Designed by David Levine, Peter Langston, David Riordan and Garry Hare.
Originally developed by Lucasfilm Games, Ltd.
Main programming by David Levine
Atari 65XE programming by Aric Wilmunder
Atari 7800 programming by Josh Littlefield and David Payne
Graphics by David Levine and Gary Winnick
Atari music and sounds by Peter Langston
Atari 400/800/65XE version published by Epyx in 1985.
Atari 5200 version published by Atari Corporation in 1986.
Atari 7800 version published by Atari Corporation in 1987.
Commodore 64 conversion by K-Byte, with additional programming by Ron Gilbert, and music by Russell Lieblich.
Published by Epyx in North America, and Activision in Europe in 1985.
Converted for Apple II by K-Byte, and published by Epyx in 1985.
Converted for Sinclair ZX Spectrum by Graeme Devine for Program Techniques, and published by Activision in 1986.
Converted for Amstrad CPC by IC&D, and published by Activision in 1986.
Converted for the MSX computers by Mr. Micro Ltd., and published by Activision in 1987.
Converted and published for Nintendo Famicom by Pony Canyon Inc. in 1988.
---
INTRODUCTION & GAME STATUS
This one has been a long, long time in coming, since a comparison of Ballblazer was first requested by a reader by the handle of "cubamanuel" many years ago. Sorry for the delay, but here it is. The thing is, for the longest time, I couldn't figure out, how to play this game, but some time ago, I realized my mistake being to only try to play the C64 version, which would usually be the most natural and logical choice for me to try out first. Of course, Ballblazer was developed for the Atari computers, and should be played there first, but my "a-ha!" moment actually came through playing the Famicom version after getting that one into my collection a few years ago... which might seem a bit weird, in hindsight, but there's a perfectly good explanation for this, which might become clear eventually.
Being as heavily occupied as I am these days, I found myself in luck, because Gaming History Source had made a video comparison of Ballblazer a long time ago for their YouTube channel, but then I found to my utter horror, that the game Masterblazer on the Amiga and Atari ST is basically an updated version of the same game, but with some new elements, so I have to include a separate segment for Masterblazer near the end of this thing.
---
DESCRIPTION & REVIEW
Way back in 1982, when Lucasfilm Games was founded by George Lucas, they had a problem: the video game development license for Star Wars was owned by Atari, so they had to come up with original ideas. According to Ron Gilbert, one of Lucasfilm Games' first employees and a legendary adventure game designer, if the company had been able to make Star Wars games back then, it is possible that many of their early games would have never seen the light of day. The first two games to be developed by Lucasfilm Games were written in 1984: Rescue on Fractalus! and Ballblazer, both with the Atari computers and consoles being the target machines, and both high energy first-person games.
Ballblazer is a futuristic first-person sports game, which is a sort of a combination between maybe air hockey and football, or maybe basketball. It's difficult to put it any simpler or more detailed than that, because that's basically how it feels like. There are only two players on the field, which makes it feel a bit like air hockey, but you control some sort of droids called "Rotofoil", which are able to magnetically grab a hold of the hovering ball within their force field, which in turn makes it feel a bit like football or basketball.
The game has a default time limit of three minutes (adjustable from the game options), by which you need to have more points made than your opponent, and because there is a maximum of ten points to be reached, and the scoring rules are more akin to basketball than either football or air hockey, the game can practically be won in two very lucky goals. You can push the ball to your opponent's goal to score one point, shoot from close range to score two points, or shoot from far away to score three points. The game's scoring method also uses what is commonly referred to as a "tug-of-war" system, which means that because the maximum score is ten points, you can eat your opponent's points. If the timer runs out while your scores are tied, the game goes into a "sudden death" mode - the first player to score wins.
Because of the game's first-person viewpoint and practically no background details whatsoever, it can easily be disorienting. However, when you realize that you're always facing the direction of the ball, when you're not holding the ball, and when you do have control of the ball, you're facing the direction of your opponent's goal, the game becomes much easier to play. Not that playing the game is as easy as it sounds, but when you get used to it, it can become massive fun, particularly against a human opponent.
Ballblazer, much like its sibling-in-development, Rescue on Fractalus!, were the first games by a revered game development company, and both of them are considered classic, at the very least on the original platforms, if not elsewhere. For that reason, they should be priority material for checking out for gaming historians.
---
LOADING
Only half of Ballblazer's release platforms use the cassette format, but that's still enough to have a tape loading times comparison, so here we go.
AMSTRAD CPC, Activision: 7 minutes 24 seconds
AMSTRAD CPC, Ricochet: 6 minutes 7 seconds
ATARI 400/800: 12 minutes 12 seconds
COMMODORE 64, Activision: 4 minutes 17 seconds
COMMODORE 64, Ricochet: 3 minutes 25 seconds
MSX, Proein: 9 minutes 29 seconds
ZX SPECTRUM, Activision v1: 3 minutes 41 seconds
ZX SPECTRUM, Activision v2: 5 minutes 19 seconds
ZX SPECTRUM, Activision v3: 3 minutes 47 seconds
ZX SPECTRUM, Ricochet: 6 minutes, sharp
As usual, the C64 and Spectrum versions are running a tight race there, but the C64's Ricochet re-release took the trophy. At least from what was available at the moment of this comparison. Although I found some proof, in the form of a photograph, that there was a cassette release by Activision also for the MSX, I was unable to locate a tape image file of it from any of the usual places. Also, even though the Spanish re-release from Proein could be found, I couldn't get it to work, so the only way to play the MSX version, that I can realistically confirm at the moment, is any of the cartridges and disk versions. At any rate, the game was designed to be played from a cartridge primarily, so if at all possible, try to locate one.
 |
| Loading screens or intros, depending on the platform. Top row, left to right: Atari XE cart, Atari XE disk, Atari 5200 (PAL), Atari 7800 Middle row: Commodore 64 Activision (x2), MSX, Sinclair ZX Spectrum Bottom row: Commodore 64 Mastertronic, Nintendo Famicom, Amstrad CPC |
Ballblazer doesn't have an actual loading screen as such, because you get the Lucasfilm Games opening screen for almost every version of the game except for the C64 one. Some Activision releases feature the Activision logo in addition to the Lucasfilm one, and if you're playing on either the Atari 400/800 or the Atari 5200 version, you might see an extended opening with a bit of additional animation.
---
PLAYABILITY
Starting a game of Ballblazer is rather nice and simple. You just pick, which side you want to play on, whether both players are human players, and if you choose your opponent to be a computer-operated droid, what level of difficulty would the AI have. You can also choose the game's time limit between one and nine minutes, but the default is three minutes.
In most versions, these options are altered using each computer's function keys, but there are differences here already: the FAMICOM version uses the Select, B and A buttons; the SPECTRUM and AMSTRAD versions require you to press the D key in the options screen to get items flashing, then move around with your designated movement keys, and press F to switch options, then S to start game. In the ATARI 5200 and 7800 versions, you are supposed to use the Select key and other buttons to browse through the options, but I wasn't able to get my emulators co-operating that well, so I'm going to have to assume those two play just about as well as the ATARI 400/800 version.
The way the game is played was already explained in the Description & Review section, so let's consider the controls now. Most of the versions are played using a joystick or two, but some versions have optional keyboard controls, and obviously, the NINTENDO version is played using the pad. The SPECTRUM version uses the keyboard by default, with Q-A-Z-X and C for Player 1, and P-L-N-M and Symbol Shift for Player 2. Because the AMSTRAD only has a single in-built joystick port, Player 1 is controlled with that, and Player 2 uses the keys Q-A-O-P and Space.
The APPLE II version is a bit of a mystery, because it offers two different types of keyboard controls - nine keys or five keys, neither of which I'm completely sure about, but there's also a joystick option. You get to the options screen by pressing cursor left or right, then select the option you want to alter by tapping on the cursor right key, and alter the option by tapping the cursor left key. Enter starts the game, and I found both keyboard controls around certain areas, but I cannot seem to get the Rotofoil moving properly at all times. Anyway, the other player's keys are around the letter D, with the fire button apparently in Z, while the other player's keys are around the letter K, with the fire button supposedly in N. Anyway, I found it much more playable to use a joystick, but that could be said of any version.
Now, as far as I can see, there are only two - or three, if you count the person wielding the joystick - factors that would contribute to each version's playability. It might take a while to get used to how the ball moves around and how your ship is aligned towards the ball and towards the opponent's goal in turns, but once you get those factors locked into your system, it's all about the framerate, and how the AI has been programmed. What I mean by framerate in this occasion is, that it doesn't matter how fast the game plays, as long as all the action is clear enough for you to see what's going on at all times. And, what I mean by the AI quality is, what kind of a challenge the AI gives you, when you have no second human player to play against. My method of figuring this out is through testing all the difficulty levels from each version, and see where I find my limit, because I have never been particularly good at this game.
I found my limit in the ATARI 400/800 version at level 4, which I blame more on my lack of practice than the game's difficulty, because it plays as perfectly as anything. The 3D scrolling is smooth and fast, and the none of the action has any visibility issues. It's just me being useless, but frankly, I was surprised I got even that far.
For comparing the A5200 and A7800 versions, I'm sorry to report that I was unable to get their options working so that I could have played against a droid myself - it was either human vs. human or droid vs. droid, even though I tried to follow the instructions according to each manual. Perhaps a problem with my chosen emulators, or an inability to comprehend the controls? Who knows. At least I could test them enough to see that both versions play just as smoothly and fast as the one Atari version that I could actually play, so I'm just going to assume they're equally good. Some people seem to prefer the odd analog joystick controller on the A5200 over the more common joysticks, at least for this game, but you know, whatever floats your boat.
The version that matches the speed of the original - and honestly, even surpasses it - is the FAMICOM version. There is a problem with this speed, though, because it is too flippin' quick - it's stupidly hard to keep up and see the action. I could beat this version in the first level, but the second difficulty felt already too much for me to handle.
All the other versions run with a lower framerate than the previous two, and are more or less slower. Surprisingly, the COMMODORE 64, AMSTRAD CPC and MSX versions felt rather close to each other in terms of speed and framerate. Of these three, the C64 version felt the most comfortable, and I could beat the first two levels in it. Similarly, I got as far in the CPC version, but there, I noticed some notable slowdown whenever there was something on the screen other than an empty playing field. The MSX version runs better than the CPC version, overall, but there is something weird about that version, because the players' movements feel somehow illogical, and the graphics' scaling is frankly a bit horrible. Regardless of that, I could beat the first level, but I gave up on the second one, because it felt too weird.
The last two versions are, perhaps, the most different in feel from all the others. The APPLE II version feels rather slow, although the framerate feels closer to the C64 and CPC versions, because the game is actually slower to play. I wasn't sure at first, if the game is slower on the APPLE II, but it also seems like the goals are further away from each other, in addition to the Rotofoils actually moving slower. It still feels more playable than the MSX version, and I managed to beat level 2 in it.
I managed to get to the third level in the SPECTRUM version as well, but that was more due to good luck than skill. This version sort of plays as fast as the C64, MSX and CPC versions, but the framerate is horrendous, making the action sometimes incomprehensible. I can definitely understand the low scores at the Spectrum websites.
The thing is, though, you can sort of play the FAMICOM version if you play the game on an emulator and adjust the speed a bit down, so it matches the ATARI versions at least. It's still not perfect, but it certainly beats the SPECTRUM version's lack of frames. In its original form, though, it's barely any more playable. The MSX version feels worse than the FAMICOM version because of its weird behaviour, but because it's not as visually challenged as the SPECTRUM version, it gets the second-to-last place. So, I suppose we have an order now.
1. ATARI 5200 / ATARI 7800 / ATARI 400/800
2. COMMODORE 64
3. AMSTRAD CPC
4. APPLE II
5. NINTENDO FAMICOM
6. MSX
7. SINCLAIR ZX SPECTRUM
---
GRAPHICS
To be honest, one of the reasons why I put off making a comparison of Ballblazer was, because it's not a game that offers all that much to look at, so I didn't think it would make for as interesting a comparison as it might feel at first. I'm glad to have proven myself somewhat wrong.
 |
| Title sequences. Left side, top to bottom: Atari XE, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, Commodore 64. Right side, top to bottom: Apple II, Sinclair ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPC, MSX, Famicom. |
We can basically see much of the game's visual differences already in these opening shots, but because not much of action is displayed here, we shall continue onwards with platform-specific sets of pictures...
 |
| Options screens. Top row, left to right: Atari XE/5200, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC, Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Bottom row: MSX, Atari 7800, Apple II, Nintendo Famicom. |
Now, as you might be well aware, the game offers very little of visual content, all of which I have attempted to compile into these sets of screenshots. These should include shots of both players at least from one point of view, the ball, a shot of the goal posts, some of the surrounding lack of landscape, and a shot of the visual effect for both players scoring a goal, which would count up to six screenshots per version at maximum.
 |
| In-game screenshots from the Atari 400/800/XE and 5200 versions. |
Here's how the game looks on the NTSC model ATARI 400/800 computers; the colours in PAL mode are closer to most of the other versions in PAL area. As you can see, it is a very bare-bones presentation, albeit in 3D. The most detailed items on the playing field are the two Rotofoils, which scale nicely with any given distance, and are even shown from four different angles, thanks to the way the game is built for each player's camera to strictly follow the ball first, and the opposite goal after you get the ball captured into your force field. Both the ball and the part of the Rotofoil you might call the windscreen, flash in the player's own colour's shades, when the ball is being held. The field is a checkerboard of dark and light green squares, and the area outside is solid brown ground, with a slightly growing horizon under a blue sky. When a goal is scored, the scoring player's screen flashes in the player's own colour. That's all there is to it, really, and the ATARI 5200 version looks exactly the same.
Oddly, this is how the ATARI 7800 version looks on an NTSC model with an NTSC cartridge, at least according to emulation. Since I have no realistic way of actually testing NTSC hardware, since I don't live in NTSC area, all I can hope for is for my emulator in use to be accurate enough. As you can see, the colours are a bit lighter in the A7800 version than in the A400/800 and A5200 versions, but the Rotofoils and the ball are more clearly defined, with clearly angled and/or formed shapes instead of blocky lines, and the Rotofoils here have the bit under the top triangle shaded darker to emphasize the dimensions. Very nice.
In-game screenshots from the Atari 7800 version.
 |
| In-game screenshots from the Commodore 64 version. |
It could be said that half of the versions of Ballblazer feature a playfield of squares made out of two shades of green, and the other half have green and white squares. The C64 version falls into the latter category, even though the machine does have two shades of green by default, so I don't understand the palette choices here entirely. Due to the differences in visual capabilities for the C64, though, the flashing effects on the goal scoring occasions and on the Rotofoil screens and the ball, the flashing effects scroll through a few different colours instead of a number of shades of the same colour. The horizon is also left without any notable shading, unless you count two slim lines of green and white on top of each other as a perfectly acceptable horizon. Better than nothing, I suppose, and it's hardly a deciding factor in the order of quality here. All in all, it's pretty close to the ATARI 400/800 original, but it just plays slower, and it doesn't scroll quite as smooth, either.
In the AMSTRAD version, there are more similarities in the palette and visual effects to the ATARI original, than in the C64 version, but it also plays a bit slower and choppier than the C64 version - not enough to notice clearly without a side-by-side comparison, though. Perhaps more irritatingly, both of the player screens are built of scanlines to create the illusion of having more shades of colour than there actually are, which can be a bit heavy to look at.
In-game screenshots from the Amstrad CPC version.
 |
| In-game screenshots from the MSX version. |
The MSX version takes us back to the green-and-white percentage, and there's even more colour restrictions here than in the previous two versions. The flashing effects on the Rotofoil screen and the ball now only alternates the colours of their surroundings, meaning that the ball flashes invisible when being held, and the Rotofoil screen flashes in the Rotofoil's primary colour. The area surrounding the playfield is completely made of alternating pixels of green and white, and there is a lighter blue line in the horizon. Also, the whole thing looks a bit horizontally squeezed, and I think this is partly responsible for why the MSX version is slightly harder to follow than the rest.
The SPECTRUM version looks like a mixture of the AMSTRAD and MSX versions, with the lack of colours and the scanlines both present. The area surrounding the playfield is completely white, there is no effect line on the horizon, and you only get to see any sort of full player screen colour effect when the player wins the round - nothing visual happens when you score a goal. The scrolling is barely passable, and the animations are next to impossible to follow in any higher speed, which ruins the experience quite effectively. On a more interesting note, the Rotofoils have a distinctly different look to them, with unique details.
In-game screenshots from the Sinclair ZX Spectrum version.
 |
| In-game screenshots from the Apple II version. |
Considering that the APPLE II is probably the most prohibitive of the lot in the use of colour, it works surprisingly well. All you get are green, white, orange, purple and black, which is one less than what you get in the SPECTRUM version, but you do get the goal scoring visual effects, and the Rotofoils look more like themselves. The only flashing effect they can do, though, is alternating between black and white, but that's okay, because while the APPLE version doesn't exactly run as quickly as we might have gotten used to in the other versions, it does run with more grace than some of the others. There are some noticeable visual bugs, though, but I'm willing to blame them on the cracked version. I'm hoping that one of you readers might back me up on this, because I wasn't able to find a disk image of the original Ballblazer for the APPLE II. Leave a comment, if you can confirm my suspicions.
Finally, the NINTENDO FAMICOM version seems to have an identity of its own, marked by a clearly differently defined Rotofoil styling, an attempt at giving the ball a more three-dimensional look, and there being no obvious difference in the flashing screen effect for each player's goal scoring. The closest equivalents I can approximate to the SPECTRUM, MSX and ATARI 7800 versions, but really, you can easily point out the FAMICOM version from quite a long way away. However, as I said earlier, the game plays too quick to be exactly comfortable anymore, and the distance scaling isn't exactly the best around. Could be worse, though.
In-game screenshots from the Nintendo Famicom version.
The clear loser this round is obviously the SPECTRUM version, with the MSX and APPLE versions next up. The AMSTRAD version comes next, only barely to be topped by the C64 version, and the FAMICOM version arriving at the third place. Unsurprisingly, the ATARI versions rule the lot, with the better-defined A7800 version winning this round.
1. ATARI 7800
2. ATARI 400/800 & ATARI 5200
3. NINTENDO FAMICOM
4. COMMODORE 64
5. AMSTRAD CPC
6. APPLE II
7. MSX
8. SINCLAIR ZX SPECTRUM
---
SOUNDS
Once again, this is the easy part. Well, this time it's only relatively easy, because the theme tune - as there is only one tune in the game - was constructed in a particular way as to make it unique in the 8-bit gaming world. At first, it sounds like a relatively straight forward loop of a funky beat, which breaks down to a different segment for about four measures before going back to the main loop; but when you notice the weird melody going on intertwined between the more logical parts of the composition, it becomes more of a point to wonder about, rather than just a nice little tune. The thing is, the melodic part of the theme tune is actually an algorithm of random 1/32 note melody fragments, which sort of could be interpreted as the game's in-built AI jamming, or improvising, over the main riff using certain given building blocks. Just like actual human musicians do, but in a much more limited language.
So, what I decided to find out was, whether all the conversions of the game use this same method for the theme tune. Turns out, there are versions that don't feature the melodic part at all - those being the APPLE II, SPECTRUM and MSX versions. Mind you, the 48k and 128k SPECTRUM versions have the distinct sound difference of the other one sounding like random farts, and the other one sounding otherwise slightly wrong. The MSX theme sounds exactly like the 128k SPECTRUM theme, so they're both equally wrong. The AMSTRAD theme sounds otherwise exactly like the prior two, but it actually includes the random melody in its correct form. In the FAMICOM version, the theme tune doesn't have the second part included at all, and the melody is just two different arpeggios going over and over in the background until it fades out after a minute or so. The C64 theme sounds the closest to the original in its chord structure, but the melody feels more like it was actually written through based on the randomized melodic ideas in the original... that is, until you listen far enough to reach the second melody, which playes 32th-note triplets. There, I cannot really say whether it's the same or different as the original, but it is rather convincing. Oddly, the ATARI 7800 theme starts the fade-in of the random melody right from the beginning, and it doesn't let go until the game starts.
On further note regarding the music, on PAL hardware, the music plays much slower than on NTSC hardware, for which the game was originally designed, so any PAL-only version of the game would automatically feel sluggish by comparison, just like the gameplay.
There is also a distinct sort of an ambience in the game, which is basically a weird rhythm track that could be an alterated melody track singled out and switched so that the random melody plays some sort of a percussive randomizer, which sounds like a drummer playing a hi-hat solo with some random bass drum hits. Additionally, you get the bump sounds and Rotofoil-turning swooshes and some weird metallic ding noises to play while you move around with the ball; plus, the timer ticking down after there's only ten seconds left, and then you get the goal scoring horn signal and the winning whistle. So, for such a seemingly small game, there's a surprising amount of different sounds to take note of. In this aspect, all the ATARI versions sound exactly the same.
Again, the biggest deviation from the original comes with the least amount of sound effects included in the 48k SPECTRUM version, which doesn't offer any sort of a background hi-hat tapping rhythm, and only includes the bouncing beeps, goal beeps and the shorter countdown pips before the game time ends. Another wildly different approach to the sound design is in the APPLE II version, which features a superbly annoying hyperspeed drill to replace the hi-hat track - already enough to not make me want to play the said version ever again; but also, you get a couple of different splat noises and boom sounds for handling the ball and the Rotofoils turning, and finally, the warning ticks of two different pitches for when the timer is counting down the last 10 seconds, and the final whistle to stop the game. All in all, it's certainly richer than the 48k SPECTRUM version, but I wouldn't really call it any more tolerable.
To my ears, the FAMICOM soundscape is the next up. The hi-hat track is there, but the actual gameplay sound effects are more muffled, lower-key basic Nintendo-style boom noises and the occasional weird arcadey blip sounds, and there's an overall feel of harsh imbalance in the sound effects. Above that, you get the 128k SPECTRUM and MSX versions, which are exactly the same between themselves. The hi-hat track is there, but the rhythmics and dynamics of it are less certain; also questionable is the weird quiet whistly noises for the 10-second countdown, but everything else is fine. The C64 version features a sloppy drummer, but it has been made to sound like he's using a snare along with the hi-hat; the gameplay sound effects are very well executed, though. The AMSTRAD version is on a similar level with the C64 version, but in a different way, because while the gameplay sound effects are less prevalent and obvious, the hi-hat backing track is much more in rhythm and in correct dynamics.
I suppose the PAL vs NTSC timing issues might affect how even the sound effects get played on the C64, and very likely on a PAL NES, if you tried to play the FAMICOM game on a region-modified NES. But just timing issues don't really override any other quality issues. So, the results for the Sound comparison are as follows:
1. ATARI 400/800/5200/7800
2. COMMODORE 64 / AMSTRAD CPC
3. MSX / SINCLAIR ZX SPECTRUM 128k
4. NINTENDO FAMICOM
5. APPLE II
6. SINCLAIR ZX SPECTRUM 48k
---
MASTERBLAZER (Rainbow Arts, 1990)
Commodore Amiga version:
Developed by Infernal Byte Systems
Produced by Julian Eggebrecht
Programming by Achim Möller, Thomas B. Schultz and Jörg Prenzing
Graphics by Ramiro Vaca and Celal Kandemiroglu
Music by Chris Hülsbeck
Published by Rainbow Arts in 1990.
Atari ST version:
Designed by Peter Langston and David Levine
Programming by Gero Presser, Thomas B. Schultz and Jörg Prenzing
Graphics by Ramiro Vaca and Celal Kandemiroglu
Music by Chris Hülsbeck and Jochen Hippel
Sound effects by Jochen Hippel
Published by Rainbow Arts in 1991.
IBM-PC version:
Programming by Jörg Prenzing
Graphics by Ramiro Vaca and Celal Kandemiroglu
Sound by Michael Z. Land
PC version support by Holger Ahrens and Volker Marohn
Published by Rainbow Arts in 1991.
Lucasfilm Games couldn't be bothered to revisit their first smash hit game after things got more interesting on their adventure gaming front, so they gave permission to a German developing team, Infernal Byte Systems, to develop a remake/sequel to the Commodore Amiga, which was eventually published by Rainbow Arts in 1990. Versions for the Atari ST and IBM-PC compatibles followed in 1991.
Because this is basically the same game in a new outfit, I won't be writing too much in terms of a comparison for the 16-bits, although there are some differences, most of them having to do with sounds and graphics.
 |
| Screenshots from the Commodore Amiga version's opening sequence and other bits. |
Compared to the original Ballblazer, there are some new, arguably interesting features in Masterblazer, such as a Race mode, and a Tournament mode, but also, you finally get to see a visual demonstration of how the game is actually supposed to be played from the Demo mode. The Tournament mode is played by eight human players against each other in turns, with semi-finals and finals leading up to the winner - so, it's a long marathon of ballblazing. The Race mode makes you race through a long straight and you need to go through gates and deal as much damage to your opponent as possible. There is also a Museum, which shows some history of the game. The actual Ballblazer mode is exactly what you would expect it to be.
All three versions have very fine graphics, with a slight advantage on the AMIGA version. The ST version is slightly grainier than the original, and has slightly less colours in use, so all the gradients look less smooth. The DOS version can be played using EGA or VGA graphics, but the VGA graphics require a very specific kind of a setup (XT-based PC, apparently) for the graphics to work correctly.
 |
| Screenshots from the Atari ST version's gameplay parts. |
The soundtrack is based on the original, but it doesn't have the random algorithm melody included, so it feels like a step down in that sense. Then again, it's just the way it goes for anything that gets updated and upgraded, so I suppose it could be considered realistic. As a nice surprise, the ATARI ST version uses both sampled music and chip music in turns, so you get a more colourful sonic palette there. The DOS version can be played using some proper sound card or the PC speaker, if you're a masochist. The sound effects are obviously more refined than in the 8-bit game, and the AMIGA version feels the most finetuned.
Gameplay-wise, there's no notable differences between the three versions, but somehow, I felt that the game has a slightly more approachable difficulty curve in the ATARI ST version than in the other two. I suppose, compared to the original game, the biggest turn-off would be the disk loads between each menu action, which is especially weird in the DOS version. And in all honesty, I cannot think of any real reason to include so many unnecessary game modes, when most fans of the original will still likely focus on the regular Ballblazer mode.
At the time of writing this bit, the rating at LemonAmiga was 6.71 from 17 votes; at AtariMania, 9.0 from six votes; and at MyAbandonware, 3.75 (out of 5.0) from four votes. I'm not completely sure, if I agree with any of those, but out of all three, I suppose the ATARI ST version would be the one I would most likely come back to, if any.
---
OVERALL + VIDEO LINK + FINAL WORDS
It's time to wrap this little beast up, and see how the other versions line up after what is - let's be honest here - a proper Atari classic and a masterpiece.
1. ATARI 7800: Playability 7, Graphics 8, Sounds 6 = TOTAL 21
2. ATARI 400/800/5200: Playability 7, Graphics 7, Sounds 6 = TOTAL 20
3. COMMODORE 64: Playability 6, Graphics 5, Sounds 5 = TOTAL 16
4. AMSTRAD CPC: Playability 5, Graphics 4, Sounds 5 = TOTAL 14
5. NINTENDO FAMICOM: Playability 3, Graphics 6, Sounds 3 = TOTAL 12
6. APPLE II: Playability 4, Graphics 3, Sounds 2 = TOTAL 9
7. MSX: Playability 2, Graphics 2, Sounds 4 = TOTAL 8
8. SINCLAIR ZX SPECTRUM 128k: Playability 1, Graphics 1, Sounds 4 = TOTAL 6
9. SINCLAIR ZX SPECTRUM 48k: Playability 1, Graphics 1, Sounds 1 = TOTAL 3
Some of the placings here correlate rather well with each version's ratings at their community websites, while others placed surprisingly well on this list. For the most part, the list does make a good case for playability being the most important matter to consider, but in all honesty, Ballblazer is the sort of a game, which is so well designed that it's difficult to completely muck a conversion up. The biggest surprises for me personally were, that the Amstrad version in particular would place so high on the list, and that the less celebrated Famicom version would place only one spot lower.
Well, you are of course welcome to make your own observations, see which ones you prefer over the others and for what reasons. If you cannot be bothered to actually go through every single version of the game, you can check this video by Gaming History Source, showing you not only all the official versions of Ballblazer, but also Masterblazer, and the PS1-exclusive sequel, which is too far off from the source material for me to bother with it for this comparison.
Released in 1997, Ballblazer Champions on the PS1 is an interesting step in the evolution of gaming, because it's the most obvious connection between the original Ballblazer and a seemingly unrelated modern vehicular sports game, Rocket League, released in 2015. Although that is interesting in its own right, the more impressive feat is an almost completed Atari 2600 version of Ballblazer, which can be found in various work-in-progress stages somewhere in the AtariAge forum.
 |
| Left: Ballblazer Champions (PS1, 1997) -- Right: Ballblazer WIP (Atari 2600, 2025) |
That's certainly enough work for two months, and I'm hoping the next one will not be quite as arduous to write. But while I'm working on that, I will also be finally working on new videos for the My Nostalgia Trip Games series on FRGCB's YouTube channel, so keep an eye out on those. But for now, thanks for reading; see you next time!
No comments:
Post a Comment