Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

Sure there were competitors, the Ti99 came along right around the same time, but lacked so many key features of the 800 it was a clearly inferior system in general terms.

I wonder how different things might have been if the TI hadn't been hamstrung ( ie - if the proper CPU had been applied, and the machine had been programmable in assembly out of the box )

 

So there you have it, a uniquely powerful computer with no peer 3 years before the C64 appeared (1982) - so that alone make it better for me, 'cos I got to play AMAZING games for 2 years before C64 owners even got their machines. 3 years of awesome Atari arcade ports on cart, innovative games from the founding father's of the games industry - games that changed my life and propelled me into a career in video games - all before the C64 even appeared.

 

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

 

It's impossible to clone Enforcer exactly - but that's fine as Enforcer is a showcase for the C64 graphic strengths.

But still few colors and a slower cpu.

 

Actually, those are two obvious points but if they don't accept those, what's the point of trying to show many other things like the bus cycle accesses on the C64 throw off synchronization of cycle exact code which doesn't happen on Atari.

[Crazyace]

I wonder how different things might have been if the TI hadn't been hamstrung ( ie - if the proper CPU had been applied, and the machine had been programmable in assembly out of the box )

 

Sears and K-Mart would often keep a TI with Parsec running as the store demo. That game really wowed me back in the day. I suppose two answers to your question are "ColecoVision" and "Adam". They had basically the same VDP chip though the CPUs driving them differed. Properly marketed as a console system with good licenses perhaps it could have done as well as the Colecovision but I recall that licensed titles were a TI weakness. You got games that were almost exactly like Pac-Man or Galaga but proper ports didn't come until later. It wasn't really hobbled with Adam's kludges but that system being relatively open did little to rescue it. The TI was pretty solid technically but didn't seem to have terribly savvy marketing behind it. 16-bit chip hype aside, it really only kept pace with Atari and Commodore. Little about it is markedly superior to either machine.

 

I was actually thinking MSX - when I looked at the TI first there was no way to actually write asm on the machine at all - everything was locked down. On all of the other machines ( ok - maybe not the trs80 model 1 ) I could try poking around as a hobbyist to get more performance.

[Crazyace]

...

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

...

 

C16/plus4 also didn't match it's color output and as already discussed it was incompatible with previous machines and a late comer.

My point was that the A8 colour was superior - ( 121 vs 128 colours is pretty close - as you only get 256 colours in the restrictive GTIA 9/11 modes ). For me the C16 shows how Atari could have enhanced the graphics ( without requiring 'colour ram' ) in the XL's

 

C64 does not have better graphics modes. Perhpas, you just meant to repeat the word "color RAM" again. Here's a list of standard graphics modes http://www.atarimagazines.com/v3n5/allmodes.html some of which are:

....blahblahblah...

 

Many of these don't even exist on C64 much less have better versions of them. And don't mention FLI or stuff like that since Atari can enhance it's modes as well with ANTIC Mode K and so forth. Did you like miss all the pictures posted in this thread (including my Antic mode K picture)?

Apart from the colour range anything displayable on A8 can be reproduced on C64. But not everything on C64 can be reproduced on A8. Therefore the C64 graphics modes are superior.

With colour the A8 '256' colour images are way better than anything the c64 could produce. - Actually all of the Atari strength's come from the enhanced colour ranges - the GPRIOR enhancements wouldn't work if the colour blending hadn't been part of the system design ( for p0/p1 multicolour )

 

>It's impossible to clone Enforcer exactly - but that's fine as Enforcer is a showcase for the C64 graphic strengths.

 

Certainly, if C64 game exploits it's better horizontal sprites and color RAM it would be hard to port to Atari. But there are many situations where Atari colors, cpu frequency, i/o speed, etc. would make that application undoable on C64.

 

As I said - it would be impossible to port Enforcer EXACTLY , as the graphics requirements are beyond those available on the A8.

[saehn]

...

atariksi's post

...

 

I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, I don't think we'll change each others' minds. Enjoyed discussing it with you, though.

 

Still would like to have an A8 of my own one day to experience it firsthand, not just through an emulator.

[atariksi]

...

atariksi's post

...

 

I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, I don't think we'll change each others' minds. Enjoyed discussing it with you, though.

 

Still would like to have an A8 of my own one day to experience it firsthand, not just through an emulator.

 

If I think 2+2=4.1, I don't think it's a matter of someone's opinion.

[atariksi]

...

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

...

 

C16/plus4 also didn't match it's color output and as already discussed it was incompatible with previous machines and a late comer.

My point was that the A8 colour was superior - ( 121 vs 128 colours is pretty close - as you only get 256 colours in the restrictive GTIA 9/11 modes ). For me the C16 shows how Atari could have enhanced the graphics ( without requiring 'colour ram' ) in the XL's

...

If your application requires only 80*200*16, the GTIA modes are unrestricted. You can mix modes to get nice borders and effects using all 16 shades or 16 luminances; that's 256 colors. You think only mode that's useful is 320*200.

 

>....blahblahblah...

 

Nice way to dismiss valid points. Perhaps, you are too lazy to address the valid points like scrolling displays, 4096 byte wide scanlines, overscanning without hogging up sprites or CPU, etc. There are examples of many applications like mine which are UNDOABLE on C64 because not of only the color range but because of the graphics modes.

 

>>Many of these don't even exist on C64 much less have better versions of them. And don't mention FLI or stuff like that since Atari can enhance it's modes as well with ANTIC Mode K and so forth. Did you like miss all the pictures posted in this thread (including my Antic mode K picture)?

 

>Apart from the colour range anything displayable on A8 can be reproduced on C64. But not everything on C64 can be reproduced on A8. Therefore the C64 graphics modes are superior.

 

That's complete rubbish. You can't implement the GTIA modes on C64 even with the WRONG 16 colors. You can implement games on Atari that employ more colors vertically and horizontally that are undoable on C64 (even if allow you to use the WRONG colors). Note, by WRONG colors, I am not restating the argument that Atari palette is better. How do you implement Graphics 1/2 or other modes without eating up all the CPU time on the C64?

 

>With colour the A8 '256' colour images are way better than anything the c64 could produce. - Actually all of the Atari strength's come from the enhanced colour ranges - the GPRIOR enhancements wouldn't work if the colour blending hadn't been part of the system design ( for p0/p1 multicolour )

 

You are DEAD wrong. Did you like wake up in the wrong mood today and just felt like blurting out whatever came to the top of your head? How does 1.79Mhz speed derive from enhanced color range? How does cycle exact coding w/WSYNC come out from enhanced color range? How does I/O speed come out from enhanced color range? How does 4-bit color depth in GTIA modes come from enhanced color range; in fact, color range is restricted in Graphics 9/11? Even if you had 16 colors on Atari, you can use GPRIOR. It's another technique of having more colors like color RAM is a technique of giving you a few more choices.

 

>>Certainly, if C64 game exploits it's better horizontal sprites and color RAM it would be hard to port to Atari. But there are many situations where Atari colors, cpu frequency, i/o speed, etc. would make that application undoable on C64.

 

>As I said - it would be impossible to port Enforcer EXACTLY , as the graphics requirements are beyond those available on the A8.

 

And as I said (many times in this thread), it's impossible to show any 16 colors unrestrictedly at 80*200 on C64 even if the colors are wrong. What to speak if we start scrolling them and doing overscan. As I stated, many other factors go into making a game than just trying to maximize use of hardware resources for a particular machine. If you port an A8 game that exploits the A8's graphic modes, those techniques are beyond those available on C64; and there's a lot more of those resources than the other way around.

[saehn]

...

atariksi's post

...

 

I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, I don't think we'll change each others' minds. Enjoyed discussing it with you, though.

 

Still would like to have an A8 of my own one day to experience it firsthand, not just through an emulator.

 

If I think 2+2=4.1, I don't think it's a matter of someone's opinion.

 

Couldn't just let it go in a civil manner, could you? Obviously the point of contention is that you think that A8 is objectively "better" and I see that it's a subjective perspective. I've already explained my viewpoint to you, as you've done towards me... and nothing was gained.

 

You should have had the grace to accept a polite, courteous withdrawal. Now, completely fulfill my expectations and have the last word.

[Crazyace]

...

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

...

 

C16/plus4 also didn't match it's color output and as already discussed it was incompatible with previous machines and a late comer.

My point was that the A8 colour was superior - ( 121 vs 128 colours is pretty close - as you only get 256 colours in the restrictive GTIA 9/11 modes ). For me the C16 shows how Atari could have enhanced the graphics ( without requiring 'colour ram' ) in the XL's

...

If your application requires only 80*200*16, the GTIA modes are unrestricted. You can mix modes to get nice borders and effects using all 16 shades or 16 luminances; that's 256 colors. You think only mode that's useful is 320*200.

 

It is restrictive - you don't have a free selection of 16 colours from 256 in 9/11.

 

>....blahblahblah...

 

Nice way to dismiss valid points. Perhaps, you are too lazy to address the valid points like scrolling displays, 4096 byte wide scanlines, overscanning without hogging up sprites or CPU, etc. There are examples of many applications like mine which are UNDOABLE on C64 because not of only the color range but because of the graphics modes.

 

blahblah was just because you listed all of the modes from the book - none of them are visibly better than any of the C64 modes ( apart from the GTIA modes - and that's colour, not resolution )

[atariksi]

...

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

...

 

C16/plus4 also didn't match it's color output and as already discussed it was incompatible with previous machines and a late comer.

My point was that the A8 colour was superior - ( 121 vs 128 colours is pretty close - as you only get 256 colours in the restrictive GTIA 9/11 modes ). For me the C16 shows how Atari could have enhanced the graphics ( without requiring 'colour ram' ) in the XL's

...

If your application requires only 80*200*16, the GTIA modes are unrestricted. You can mix modes to get nice borders and effects using all 16 shades or 16 luminances; that's 256 colors. You think only mode that's useful is 320*200.

 

It is restrictive - you don't have a free selection of 16 colours from 256 in 9/11.

...

We're talking about ability to use 16 colors for every pixel. That does not exist for C64, but it does exist in GTIA modes for Atari. We're not talking 8-bit depth. I gave example of 8*8 requriing 32 bytes-- that should have made it clear it's 4-bit depth. I don't need to use all 256 since to beat the C64, I just need 16 colors.

 

>>Nice way to dismiss valid points. Perhaps, you are too lazy to address the valid points like scrolling displays, 4096 byte wide scanlines, overscanning without hogging up sprites or CPU, etc. There are examples of many applications like mine which are UNDOABLE on C64 because not of only the color range but because of the graphics modes.

 

>blahblah was just because you listed all of the modes from the book - none of them are visibly better than any of the C64 modes ( apart from the GTIA modes - and that's colour, not resolution )

 

Bullcrap. You can't do Graphics 1, 2, 3,4,.. etc. You have emulate them which hogs up CPU time; to me (and anyone with some neurons), that means Atari mode is superior. Atari does those graphics modes in hardware w/o involving CPU especially if you add scrolling, overscan, and zooming effects.

 

Really, I'm surprised you would state something like all Atari advantages are related to just it's color range given you participated in this thread. It's like going through a semester of Calculus and at the final exam not knowing the derivative of x*x.

[frogstar_robot]

I was actually thinking MSX

 

That train didn't really get rolling in the US though I understand it was big in Western Europe, Japan, and maybe even South America. I like the idea of an 8-bit that had lots of different vendors and standard spec that still evolved over time kind of an 8-bit meets PC-style ecology.

[Crazyace]

I was actually thinking MSX

 

That train didn't really get rolling in the US though I understand it was big in Western Europe, Japan, and maybe even South America. I like the idea of an 8-bit that had lots of different vendors and standard spec that still evolved over time kind of an 8-bit meets PC-style ecology.

 

Ah sorry - when I mentioned MSX I was thinking that the MSX showed the potential of the VDP more than the TI ever did. Maybe if TI exposed a more open architecture at the start the machine could have been more successful

[Crazyace]

Bullcrap. You can't do Graphics 1, 2, 3,4,.. etc. You have emulate them which hogs up CPU time; to me (and anyone with some neurons), that means Atari mode is superior. Atari does those graphics modes in hardware w/o involving CPU especially if you add scrolling, overscan, and zooming effects.

 

Really, I'm surprised you would state something like all Atari advantages are related to just it's color range given you participated in this thread. It's like going through a semester of Calculus and at the final exam not knowing the derivative of x*x.

 

The point is that the C64 can emulate these modes - even though it may take CPU cycles - the A8 cannot emulate the C64 colour cell graphics at all. That's why it's graphics are superior.

( When I was speaking about advantages I was only considering graphics - that's why I didn't mention cpu/io/etc , just the colour range )

For myself the GTIA modes are tied in to the colour range - they are the big advantage of the A8 over the C64, and nothing on the c64 matches the 256 colour mode for pictures/photos

[popmilo]

@atariksi:

 

You are putting so much effort to mention GTIA modes with its 80x192 resolution... And how much of colors you get in them...

But can you name a game that really uses that modes to produce a good colorfull game ?

 

Last month I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to use Atari graphic modes for arcade game that Im planing to make for atari and c64.

And Im kinda stuck with maximum of four or five colors for background and three other for few sprites.... (like Crownland programmers did...)

 

Sorry but I don't see usable option for getting more colors on screen...

 

Horizontal resolution of 80 is not an option.

Interlacing is not an option. (call me crazy but I don't want to see a hint of flicker... And I want game to run at 50fps not 25...)

 

Gprior tricks with overlay and getting more colors are great but limitid to the width of maximum 40 pixels wich is again not enough to cover whole width of screen ....

 

And then I need that extra cpu speed for software sprites...

Comparisson between c64 and atari 800xl free cycle count (in 4 color character mode 160x192) shows ratio around 1:1.35 in ataris advantage.

That is not such a great advantage to replace 8 hardware sprites of c64....

 

And on Atari if I use 5th color I get only 128 chars in charset....

If I would want to make 8 software sprites the same size as commodores (in order to use same graphics for both machines...) it would take 4x4 chars for one sprite buffer and that is 128 chars !

 

And on C64 I get 8 sprites and each can have its own color.

And background with color ram is so much more colorfull (even if those colors are wrong as you say )

 

I get all that for granted and don't even need interupts or DLI's...

I can focus on Game and still make it look good...

 

So what to do?

Use pure graphics mode and make a game in 4 colors ?

 

I don't want to make a demo or static picture... I want a proper arcade game experience ...

 

If you have any usefull suggestions please say so...

 

Again call me crazy or fanboy or zealot but I really think c64 is better for that kind of usage...

[emkay]

The point is that the C64 can emulate these modes - even though it may take CPU cycles - the A8 cannot emulate the C64 colour cell graphics at all. That's why it's graphics are superior.

 

Why always this "half-arguing" ?

It's a fact that the A8 cannot show hires colours. But I already have shown some posts ago that the A8 can reach 128 colours is an 128 pixel square (8x16) in colour resolution.

 

( When I was speaking about advantages I was only considering graphics - that's why I didn't mention cpu/io/etc , just the colour range )

For myself the GTIA modes are tied in to the colour range - they are the big advantage of the A8 over the C64, and nothing on the c64 matches the 256 colour mode for pictures/photos

 

GTIA modes are those modes that kick the ass of the C64. There is no problem to show 80 colours per scanline. Well, the restriction is in the resolution there...

[emkay]

@atariksi:

 

You are putting so much effort to mention GTIA modes with its 80x192 resolution... And how much of colors you get in them...

But can you name a game that really uses that modes to produce a good colorfull game ?

 

Koronis Rift.

 

It shows approx. 48 colours per screen and the CPU has the time to calculate an extra layer that fades the mountains into the scene, using the 256 colour palette.

[emkay]

And, well POKEY sound and SID sound.

POKEY takes much benefit by the correct timing programming.

It's still a sad thing that no one cares about "real" Pokey music. According to this fact, the appended tune was done in 2h with the available software. And, because it is originated an Amiga MOD, it was easier to use two POKEYs for the 4 channels. There is much more possible, but, believing history: WHAT you hear already, POKEY cannot do. CPU consumption is less than programming SID.... Timing is the key.

stareo.zip

[emkay]

I don't want to make a demo or static picture... I want a proper arcade game experience ...

 

 

You know what ? I wanted it too!

 

But, all the Sprites and colours didn't help with the speed of

 

-Test Drive

-Space Harrier

-Outrun

 

... and all 3D view games.

A bunch of static pictures gives also no great gaming fun.

[atariksi]

...

atariksi's post

...

 

I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, I don't think we'll change each others' minds. Enjoyed discussing it with you, though.

 

Still would like to have an A8 of my own one day to experience it firsthand, not just through an emulator.

 

If I think 2+2=4.1, I don't think it's a matter of someone's opinion.

 

Couldn't just let it go in a civil manner, could you? Obviously the point of contention is that you think that A8 is objectively "better" and I see that it's a subjective perspective. I've already explained my viewpoint to you, as you've done towards me... and nothing was gained.

 

You should have had the grace to accept a polite, courteous withdrawal. Now, completely fulfill my expectations and have the last word.

 

I did let you go in a civil manner. It seems you want to take a last snipe at downplaying facts with words like "think" and "nothing was gained". Nothing was gained for you; you don't know what was gained or lost from others' perspective. You want to speak for my behalf and others' behalf which is nonsensical. You can state "I think bla bla.." but don't tell me I also am expressing an opinion when I state facts. If you can't distinguish facts from opinions, don't tell me to stop replying. You also were stupid enough to make a comment on the entire thread being subjective without reading it. And if you were courteous enough to withdraw, you wouldn't be replying again.

 

If you speak for yourself or state facts I can deal with it but when you start declaring other people's facts to be just their viewpoints, you are DEAD wrong. Go try your bullcrap on someone else.

[atariksi]

Bullcrap. You can't do Graphics 1, 2, 3,4,.. etc. You have emulate them which hogs up CPU time; to me (and anyone with some neurons), that means Atari mode is superior. Atari does those graphics modes in hardware w/o involving CPU especially if you add scrolling, overscan, and zooming effects.

 

Really, I'm surprised you would state something like all Atari advantages are related to just it's color range given you participated in this thread. It's like going through a semester of Calculus and at the final exam not knowing the derivative of x*x.

 

The point is that the C64 can emulate these modes - even though it may take CPU cycles - the A8 cannot emulate the C64 colour cell graphics at all. That's why it's graphics are superior.

...

 

You can stop the bullcrap. The C64 cannot emulate the Atari's GPRIOR color effects nor the GTIA modes w/wrong colors. Atari can emulate the color RAM vertically quite easily. And it's better to have linear graphics than cell-based graphics so why would we want to do cell-based to begin with. Emulating using up CPU cycles means Atari gets the edge for that particular graphics mode. QED.

 

You want more? C64 cannot equal Atari's re-use of color registers. Not all imagery has color requirements spread out into 8*8 cells over 40*25 grid. Usually colors will cluster toward certain regions unless you hand-made the image in which case the GPRIOR can be used as well.

 

>( When I was speaking about advantages I was only considering graphics - that's why I didn't mention cpu/io/etc , just the colour range )

 

You specifically stated: "Actually all of the Atari strength's come from the enhanced colour ranges -" If you meant only graphics modes, you used invisible ink.

 

>For myself the GTIA modes are tied in to the colour range - they are the big advantage of the A8 over the C64, and nothing on the c64 matches the 256 colour mode for pictures/photos

 

Hey, but then you can't draw a conclusion that C64 graphics modes are superior. GTIA modes are both more colorful and have a corresponding graphics mode assigned to them.

[atariksi]

...

Horizontal resolution of 80 is not an option.

...

I don't want to make a demo or static picture... I want a proper arcade game experience ...

 

If you have any usefull suggestions please say so...

 

Again call me crazy or fanboy or zealot but I really think c64 is better for that kind of usage...

 

I don't call people fanboys or zealots unless they actually are behaving like that. I was speaking in general about all Atari graphics modes not just one that you may like or another one may not. So 80/96 horizontal resolution is not an option for you but that doesn't mean that mode is dismissed as NOT EXISTING. Just because you have no use for lower-resolution text modes doesn't mean they shouldn't be used in the comparison of graphics modes. If you want to compare two machines, then when comparing various graphics modes, you have to give some credit for having those graphics modes in hardware. Hey, if I take a subjective approach I would only look at GTIA modes since that's all I use in my application. And if you want to take a practical approach, even C64 most of the games do NOT use 320*200 mode. Nor does one mode make the entire graphics hardware of the Atari inferior (as CrazyAce seems to think).

 

As for your query regarding 160*200 mode, I have two approaches that I use-- take 80*200 and resolution enhance it to where I need higher resolution or take 160*200 mode and color enhance it w/re-use of colors or by sacrificing a couple of sprites. There are other tricks like Boulderdash and other games use, and these are all 50/60Hz. Color useage can be optimized according to what is required... discussion was regarding graphics modes not sprites.

[+wood_jl]

I was actually thinking MSX

 

That train didn't really get rolling in the US though I understand it was big in Western Europe, Japan, and maybe even South America. I like the idea of an 8-bit that had lots of different vendors and standard spec that still evolved over time kind of an 8-bit meets PC-style ecology.

 

Love him or hate him, Jack Tramiel is the stopping force behind preventing MSX from gaining a foothold here in the U.S., by agressive price cuts on the Commodore 64 (love it or hate it too). That, and the great videogame crash of 83-84 - which to some degree is intertwined with those same price cuts and price war. But I'd say the C64 stopped MSX here. Nobody could sell a comparable computer for a lower price.

[supercat]

I don't see the "bit" better at all. I see at inferior in all graphics scenarios except for the 320*200 color RAM useage and sprites horizontally.

It's graphics modes are more like CGA which EXISTED at the time of C64. A bit inferior to CGA since CGA also supported 640*200 and had 80*25*16 color RAM vs. 40*25*16 color RAM corresponding to its text mode (which also was able to do FLI type stuff).

 

The CGA had a ROM-based character set in its text modes. One could program the text mode for different font heights, though the only usefulness of this was that if one set the font height to two rows, one could fill the screen with a character that was solid on the left half; one could thus use foreground/background colors to draw a 160x100 screen. Note that one could not display readable text on such a screen (except at the low resolution), and one could only write a few hundred bytes per frame unless one wanted to either blank the screen or cause annoying "snow".

 

In the 320x200x4 mode, three of the four colors had to be chosen from four "palettes". The red and green components were controlled by the pixel data, while the blue and intensity components were set on a per-screen basis for all pixels that weren't set to the background color.

 

Compare the graphics on "Below the Root" versions for the C64 and CGA. The former blows the latter out of the water.

[atariksi]

... But I'd say the C64 stopped MSX here. Nobody could sell a comparable computer for a lower price.

 

Watch with the word "Lower". It may have gotten declared subjective.

[atariksi]

I don't see the "bit" better at all. I see at inferior in all graphics scenarios except for the 320*200 color RAM useage and sprites horizontally.

It's graphics modes are more like CGA which EXISTED at the time of C64. A bit inferior to CGA since CGA also supported 640*200 and had 80*25*16 color RAM vs. 40*25*16 color RAM corresponding to its text mode (which also was able to do FLI type stuff).

 

The CGA had a ROM-based character set in its text modes. One could program the text mode for different font heights, though the only usefulness of this was that if one set the font height to two rows, one could fill the screen with a character that was solid on the left half; one could thus use foreground/background colors to draw a 160x100 screen. Note that one could not display readable text on such a screen (except at the low resolution), and one could only write a few hundred bytes per frame unless one wanted to either blank the screen or cause annoying "snow".

 

In the 320x200x4 mode, three of the four colors had to be chosen from four "palettes". The red and green components were controlled by the pixel data, while the blue and intensity components were set on a per-screen basis for all pixels that weren't set to the background color.

 

Compare the graphics on "Below the Root" versions for the C64 and CGA. The former blows the latter out of the water.

CGA font had graphics characters as part of the font; so you could use 1/4 full UL char, 1/4 full UR char, 1/4 full LL char, and 1/4 full LR char to get any 2 colors in a 2*2 and say it's 160*200*16.

 

Link didn't show up for "Below the Root". With the sprites, C64 would outdo CGA in graphics even without the 640 mode; CGA had no sprites.

[Godzilla]

man, i loved below the root and alice in wonderland. they are still two of my all time favorite graphic adventures.