DK Arcade is worlds apart in every aspect from the original Coleco release. The programer of DK Arcade studied the original arcade source code to get as close as possible to the real thing!
Absolutely fascinating. This relieves a 40 year pain for Intellivision in many ways. One conspiracy theory is that Coleco made the original Donkey Kong so bad for the Intellivision on purpose to make their ColecoVision look good with a much better version of the game for their platform. Another is that this was one of the first games by Coleco for the Intellivision and their programmers didn't know the Intellivision hardware well enough yet. Another theory is that it may have been rushed. Anyway, this is what Intellivision Gamers deserved back in the day after plunking down some hard earned money for a console in those days when $200-$300 would be like $1200 or something today.
"Theories" You mean idiotic pre-teen boys trying to grapple with why a system made in a different decade would be better. Coleco hired the best outside programmers to make games for other systems. For example, Coleco hired David Kitchen, a hotshot Activision programmer, to make the Atari version of Donkey Kong. Kitchen wrote a book about how Coleco executives made him sweat blood to get slanted girders (a near-impossibility on the 2600). Today, ColecoVision has an arcade-perfect port of Donkey Kong (it's literally running the arcade code). Since we now have a better game than the legacy version, could we use it as "evidence" that Coleco sabotaged their own game?
@@xeriland Well, if you say that Coleco hired quality programmers, then the theory that they sabotaged their own game stands stronger. Also, if I recall, there were no slanted girders on the 2600 version. We all know that the Intellivision version of DK back in 1982 was one big disappointment for many. I'd love to know what happened. I believe it was that Coleco didn't take the Intellivision version seriously enough. They just "put it out there", and, well, "it's Donkey Kong, it'll sell anyway", and maybe a rush factor to release on time was also a contributor to a bad final result where as they could've taken a little more time to improve the game, like maybe improve the controls or even add another level. I guess they didn't care enough. I also believe it was this attitude that also continued on with other companies, and what evenutally made the Video Game Crash of 1983 happen. Companies seemed to have this attitude that it's all about getting the "big name" out there, just put something together and release and cash in. They actually didn't realize, or forgot, that also making a good product too was important. This happened with several titles, like Kook-Aid Man on the Intellivision, and Pac-Man and E.T. on the 2600. As this continued, consumers eventually got fed up. I believe the 1982 version of Donkey Kong on the Intellivison was likely the dawn of the crash.
@@PuzZLeR_00 You are way over your head. I have intimate knowledge about the era, and your entire premise is total bullshit. No programmer would purposely sabotage their work. These guys were rockstars who took tremendous pride in their creations. For you to come along and accuse programmers of doing this based on pure speculation is reprehensible and makes you a horrible person. Also, no business executive would undermine their product. These weren't weirdo fanboys. They were there to make money. Twenty-five percent of ALL Coleco revenue in 1983 came from the Atari version of Donkey Kong. The title was a tremendous success, and it often appears on lists of top Atari games of all time. If anything, companies put more work into the Atari version because a hot hit on that system would be a huge moneymaker (e.g., Activision added a sound chip to their Atari version of Pitfall 2 but did no such thing for other consoles). As was mentioned, Gary Kitchen documented his struggles with Donkey Kong and getting slanted girders, and along you come stating, "I recall, there were no slanted girders on the 2600 version." If you had any idea how ignorant you sound, you'd spend far less time typing on the Internet.
@@xeriland Woah there my friend. You are quick to judge me as some "horrible person". (However, I do appreciate your passion and knowledge.) Allow me some redemption here. I never said that the programmers sabotaged their work on purpose. It was, as I said, "one conspiracy theory". Not mine. Look around the Internet. It's there somewhere. You are only shooting the messenger here. And it was a theory that many programmers at Mattel felt back then, including the legendary Keith Robinson who was insisting that the programmers program a better version of DK to get back at Coleco for this atrocity and humiliation to Intellivision. (But it was turned down by Marketing due to them saying that it was a waste of the programmers' time when they could be doing other things.) The Coleco Dk for Intellivision was indeed a poor result as judged by a huge majority. If you say that Coleco hired superstars, and the result was poor, then I was stating, in other words, that, via logic, the probability of a sabotage was higher. Again, I never said that they sabotaged their work on purpose. I never said I believed it either. I was only adding my opinion to what you said. As per the 2600 version, I never had it, never played it. Keep in mind, I clearly said "if I recall". Again, via logic, this gives me a form of protection from attacks if indeed I was wrong. Yes, the original DK on the 2600 did indeed have slanted girders in checking. But the homebrew of some 7 years ago clearly DIDN'T. My apologies on this, but my statement on this was not entirely to be judged as me talking out of the lower part of my anatomy. There was some reasonable means to me saying this, and any error on my part wasn't out of me being as "ignorant" as you claim I was. Again, I said "if I recall", and I recalled the homebrew instead. Oops! Ok. Yes, businesses are out to make money. But sometimes sabotaging your work can be a long-term profitable strategy. Again, I'm NOT saying "sabotage" was the culprit in this case. Just saying that, via logic and theory, that it is indeed possible, and businesses have done it in other industries.
The screens are too short, especially the barrel and rivet screens. Kong is on the wrong side of the screen (barrels) because there is a floor missing. I think the screen is only 96 pixels high. That is probably the reason. Still, maybe they should have shrunk everything down, especially Paula who is significantly taller than Mario in this game. It would be more proportional if the girders were closer together and Paula was shorter. Still, it is WAY better than the original.
Wow the original version was garbage compared to this! Holy crap! Would have loved to have this back in the day! Maybe Coleco intentionally had it made crappy so people would be Colecovision?
Yes Carl, the developer of the game did an amazing job. He analyzed the Arcade code to do the game as close as possible to the original (with the hardware restrictions in mind).
If the original Donkey Kong for the Intellivision was this good, it would've kicked ass. Sadly, Coleco's version of DK for the Intellivision was a piece of crap.
See what good programers that took great pride in what he wanted to accomplish could do !! Intellivision consoles would have sold millions more I bet had this much..much better version came out back then !!
Good question, and IntyMichael is correct. It's hard to explain, and I'd have to look at the code to really know myself, but the idea is that the Intellivision only has so many moving objects (8) and so many "cards" it can use for background at once (64 and loaded 16 at a time), etc. The programmer made a decision in compromise. Long story short is that if Carl gave the girl her own separate color then he'd have to ditch another thing, like one of the barrels, or make Mario one less color, etc, etc. Something like that. Again, I'd have to look at the code but hopefully my example gives you an idea. 🙂
Wow! Leaps and bound better than the official release.
DK Arcade is worlds apart in every aspect from the original Coleco release. The programer of DK Arcade studied the original arcade source code to get as close as possible to the real thing!
Absolutely fascinating. This relieves a 40 year pain for Intellivision in many ways.
One conspiracy theory is that Coleco made the original Donkey Kong so bad for the Intellivision on purpose to make their ColecoVision look good with a much better version of the game for their platform. Another is that this was one of the first games by Coleco for the Intellivision and their programmers didn't know the Intellivision hardware well enough yet. Another theory is that it may have been rushed.
Anyway, this is what Intellivision Gamers deserved back in the day after plunking down some hard earned money for a console in those days when $200-$300 would be like $1200 or something today.
"Theories" You mean idiotic pre-teen boys trying to grapple with why a system made in a different decade would be better. Coleco hired the best outside programmers to make games for other systems. For example, Coleco hired David Kitchen, a hotshot Activision programmer, to make the Atari version of Donkey Kong. Kitchen wrote a book about how Coleco executives made him sweat blood to get slanted girders (a near-impossibility on the 2600). Today, ColecoVision has an arcade-perfect port of Donkey Kong (it's literally running the arcade code). Since we now have a better game than the legacy version, could we use it as "evidence" that Coleco sabotaged their own game?
@@xeriland Well, if you say that Coleco hired quality programmers, then the theory that they sabotaged their own game stands stronger. Also, if I recall, there were no slanted girders on the 2600 version.
We all know that the Intellivision version of DK back in 1982 was one big disappointment for many. I'd love to know what happened. I believe it was that Coleco didn't take the Intellivision version seriously enough. They just "put it out there", and, well, "it's Donkey Kong, it'll sell anyway", and maybe a rush factor to release on time was also a contributor to a bad final result where as they could've taken a little more time to improve the game, like maybe improve the controls or even add another level. I guess they didn't care enough.
I also believe it was this attitude that also continued on with other companies, and what evenutally made the Video Game Crash of 1983 happen. Companies seemed to have this attitude that it's all about getting the "big name" out there, just put something together and release and cash in. They actually didn't realize, or forgot, that also making a good product too was important. This happened with several titles, like Kook-Aid Man on the Intellivision, and Pac-Man and E.T. on the 2600. As this continued, consumers eventually got fed up.
I believe the 1982 version of Donkey Kong on the Intellivison was likely the dawn of the crash.
@@PuzZLeR_00 You are way over your head. I have intimate knowledge about the era, and your entire premise is total bullshit. No programmer would purposely sabotage their work. These guys were rockstars who took tremendous pride in their creations. For you to come along and accuse programmers of doing this based on pure speculation is reprehensible and makes you a horrible person.
Also, no business executive would undermine their product. These weren't weirdo fanboys. They were there to make money. Twenty-five percent of ALL Coleco revenue in 1983 came from the Atari version of Donkey Kong. The title was a tremendous success, and it often appears on lists of top Atari games of all time. If anything, companies put more work into the Atari version because a hot hit on that system would be a huge moneymaker (e.g., Activision added a sound chip to their Atari version of Pitfall 2 but did no such thing for other consoles).
As was mentioned, Gary Kitchen documented his struggles with Donkey Kong and getting slanted girders, and along you come stating, "I recall, there were no slanted girders on the 2600 version." If you had any idea how ignorant you sound, you'd spend far less time typing on the Internet.
@@xeriland Woah there my friend. You are quick to judge me as some "horrible person". (However, I do appreciate your passion and knowledge.)
Allow me some redemption here.
I never said that the programmers sabotaged their work on purpose. It was, as I said, "one conspiracy theory". Not mine. Look around the Internet. It's there somewhere. You are only shooting the messenger here. And it was a theory that many programmers at Mattel felt back then, including the legendary Keith Robinson who was insisting that the programmers program a better version of DK to get back at Coleco for this atrocity and humiliation to Intellivision. (But it was turned down by Marketing due to them saying that it was a waste of the programmers' time when they could be doing other things.)
The Coleco Dk for Intellivision was indeed a poor result as judged by a huge majority. If you say that Coleco hired superstars, and the result was poor, then I was stating, in other words, that, via logic, the probability of a sabotage was higher. Again, I never said that they sabotaged their work on purpose. I never said I believed it either. I was only adding my opinion to what you said.
As per the 2600 version, I never had it, never played it. Keep in mind, I clearly said "if I recall". Again, via logic, this gives me a form of protection from attacks if indeed I was wrong. Yes, the original DK on the 2600 did indeed have slanted girders in checking. But the homebrew of some 7 years ago clearly DIDN'T. My apologies on this, but my statement on this was not entirely to be judged as me talking out of the lower part of my anatomy. There was some reasonable means to me saying this, and any error on my part wasn't out of me being as "ignorant" as you claim I was. Again, I said "if I recall", and I recalled the homebrew instead. Oops! Ok.
Yes, businesses are out to make money. But sometimes sabotaging your work can be a long-term profitable strategy. Again, I'm NOT saying "sabotage" was the culprit in this case. Just saying that, via logic and theory, that it is indeed possible, and businesses have done it in other industries.
I love this port!
The screens are too short, especially the barrel and rivet screens. Kong is on the wrong side of the screen (barrels) because there is a floor missing. I think the screen is only 96 pixels high. That is probably the reason. Still, maybe they should have shrunk everything down, especially Paula who is significantly taller than Mario in this game. It would be more proportional if the girders were closer together and Paula was shorter.
Still, it is WAY better than the original.
Any link to this specific rom?
Yeah i want this version to allow me to choose between game 1 & 2.
Thanks alot.
You can get the rom directly from the developer: carlmuellerjr.blogspot.com/search/label/D.%20K.%20Arcade
@@IntyMichael thanks alot👍
Been trying to buy a copy of this forever!
www.gooddealgames.com/inventory/Intellivision.html or ask for it at elektronite@hotmail.com
Now you see what the intellivision was capable of!!! Not that other crap they gave us!!!!
lol
40 anniversary of donkey kong
The 1982 Version is worse than the 2012 Version.
Wow the original version was garbage compared to this! Holy crap! Would have loved to have this back in the day! Maybe Coleco intentionally had it made crappy so people would be Colecovision?
Yes Carl, the developer of the game did an amazing job. He analyzed the Arcade code to do the game as close as possible to the original (with the hardware restrictions in mind).
If the original Donkey Kong for the Intellivision was this good, it would've kicked ass. Sadly, Coleco's version of DK for the Intellivision was a piece of crap.
See what good programers that took great pride in what he wanted to accomplish could do !!
Intellivision consoles would have sold millions more I bet had this much..much better version came out back then !!
Perfect port except why is DK green and why does the girl have to be the same color as the gilders?
Because of technical restrictions.
Good question, and IntyMichael is correct. It's hard to explain, and I'd have to look at the code to really know myself, but the idea is that the Intellivision only has so many moving objects (8) and so many "cards" it can use for background at once (64 and loaded 16 at a time), etc. The programmer made a decision in compromise. Long story short is that if Carl gave the girl her own separate color then he'd have to ditch another thing, like one of the barrels, or make Mario one less color, etc, etc. Something like that. Again, I'd have to look at the code but hopefully my example gives you an idea. 🙂
DK is green cause intellivision does not have brown