What games are better on AppleII/MSDOS over Atari800/C64?

[Mr.Amiga500]

...

Besides, since I'm answering to a post that got posted using an Amiga 500, I seem to remember that AmigaBasic has got much worse limitations for code space when compared to the amount of RAM an Amiga really has - and the 512K expansion didn't help there!

 

Oh, AmigaBasic was utter crap! I went through hell trying to write code for that piece of garbage. That was by far the buggiest, slowest, most tedius to use BASIC I ever used. It was written by Microsoft. That ended my BASIC coding days forever. (...and started my Microsoft hatred)

[opcode]

It's not difficult to understand why the Apple II often had better games, despite the Atari 8-bit's apparent superiority on paper:

• The Atari 8-bit's Player/Missile graphics are quite limited (a nice way to say that PM are utter crap), with a width of only 8 pixels, restricting the ability to create detailed figures. The Apple II, relying on software sprites, doesn't face this issue.
• Despite the Atari 8-bit's theoretical 80% CPU speed advantage, Antic can consume up to 30% of CPU cycles in most games.
• The Apple II's 280-pixel-wide resolution is common in many games, whereas the Atari 8-bit typically uses a narrower 160-pixel width.
• Most Atari 8-bit games require 2 bits per pixel (for 4 colors per scanline), while the Apple II usually operates with a single bit per pixel (meaning faster video processing), and can use all colors in the same scanline in many cases.

So, while Apple II games may suffer from slowdowns and lower frame rates due to software rendering, when executed properly, they can deliver impressive visuals for their era. The Atari 8-bit, on the other hand, is hindered by Antic, in my humble opinion.

 

Here's a classic example illustrating my point: Dig-Dug. The Atari 8-bit has an edge with background graphics, thanks to its broader color palette. However, the limitations of Player/Missile graphics become evident, with characters appearing single-color and low-resolution. In contrast, the Apple II offers significantly more detail.

 

[phoenixdownita]

1 hour ago, opcode said:

It's not difficult to understand why the Apple II often had better games, despite the Atari 8-bit's apparent superiority on paper:

• The Atari 8-bit's Player/Missile graphics are quite limited (a nice way to say that PM are utter crap), with a width of only 8 pixels, restricting the ability to create detailed figures. The Apple II, relying on software sprites, doesn't face this issue.
• Despite the Atari 8-bit's theoretical 80% CPU speed advantage, Antic can consume up to 30% of CPU cycles in most games.
• The Apple II's 280-pixel-wide resolution is common in many games, whereas the Atari 8-bit typically uses a narrower 160-pixel width.
• Most Atari 8-bit games require 2 bits per pixel (for 4 colors per scanline), while the Apple II usually operates with a single bit per pixel (meaning faster video processing), and can use all colors in the same scanline in many cases.

So, while Apple II games may suffer from slowdowns and lower frame rates due to software rendering, when executed properly, they can deliver impressive visuals for their era. The Atari 8-bit, on the other hand, is hindered by Antic, in my humble opinion.

 

Here's a classic example illustrating my point: Dig-Dug. The Atari 8-bit has an edge with background graphics, thanks to its broader color palette. However, the limitations of Player/Missile graphics become evident, with characters appearing single-color and low-resolution. In contrast, the Apple II offers significantly more detail.

 

There are multiple variants of dig dug

 

This version is way less monochromy sprites (monster have two here)

 

also I am not sure how can the apple II have color with only 1bit … somewhere you gotta store which color and where it changes.

 

Check 

and

 

 

So you can find multicolor as well as monochrome.

Edited May 15 by phoenixdownita

[Jetboot Jack]

15 hours ago, opcode said:

It's not difficult to understand why the Apple II often had better games, despite the Atari 8-bit's apparent superiority on paper:

• The Atari 8-bit's Player/Missile graphics are quite limited (a nice way to say that PM are utter crap), with a width of only 8 pixels, restricting the ability to create detailed figures. The Apple II, relying on software sprites, doesn't face this issue.
• Despite the Atari 8-bit's theoretical 80% CPU speed advantage, Antic can consume up to 30% of CPU cycles in most games.
• The Apple II's 280-pixel-wide resolution is common in many games, whereas the Atari 8-bit typically uses a narrower 160-pixel width.
• Most Atari 8-bit games require 2 bits per pixel (for 4 colors per scanline), while the Apple II usually operates with a single bit per pixel (meaning faster video processing), and can use all colors in the same scanline in many cases.

So, while Apple II games may suffer from slowdowns and lower frame rates due to software rendering, when executed properly, they can deliver impressive visuals for their era. The Atari 8-bit, on the other hand, is hindered by Antic, in my humble opinion.

I beg to differ...

 

And just for fun...

Edited May 16 by Jetboot Jack