potatohead Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Totally. There are games on both machines that the other one could not do, or would do very poorly. IMHO, part of the fun is seeing that envelope pushed in all directions. Also, the "X user are better" discussions are completely useless. Why even bother with that. Pick a retro camp. There are clowns everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR 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 :- It was a joke by MEtalGuy66 on Carmel. No, i meant the article at Atari Times that claimed the hardware people at Commodore backward engineered the A8 line to create their products; taking bits somewhat out of context (please read the original to restore it) the VIC 20 "borrowed from both the Atari 8-bit hardware (pre GTIA) and also the VCS chip design", the C64 "borrowed more from the Atari 8-bit then the VCS" and near the end states "Commodore reverse-engineered Atari hardware and rebuilt it and improved it as the Commodore VIC-20 and the Commodore 64.". When it was published, Gray went from board to board posting a link to the article and stirring things up - so yes, some Atarian's do that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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? Well, i've listed quite a few over the years to have people shout me down over them so presumably there are at least some people who are saying something along that line. 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. Thing is, those poor conversions are of games that were cheaply produced to start with, this is why i'm still struggling to get my head around that sudden quality drop; someone said that everyone disappeared to Amiga around then, but the C64 lost a lot of lights to the 16-bit machines too so it can't be that; others have said there was less development budget for A8 games, but for budget titles in particular the lump sum paid for a game was about the same for all platforms (i believe it started off around two grand, Mastertronic paid my friend £1,000 for a C64 game in the late 1980's and i think Firebird paid about the same for the C16 port of Thrust a year or so earlier) so that's at most a minor factor too in those cases. And budget software was alweays a reflection of the homebrew end of the scale (even the dev houses were small fry), so the least likely to have the money to jump ship at the first opportunity... What i'm finding it tempting to conclude is that there was less love for the A8 from it's users than the C64 got. i know that's wrong of course and i'm playing Devil's advocaat somewhat here, but the budget market on the C64 was powered by average users with a want to build their own game and i'm utterly bemused by how rare that seems to have been on the A8. i wanted to with my 800XL as well, but without the money for a disk drive or access to a half decent assembler it wasn't going to happen for me personally - but surely i'm in a minority there...? The only other answer i can think of is that the bar for A8 programmers was much higher, doing the simple simple stuff like splitting the screen is easy, but a complete game takes more of a fight and even something relatively simple like Matta Blatta is doing primitive software sprites, meaning it's more complex than the equivalent for the C64. But that doesn't entirely work as a theory either because the entry level on the Spectrum is incredibly high and it's got some fantastic budget titles... Okay, got a headache thinking about it now. =-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Philsan Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) @TMR and Garak First of all, I am a C64 user too (I have 3 C64, accessories, software and I also like programming them), I love tens of games missing on A8 and I think that C64, born three years later than A8, is in some respects better than A8 (it is a easier machine for programming most kind of games). I also have (and have read) "On the Edge: the Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore". 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. In my opinion is it quite normal that Atari/C64/Spectrum/Apple users claim that their machines are the best in their forums. On the contrary I don't understand why people waste their time going in other forums to convince on the superiority of their machine. It's an impossible task! If I am not wrong, Carmel writes his point of view on Atari websites. Are there Atarians that go in C64 forums claiming Atari superiority? Perhaps yes, but I must say that in the C64 forum of which I belong that has never happened. Edited September 20, 2009 by Philsan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) When I tried recruiting programmer's for projects in the late 80's (for Atari and Harlequin) I found VERY few working commercially in the UK capable of any quality - there were several making a good living doing shocking conversions for various software houses, they charged low rates, but did LOTS of projects quickly. There were also lots of wannabe A8 coders whose work was below commercial quality (they did a lot of work for Red Rat etc). I had great dealings with Richard Munns, Oral Cornelius, Andrew Dickinson, Andy Mills etc Some of my friends (Kevin Learwood, John McManus) were head and shoulders above 90% of the so called "pro's" I dealt with... ANd one chap really stands out, but I have lost his name in the mists of time, he did the MENACE work for me - he was SUPERB, doing char mode software sprites etc etc - that would have been a KICK ASS game if he had not become ill!!! BUT the real problem was the small A8 market in the UK did not make being a coder on that platform attractive, so sensible people followed the money to the popular machines... sTeVE P.S. Years later I worked at Sculptured software in Utah and Microprose in Baltimore, and rubbed shoulders with many A8 greats - they were very professional, liked the A8 as a platform, and worked on it as long as clients wanted games for it - witness the quality of Commando and Mario Bros late in the machine's life... Edited September 20, 2009 by Jetboot Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) In my opinion is it quite normal that Atari/C64/Spectrum/Apple users claim that their machines are the best in their forums. Of course it is, but at the same time that shouldn't be seen as any kind of insulation from being told that you're wrong by other people with differing opinions. If I am not wrong, Carmel writes his point of view on Atari websites. Are there Atarians that go in C64 forums claiming Atari superiority? The article i was referring to was publised on Atari Times but "advertised" (he said, politely avoiding the word "spam" until the bit in brackets) by Charles Gray over multiple Commodore-oriented forums - so yes, there are some people from the Atari side of the fence who'll do exactly the same thing and the Spectrum crowd still "invade" comp.sys.cbm about once a year on average too... the C64 community as a whole is no more guilty than any other of that. Edited September 20, 2009 by TMR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) When I tried recruiting programmer's for projects in the late 80's (for Atari and Harlequin) I found VERY few working commercially in the UK capable of any quality - there were several making a good living doing shocking conversions for various software houses, they charged low rates, but did LOTS of projects quickly. There were also lots of wannabe A8 coders whose work was below commercial quality (they did a lot of work for Red Rat etc). Ah... so to some degree y'could Red Rat was basically taking that homebrew/backroom side of things on rather than the budget houses like Mastertronic and Firebird then? i've always had Red Rat down as full price rather than a budget publisher so i'd never considered them in that way... I had great dealings with Richard Munns, Oral Cornelius, Andrew Dickinson, Andy Mills etc Side topic for a moment, but Oral Cornelius... did people not notice how many covers he was doing at the time? Speed Hawk and Tiger Attack are based on tunes from Knuckle Busters and Phantoms of the Asteroid respectively, Sidewinder 2 is a cover of Zybex... BUT the real problem was the small A8 market in the UK did not make being a coder on that platform attractive, so sensible people followed the money to the popular machines... That implies that emkay's "point" about people going where the money was is probably more true of A8 coders at that point than C64 then...? Edited September 20, 2009 by TMR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 That implies that emkay's "point" about people going where the money was is probably more true of A8 coders at that point than C64 then...? Not really - very few people SOLD their work for it's real value, budget publishers were ripping off people all the time by paying pennies for product that netted them thousands! The few full priced software houses did not pursue the A8 as a viable platform due to the limited number of sales. As there was little demand for A8 games (because the market was small) the publishers who were taking on A8 games were paying LESS than C64 and SPECTRUM titles or conversions because the returns were lower from the smaller installed base - there is your chicken and egg problem... sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) That implies that emkay's "point" about people going where the money was is probably more true of A8 coders at that point than C64 then...? Not really - very few people SOLD their work for it's real value, budget publishers were ripping off people all the time by paying pennies for product that netted them thousands! Well, with budget houses it's always been a case of backroom coders who were just happy with a bit of spending money and their game on shop shelves really... that's why i've always seen the output of those companies as being representative of the "grass roots" of these machines, it was almost always more about doing what you found enjoyable than writing code to be rich, rich i tell you - muahahaha. (Okay, so the Darling brothers are an exception, but generally speaking...) The few full priced software houses did not pursue the A8 as a viable platform due to the limited number of sales. As there was little demand for A8 games (because the market was small) the publishers who were taking on A8 games were paying LESS than C64 and SPECTRUM titles or conversions because the returns were lower from the smaller installed base - there is your chicken and egg problem... That's understandable although the decline was remarkable as regards the speed it happened (or perhaps the speed i perceived it as happening)... and the point i've been struggling with is that it wasn't just the full pricers that disappeared, the majority of the homebrew stuff that escaped through the budget houses went to the wall around the same time. It's all just so incredibly sudden compared to the other 8-bits, they usually tailed off into a limited supply of budget-only releases with a reasonable quality threshold before the companies wrote them off entirely... Yes, i'm going in circles and i know that's how it happened... it just seems bizarre to me. (And today, i seem to be specialising in stuffing up tags in posts... [sigh]) Edited September 20, 2009 by TMR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) Whilst Red Rat software were a bit of an embarrassment most of the time they did release the wonderful Technicolor Dream art package which really showed back then how useful the extra palette could be if you could up the color resolution of screens. PS I don't like being categorised as '<system name> user' really, I am a retro computer user, I own all the PAL models ever made since 2600/VideoPac era to whatever you like (Wii exlcuded as I couldn't care less for a £175 fancy inaccurate controller+remodelled Gamecube ) and that's it really. For example I don't like the Amiga most because Commodore made it (they didn't) or any other reason than it was the only time in history such a machine to technical perfection was sold to us in such a friendly powerful operating environment when most other machines were either inferior or just plain last generation rubbish (like Apple Mac and 8086 PC XT+EGA). Sure I get labelled as a Commodore fanboy because of this sometimes but I would hope 1/4 of a century on we don't for example still have endless fights over ST vs Amiga when in fact the only tragedy is that neither of those alternatives have existed for over a decade and we are stuck with Windows or Linux in disguise (OS X) What I do like about this thread regardless of which 'side' others may think I am on is that I have found about 20 new games to enjoy on A8 emulators/hardware that I never knew existed and probably would never have found in a directory of 3000 ATRs. Hell I even found a Pokey remix of the classic Sanxion loader tune by Rob Hubbard and for that reason it's a great thread and it's not too bad here considering it is a single format/brand forum at the end of the day. Edited September 20, 2009 by oky2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTIQ Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 You could divide developers into two camps: those who developed for the best machine(s) and those who developed for the most popular machine(s). The former group abandoned the A8 when the 16 bit machines arrived whereas the latter supported the C64 almost until Doom: The C64's popularity made its "lifecycle" more like the NES's than the A8's. In the late 80s many probably asked themselves, "Why develop for a machine which isn't modern or popular?" The complicated A8 was left with a mixture of quick conversions and sub-Mastertronic stuff from a residual group of enthusiasts. Who fancies a game of Winter Wally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi 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... You misunderstood-- the rules were set for comparing the hardwares. He's posting things that are OPPOSITE of original poster's request nor playing the rules of comparing hardwares. I don't buy your claim it's slight variation. Every forum has a purpose and every topic has a purpose and if you think anyone can post anything he likes or thinks, well you are wrong. I don't buy this vagueness and "anything goes". He fits in better with some fanboy forum "I hate Atari" type of topic and then he can purposely looks for games that fit that need and give his biased subjective analysis. Knowing how the hardware behind the games works is more relevant to the topic not posting things that are opposite of what the original poster wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi 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... You misunderstood that point. "If all other hardware features are the same..." means not game features but how the game uses the hardware resources of the machine. When you say lower frame rate but higher resolution, that's not an advantage of higher resolution for fast moving games (as I pointed out Gyruss). You can make it objective but as I said for close calls subjectivity can come into the picture. 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. I wasn't trying to mimic the color RAM in software but saying the processor power has to be compared as well unless loaded DLIs are being used to get more colors which your color RAM is doing with DMA cycles-- in that case processor power may just equal out. And in some cases DLIs will outdo the color RAM (in certain modes-- GTIA mode 9, GPRIOR mode 0, etc.). 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. 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) No, I was just saying that they use 160*200*4 on Atari and it would be fairer to compare if they used a bad-line based graphics mode like 160*200*5 since you are using up extra cycles to get the extra colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 You could divide developers into two camps: those who developed for the best machine(s) and those who developed for the most popular machine(s). I think you make huge and inaccurate assumption there - if you want to make a gross analysis of the development community (back in the day or now) people do games development for two reason, the LOVE of games and/or the commercial returns (Money) the opportunity affords. However now the homebrew community is somewhat different - people developing games on the A8 in 2009 are doing it for the love of the A8 or the curiosity to see what the system could do (either way they are not doing it for money or the exploration of ludology) - not the same people developing games back when those machines had a market place in general terms... Now looking back at the 80's - people had machines, but didn't necessarily choose that machine as it was often a gift, or the ONLY economic choice - so their exploration of games development was not driven by the BEST hardware, but what was to hand. Sure plenty of people WANTED a certain machine, but these were likely not going to be developers, but users attracted by the software on a particular machine... So largely in the 80's games development was driven by people who wanted to make games, and the platform was a commercial necessity to allow them to do that (it was popular so they could afford to make games) or was a given (it was the only machine they had)... sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 "If all other hardware features are the same..." means not game features but how the game uses the hardware resources of the machine. All the other titles i listed are still an automatic win for the C64, despite games like Zybex or whatever having been argued in this thread and elsewhere, which proves my point about subjectivity; even at a technical level you'll never get a consensus, even from the programmers. As for if the technically more proficient game is the better to play... seriously, good luck with that one. =-) 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. I wasn't trying to mimic the color RAM in software but saying the processor power has to be compared as well unless loaded DLIs are being used to get more colors which your color RAM is doing with DMA cycles In that context you're comparing the colour RAM and DLIs for CPU use, it seems odd to make that comparison if you're not implying that one can substitute the other. The colour RAM doesn't take any cycles by the way, that's the screen RAM nicking 40 bytes on badlines and i was under the impression the A8 does a similar 40 or thereabouts cycle grab per eight scanlines in character-based modes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 You could divide developers into two camps: those who developed for the best machine(s) and those who developed for the most popular machine(s). That's more black and white than the average penguin and a hideously large generalisation; as JBJ has said there were several reasons as to why programmers ended up on their specific platform that totally go against this theory. It's also rather subjective, i made the move to the C64 from my 800XL because i felt it was the better of the two machines for what i wanted as both a games player and a programmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 20 - FANTASTIC SOCCER C64 C64 C64 On C64 everything is better: graphics, sprites, animation, sound, playbality. The Atari version is slower, poorly animated and has ugly graphics & sprites. On Atari there is also no music and again the ball looks like a square stone (slowly I'm starting to believe that Atari can't handle creating a round ball ) C64 scores again ATARI ATARI ATARI 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Totally. There are games on both machines that the other one could not do, or would do very poorly. IMHO, part of the fun is seeing that envelope pushed in all directions. Also, the "X user are better" discussions are completely useless. Why even bother with that. Pick a retro camp. There are clowns everywhere. Yeah, here's that typical absurd conclusions taking from some samples: Atari 2600 grand prix vs. C64-- much bigger sprites, smooth motion, more colors, better sounding cars, etc. beats the crap out of C64 like some other Atari 2600 titles already mentioned. A2600 > C64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 "If all other hardware features are the same..." means not game features but how the game uses the hardware resources of the machine. All the other titles i listed are still an automatic win for the C64, despite games like Zybex or whatever having been argued in this thread and elsewhere, which proves my point about subjectivity; even at a technical level you'll never get a consensus, even from the programmers. As for if the technically more proficient game is the better to play... seriously, good luck with that one. =-) ... I don't even SEE any hardware comparison list. All you stated was it has higher resolution which doesn't necessarily mean it's better as pointed out before. 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. I wasn't trying to mimic the color RAM in software but saying the processor power has to be compared as well unless loaded DLIs are being used to get more colors which your color RAM is doing with DMA cycles In that context you're comparing the colour RAM and DLIs for CPU use, it seems odd to make that comparison if you're not implying that one can substitute the other. The colour RAM doesn't take any cycles by the way, that's the screen RAM nicking 40 bytes on badlines and i was under the impression the A8 does a similar 40 or thereabouts cycle grab per eight scanlines in character-based modes? Hello, the context is "The Pawn" screen shots-- he showed 160*200*4 and C64 using color RAM-based image so I said at least they should use 160*200*5 so at least those extra 40+ cycles being used get utilized (if not DLIs to improve it even better). It doesn't matter whether it's screen RAM or color RAM, there are 40+ extra cycles being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Hello, the context is "The Pawn" screen shots-- he showed 160*200*4 and C64 using color RAM-based image so I said at least they should use 160*200*5 so at least those extra 40+ cycles being used get utilized (if not DLIs to improve it even better). It doesn't matter whether it's screen RAM or color RAM, there are 40+ extra cycles being used. Ahhh I see what you mean now,underutilisation of the A8 given 40 cycles are already lost in the mode chosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 On C64 everything is better: graphics, sprites, animation, sound, playbality. The Atari version is slower, poorly animated and has ugly graphics & sprites. On Atari there is also no music and again the ball looks like a square stone (slowly I'm starting to believe that Atari can't handle creating a round ball ) C64 scores again I won't argue that the A8 version is hideous - but both version play an AWFUL game - a truly dreadful release on both machines, I'd rather have neither version!!! sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Soccer Games, well, C64 wins because the hires of the ball gives a better visual for the gameplay. And games that need 320 res. movement, should have been done in hires on the A8. The main field could be set to green and the lines would be light green then. The players could get overlayed with "Players" . Perhaps it would have looked worse, but it would have been much more playable then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTIQ Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 You could divide developers into two camps: those who developed for the best machine(s) and those who developed for the most popular machine(s). That's more black and white than the average penguin and a hideously large generalisation; as JBJ has said there were several reasons as to why programmers ended up on their specific platform that totally go against this theory. It's also rather subjective, i made the move to the C64 from my 800XL because i felt it was the better of the two machines for what i wanted as both a games player and a programmer. Made-up conversation at a large games company, 1985 Boss A: "Have you seen Deluxe Paint on the Amiga?" Boss B: "Yeah, wow! The new Atari ST's a lot less expensive though." Boss A: "Yet more formats..." Boss B: "Well, the Apple and Atari versions never do as well as the C64's. Maybe we should concentrate on the newer machines." Are you reading this on your C64? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 You misunderstood-- the rules were set for comparing the hardwares. He's posting things that are OPPOSITE of original poster's request nor playing the rules of comparing hardwares. I don't buy your claim it's slight variation. Every forum has a purpose and every topic has a purpose and if you think anyone can post anything he likes or thinks, well you are wrong. I don't buy this vagueness and "anything goes". He fits in better with some fanboy forum "I hate Atari" type of topic and then he can purposely looks for games that fit that need and give his biased subjective analysis. Knowing how the hardware behind the games works is more relevant to the topic not posting things that are opposite of what the original poster wanted. If you look at it that way, 90% of posts in this topic are of topic, and should be deleted by moderators... If everyone of us would want to stick to the topic it would be pretty uninteresting topic, and would end few years ago... If you would take each separate discussion that took place in these 300+ pages there would be bunch of new topics in Atari-8bit category. We would have discussions about Cows milk, British developers, color blindness and who knows what else. I don't know... Maybe that would be better I guess moderators (if they looked at this topic) decided that almost everything goes. Maybe, Rockford should start new topic "What C64 games are better on C64 than its A8 version ?". 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