Garak Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 The difference between Atarians and some C64 users is that Atarians are able to appreciate other machines Hate to tell you this but Commodore users aren't different then you in this. other machines and don't go in their forums claiming Atari is better! Now that's amusing. Over the years there have been some Atari people who posted over in various Commodore forums and newsgroups stating such. As for coming into your forum: some of us have been registered and posted here for years before this thread existed or before you even joined due to interest in Atari happenings. Garak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Sorry, that's not my logic. The hardware features that are relevant to the game have to be taken into account after all other features are there. So if A8 Donkey Kong has screens not present on C64, obviously it gets some advantage there before you even compare the hardware features it uses. Okay, so with Zybex, Draconus, Panther, Last V8, One Man And His Droid, Kikstart, Red Max, Warhawk, BMX Simulator and probably Thrust as well (there's a few Rockford hasn't looked at yet... =-) they all play pretty much the same between the two versions but the C64 wins each time on the hardware front - and yet we've had people preferring the A8 because that's what their subjective opinion reckons plays better or in some cases even which choice of colours is better. Dropzone on the C64 has all the features present (you could argue that it doesn't handle as many simultaneously, but i'd say, subjectively, that i prefer it that way) but scrolls the landscape at twice the resolution, so hardware for teh win again. If all other hardware features are the same, and it has twice the resolution you have a point. And also remember processor is also a hardware feature so if you use color ram and Atari uses DLIs avg. of every 8 scanlines, you are using similar processing power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 That's just the problem about comparing software between both computers. C64 came on 1982-1983 and needs some years to get real use of his potential. In the other side, Atari has reach on 85-86 a great level of quality on his software, but soon will lose support from giant house developers, so consequently the quality and quantity software will decrease. i still find it really hard to understand what actually happened to leave the A8 in that position from 1985; looking at the budget games on the C64 (which are a good benchmark of what backroom coders were up to), the C64 went from strength to strengh but the A8 had almost nothing apart from the odd title like Matta Blatta or Extirpator and conversions such as Action Biker or the titles i listed previously. i know i'm sounding like a stuck record, but where'd everyone go to?!! I think 1985 and 1986 is a good couple of years to compare, because Atari has a great level and C64 games use all in-box features of his hardware. After 1987 C64 only find low and few portings on Atari side. Rockford's already been covering games from 1986 though... It doesn't matter where everyone went but it's good to know that many other non-technical factors were involved in how good a game came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 ...Poor programming again,also post 1985.. get a clue Rockford I think 1985 and 1986 is a good couple of years to compare, because Atari has a great level and C64 games use all in-box features of his hardware. After 1987 C64 only find low and few portings on Atari side. year<1985 or year<1986 or year<1986 or whatever... C64 fans should wait until A8 fans agree on terms of battle, until then we shouldn't show any example because we could be playing against rules Rockford is doing comparisons as he should... Showing pictures and discussing all aspects of games... You should do the same... Off course, C64 reached more quality games above 1990 for the full-exploit of his hardware. Atari never reached this point, it was leave out of the game market so soon. I agree with you Allas... It is out of order to compare games like Turrican 2 and Mayhem with A8 games that were made 6-7 years before them... I like comparissons of what hardware can do... Lots of ideas come from these discussions... If we are lucky enough, new game will arise.... Rockford is doing comparisons as he should NOT. You like comparisons of what hardware can do but that's not what he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 ... Now the parser on Mag Scrolls games is a hard slog for any 8bit CPU so the graphics were stuck to standard 160x200x4 colours on A8 which hurts the machine....this is probably a classic example of hate the char mode as much as you like but in this case it's what gives the C64 better colours of upto 16 on the graphics with no real impact on the CPU to keep the parser processing time acceptable coming down from things like 8mhz 68000 CPUs as it was designed for. (there are even better scenes of course but as I can't find the equivalent A8 screenshots I didn't add them) Well, if they wanted to use char mode, they should have used 160*200*5 at least or use the extra cycles for DLIs/overlays/etc. Actually, C64 char mode is not to be hated as color RAM fits in with the char mode, but color RAM is still restricted when used for graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 OK today, a game from "golden era of Atari" - 1984 19 - PITSTOP II C64 C64 C64 The C64 version is fast, plays smoothly and has much better animation. The atari version is horribly slow and has poor animation. On Atari cars always look the same (there are very few, if any, frames of animation) and their wheels never turn (it looks comical ). C64 outdistances Atari again. ATARI ATARI ATARI Epyx... they did a poor job, there are many examples of better on atari titles.The original pole position looks better on A8. Also look at games like Alleycat from Synapse.Actually run it and play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Rockford is doing comparisons as he should NOT. You like comparisons of what hardware can do but that's not what he's doing. Well, every C64 user has enough ammunition to shoot against the A8. No wonder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomSW Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Rockford is doing comparisons as he should NOT. You like comparisons of what hardware can do but that's not what he's doing. Well, every C64 user has enough ammunition to shoot against the A8. No wonder.... Yeah. That happens if someone hasn't too much in his pants... Still not convinced to change my fave machine to commodore. Quit this shit, Rockford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) 1)...Rockford is doing comparisons as he should... Showing pictures and discussing all aspects of games... You should do the same... 2)...It is out of order to compare games like Turrican 2 and Mayhem with A8 games that were made 6-7 years before them... 3)...I like comparissons of what hardware can do... Lots of ideas come from these discussions... If we are lucky enough, new game will arise.... Rockford is doing comparisons as he should NOT. You like comparisons of what hardware can do but that's not what he's doing. Here is an translation of what I wrote earlier: 1) ROCKFORD is doing comparisons as HE think he should... (HE has a goal that is to show that C64 had advantage in some games. He is comparing games that exist on both C64 and A8 and takes only those examples that in HIS opinion are better on C64). If you pay attention you will see that he finishes his comments with and not with He is not making fun of you, he is just glad he found a game that looks better on C64... It's not his fault that there are literary thousands of crappy games that exist on both platforms... Feel free to find one of those that is better on A8... I bet if he told you "Aha, I found one more!" in the pub while you are holding a beer that he paid you would react differentlly p.s. And if he really offends anyone here you have my permission to kick his ass 2) IMHO it is out of order to compare games on C64 from 90s with A8 games that were made 6-7 years before them... 3) Me, POPMILO (not rockford) likes to compare what hardware can do in best case with maximum effort of a coder. p.p.s. And who is a judge who set rules for comparison ? Be honest, if there is any fact about a game that is better on any computer, we will use it.. no matter what "rules" say. Edited September 19, 2009 by popmilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 1)...Rockford is doing comparisons as he should... Showing pictures and discussing all aspects of games... You should do the same... 2)...It is out of order to compare games like Turrican 2 and Mayhem with A8 games that were made 6-7 years before them... 3)...I like comparissons of what hardware can do... Lots of ideas come from these discussions... If we are lucky enough, new game will arise.... Rockford is doing comparisons as he should NOT. You like comparisons of what hardware can do but that's not what he's doing. Here is an translation of what I wrote earlier: 1) ROCKFORD is doing comparisons as HE think he should... (HE has a goal that is to show that C64 had advantage in some games. He is comparing games that exist on both C64 and A8 and takes only those examples that in HIS opinion are better on C64). If you pay attention you will see that he finishes his comments with and not with He is not making fun of you... I never said he was making fun of me. But you are implying it's okay for him to do what he thinks although your interests are different. At least that's how I understood it. >2) IMHO it is out of order to compare games on C64 from 90s with A8 games that were made 6-7 years before them... As I stated before he's doing opposite of original poster. >3) Me, POPMILO (not rockford) likes to compare what hardware can do in best case with maximum effort of a coder. Well, that was pretty much the discussion until recently... >p.p.s. And who is a judge who set rules for comparison ? Be honest, if there is any fact about a game that is better on any computer, we will use it.. no matter what "rules" say. The rules actually were set early on in the thread-- to compare with standard 800XL machines with C64 w/customized hardware add-ons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 ... Now the parser on Mag Scrolls games is a hard slog for any 8bit CPU so the graphics were stuck to standard 160x200x4 colours on A8 which hurts the machine....this is probably a classic example of hate the char mode as much as you like but in this case it's what gives the C64 better colours of upto 16 on the graphics with no real impact on the CPU to keep the parser processing time acceptable coming down from things like 8mhz 68000 CPUs as it was designed for. (there are even better scenes of course but as I can't find the equivalent A8 screenshots I didn't add them) Well, if they wanted to use char mode, they should have used 160*200*5 at least or use the extra cycles for DLIs/overlays/etc. Actually, C64 char mode is not to be hated as color RAM fits in with the char mode, but color RAM is still restricted when used for graphics. For those kind of graphic screens it is an absolutely perfect situation though, 16 colour images (if you require to use all 16 which is doubtful) and no impact on CPU power left to process the game logic and parse the inputs etc. For whatever reason the C64 version is the best 8bit version graphically in my opinion, of which there were many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) Tapper This is one of the twisting games. While it uses "better" sprites, the game looks cold and the animation remind of some gay with some broom in the back The ATARI version reminds of a Pub "colourwise" and the protagonist plus animations is looking "perfect" for such game. The "Mixer" in the a8 version it looks like some lazy schoolboy had to do a social job ... While it looks nifty in the C64 version. Music sounds a bit more professional with the SID, but played through POKEY, the music has more "fun" The game is a good demonstration, that hardware abilities and software do not mean the same Edited September 20, 2009 by emkay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 ... Now the parser on Mag Scrolls games is a hard slog for any 8bit CPU so the graphics were stuck to standard 160x200x4 colours on A8 which hurts the machine....this is probably a classic example of hate the char mode as much as you like but in this case it's what gives the C64 better colours of upto 16 on the graphics with no real impact on the CPU to keep the parser processing time acceptable coming down from things like 8mhz 68000 CPUs as it was designed for. (there are even better scenes of course but as I can't find the equivalent A8 screenshots I didn't add them) Well, if they wanted to use char mode, they should have used 160*200*5 at least or use the extra cycles for DLIs/overlays/etc. Actually, C64 char mode is not to be hated as color RAM fits in with the char mode, but color RAM is still restricted when used for graphics. For those kind of graphic screens it is an absolutely perfect situation though, 16 colour images (if you require to use all 16 which is doubtful) and no impact on CPU power left to process the game logic and parse the inputs etc. For whatever reason the C64 version is the best 8bit version graphically in my opinion, of which there were many. It has some impact on CPU power-- 40+ cycles of halting every 8 scanlines as compared to using 4 color mode on Atari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 1)...Rockford is doing comparisons as he should... Showing pictures and discussing all aspects of games... You should do the same... 2)...It is out of order to compare games like Turrican 2 and Mayhem with A8 games that were made 6-7 years before them... 3)...I like comparissons of what hardware can do... Lots of ideas come from these discussions... If we are lucky enough, new game will arise.... Rockford is doing comparisons as he should NOT. You like comparisons of what hardware can do but that's not what he's doing. Here is an translation of what I wrote earlier: 1) ROCKFORD is doing comparisons as HE think he should... (HE has a goal that is to show that C64 had advantage in some games. He is comparing games that exist on both C64 and A8 and takes only those examples that in HIS opinion are better on C64). If you pay attention you will see that he finishes his comments with and not with He is not making fun of you... I never said he was making fun of me. But you are implying it's okay for him to do what he thinks although your interests are different. At least that's how I understood it. >2) IMHO it is out of order to compare games on C64 from 90s with A8 games that were made 6-7 years before them... As I stated before he's doing opposite of original poster. >3) Me, POPMILO (not rockford) likes to compare what hardware can do in best case with maximum effort of a coder. Well, that was pretty much the discussion until recently... >p.p.s. And who is a judge who set rules for comparison ? Be honest, if there is any fact about a game that is better on any computer, we will use it.. no matter what "rules" say. The rules actually were set early on in the thread-- to compare with standard 800XL machines with C64 w/customized hardware add-ons. That should be "w/o" customized hardware add-ons not "w/". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 I never said he was making fun of me. But you are implying it's okay for him to do what he thinks although your interests are different. At least that's how I understood it. Sorry, that was not you I'm talking about... generally all the people who said stuff like "Rockford, aren't you dead yet?" I don't think he deserved it... I guess it was funny first and maybe the second time... And yes, I do think its ok for a person to try to do whatever they think ... Whatever that is... If they ofend me, I'll respond, and if they take it to far, well I guess that is why we have moderators and fists ? The rules actually were set early on in the thread-- to compare with standard 800XL machines with C64 w/customized hardware add-ons. Rockford is not doing anything outside those rules, is he ? Original question was: Are there games that exist both on A8 and C64 and A8 version is better... Like you said, we left that path long time ago... Rockford finding games that are better on C64 is just a slight variation of original question... Us talking about "could, should, would, what if" is far more off topic than that... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Re: Artifacting. Does the Speccy output a C64 style color signal, or an Atari style one where the color clocks are fixed in relation to the pixels? It's probably a different principle to the C64 (from what i heard, there were a few Amstrad engineers who, when they were given the Spectrum to redesign, spent a while trying to figure out how it did work in a few places!) but generally speaking it has a slightly lower level of artefacting and there are no games relying on that effect to my knowledge. Since it's screen is 256 pixels wide in around the same space on a television as an A8 puts out a 160 pixel colour clock-aligned display, i'd guess it's not going to be lining up with the clocks? And there is NTSC style artifacting, not really possible on C64 style color. (interlaced color) And then there is PAL style, which is. Is that a PAL Speccy? The Spectrum is fairly exclusively a PAL machine, the US models are actually a joint effort between Sinclair and Timex (who produced the hardware in the UK at one point) called the TS 2068[/url and there's an extra hardware mode on those machines that gives 8*1 pixel sized colour attributes (the same mode exists on the SAM Coupe and some of the Russian clones i think?) As PeteD says, in this case it's working by hammering the colour attribute RAM; once a scanline it dumps a new load of values into the current line's attribute data. Although this new release is an exceptional example of it's use (and there's an ongoing thread documenting it and other experiments along the same lines), it's about the only way to split colours during the screen on the Spectrum because there's no background colour register to toggle like on the A8 or C64 and the palette is fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Okay, so with Zybex, Draconus, Panther, Last V8, One Man And His Droid, Kikstart, Red Max, Warhawk, BMX Simulator and probably Thrust as well (there's a few Rockford hasn't looked at yet... =-) they all play pretty much the same between the two versions but the C64 wins each time on the hardware front - and yet we've had people preferring the A8 because that's what their subjective opinion reckons plays better or in some cases even which choice of colours is better. Dropzone on the C64 has all the features present (you could argue that it doesn't handle as many simultaneously, but i'd say, subjectively, that i prefer it that way) but scrolls the landscape at twice the resolution, so hardware for teh win again. If all other hardware features are the same, and it has twice the resolution you have a point. Then that's a "definitive" win for all of the games i've listed and a few others in their C64 forms (including Rescue On Fractalus and a bit of a shove, all the game features are there at a lower frame rate but it runs at a higher resolution)... but these are also games where people have argued during this thread and others that they believe the A8 version to be better and that was my point; you can't keep subjectivity out of these comparisons, because it just won't happen. Look at emkay's write up of Tapper where he's discussing things like how the 'ATARI version reminds of a Pub "colourwise"' (although it doesn't look like the pubs i visit) or how on the A8 'the music has more "fun"', all of which is subjective but he feels makes the game better. And also remember processor is also a hardware feature so if you use color ram and Atari uses DLIs avg. of every 8 scanlines, you are using similar processing power. Except that it takes more than a DLI every eight scanlines to mimic the colour RAM to any degree of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 ... Now the parser on Mag Scrolls games is a hard slog for any 8bit CPU so the graphics were stuck to standard 160x200x4 colours on A8 which hurts the machine....this is probably a classic example of hate the char mode as much as you like but in this case it's what gives the C64 better colours of upto 16 on the graphics with no real impact on the CPU to keep the parser processing time acceptable coming down from things like 8mhz 68000 CPUs as it was designed for. (there are even better scenes of course but as I can't find the equivalent A8 screenshots I didn't add them) Well, if they wanted to use char mode, they should have used 160*200*5 at least or use the extra cycles for DLIs/overlays/etc. Actually, C64 char mode is not to be hated as color RAM fits in with the char mode, but color RAM is still restricted when used for graphics. For those kind of graphic screens it is an absolutely perfect situation though, 16 colour images (if you require to use all 16 which is doubtful) and no impact on CPU power left to process the game logic and parse the inputs etc. For whatever reason the C64 version is the best 8bit version graphically in my opinion, of which there were many. It has some impact on CPU power-- 40+ cycles of halting every 8 scanlines as compared to using 4 color mode on Atari. Maybe an adventure programmer will back me up but I don't think using the odd IRQ on some scanlines here and there takes any appreciable CPU processing from the C64. At least they did the graphics for it, not every 64k 8bit machine got the graphics, and it is still a wonderful adventure I think....hell it would have made me get a 520ST to play it (already had one by then) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) Okay, so with Zybex, Draconus, Panther, Last V8, One Man And His Droid, Kikstart, Red Max, Warhawk, BMX Simulator and probably Thrust as well (there's a few Rockford hasn't looked at yet... =-) they all play pretty much the same between the two versions but the C64 wins each time on the hardware front - and yet we've had people preferring the A8 because that's what their subjective opinion reckons plays better or in some cases even which choice of colours is better. Dropzone on the C64 has all the features present (you could argue that it doesn't handle as many simultaneously, but i'd say, subjectively, that i prefer it that way) but scrolls the landscape at twice the resolution, so hardware for teh win again. If all other hardware features are the same, and it has twice the resolution you have a point. Then that's a "definitive" win for all of the games i've listed and a few others in their C64 forms (including Rescue On Fractalus and a bit of a shove, all the game features are there at a lower frame rate but it runs at a higher resolution)... but these are also games where people have argued during this thread and others that they believe the A8 version to be better and that was my point; you can't keep subjectivity out of these comparisons, because it just won't happen. Look at emkay's write up of Tapper where he's discussing things like how the 'ATARI version reminds of a Pub "colourwise"' (although it doesn't look like the pubs i visit) or how on the A8 'the music has more "fun"', all of which is subjective but he feels makes the game better. But I'm pretty sure RoF still resolves the graphics at the native Atari resolution so no additional calculations for plotting the data no? Edited September 20, 2009 by oky2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Wonderful! The difference between Atarians and some C64 users is that Atarians are able to appreciate other machines What a lovely generalisation... because some Atarians are exactly the same as some C64 users. Certainly there's very few who'll even consider appreciating the C64 and in at least some of those cases it's not for any given logical reason. and don't go in their forums claiming Atari is better! They do i'm afraid, the most obvious example i can remember is that ridiculous article about Commodore backward engineering from Atari that Carmel was partly guilty for and the posts on various C64 boards stirring up trouble as they linked to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Then that's a "definitive" win for all of the games i've listed and a few others in their C64 forms (including Rescue On Fractalus and a bit of a shove, all the game features are there at a lower frame rate but it runs at a higher resolution)... But I'm pretty sure RoF still resolves the graphics at the native Atari resolution so no additional calculations for plotting the data no? i wasn't really being serious in that particular case, since the C64 version doesn't use that resolution it doesn't count as an advantage (i did say it was "a bit of a shove"). What i'm pointing out (generally, and i blame the incredibly tiring day i had yesterday if some of my thoughts are coming out garbled) is that comparing games can't be kept totally objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Then that's a "definitive" win for all of the games i've listed and a few others in their C64 forms (including Rescue On Fractalus and a bit of a shove, all the game features are there at a lower frame rate but it runs at a higher resolution)... Most games on the C64 look like high resolution, but particular ego perspective games do not even use a quarter of it. Rescue on Fractalus runs virtually at the same resolution as the C64 versions. The main difference is that ANTIC plots pixel on the screen where the CPU of the C64 has to do it wasting cycles. The Eidolon runs at the same resolution, and the A8 version is clearly better/faster. Koronis Rift runs virtually on the same resolution (the bytes are the same to handle), but it has a huge additional layer with fading FX for the szene. C64 will not do something similar even with gigabytes of RAM, and it wont show more than 16 colours, where the A8 shows easily 48 colours, if someone puts a super CPU in. but these are also games where people have argued during this thread and others that they believe the A8 version to be better and that was my point; you can't keep subjectivity out of these comparisons, because it just won't happen. Look at emkay's write up of Tapper where he's discussing things like how the 'ATARI version reminds of a Pub "colourwise"' (although it doesn't look like the pubs i visit) or how on the A8 'the music has more "fun"', all of which is subjective but he feels makes the game better. ? I didn't write that the game is better on the A8. I wrote what I liked and what I disliked. It's just a perfect example of how the A8 features got misused. It could have been much better >easily< .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Most games on the C64 look like high resolution, but particular ego perspective games do not even use a quarter of it. Yes, i know emkay. That wasn't my point. but these are also games where people have argued during this thread and others that they believe the A8 version to be better and that was my point; you can't keep subjectivity out of these comparisons, because it just won't happen. Look at emkay's write up of Tapper where he's discussing things like how the 'ATARI version reminds of a Pub "colourwise"' (although it doesn't look like the pubs i visit) or how on the A8 'the music has more "fun"', all of which is subjective but he feels makes the game better. ? I didn't write that the game is better on the A8. I wrote what I liked and what I disliked. And i didn't say that you did anything but (i said you felt it made the game better, not that it made it better than the C64 version). What i'm discussing with atariksi is the idea that comparisons can be totally objective; you've used some subjectivity with those graphics and sound comments and that reinforces my point. i've got subjective opinions too; i feel that the A8 version of Red Max sounds better than the C64 because the latter sounds like Whittaker accidentally loaded the "cute tune" sound set by mistake, it's far too "burbly" for a post-apolalyptic game. It's just a perfect example of how the A8 features got misused. It could have been much better >easily< .... That's true for both machines (although i'd say underused rather than misused). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroovyBee Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 They do i'm afraid, the most obvious example i can remember is that ridiculous article about Commodore backward engineering from Atari that Carmel was partly guilty for and the posts on various C64 boards stirring up trouble as they linked to it. If you mean this :- http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/147811-what-if-atari-8bit/page__view__findpost__p__1813993 It was a joke by MEtalGuy66 on Carmel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) Just reading the last few pages of the thread, surely NO ONE, no matter how much of an ATARI fan, is saying there are not some really AMAZING games on the C64? And surely people are acknowledging that some of those games COULD NOT be done on the A8? If not then there are a LOT of idiotic people posting here! I LOVE the A8, I love the games on it, it has some amazing games and the library that exists pre '84 is UN-MATCHED on any other machine IMHO (there are a few stragglers that got released post '84 that are kick ass too!). However I am not ever gonna see some of the later era C64 games that really extracted the best from that platform's hardware on the A8 - and neither would I want to, they would be pretty poor conversions (we've all seen the attempts) as they lean on the C64's unique abilities too hard to be translated well... Having said that there are plenty of POOR conversions of C64 games that make the A8 look bad, for no other reason than they are cheaply produced - with no money invested comes poor quality. sTeVE Edited September 20, 2009 by Jetboot Jack 1 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