Odyssey Classification plus Finite and Infinite State Machines
davyK wrote:
These reviews are great, though they show that the Odyssey really was quite primitive. It makes the 2600 look like a powerhouse which was really only designed to play Pong and Tank variants. It (supports two "player" objects and 2 "missile/ball" objects in hardware along with support for a symmetrical background - the rest being done by the underpowered processor.
But then that's the difference - the 2600 had a actual processor matching Von Neumann's stored program concept while the Odyssey is really only a finite state machine.
I've had quite the argument with one of the editors over at my publisher about what I was classifying the Odyssey as in the book's text. In my opinion, while it has many of the elements that were found in future videogame consoles, it seems absurd to put it in quite the same classification. To me, it has much more in common with future fixed state Pong-style consoles than future fully programmable videogame consoles. I'm going to tweak the wording a bit in the book to avoid the issue all together, but in turn I may add an additional sentence or two clarifying the Odyssey's extreme limitations (relatively speaking of course and not to take anything away from being the first home TV game and three years before anything else).
By the way, I like your term "finite state machine". I may want to work that over a bit. I've been trying to distinguish between Pong-style systems with a fixed number of games and are not programmable, and videogame and computer systems that can accept new games and are fully programmable. "Finite state" and "Infinite state" machines. I like it. If I use it, I'll be sure to acknowledge you in the book.
======================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
(A PC Magazine Top 100 Website)
======================================
*************************** Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
These reviews are great, though they show that the Odyssey really was quite primitive. It makes the 2600 look like a powerhouse which was really only designed to play Pong and Tank variants. It (supports two "player" objects and 2 "missile/ball" objects in hardware along with support for a symmetrical background - the rest being done by the underpowered processor.
But then that's the difference - the 2600 had a actual processor matching Von Neumann's stored program concept while the Odyssey is really only a finite state machine.
I've had quite the argument with one of the editors over at my publisher about what I was classifying the Odyssey as in the book's text. In my opinion, while it has many of the elements that were found in future videogame consoles, it seems absurd to put it in quite the same classification. To me, it has much more in common with future fixed state Pong-style consoles than future fully programmable videogame consoles. I'm going to tweak the wording a bit in the book to avoid the issue all together, but in turn I may add an additional sentence or two clarifying the Odyssey's extreme limitations (relatively speaking of course and not to take anything away from being the first home TV game and three years before anything else).
By the way, I like your term "finite state machine". I may want to work that over a bit. I've been trying to distinguish between Pong-style systems with a fixed number of games and are not programmable, and videogame and computer systems that can accept new games and are fully programmable. "Finite state" and "Infinite state" machines. I like it. If I use it, I'll be sure to acknowledge you in the book.
======================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
(A PC Magazine Top 100 Website)
======================================
***************************
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.