thaddius' Console Roast 2014 Edition - Round 2

[Psionic Roshambo]

The TI-994A is rather considered to be a home computer, just looking at it with the peripherals connected can give someone a headache.

Spoiler

Ink printer *and* thermal printer? Now we're in business, baby - time to do some taxes!

Oh it gets much worse if you bought everything you could connect to it... lol but that pic you linked is that a Ti 99/4A ? (might be a model I don't have... lol)

http://oldcomputers.net/ti994a.html

Check out some of the crazy expansions that it had, my set up looks like this.

 

[Foxi4]

Oh it gets much worse if you bought everything you could connect to it... lol but that pic you linked is that a Ti 99/4A ? (might be a model I don't have... lol)

http://oldcomputers.net/ti994a.html

Check out some of the crazy expansions that it had, my set up looks like this.

Oh no, those are just the peripheral devices. Pic stolen shamelessly from Wikipedia.

 

[BORTZ]

I think i am going to have to vote 5200 based on the fact that there were two Atari consoles in one generation? Thats asking for trouble!

 

[XDel]

I totally fail to understand why there are so many points against the 5200. Granted, the design of the casing, TV interface, and so on was a bit ill thought out, but the guts, and the games. This was an Atari 8-Bit computer without the Keyboard and Floppy Drive in essence. This thing was a beast, not in size, but in what all it could do. I loved the sound chip, loved the graphics...
...well in general I am a huge fan of anything based off of Jay Miner's technologies. I collect (and use) 8-Bit Atari computers and Amigas after all.

 

[Foxi4]

I totally fail to understand why there are so many points against the 5200. Granted, the design of the casing, TV interface, and so on was a bit ill thought out, but the guts, and the games. This was an Atari 8-Bit computer without the Keyboard and Floppy Drive in essence. This thing was a beast, not in size, but in what all it could do. I loved the sound chip, loved the graphics...
...well in general I am a huge fan of anything based off of Jay Miner's technologies. I collect (and use) 8-Bit Atari computers and Amigas after all.

Maybe because it was an awkward and poor implementation of everything you mentioned? It was a big-time failure and a disappointment.

 

[XDel]

Maybe because it was an awkward and poor implementation of everything you mentioned? It was a big-time failiure and a disappointment.

According to modern video game historians... yes, but for those of us who were there and for whom video games had not died in our hearts and minds, the 5200 was every Atari kid's wet dream. I remember being stuck with my lame old 2600 all the way up until at least 1985/86, and my Korean buddy who lived around the block had a 5200 with damn near every game you could pick up at the local store for it, and I must say, we LOVED it! There was no contest, even once the Nintendo hit the scene I still noticed that the Nintendo's sound chips sucked hard compared to the 5200, plus the 3D capabilities of the NES were non-existent, which once again was ground the 5200 was very comfortable on.

Though that's not to say I don't love my NES, or 2600 for that matter, but the 5200. Despite the fact that hardly anyone's parents were rushing out to buy the new system for them or not...

...us kids sat up and took notice with mouths frothing. And some of us were fortunate enough to actually have handled one during it's day. Screw what the modern video game historians say, if they were not there, then they would not know. And besides, bad sales does not make a system bad, just like good sales don't make a system good. Turbo GFX 16 ruled, the Sega Master System was surely the 8-Bit console king (outside Japan), and yet the uninformed average consumer went out and supported second rate hardware instead. Though thankfully Nintendo began to add those extra chips into the game carts, in order to extend upon what the hardware could not do.

 

[Foxi4]

According to modern video game historians... yes, but for those of us who were there and for whom video games had not died in our hearts and minds, the 5200 was every Atari kid's wet dream. I remember being stuck with my lame old 2600 all the way up until at least 1985/86, and my Korean buddy who lived around the block had a 5200 with damn near every game you could pick up at the local store for it, and I must say, we LOVED it! There was no contest, even once the Nintendo hit the scene I still noticed that the Nintendo's sound chips sucked hard compared to the 5200, plus the 3D capabilities of the NES were non-existent, which once again was ground the 5200 was very comfortable on.

Though that's not to say I don't love my NES, or 2600 for that matter, but the 5200. Despite the fact that hardly anyone's parents were rushing out to buy the new system for them or not...

...us kids sat up and took notice with mouths frothing. And some of us were fortunate enough to actually have handled one during it's day. Screw what the modern video game historians say, if they were not there, then they would not know. And besides, bad sales does not make a system bad, just like good sales don't make a system good. Turbo GFX 16 ruled, the Sega Master System was surely the 8-Bit console king (outside Japan), and yet the uninformed average consumer went out and supported second rate hardware instead. Though thankfully Nintendo began to add those extra chips into the game carts, in order to extend upon what the hardware could not do.

There's a lot of good reasons why the 5200 didn't succeed and why "modern historians" do not recommend it as a system. As for the "3D capabilities", you probably mean pseudo-3D, which was entirely doable on the NES and the 5200.

You're an American gamer who grew up during Atari's days of glory, so I'm sure that you have plenty of fondness towards the company and I have no doubt that everyone's mouths were salivating at the thought of the 5200, mostly because Nintendo suffered a really slow start in the west, but in terms of sheer game complexity and richness of visuals, the NES blew the 5200 out of the water, and maybe even the 7800 as well. As time went by people noticed that and migrated away from Atari.

Atari systems stand for the old, old school of doing things and the NES represented a new way of thinking - it was a fresh approach to designing a console. Instead of "practically being a computer, minus the keyboard etc." like you describe the 5200, it actually distanced itself from computers altogether to avoid the industry crash fallout, hence the name "Nintendo Entertainment System". Of course this was the western sales pitch - in the east it was the "Family Computer", but hey! People bought the idea of a system concerned solely with entertainment.

The 5200 suffered from two major kinds issues - issues of design and issues of approach. The system was heavy and bulky, the controllers were prone to failure and unwieldy, even the hook-ups were the design of a madman - you almost needed a degree in electrical engineering to connect the thing to a TV, and I understand that they were designed in that way to reduce cable clutter, but that doesn't automatically mean that the design was "good".

Spoiler

It's as if the designers left the drawing board with a ready system, forgot that it's probably going to need a power adapter and came up with this thing - it's a travesty and a fire hazard.

More importantly though, the system simply didn't have games. Whatever little it had were mostly ports of 2600 titles, and at that point everybody and their dog already had an Atari 2600, or Colecovision/Intellivision ports, and inferior ones at that.

People didn't need the 5200 - it wasn't a sufficient enough technological improvement to validate a purchase. I mean, seriously, have a look at Pitfall:

Spoiler

Pitfall! - Atari 2600​

​

​

Pitfall II - Lost Caverns - Atari 5200​

​

Now, don't get me wrong - I can see the increase of complexity as far as the environment and the palette is concerned, but it's really not as staggering as you say it is and definitely doesn't even come close to the NES.​

​

Ultimately, the system didn't sell well, it was nowhere near as successful as the 2600. Its flaws in the hardware and software department, the emergence of the NES and the lack of faith in the industry all contributed to its demise, but however you look at it, it's considered a failure. To fall from 30 million sold units of the 2600 to a little over 1 million units of the 5200 is to fall face down, weeping.​

​

People didn't expect anything from a "Fairchild Channel F" - it was yet another system in a sea of others. The 5200's case is different - Atari was big, the biggest there was, and their 5200 disappointed consumers. It was simply nowhere near the level of quality expected from Atari, the market leader at the time, and that's why it got my vote.​

 

[XDel]

There's a lot of good reasons why the 5200 didn't succeed and why "modern historians" do not recommend it as a system. As for the "3D capabilities", you probably mean pseudo-3D, which was entirely doable on the NES and the 5200.

You're an American gamer who grew up during Atari's days of glory, so I'm sure that you have plenty of fondness towards the company and I have no doubt that everyone's mouths were salivating at the thought of the 5200, mostly because Nintendo suffered a really slow start in the west, but in terms of sheer game complexity and richness of visuals, the NES blew the 5200 out of the water, and maybe even the 7800 as well. As time went by people noticed that and migrated away from Atari.

Atari systems stand for the old, old school of doing things and the NES represented a new way of thinking - it was a fresh approach to designing a console. Instead of "practically being a computer, minus the keyboard etc." like you describe the 5200, it actually distanced itself from computers altogether to avoid the industry crash fallout, hence the name "Nintendo Entertainment System". Of course this was the western sales pitch - in the east it was the "Family Computer", but hey! People bought the idea of a system concerned solely with entertainment.

The 5200 suffered from two major kinds issues - issues of design and issues of approach. The system was heavy and bulky, the controllers were prone to failure and unwieldy, even the hook-ups were the design of a madman - you almost needed a degree in electrical engineering to connect the thing to a TV, and I understand that they were designed in that way to reduce cable clutter, but that doesn't automatically mean that the design was "good".

Spoiler

It's as if the designers left the drawing board with a ready system, forgot that it's probably going to need a power adapter and came up with this thing - it's a travesty and a fire hazard.

More importantly though, the system simply didn't have games. Whatever little it had were mostly ports of 2600 titles, and at that point everybody and their dog already had an Atari 2600, or Colecovision/Intellivision ports, and inferior ones at that.

People didn't need the 5200 - it wasn't a sufficient enough technological improvement to validate a purchase. I mean, seriously, have a look at Pitfall:

Spoiler

Pitfall! - Atari 2600​

​

​

Pitfall II - Lost Caverns - Atari 5200​

​

Now, don't get me wrong - I can see the increase of complexity as far as the environment and the palette is concerned, but it's really not as staggering as you say it is and definitely doesn't even come close to the NES.​

​

Ultimately, the system didn't sell well, it was nowhere near as successful as the 2600. Its flaws in the hardware and software department, the emergence of the NES and the lack of faith in the industry all contributed to its demise, but however you look at it, it's considered a failure. To fall from 30 million sold units of the 2600 to a little over 1 million units of the 5200 is to fall face down, weeping.​

​

People didn't expect anything from a "Fairchild Channel F" - it was yet another system in a sea of others. The 5200's case is different - Atari was big, the biggest there was, and their 5200 disappointed consumers. It was simply nowhere near the level of quality expected from Atari, the market leader at the time, and that's why it got my vote.​

What's that? I didn't get any of that, I was too busy playing my 5200. (joking).

 

[Foxi4]

What's that? I didn't get any of that, I was too busy playing my 5200. (joking).

A-ha! You tried to trick me! You say you're playing on the 5200, but the joke is that it has no gaems - clever! I laughed many times!

 

[thaddius]

Just about a day or so to go on the poll, folks!

Will the 5200 catch the Fairchild Channel F? Probably not, but vote anyway!

 

[Taleweaver]

I voted for the atari 5200, though I must admit ever having seen, let alone played, any of them. But I'm with foxi on this.

It's not "just" about the consoles, but on the impact it had. I mean...if we hold a "worst gaming console" ten years from now, it'll be between the wiiu, xbone and the PS4 (and perhaps steam machines). It's not like anyone is really going to consider the OUYA.

Same here: that fairchild may have been worse, but people expected the atari 5200 to be good. And with a small lineup, gingerbread controllers and a confusing name (ey! where have we heard THAT before? ), it's easy to see how that one is the major disappointment.

I'm also wondering: since the fairchild is winning...how come nobody but the OP seems to have an opinion on it aside from the name? Isn't there anyone here who can say WHY it was worse than the others?

 

[cdoty]

Maybe because it was an awkward and poor implementation of everything you mentioned? It was a big-time failure and a disappointment.

It was just poorly timed. It was a nice evolution for the Atari, and the Atari 400/800/etc proved that. The Atari 7800 followup also continued to improve the Atari line.

And, as bad as the Atari 5200 controllers were, they weren't half as bad as the Intellivision or the Odyssey 2 (or the Trash-80s). You could buy third party controllers that were quite good: http://www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/atari-5200/command-control/

It's not "just" about the consoles, but on the impact it had...

The Odyssey was pretty much a foot-note, even it it's time. The Atari 5200 received plenty of coverage, and was generally regarded as an advanced game system. It was more advanced that either the ColecoVision or Intellivision.

I'm also wondering: since the fairchild is winning...how come nobody but the OP seems to have an opinion on it aside from the name? Isn't there anyone here who can say WHY it was worse than the others?

The second generation spans a large technology difference. The Fairchild-F, Bally Astrocade, Atari 2600, and Odyssey 2 were from the mid to late '70s, and the Intellivision (use more powerful 70s style chips), 5200, ColecoVision are early '80s technology. Not to mention the Emerson Arcadia; which is probably the worst of the 80s group.

I believe the focus changed from pong 2.0 to bringing home an arcade experience. This could be seen in the design of both the ColecoVision and Atari 5200.

The Atari 2600 was pretty bad, but developers were driven to push it to it's limits to replicate, as best they could, arcade games of the time. Games like Keystone Kapers, Pitfall, and Pitfall 2 are great examples of this. The consoles before the Atari 2600 didn't get the developer support. After the 2600, the hardware could deliver a decent experience, it was up to the developer to write code to properly use the hardware.

 

[thaddius]

Last remaining hours to vote, Ladi-Temps and Gentle-GBAs! Will last minute votes be able to save Fairchild from further ridicule? I seriously doubt it, but vote none-the-less!