Atari v Commodore

[Crazyace]

I think it's more than 3 sprites on the C64..

Bruce and the green guy go to 16 pixels wide in 2 colours - seems to be 1 double width player, and 1 single width player.. That's too wide for a standard multicolour sprite, so I expect the game uses 2 sprites each in the C64 version

It looks like the ninja is using the fifth player - when he stabs on the A8 version the sprite goes 'double res' only. The C64 would have 3 more sprites spare to improve his graphics

 

Haven't we already decided that the C64 sprites are better? ( come on - it shows a certain blind devotion to argue otherwise... )

[emkay]

archon & bruce lee are equally good. there's hardly any difference. slightly different colors, and different but similarly primitive sounds.

 

 

>No, Oswald isn't biased at all<

 

if this doesn qualifies as slightly then I dont know what:

 

atari:

c64:

 

atari

 

c64:

 

this made me realize, c64 archon has more detailed "chess" figures

 

 

Haven't you learned from other forums that you better don't link to pictures from LEMON64 ?

 

To Archon: That game has a specified rule.

The brighter the light , the more powerfull is the light side

The darker the light, the more powerfull the dark side gets.

 

Which is clearly indicated on the screen. Also, when being on the battlefield, the light and dark obstacles indicate how a shot can pass, beeing weakened or stopped.

Edited November 28, 2008 by emkay

[Crazyace]

Just for comedy - here is the Apple II version of bruce lee...

 

nominally the Apple is 6 colours in high res, relying on Artifacting - This was the machine that the original A800 was aimed at, the C64 came years after

 

Edit: Added 2nd picture to match c64/atari ones earlier

Edited November 28, 2008 by Crazyace

[atarian63]

Difference is good, why try to claim one is better than the other, just be happy you enjoy your choice.

 

Someone not being happy with their choice is pretty much what started this thread, otherwise why look only for comparisons where the Atari comes out on top rather than making it more general...?

 

I can see good games on other systems, I own a few others - but here, on this Atari Forum I enjoy our celebration of all things Atari - and that means the games that are good on that system.

 

...

 

I happen to enjoy Atari, and I am happy to share that with the people here on AA, not fight about it.

 

i happen enjoy Atari and the C64, but it seems that i'm not allowed to do the latter here without derision or being accused of trolling; i'm not saying that you do it and i know all the programmers tend to be more interested in the technical details anyway (as i noticed Oswald said between my original post and this edit, i like discussing these details because there are always things to learn about machines and this is a great way of learning them - i want to see atariski's sprite system!) but some people just seem incapable of enjoying the Atari unless it's at the expense of other machines.

Because it is an Atari site...

[atarian63]

Don't forget that the VIC shifted significant numbers (i believe it was the first machine to move a million units) so if you're deciding what a machine should look like that's one hell of a reason to recycle a design.

Not in this country, it was a flop

 

Ah, there you go confusing one country with the world again... and considering Jack Tramiel, the idea of him releasing a machine and having it flop, then setting his designers on working on another one just doesn't hold water, it must have shifted enough units for a businessman like Tramiel to even consider that.

I dunno commodore plus 4 comes to mind.

This one country does make the world

[Artlover]

Well, the "biggie" from my point of view is all the coin-ops that had POKEY (what can i say, i like games =-)

Pokey being used in Atari arcade machines is no suprize. I guess I should have qualified the question by saying 3rd party companies with no ties to the developer of the hardware being used.

[Crazyace]

The plus4 always seemed a bit strange - it didn't offer much over the C64, and it lost the sprites.... why not just release a C16 as a C64 with less memory instead of new machines, especially as the C64 seemed to be as cheap as the plus4

[Garak]

The plus4 always seemed a bit strange - it didn't offer much over the C64, and it lost the sprites.... why not just release a C16 as a C64 with less memory instead of new machines, especially as the C64 seemed to be as cheap as the plus4

 

Because the Plus 4 wasn't made to replace or add to the C64 line. The Plus 4 was designed to directly compete against the Spectrum computers. Also, the Plus 4 was supposed to be a lot cheaper then the C64 but management and marketing ruined that and the price was pushed towards the C64s.

 

Garak

[Fröhn]

I dunno commodore plus 4 comes to mind. This one country does make the world

The C16 was aimed at the ZX Spectrum market and supposed to be sold much cheaper than a C64. But when Tramiel left the new management had weirdo ideas of selling it on a imaginary "professional market of 8 bit computers" and priced it in the same range as the C64.

[Crazyace]

I think the plus 4 was actually more expensive than the C64 in the UK

$50-$80 dollars for the machine makes more sense - ( though couldn't they release some varient of the Ultimax? )

[emkay]

Currently they are showing C64 games on GIGA TV

[dwhyte]

i found that the Atari was lovely to start with because the display list, DLI and WSYNC in particular make things easier to do but, for the games i like coding, i always seem to be bumping against limitations with the Atari earlier than i do with the C64. Doesn't stop me liking it, though.

 

Sorry TMR, I was tired this morning when I made that post and never exactly clarified what I meant. I was thinking ease of coding from a built-in Basic point of view. Commands such as: SOUND (oooh, snap), STICK, STRIG, GRAPHICS, PLOT, DRAWTO, etc... The ability to include ML routines in strings as opposed to DATA statements that slow the system down while pokeing into memory (or can this be done on a 64... not sure... just never seen it).

 

One area that the C64's Basic has that I wish the Atari's had would be variable bitmasking. I remember seeing it in a lot of magazine type-ins for the 64, but alas, no bitmasking in Atari basic. Another plus was the 64 had proper string arrays...

[atarian63]

The plus4 always seemed a bit strange - it didn't offer much over the C64, and it lost the sprites.... why not just release a C16 as a C64 with less memory instead of new machines, especially as the C64 seemed to be as cheap as the plus4

Beleive it or not I actually considered buying one based of the looks and the box at one time,after researching, I passed but if iy had been an enhanced c64 with mostly full compatibility and better apps in rom it would have done quite well.

[atarian63]

I dunno commodore plus 4 comes to mind. This one country does make the world

The C16 was aimed at the ZX Spectrum market and supposed to be sold much cheaper than a C64. But when Tramiel left the new management had weirdo ideas of selling it on a imaginary "professional market of 8 bit computers" and priced it in the same range as the C64.

Here in the US I am not sure it had an aim, never saw very many, though I did see a few VICs in late 81 early 82 I think. I recall that being some peoples first pc as it was affordable,PC's were so new at the time and people bought one and it just sat there, sadly games were not readily available many places(distribution) so it died.

Edited November 28, 2008 by atarian63

[Jetboot Jack]

TMR,

 

some people just seem incapable of enjoying the Atari unless it's at the expense of other machines

 

I agree, but don't know why...

 

I also see lots of:

 

some people just seem incapable of enjoying the C64 unless it's at the expense of other machines

 

Seems juvenile, but then again it is born of the schoolyard

 

I like well made A8 games, I don't really appreciate C64 titles that much - that's just me...

 

sTeVE

[Allas]

7 - ENCOUNTER!

 

Atari screenshots

 

More colors, smooth motion. Sometimes is simple and easy to do games with great quality on Atari.

In brief if you can do a game with at least 10-12 colors on screen well chosen from his 128 palette, you'll have an unbeatable game.

 

C64 screenshots

Edited November 29, 2008 by Allas

[FastRobPlus]

More colors, smooth motion. Sometimes is simple and easy to do games with great quality on Atari.

In brief if you can do a game with at least 10-12 colors on screen well chosen from his 128 palette, you'll have an insuperable game.

 

Still don't know which system is better. But I learned a new word!

[atariksi]

>what? the screen? you have a 3d one with z axis ?

 

Regardless, the zoom is useable on the Z axis.

 

>>You gave a link stating earlier existence of sprites. I gave a link to article stating Atari 800 was first to use them. It does not follow that your article is correct.

 

>and why does it follow that your article is correct ?

 

It does not, but it still follows that since Atari had sprite systems while Commodore did not at the same time the Atari would get the originality edge. I don't see how your article by itself would take that away.

 

>>Original point: POTENTIAL OF machine targetting 800XL vs. C64. Now you want to compare RAM useage 16K vs. 1K.

 

>sure, and potentially the c64 is either faster or uses much less ram for moving around sprites. goto 10.

 

No, if you want to compare speed, Atari is always faster in setting the I/O locations. In most scenarios, you have either RAM or speed to spare. He was claiming Atari is 11X slower-- but that's not the case.

 

>you can not pump out 16 colors in 320x200 without using the cpu. the c64 can. and its certainly much better for gfx than a monochrome screen with 4x wide pixels, it uses 1000 bytes more data to build up the screen. remember? the more data the better picture:

 

Keep it straight forward. You can't even have a 80*200*16 mode even if you use 100% of your CPU. It's not monochrome either. I can also show 320*200*128 if you want it restricted. And a DLI/IRQ isn't a big deal although it uses the CPU. It'll still have enough CPU power remaining > C64. You are making up rules. The more data the better the picture is your own concoction. Remember, 6-bit HAM is better than 8-bit VGA? DLI makes up for many colors like your text-mode extended color RAM gives you some colors.

 

>sure I also have a 50fps doom clone for the c64, but I wont show it until atari ppl are so biased.

 

Argue on your own behalf as you don't share the same train of thought as the guy you are replying for. You are arguing over RAM useage-- he was arguing whether it's even possible to do. I thought you already understood my algorithm. You can't be duplicitous and just try to find fault. You are one of those biased people. If you are so smart, you don't need the implementation of the algorithm.

[atariksi]

>Because he explicitely doesn't want to use one of the MC-colors to avoid sharing of colors. Imagine you use sprites 1 to 4, and overlay sprite 1 with 2 and 3 with 4. As a result you get two combined sprites with following colors:

 

>Overlayed sprite A: SC1 + SC2 + MC1 (ignoring MC2)

>Overlayed sprite B: SC3 + SC4 + MC2 (ignoring MC1)

 

Original point: multicolor sprite on Atari is better implementation.

QED, you're using 4 sprites.

You have to use 4 players to achieve 2 multicolor players on Atari aswell. Btw, when do I have to stop repeating myself?

...

 

Because you keep repeating the same mistake. Atari only has 2 multicolor sprites (8-10 X 256). Multicolor mode is enabled via a bit in 53275. Two multicolor sprites gives 6 colors + other restricted colors in conflicting priority zones. Two multicolor sprites on C64 gives 4 colors.

[atariksi]

...

On one level I disagree, but I conceed that it is difficult to be objective - that is why there is little or no point having this argument/debate/discussion - because I will not be able to seperate the one from the other, and neither do you - it's the human condition.

...

 

It can be objective if we take the potential each machine is capable of rather than bickering over-- oh but that used up more RAM to do the same thing or that used up more CPU power to do the same thing. It can do it can't it? Yeah, ultimately the creativity factors in on how programmers use the machine.

[Oswald]

I think it's more than 3 sprites on the C64..

Bruce and the green guy go to 16 pixels wide in 2 colours - seems to be 1 double width player, and 1 single width player.. That's too wide for a standard multicolour sprite, so I expect the game uses 2 sprites each in the C64 version

It looks like the ninja is using the fifth player - when he stabs on the A8 version the sprite goes 'double res' only. The C64 would have 3 more sprites spare to improve his graphics

 

Haven't we already decided that the C64 sprites are better? ( come on - it shows a certain blind devotion to argue otherwise... )

 

c64 sprites are 24 hires pixel wide (12 in multicolor) and 21 pixels high. in multicolor mode each sprite can have 1 own color, and they share 2 colors. so it can be made of 3 sprites. furthermore the ninja could have been hires... I always wondered why the ninja sprite is so ugly, well its because <emkay mode one> the atari turned the VICII's sprites into restricted a8 pmgs <emkay mode off>

[Oswald]

>what? the screen? you have a 3d one with z axis ?

>Regardless, the zoom is useable on the Z axis.

 

sure, gtia has built in 3d support. leave me alone with this ridiciulous bullshit.

 

>It does not, but it still follows that since Atari had sprite systems while Commodore did not at the same time the Atari would get the originality edge. I don't >see how your article by itself would take that away.

 

c= made the first home computer, so it has the originality edge over any home pc secondly there's no originality in copying sprites that were already done.

 

>>Original point: POTENTIAL OF machine targetting 800XL vs. C64. Now you want to compare RAM useage 16K vs. 1K.

>sure, and potentially the c64 is either faster or uses much less ram for moving around sprites. goto 10.

>No, if you want to compare speed, Atari is always faster in setting the I/O locations. In most scenarios, you have either RAM or speed to spare. He was claiming Atari is 11X slower-- but that's not the case.

 

the c64 is either 11x faster or uses ~ 10x less ram in this scenario.(moving sprites x/y) goto 10

 

>you can not pump out 16 colors in 320x200 without using the cpu. the c64 can. and its certainly much better for gfx than a monochrome screen with 4x wide pixels, it uses 1000 bytes more data to build up the screen. remember? the more data the better picture:

 

>Keep it straight forward. You can't even have a 80*200*16 mode even if you use 100% of your CPU. It's not monochrome either. I can also show >320*200*128 if you want it restricted. And a DLI/IRQ isn't a big deal although it uses the CPU. It'll still have enough CPU power remaining > C64. You are >making up rules. The more data the better the picture is your own concoction. Remember, 6-bit HAM is better than 8-bit VGA? DLI makes up for many >colors like your text-mode extended color RAM gives you some colors.

 

80x200x16 is only possible in monochrome mode. 320x200x128 doesn not exist, its 320x200x4 colors / line just like the c64. atari has nothing like the ham mode so you have to find something else to explain why would it have better pictures using less data than the c64.

[atariksi]

>sure, gtia has built in 3d support. leave me alone with this ridiciulous bullshit.

 

I have left you alone. Everything you have replied to here was my discussion with someone else.

 

>c= made the first home computer, so it has the originality edge over any home pc secondly there's no originality in copying sprites that were already done.

 

You are caught in an infinite loop. You have not established either so you should stop replying on behalf of others.

 

>the c64 is either 11x faster or uses ~ 10x less ram in this scenario.(moving sprites x/y) goto 10

 

You cut out the parts you don't like.

 

>80x200x16 is only possible in monochrome mode.

 

Wrong.

 

>320x200x128 doesn not exist, its 320x200x4 colors / line just like the c64.

 

If you're going to use color ram and the additional I/O space, etc., I'll overlay GTIA on other modes or use DLIs/IRQs.

 

>atari has nothing like the ham mode so you have to find something else to explain why would it have better pictures using less data than the c64.

 

I did, I guess you missed it again.

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

Well, whatever is better I am thankful for their differences and all the great games!

[Oswald]

It can be objective if we take the potential each machine is capable of rather than bickering over-- oh but that used up more RAM to do the same thing or that used up more CPU power to do the same thing. It can do it can't it?

 

 

it can do it yeah, either 11x slower or with wasting ram. and thats an objective point. goto 10.