should lose its razzie award because a minority somehow "managed" to find enjoyment with it...

I thought it was fine after the internet decided it's the worst game ever.

Well, that pesky Internet full of a bunch of cranks does make some good arguments... Aside from being a horrible game, significantly contributing to Atari's failure, millions in losses, the 1983 crash, it appears it DID do something good, though: "the large number of unsold E.T. games along with an increase in competition prompted retailers to demand official return programs from video game manufacturers."

Can we at least agree that it has a "significant place" in videogame history ??

[Black Tiger]

To me, the first system to do real transparencies, where you could just throw down a layer and change its opacity at will, numerically, with a hardware function, where slowdown would not f*ck up the effect because it wasn't based on an interlacing trick, was the SNES.

You really seem to be stretching to disqualify the Genesis' hardware transparency effects, with your specific detailed description of SNES transparency as your definition as "real transparencies". As you've been told and shown way too many examples of, there are lots of transparency effects in PCE games "where slowdown would not f*ck up the effect because it wasn't based on an interlacing trick". Since you have SNES-superiority tunnel vision, you'll ignore it again, but for the rest of us who want to see an accessible example, go play Lords of Thunder until . Pause all you want, you'll never see an uncolored or single-colored section of that moving transparency layer, because there is absolutely no flicker, interlacing, etc (fake!) tricks being used. As I've pointed out in the past as well, some of these 60fps PCE transparencies do things that SNES hardware transparencies cannot. The PCE can't do every effect the SNES can do the exact same way either, but it can and did do all kinds of non-flicker transparency effects. Same with the Genesis.

You do understand as well that in order to get the SNES to do a transparency effect it's not as simple as flipping a switch, right? There is actual programming involved, just as with PCE transparency effects. You also must realize that the PCE doesn't require you to tape a colored sheet across your TV screen like Space Invaders the arcade does... the programming makes the PCE hardware do it all. Just like all the parallax that it does too. The color capabilities and speedy internal workings of PCE hardware actually make it all the more versatile at doing all kinds of non-flicker transparencies. There are also all kinds of limitations to SNES transparency effects too, the biggest being that it can only do a single transparent tile layer.

The way the PCE does transparencies is the same way its done on Genesis, Neo Geo, and other 16 bit arcade hardware. The object is there, it isn't there, it is there, it isn't there, really fast like that, so that it appears half there. In other words, it flickers.

Again, you are alone in your ignorance of the reality that the rest of the world is sharing. This is how the SNES does many transparency effects, like the Yoga Flame... and those other consoles can use this method as well... but the Genesis and PCE have many games that use non-flicker transparency effects. Repeatedly saying otherwise doesn't change the fact. You may dislike flicker transparencies, but you still have to put up with them in SNES games.

When things are transparent in real life they aren't %50 opaque because the thing is only there %50 of the time and absent the other %50 of the time. They are %50 transparent because only %50 of the light actually travels though them. On PCE you can't really change how transparent an object is except by changing the rate of the flicker, and that really falls apart at certain levels. Ie: you can't have something with %5 opacity since that would mean having the object only appear in %5 of the frames which...really wouldn't work for shit...although it is done quite frequently, usually when a character dies and is meant to disappear. Of course you can also make things seem transparent via very careful pallet choices and dithering effects, but those aren't variable at all.

The transparency effect in Blood Gear which I mentioned in our last "Zeta Witch Hunt", does degrees of transparency, not just 50/50... but takes it further to include special lighting effects which reveal added detail. So there is the staggered non-flicker transparency effect happening, which on SNES would only tint the layer behind it... but on top of that Blood Gear also brings out detail that was hidden in the shadows, the way that fully 3D lighting effects would reveal objects further behind the outer objects.

Even from a technical perspective, the TG16 is pretty much half way between the NES era and the SNES era. Technically, historically, chronologically, aesthetically. Have you ever played a SNES game as crude as Keith Courage or Energy? I haven't. I know, you like Keith Courage and Energy, thats fine, but seriously....JUST LOOK AT THOSE GAMES. Are they more like NES or more like SNES? Honestly. No bullshit. If you saw Blue Blink for the first time today would you assume it was for Neo Geo or CPS2 because of how insanely great the 16-bit visuals are?

Again, common sense should prevent the need for these basic concepts to be spelled out. A poor game, aesthetically or otherwise, is no measure of a console's potential. The very best, most impressive games, are simply the best examples we have. You undermine your credibility all the more when you pick out PCE games you feel are unimpressive as proof of the PCE's weakness. You also reveal your limited knowledge of the SNES/SFC library with these kinds of claims. But, if you actually believe in this kind of logic, here's your proof that the SNES is only an NES-quality 8-bit console-

[Arkhan]

I'd like to point out that the SFC LOH looks worse than the 16-color MSX one.

[Black Tiger]

I'd like to point out that the SFC LOH looks worse than the 16-color MSX one.

But at least the SFC version doesn't have FAKE(!) scrolling.

[SamIAm]

All those PCE transparencies seem like they're trying to inspire the idea of a transparency, and that's all.

The SNES processes transparencies by actually averaging the color values of overlapping pixels, and this technique is the basis of all modern transparency processing since. My impression is that it's also very easy to enable this when making an SNES game, as well. It's not a hack, it's setting a screen mode.

Effects like checkerboard dithering look terrible in comparison. This comes up a lot when talking about the Saturn and Playstation - the Saturn can't process transparency quickly if the two pixels being averaged are being drawn by different GPUs, with some exceptions. In many games, they went with a substitute. Castlevania SOTN looks like ass on the Saturn almost solely for this reason, and it's not even something that Saturn fans spend effort on disputing.

Lords of Thunder does the same thing Sonic games did for water - changing the entire palette partway down the screen. Is it effective? Sure. Is it good for anything other than water? Not really.

[spenoza]

All those PCE transparencies seem like they're trying to inspire the idea of a transparency, and that's all.

The SNES processes transparencies by actually averaging the color values of overlapping pixels, and this technique is the basis of all modern transparency processing since. My impression is that it's also very easy to enable this when making an SNES game, as well. It's not a hack, it's setting a screen mode.

Effects like checkerboard dithering look terrible in comparison. This comes up a lot when talking about the Saturn and Playstation - the Saturn can't process transparency quickly if the two pixels being averaged are being drawn by different GPUs, with some exceptions. In many games, they went with a substitute. Castlevania SOTN looks like ass on the Saturn almost solely for this reason, and it's not even something that Saturn fans spend effort on disputing.

Lords of Thunder does the same thing Sonic games did for water - changing the entire palette partway down the screen. Is it effective? Sure. Is it good for anything other than water? Not really.

Does it really matter if a transparency effect is calculated on the fly or pre-arranged with smart palette use? It is true that on-the-fly transparency is a lot more flexible in how and where it can be used, but that doesn't mean that prearranged substitutes can't be just as good in their set context.

[SamIAm]

That palette-change trick works fine where it works, but it is extremely limited in its application. It's like putting on tinted glasses. True transparency (as I don't hesitate to call it) allows you to actually make an object transparent. That means transparent clouds, fireballs, ghosts, dripping honey or whatever. The difference in design potential is massive.

[spenoza]

That palette-change trick works fine where it works, but it is extremely limited in its application. It's like putting on tinted glasses. True transparency (as I don't hesitate to call it) allows you to actually make an object transparent. That means transparent clouds, fireballs, ghosts, dripping honey or whatever. The difference in design potential is massive.

I think "on-the-fly" or "real-time transparency" is more appropriate than "true transparency". But even the SNES was highly limited in how it could use real-time transparencies, due to the transparent layer being a tile-based background layer rather than sprites or either (same with Mode 7 effects). There are lots of weird moments in SNES games where objects either remain without any change when a transparent layer passes by or which disappear behind the transparent layer instead of changing color and remaining otherwise visible. Those were mostly problems early in the life cycle of the system, but it still demonstrated that the real-time transparency effect was limited and finicky, and had to be futzed with in order to be relatively seamless. Heck, even the Sega Saturn had some issues with its transparency implementation, and it was quite a beast all the way around (I understand this problem was actually a bug and not part of how things were supposed to work).

So I will agree that, generally speaking, some kind of real-time implementation is going to be ultimately more flexible, but it wasn't really until the Playstation that said implementations were truly trouble-free.

[BigusSchmuck]

With all this talk about transparencies and flickering I'm surprised no one has gotten a seizure yet. lol At any rate, who cares about special effects just so as you enjoy the games you play right? Besides, games like Mega Man 3 for the NES you can use the slow down glitches to your advantage, at least I did back in the day...