BASICS: this is pitfall II lost caverns running on an SG1000. for my info on the game, read my comment on world of longplays' video on the atari 2600 version on this game. as a port this is alright. if you haven't heard of the sega SG1000, (i dont blame you) its power is about the same as the coleco vision.
Commodore 64 was top of the line hardware at the time, and Atari 2600 version had a bunch of extra hardware in the cartridge helping out. Besides this isn't exactly a port, it's an overhauled and expanded version of the game.
@@mohammedganai9636 Sure, but that chip was for the sound alone. David Crane had big plans for that chip in addition to sound but nothing else was ever produced.
@@kjrehberg Yeah. Not sure what else it was that Crane did with the 2600. The SG 1000 was notorious for lack of choppy scrolling, and wasn't developed by David Crane, as it was based on the arcade version.
Solid port here. Good work!
Brilliant. Never knew you had to go back to beginning!!
i still think the atari 2600 version is the best.
Pitfall II: Lost Caverns=陷阱2:失落的洞穴
He looks like he is wearing a bowler hat in this one.
u r - Yes i suppose so.
maybe activision wanted him to be "more gentelmanly" lmao.
BASICS:
this is pitfall II lost caverns running on an SG1000. for my info on the game, read my comment on world of longplays' video on the atari 2600 version on this game.
as a port this is alright. if you haven't heard of the sega SG1000, (i dont blame you) its power is about the same as the coleco vision.
The arcade version is a tough one for me. This looks as realistic as if you lose a life by barrels and rolling barrels.
obrigado pelo video!
do you know Russian
Pitfall is hard XD
😁🤩👍👏👍👏💯❤💖💙💥
The Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 versions looked better than the Sega SG-1000!
Commodore 64 was top of the line hardware at the time, and Atari 2600 version had a bunch of extra hardware in the cartridge helping out. Besides this isn't exactly a port, it's an overhauled and expanded version of the game.
As much as I adore the SG-1000, this was definitely a weak system in comparison.
Don't see how the 2600 version is better unless you wanted it more blocky?
Ummm... no
@@ldlrdrllrr yes it is. Anyone with eyes can see that.
So strange how the original Atari 2600 looks, plays, and sounds better than this one.
It had a special chip built in.
@@mohammedganai9636 Sure, but that chip was for the sound alone.
David Crane had big plans for that chip in addition to sound but nothing else was ever produced.
@@kjrehberg Yeah. Not sure what else it was that Crane did with the 2600. The SG 1000 was notorious for lack of choppy scrolling, and wasn't developed by David Crane, as it was based on the arcade version.
its definetly not as good as the 2600 version.@@mohammedganai9636
well there sound chip did a good job since the SG1000 version misses the rythem.@@kjrehberg