this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
204 points (98.1% liked)

RetroGaming

19481 readers
89 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (10 children)

So, real talk? Most 2600 games are rough, and barring personal nostalgia, there's little reason to play most of them in the age of emulation, especially arcade conversions, which sometimes nail the gameplay (but often don't), and generally have to perform acts of violence on the visuals to make them work with the system and the business realities around their development (i.e. staffing, timeline, budget for ROM chips, etc.).

Some worthwhile ones that come to mind:

  • Combat (multiplayer only)
  • Warlords (multiplayer only)
  • Pitfall
  • River Raid
  • Pitfall II
  • Space Invaders
  • The Empire Strikes Back

It's not that so many more weren't fun, or even still aren't in isolation, but it's like we're all the rich fat kid from Pee-Wee's big adventure and have access to every single game on every single system, at least up until the end of the 90s. There's no reason to play the nice port of Berzerk that looks like it does, or play the flickery Pac-Man mess, or even (I'll say it) fight with the groundbreaking but still primitive and abstracted gameplay of Adventure.

[–] Matty@lemmy.autism.place 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think OP just want to show the console, not if the game library hold ups

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Fair, and maybe I'm stepping in it a bit, but thought a post about a 4-switch Vader 2600 might attract a lively crowd.

load more comments (8 replies)