atarian63 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Here we go again....shoulda, coulda, woulda.... And to follow this direction.... I would have bought A C64 ... If it had a 2MHz CPU If it had a good colour palette If it had a better Keyboard If the floppy worked at a better speed from scratch The C64 would have been a good machine, but it was a cheap machine. .... Well, C64 turned out to be a better computer, simple as that. You know, history never lies By the way, wasn't Atari 800XL cheaper than C64 BTW, wasn't the Spectrum cheaper than the C64 Yes but it is worse for 99% of all aspects of an 8bit home computer. It didn't even have a joystick port, a sound chip (16k/48k original rubber keys) or real disk drives. Also didn't have a decent TV output either. Complete fail apart from a 3.5Mhz CPU and monochrome wireframe 3D games. Kind of like an IBM pc here. Another machine that should have failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 A statement about "Driller" Very interesting game.Full 3D graphics...and like(almost)all 3D game on 64,this stuff is enormously slow too.The music is superb...hmmm,and familiar Castle Master Is there antything that the C64 couldn't do even to small extent? Slow game but very absorbing. 9/10 It'a cumulated bunch of people that prefer graphics and sound. Gameplay is not that relevant. Speed seems useless, if fixed graphics and SID sound were nice. So, C64 fit perfectly to them.... Freescape games were not about speed, they were first to offer full 3d world to walk thru... There was nothing like it before... That is why those are the games that made mark in time - IMO... Why doesn't someone make them for atari ? There is a conversion for Plus/4 - wouldn't it be possible to make one for atari? And about Lemon - Creator of that site is Kim Lemon from Sweden ... So no connection with fruit... And if it was all about Graphics and sound why would games like Archon, Ultima, Wasteland, Laser squad and many more on TOP100 list be there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Really? more than pc's? Don't be obtuse, you know what I meant.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 You ask I shall deliver. From the house of Commodore: From HAL Laboratory, Commodore only being the publisher. irrelevant, the question was NOT 'written by the house of Commodore.' No, it mentioned "C64 sceners" and neither HAL Labs or Commodore can be put into that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 ... Depending on the colour usage Ballblazer and Dropzone could be done without transitions on the A8. Perhaps I find the time to do one of those. Dropzone..interesting.....wasn't there something posted here already. A quote from Archer McLean in ZZAP! issue 12 or so? Atari XL being the Rolls Royce of 8-bit computers, C64 just a 320 BMW? Gotta dig out my ZZAP!s and I'll post that quote. I think it was in Retro Gamer too, gonna search. Wasn't THAT a degrading statement in the forceful C64 magazine ZZAP!? (I always wondered why ZZAP! review team also always mentioned the A8 being the more powerful of the two) Yeah slow bloated inefficient and overpriced....just like the Rolls Royce when what any real man want's is a small sporty car with exemplary handling LOL Honestly as nice as Dropzone is on either machine it is hardly a technical tour de force compared to Something like Salamander (which with restrictive PM graphics the A8 could not replicate anywhere near as good). Keep convincing yourself that only 1st generation software appeared on the C64 and so you can have a few close calls in your isolated little delusional world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) No statements from C64 users here? i think most if not all of us already agreed that RoF was better on the A8, hardly any point in dragging it back up again really. I hope you guys can do calculations, at least 1+1/3=133% (period) 1*3=300% We can, but you've messed that calculation up by not accounting for the fact that the C64 version is plotting twice as much data as the A8; you need to divide that 300% by two. Edited September 10, 2009 by TMR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Yep, stupid software companies. Who know why it caught on, in 83 Atari had a huge installed base,c64 no much and no software. Who can explain stupidity... Here is the explanation: It's much easier to program typical 80's jump'n'run and shoot'em up games on C64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Here we go again....shoulda, coulda, woulda.... And to follow this direction.... I would have bought A C64 ... If it had a 2MHz CPU If it had a good colour palette If it had a better Keyboard If the floppy worked at a better speed from scratch The C64 would have been a good machine, but it was a cheap machine. .... Well, C64 turned out to be a better computer, simple as that. You know, history never lies By the way, wasn't Atari 800XL cheaper than C64 BTW, wasn't the Spectrum cheaper than the C64 Yes but it is worse for 99% of all aspects of an 8bit home computer. It didn't even have a joystick port, a sound chip (16k/48k original rubber keys) or real disk drives. Also didn't have a decent TV output either. Complete fail apart from a 3.5Mhz CPU and monochrome wireframe 3D games. Kind of like an IBM pc here. Another machine that should have failed. Totally agree and actually throughout history the competition has been better than the IBM PC. Plenty of 8 bit home computers were better than the IBM 8086 range and then there was the Amiga which just shat on everything ever released from 1985-1990 regardless of price or maker. Even on a GUI point of view GEOS is better than Windows GEM on the ST better than PC GEM and Workbench better than any copy of Windows before 2000. Not bad for hardware built between 1982-1985 to stay ahead for 1 1/2 decades! PC hardware today is damned sophisticated and very nice though...hence Apple came over to the dark side of Intel/Nvidia/ATI....shame most people let Microsoft pimp their hardware and waste about 25-50% of the machines raw power. There is no real OS worth a crap now for...none of them are suitably advanced compared to the multitasking wunderkind of the mid 80s ha! 25 years later I expect working artificial intelligence inside my OS not some piece of crap you have to reboot every few days just to get your USB key to be recognised or some crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I would have bought an A8 if it... Tapes didn't take 2 hours to load Don't talk nonsense crap, please. Tapes loaded, in average, for about 15 minutes or little more for bigger games. Baud rate was slow, but anyway. Then common Turbo mods came out. Not here they didn't; i remember having to leave my 800XL loading Elektraglide for about half an hour give or take (usually i'd play VIC games whilst waiting for A8 ones to load!) and other games were just as sluggish. The C64 isn't exactly hyper fast off tape either, but there are easy to implement software-based turboloaders and i don't believe that was an option for the A8? Certainly i've asked about them and nobody's offered actual working code... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) No statements from C64 users here? i think most if not all of us already agreed that RoF was better on the A8, hardly any point in dragging it back up again really. I hope you guys can do calculations, at least 1+1/3=133% (period) 1*3=300% We can, but you've messed that calculation up by not accounting for the fact that the C64 version is plotting twice as much data as the A8; you need to divide that 300% by two. C64 Eidolon youtube video Funny thing is The Eidolon runs at the same speed more or less on both machines...could it be the A8 version is not running at half the screen resolution of the C64 version this time? Edited September 10, 2009 by oky2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Yep, stupid software companies. Who know why it caught on, in 83 Atari had a huge installed base,c64 no much and no software. Who can explain stupidity... Here is the explanation: It's much easier to program typical 80's jump'n'run and shoot'em up games on C64. i've just written a scrolling shoot 'em up on the C64 in under two weeks, anyone on the A8 side of things able to match that...? =-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I would have bought an A8 if it... Tapes didn't take 2 hours to load Don't talk nonsense crap, please. Tapes loaded, in average, for about 15 minutes or little more for bigger games. Baud rate was slow, but anyway. Then common Turbo mods came out. Not here they didn't; i remember having to leave my 800XL loading Elektraglide for about half an hour give or take (usually i'd play VIC games whilst waiting for A8 ones to load!) and other games were just as sluggish. The C64 isn't exactly hyper fast off tape either, but there are easy to implement software-based turboloaders and i don't believe that was an option for the A8? Certainly i've asked about them and nobody's offered actual working code... I'm pretty sure the A8 can not have the same sort of turbo tape loader routines as the C64 after reading some articles in Atari User. And for the UK it was a big point, if little Johny is getting his 800XL to play games he is not getting a disc drive, most shops wont stock disc games (lucky if any major retailers stocked any A8 games let alone discs) and certainly isn't going to be happy waiting 25-30 minutes for a 64k game to load. Sure maybe some old crusty 16k-32k games load in 7-14 minutes but when Atari was pushing the XE and XL in the UK to try and increase market share, games were 64k only for XL/XE and tape games where what people would be buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I'm pretty sure the A8 can not have the same sort of turbo tape loader routines as the C64 after reading some articles in Atari User. Nobody seemed to be able to supply me with one for Reaxion when i asked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I'm pretty sure the A8 can not have the same sort of turbo tape loader routines as the C64 after reading some articles in Atari User. Nobody seemed to be able to supply me with one for Reaxion when i asked! Nice looking game. Written in 2005 though...they needed turbo loaders in the mid 80s when trying to offload the XL stocks for peanuts and push the 65/130XE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allas Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) No statements from C64 users here? i think most if not all of us already agreed that RoF was better on the A8, hardly any point in dragging it back up again really. I hope you guys can do calculations, at least 1+1/3=133% (period) 1*3=300% We can, but you've messed that calculation up by not accounting for the fact that the C64 version is plotting twice as much data as the A8; you need to divide that 300% by two. C64 Eidolon youtube video Funny thing is The Eidolon runs at the same speed more or less on both machines...could it be the A8 version is not running at half the screen resolution of the C64 version this time? After Rescue on Fractalus and Ballblazer (created originally for Atari computers), came The Eidolon, was designed for the C64 market. The Atari version was programmed at the same time, but it based on the C64 version. For sure, include inside the code some loops to do more time on the final speed. Edited September 10, 2009 by Allas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I'm pretty sure the A8 can not have the same sort of turbo tape loader routines as the C64 after reading some articles in Atari User. Nobody seemed to be able to supply me with one for Reaxion when i asked! I'm pretty sure the fast tape drives have modifications to use different (higher) signaling frequencies since the Atari doesn't use a GCR-type scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 After Rescue on Fractalus and Ballblazer (created originally for Atari computers), came The Eidolon, was designed for the C64 market. The Atari version was programmed at the same time, but it based on the C64 version. For sure, include inside the code some loops to do more time on the final speed. But unless you're saying the A8 version was written to deliberately slow it down in some way, surely the C64 (with it's slower CPU and more screen data to manipulate) should always be the slower of the two machines for jobs like these... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 After Rescue on Fractalus and Ballblazer (created originally for Atari computers), came The Eidolon, was designed for the C64 market. The Atari version was programmed at the same time, but it based on the C64 version. For sure, include inside the code some loops to do more time on the final speed. But unless you're saying the A8 version was written to deliberately slow it down in some way, surely the C64 (with it's slower CPU and more screen data to manipulate) should always be the slower of the two machines for jobs like these... The code will be the same for all three fractal games, the person who wrote that code left weeks after writing it as he was a proper mainframe level computer graphics programmer from places like SiGraph. All they did in Eidolon is invert the display so the mountains are upside down, nothing more than a very tiny tweak on a consultant basis. The fact nobody else could modify the code is why Lucasfilm started making different game types for 16bit. There is no way that RoF on the ST/Amiga was not a sure fire hit in the mid 80s...they just couldn't crack that 65xx code and convert it....in fact nobody in the world has ever used that engine or modified it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Sorry emkay, C64 sceners just create, only atarians have to rip pictures off, convert different games etc. in order to prove that their beloved computer can do it as well as C64 alredy did many years ago. Have you seen anything on C64 that was ripped off from Atari ? :D You ask I shall deliver. From the house of Commodore: Obviously C64 tried to compete with the VCS :D :D You know the drill: BTW, aren't you dead yet? Obviously C64 tried to compete with the VCS :D :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFRpUqcono Looks like a pretty accurate arcade conversion to me As I said, an ATARI rip-off ;) When frenchman delivers, he usually delivers laugh after laugh. So, Let's see how he managed this time. Admittedly It seems that frenchman doesn't distinguish Atari arcade from Atari computers, but why not. ? ATARI arcade - looks pretty nice but.... a quote from Wiki and everything becomes clear "Due to limitation of arcade technology at the time, the car the player is driving is not actually drawn by the game. Instead, the car is a printed plastic insert that is laid under the screen." ROTFL The real Night Driver on Atari arcade board looks like that: LOL again The atari 2600 version doesn't look impressive either Anyway frenchman, it was a joke of the year ROTFL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Well, let's see how this game looks on C64 and Atari COMPUTERS. 11 - NIGHT DRIVER C64 C64 C64 The C-64 version works in hires with the car on screen. Even though the atari version was made 26 YEARS after C64's one, it works in lo-res and cannot handle the car on screen. As a result the poor Atari version is unplayable. C64 smacks Atari again. ATARI ATARI ATARI I would like to thank frenchman for another splendid example of Atari impotence. Mate you are still the funniest person on this forum. LOL Please don't stop posting 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miker Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Laughing at Atari version of Night Driver may seem obvious... ...unless you don't know the history of making it. But if it doesn't count? ... Btw. are there any MAME ports on C64? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_J64bit Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 This is 2009 no one is into the Atari vs Commodore thing at the end the Tramiel's killed both Computers Systems. That's my take on Atari vs Commodore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allas Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Well, let's see how this game looks on C64 and Atari COMPUTERS. 11 - NIGHT DRIVER C64 C64 C64 The C-64 version works in hires with the car on screen. Even though the atari version was made 26 YEARS after C64's one, it works in lo-res and cannot handle the car on screen. As a result the poor Atari version is unplayable. C64 smacks Atari again. ATARI ATARI ATARI I would like to thank frenchman for another splendid example of Atari impotence. Mate you are still the funniest person on this forum. LOL Please don't stop posting This time you are wrong Have you ever played both versions? The Atari Night Drive works with pixel precision movement and have 60fps. The C64 version works with a char mode, and it feels very ugly. I played the original arcade on 1980, and just the version I played doesn't count with the car printed on screen. so I think not all NIGHT DRIVER arcade came with the printed plastic. Otherwise that's only a detail that doesn't unplayable the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) Well, let's see how this game looks on C64 and Atari COMPUTERS. 11 - NIGHT DRIVER C64 C64 C64 The C-64 version works in hires with the car on screen. Even though the atari version was made 26 YEARS after C64's one, it works in lo-res and cannot handle the car on screen. As a result the poor Atari version is unplayable. C64 smacks Atari again. ATARI ATARI ATARI I would like to thank frenchman for another splendid example of Atari impotence. Mate you are still the funniest person on this forum. LOL Please don't stop posting This time you are wrong Have you ever played both versions? The Atari Night Drive works with pixel precision movement and have 60fps. The C64 version works with a char mode, and it feels very ugly. I played the original arcade on 1980, and just the version I played doesn't count with the car printed on screen. so I think not all NIGHT DRIVER arcade came with the printed plastic. Otherwise that's only a detail that doesn't unplayable the game. Yes I played both versions today. Playing on Atari is pain in the a... , you know, driving an invisible car is rather pointless LOL Therefore they put the plastic on. Edited September 10, 2009 by Rockford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allas Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Well, let's see how this game looks on C64 and Atari COMPUTERS. 11 - NIGHT DRIVER C64 C64 C64 The C-64 version works in hires with the car on screen. Even though the atari version was made 26 YEARS after C64's one, it works in lo-res and cannot handle the car on screen. As a result the poor Atari version is unplayable. C64 smacks Atari again. ATARI ATARI ATARI I would like to thank frenchman for another splendid example of Atari impotence. Mate you are still the funniest person on this forum. LOL Please don't stop posting This time you are wrong Have you ever played both versions? The Atari Night Drive works with pixel precision movement and have 60fps. The C64 version works with a char mode, and it feels very ugly. I played the original arcade on 1980, and just the version I played doesn't count with the car printed on screen. so I think not all NIGHT DRIVER arcade came with the printed plastic. Otherwise that's only a detail that doesn't unplayable the game. Yes I played both versions today. Playing on Atari is pain in the a... , you know, driving an invisible car is rather pointless LOL Just like wolfenstein, you run, and you don't see your character. Curious sense of quality you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts