Asteroids

The Good
It just keeps going on, and you get another life every 5,000 points you get. Your not stuck in the middle or just on one line, like other games.

The Bad
Hard to beat.

The Bottom Line
Great game. Definitely one to buy if you own and still play your Atari 2600!

The Good
For one of Atari's earliest offerings, this was a surprisingly accurate recreation of the classic arcade title.

This version of Asteroids was different in two significant ways: Its vibrant colors for the asteroids, and its unrelenting Jaws-like "dun dun" music. Oddly enough, when I think of this classic title, the 2600 version usually surpasses the arcade as my first thought that comes to mind.

The game controls well. If you can do it in the arcade, it can be done here.

The Bad
Extra men can be earned every 5,000 points. While this may bother some, the game becomes more of an endurance test than skill in some ways. Can the player reach the next bonus life before the asteroids crush the ship again?

The game also has a tendency to respawn directly in front of an asteroid at times, meaning an instant death. The plus side is that's it's one less asteroid to contend with.

The Bottom Line
As mentioned, this is my default memory of Atari's classic game. As a shooter, it accurately recreates the arcade game's feel, and has become my preferred version over the years.

The game was released when the "Arcade comes home" concept was still an amazing possibility. From Atari's lavishly illustrated covers of the time, to the little black cart that held player cred over your friends and family to get the highest score possible, it was a fun time in the living room, and one of the few cartridges I actually still own.

Does it still hold up today? Microsoft recently released it for their "Game Room" on the Xbox, and the "dun dun" music put me back into an old "competitive mode, determined to crush a whole new generation of gamers. It's still a fun title, and the design, and the funk 1970's-early 1980's style colors really took me back to a different time.

Fun, simple, basic, and addicting. The true hallmark of a classic game.

The Good
I was born in 1985, so Asteroids kind of went by me. As did the Atari 2600 as a whole. My first real experiences with the 2600 can be pinpointed to the months before The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was released. I had run out of recently released games to play and had come with the marvelous idea to download an Atari 2600 emulator and have some fun with that.

And fun I had! Though it shines in simplicity and you are blasting away in space with ease in seconds, beating the game was quite a challenge. It was, however, the only Atari game I ever had the dedication for to beat! The premises is simple, just shoot asteroids and don't let them hit me, but it can get really intense.

I really liked the sounds in this game. And that's saying something, because for the most part I found the sounds that my emulator produced horrible and nauseating.

The Bad
Later I played the original Asteroids using MAME and I must say that the original version is (not surprisingly) superior, due to the minimal capabilities of the 2600 system. The new bitmap graphics do give it a nice distinct feeling, but everything feels smaller and more crowded.

After a while the game gets rather repetitive and boring. Some variations in the waves would have been welcome. But with the Atari you can't have high demands like that, I guess.

The Bottom Line
Asteroids is fun! You get to blow stuff up in space! You'll get tired of it after a while, but not without having your share of fun. In my opinion it's one of the better titles of the system. But that's a retrospective opinion of someone who missed the first age of video games.

The Good
Pure old school shooting action ! AKA blow stuff up. More specifically asteroids. That's about all there is to it. The controls were well tuned and and easy to figure out. The downgrade to pixel asteroids from vector asteroids was disappointing, but hey ! YOU GET TO BLOW THEM UP ! Who can argue with fun like that ?

The Bad
No gripes whatsoever ! Period !

The Bottom Line
If you'r in the mood to blow stuff up, I can recommend no other game ! After all these years it's ironic that this is still the game we all play to blow stuff up. Go figure.

The Good
In the Seventies, Atari released a number of cracking games including Pong, Breakout, and Lunar Lander. They were simple and straight to the point. They continued this tradition with Asteroids. I didn’t experience the game when it first came out in the arcades (I was just born), nor was I able to get a copy of it for the various home systems it was ported to (I only had a Commodore 64). I only discovered it through emulation.

You control a ship that can rotate left and right across the screen, fire from the front, and thrust forward. Numerous asteroids float across the screen, and your job is to break them up. The physics are amazing; if you keep holding the fire button down, your ship will keep zipping across the screen for a long time until it eventually slows down and stops. Your ship can also hyperspace, where you are transported to a random location on screen. It is likely that you will appear on top of an asteroid, especially if there are too many asteroids on the screen.

The asteroids wrap around the screen; when they go off the top edge, they re-appear at the bottom. This means that if you are close to the top or bottom, and you’re not paying any attention to your surroundings, then chances are your ship will be killed. I have noticed that if you do lose a life, your ship will not respawn if there are too many asteroids floating in the same spot; rather it waits until an area is clear of them.

When I played the original arcade version through MAME, I felt that when you fire upon one of the asteroids, the projectiles are very faint and you can’t see where they hit. This has been rectified in the Atari 2600 version. In my opinion, this version is superior to the arcade’s. For a start, there are sixty-six variations. Some of them let you use a shield instead of hyperspace, or face 180 degrees, allowing you to immediately fire upon an asteroid from behind. Then there’s the Deluxe variant. With the shield variation, it is designed to protect you while the asteroids float across your ship. Any more than five seconds, and your ship is destroyed.

One difficulty switch (in the “A” position) enables a blue flying saucer to appear and fire pot shots at you as it makes its way across the screen. Either it takes no notice of its surroundings, crashing into an asteroid, or it fires an accurate shot. If you make it to the later stages, you will be able to meet his little green brother who appears more frequently and is more accurate.

I am not a fan of Atari’s commercial for the game. An annoying, robotic voice I can hardly understand drowns out the dialogue between the actors. From what I can tell, the man of the spaceship went for a treasure hunt somewhere on Earth and managed to find a copy of Asteroids, which he returns to the spaceship to play with his children. They play for hours, to the point where his wife eventually gets so pissed off that she hurls a bowl of fruit at the TV screen. One positive thing I can say about this ad is that what you see and hear on the TV screen is what you’ll get.

The Bad
Why are the asteroids in different colors rather than just hollow like in the arcade version? This applies to all systems as well, not just the Atari 2600 version. Also, users who got the first revision of the machine or the Atari 2600 Jr. are unable to make use of this difficulty, since there is no such thing as a difficulty switch. Eric Schwartz’s “Asteroids Arcade” unofficial hack fixes both of these problems.

The Bottom Line
There is only one word to describe Asteroids: timeless. It can be played when you get home from work and feel like having a blast. If you love those classic Eighties shoot-em-ups, then give this game a try.

The Good
Man, the elderly don’t get any props; maybe that’s why in the west there are so many old age homes—because once you’re tired of putting up with grandpa complaining about this or that, you can ship him off to this stop before he hits the boneyard. I suppose it could be worse; you could burn their bodies for fuel or exploit them as QA monkeys for some Wii marketing strategy.

No, something that is old usually has the connotation that it is outdated and useless, something that only too-well ingrained in the fast-paced world of video games. Probably more so than movie geeks are video gamers always looking towards the newest thing, something proven all too well by the very popular trend of making a game purchase the day it is released. Even if the game had prior reviews of it released, all the information to be had about said game really consists of marketing hype; there’s no word of mouth, there isn’t the chance to rent before you buy, none of that. However, one thing is certain and undeniable—it’s new. And new means good.

This idea of “in with the new” all has to do with technology. Video games are a medium where the expectations keep changing as the technologies becomes more powerful, quicker and cheaper. As new sequels to a franchise are released, people expect each new iteration to be prettier and more fun. If something is numbered “XII”, well then it must be better than something with “XI”, and so on.

Taking a futurist point of view and always believing that better things will come in time also means that the past is disposable and irrelevant. For video gamers it means older games from an era long before are quaint and curious, but a throwback to when games weren’t as good as today.

Let’s put this in context. Video games today are a billion dollar industry made by large companies with vast budgets and superior technology. Back in the eighties, the “Golden Era of Video Games”, it is usually one guy and a tall cup of coffee.

In truth, games made from this era are completely unplayable by today’s standards because of this gigantic leap in technology. Kids today can’t accept that you’re a green square on the screen, or that your hero doesn’t have a face to speak of. One would have to move forward to the mid-eighties arcade platform before someone would even consider downloading the emulator to play it. Furthermore, kids today can’t grasp the idea of old-school gaming. Nowadays you have life bars, adjustable difficulties, cheat codes and faqs on the internet to allow ruining a game for oneself. Gaming back then was dependent of memorizing entire levels and performing completely error-free runs; one mistake sent you back to the beginning of the level, and you usually only had three lives to spare.

And that was it. If you didn’t like it, you could go outside and play catch because there weren’t any other choice; video games were brand new and this is how they were. It seems some gamers are interested to go back and see how the electronic cup and ball game were back then, but you know, it doesn’t make any sense for those who didn’t catch it the first time because playing an ancient video game now is doing so all out of context.

This is such the case with that most classic of video games, Asteroids, originally an arcade game but ported to the Atari 2600. What seems quaint now was completely revolutionary back then, all in no part to the fact that nothing like it ever existed before. Imagine that: making a video game in which you couldn’t steal any ideas because there aren’t any other video games to steal from. If flying around in a space ship blasting rocks doesn’t appeal to you, then imagine what your options were for entertainment back then: either go to the arcade, read a book, or beat each other up. No internet, MTV, body piercings or the “choking” game.

If playing Asteroids for the Atari 2600 is lacking in features for you, then imagine: flying around using thrust with no brakes to simulate inertia in outer space—brand new (well, it may have done earlier in Space Wars but who cares about that? It wasn’t on the 2600). That “Duh-duh duh-duh” music you hear in the background—brand new for a videogame (but ripped off from Jaws). Dogfighting with enemy aircraft, spraying lasers towards them while dodging their projectiles—never seen before like this. Flying off the screen and warping back to the other side—this was a new strategy every gamer would incorporate to try to extend the life of their quarter. Also on the Apple II version (I think it’s Super Asteroids) two players can play simultaneously as co-op to clear the level or against each other—the first deathmatch (in space, Combat did it earlier with tanks, planes and jets). Over 25 years ago, this was freaking fun-tastic and at the time “BEST GAME EVAR”, though we usually spoke in full sentences then that ended with the word “gaylord”.

The Atari 2600 was a complete revolution back then because it offered you a chance to play those awesome arcade games without having to go to a seedy arcade and get your quarters from a sweaty, disgusting man. Other systems existed before it, but this was the standard where you can get all the biggest hits. Asteroids didn’t look like the arcade version (that had vector graphics), but it played like it and brought the arcade version home. That one guy can shoehorn this into the size of an electronic version of a mouse’s fart is another reason to marvel at (though Nolan Bushnell and a cat o’ nine tails yelling, “Quicker! I need more money for cocaine!” probably provided some encouragement).

This is Asteroids: you fly around in a space ship, shooting at space rocks as well as at enemy UFO’s that appear. And it was fun as hell. Once you shoot all the rocks, more appear and you do it all over again until you run out of lives. Pointless, ultimately defeating (I think Missile Command was the ultimate bummer, though) but the most fun you can have at the arcade—now available at home.

And if someone were to complain about the sudden re-materialization of space rocks and just as sudden loss of a turn, well welcome to the school of ye olde tyme gaming: it’s pretty obvious you’re used to having things made easy for you. This is clear in the arcade game that once you clear the stage you better be ready for the next wave and so stick to the center. Because you couldn’t ever stay in one spot from space rocks flying at you from odd angles, Asteroids was always about the strategy of dodging rocks but trying to get back to the middle, where you can see all the rocks and where they will drift to. If you think this game is unfair and uncompromising, well then you should thank god you live in an era where you can cheat using an online game faq and also go talk to your therapist.

Many ports of arcade games didn’t fare to well in the translation to home systems; basically, none of them did. Asteroids wasn’t that faithful, Pac-Man (2600) wasn’t anything at all like the arcade version, Donkey Kong for Colecovision was a real mess. However, how could they when your home console was basically the equivalent of an electronic toaster? Only years upon years later at around the NEO GEO platform did the technology for arcade and home systems start getting balanced. It was very clear from Asteroids to every single game released for the Atari 2600: the home system is just a poor facsimile of the arcade version. If you want the real version with better graphics and controls, then go to your sleazy neighborhood arcade. If you don’t want to wait in line, have any one laugh at your miserable skills, and conserve your quarters then you play at home.

So people, please don’t complain about Atari era games that the game play or the sound or the graphics are bad. Video games are not yet like books or movies where something can yet achieve mastery and a timeless appeal, they just haven’t gotten it right yet (though Shadow of the Colossus is one among a few true timeless classics). If comparisons are made between Asteroids and TIE Fighter, for example, do remember that one came before the other and influenced just about every space shooter ever made.

The Bad
Kids won’t stay off lawn even after repeated yellings and waving of cane. Every mutter of “I’m getting too old for this shit” makes Danny Glover spin in his grave. Nobody remembers the good ol’ days when things were awful, but we liked it that way!

The Bottom Line
I sound like an old curmudgeon and may even be one, but man, Asteroids is a great game if for no other reason than the fact that is was among the first and so shaped all of video games to come. I’m not a nostalgist who thinks they don’t do things right anymore, I wouldn’t even recommend anyone even play this game. But it is an important game in the big picture of things.

And hyperspace. Let’s not forget hyperspace.

The Good
Somewhere deep inside my brain there is an impulse that constantly tells me that if I want to play a classic “arcade” game that I need to go back to the very first manifestation of a game on a home console in order to get the most "authentic" experience. That is to say, in order to get the closest to the original game, I think that I need to find the earliest known version of that game and play it.

The Bad
Unfortunately, this impulse is seldom intuitive, and as such I am beginning to believe that, like my appendix, that part of my brain has lost most of it medical value and should be removed. For one thing must be understood about early console games that will give you a good understanding of why our parents were so respectful of arcades way back when. Porting “good” arcade games during the dawn of the console era was more often than not counter-productive and anti-progressive. One look at the arcade version and Atari version of Pac-man will give you a good idea of how almost all early “ports” back in the day unfolded. Old video game systems were simply not powerful enough to carry over the sleek graphics and tight controls of the arcade cabinets which make them so addicting.

Now if someone at the very start of the era of home-consoles started an anti-porting campaign to keep classic arcades open, Asteroids would probably be one of the poster-boys of this front. Asteroids suffers the typical maladies that came with early porting, from loss of controls to bad graphics.

As I turned on the game, I was unimpressed with the eye candy they gave me. The sleek, green, well-defined asteroids of the arcade had been replaced with pixilated, multi-colored diarrhea chunks floating around the screen. However, I soon realized that “floating” was somewhat of a misnomer, and I decided that “drifting vertically” was more precise, as that was what they all the asteroids did. At the start of each level, the asteroids only moved vertically, never horizontally or diagonally.

But wait, there’s more! I soon noticed the glaring lack of asteroids that reappeared in the center at the beginning of each level. I soon realized that the programmers were too lazy to come up with an asteroid generating system that did not spawn asteroids on top of you, and instead only chose to spawn them at the side of the levels to cover up their laziness. So at the start of each level I was faced with two vertically shifting strips of asteroids to the left and right of me, while I sat with my cute little space ship in the cold, empty center.

But lo, the geniuses forgot to take into account what might happen if you beat and level and you’re of to the side of the level instead of in the center. Your ship position does not reset to the center at the beginning of each round, and there’s no system stopping asteroids from spawning on top of you, meaning guaranteed death should you finish a level with your ship on in the center of the level.

What finally broke my patience was the fact that for some reason on my last life, my game froze and turned a dull shade of crap brown, which I finally accepted as appropriate considering that’s what I thought of the game after my experience.


The Bottom Line
There is truly a lesson to be learned from all of this, and that is the fact that if you really want to revisit your childhood and play some classic arcade games then just look for a free flash version on the GOD DAMN INTERNET. Seriously, if you can’t sleep at night knowing that you could be playing hours of your favorite classic video game, Asteroids, then don’t pull an all out effort trying to get the possibly unholiest of all its ports. In fact, what is truly sad is the fact that you possibly needed to read this review to tell you not to buy it, as if you were somehow debating whether this would be a worthy investment up until you read my enlightening opinion of it. Seriously, close this window right now. You’re wasting precious minutes of your life reading this quite pointless review.