PeteD Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 I may need to place an order for these titles for C64 and A8 and test them out. You can get them at http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=4293&d=18&h=0 and at http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=6276&d=18&h=0 Well, I tried those links but the files extract to .T64 and I can't currently upload them in that state-- need to know starting address and file format (unless there's an easy way to transfer to a real disk). Give this a try http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~schepers/personal.html Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 LOL Emkay u really are 100% mad as a fcking snake arent u? u are such entertainment. shame really u never put all this effort into actually producing anything decent for this "wonder machine" u believe the atari line is. Steve 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 ... :D Everyone can play both versions and see what the real truth is, so I don't even bother to dispute it anymore, just the fact that you try to disavow it proves your helplessness in the face of actual reality. Though I understand that the ability to deny reality is a vital necessity when living in the Atari world Denial.. So common in the pitiful Rockford world.. You need help my friend.. He's generalizing from some specific case as many others have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 This is just for the record (although irrelevant to the point) so people can look it up themselves-- carcass is dead body of an animal. Although the most common definition, there are others; as in a human body, living or dead. Or, an unfinished framework of some type. Considering the fact that there are multiple valid definitions that can all be accurate depending on perspective, I really question whether or not is it irrelevant. ... I wasn't questioning his using carcass with the word sofa. Perhaps, you need to re-read that. I gave another more ghaslty (uglier) example of dead carcasses and that will also look more beautiful with more colors and shades (what to speak of carcass of a sofa). It's irrelevant which analogy you use since they both give more beautiful results with more colors and shades. So to try to keep repeating "you misread what I wrote" is avoiding the point. Perhaps its the most relevant part of the discussion. desiv There's no room for "Perhaps"; it's there in black and white if you care to spend the time to read it. To be honest I couldn't personally glean from the original post what it was meant to mean, so left it well alone unless usual argument resumed. Generally posting something like "This is just for the record (although irrelevant to the point) so people can look it up themselves--" the words following it are what you're suggesting people look up, in this case "carcass is dead body of an animal". If that's not what was meant then you can't blame other people for taking it that way and therefore confusing the rest of your post. I think some re-reading of posts before posting them is called for, there's enough arguments here without more being caused by misunderstandings, if that is indeed what happened Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 But it also shows the superiority of the A8, for it's lifespan.... Having something really superior available. While the C64 only was a budget machine with budget software, easily outdone by other machines of the same time. Yes... A8 was superior to apple 2, spectrum and such... From 1979 to 1983 until C64 appeared... It's nonsense to deny that. The lifespan of the A8 started earlier and ended earlier. In some case the C64 was able to "show" games "looking like" 16 bit, depending on the usable colour resolution, but all games (Supremacy, Turrican, Maniac Mansion, Pirates, ZakMcCracken, LN2, IK+, and Turrican 2) got lightyears better in graphics, sound and playability on the Amiga. Why wouldn't they get better on computer that is better in every way ? I admire C64 because someone thought its games were good enough to port to amiga. I admire C64 because it was possible to make ports of games from 16bits to it. There must be a reason why no one bothered to port ROF (don't get me wrong, I like that game, its great game for A8) Why didn't Lucasarts games division who loved atari so much, produced Maniac mansion and ZakMcCracken for A8 ? But you don't even find games with the playbility of Rescue on Fractalus, Yoomp!, MULE, Drop Zone, Boulder Dash, The Eidolon on the Amiga.... Pointless to comment claim like this, but I have to.... What have you been drinking ? Have you ever played games on Amiga ? Why would someone make game about flying around and rescuing people from barren planet when they could make much better games with whole living, moving worlds with tons of action and adventure ? Don't tell me rof is better than Midwinter, hunter, zeewolf,warhead,frontier, ashes of empire ... If you dont belive... try "Subtrade: Return to Irata" just to see how MULE can look like on Amiga... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 I may need to place an order for these titles for C64 and A8 and test them out. You can get them at http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=4293&d=18&h=0 and at http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=6276&d=18&h=0 Well, I tried those links but the files extract to .T64 and I can't currently upload them in that state-- need to know starting address and file format (unless there's an easy way to transfer to a real disk). Hmmm... Those are C64 tape files... You can test them in emulator... Vice is good enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiv Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 There's no room for "Perhaps"; it's there in black and white if you care to spend the time to read it. You really are that far into it that you don't see it? Wow.. Good to see some things don't ever change... I'm out. Better to leave this to the FBs who are more prepared for this type of discussion. desiv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnacle boy Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You can't see the self-contradictory remark of arguing in favor of color RAM and at the same time speaking against more colors and more shades and speculating they are subjective. Go try your bullcrap on someone else. I don't see what's so contradictory about saying that having the freedom to use more colours is useful when creating art, but that using more colours does not automatically ensure the creation of something beautiful. Whether something is beautiful or not will depend on HOW those colours are used, and even then, whether the result is classified at being beautiful or not will depend on the opinions/aesthetic preferences of the viewer. Because no matter how much you try to deny it, different people will have different ideas about what constitutes beauty. Considering the fact that there are multiple valid definitions that can all be accurate depending on perspective, I really question whether or not is it irrelevant. Everything irrelevant becomes relevant when trying to throw up a smokescreen while muddying the waters with cries of 'Chewbacca Defence!' and 'Bullcrap!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 There's no room for "Perhaps"; it's there in black and white if you care to spend the time to read it. You really are that far into it that you don't see it? ... Far into *IT*? What's IT refer to? You don't see *IT*? You didn't even address the point you want to argue. Keep your vague remarks to yourself. Wow.. Good to see some things don't ever change... What things haven't changed-- some top secret of yours? If you can't even address the subject you want to argue, don't reply. I'm out. Better to leave this to the FBs who are more prepared for this type of discussion. desiv What's a FB??? You're out. Thanks. You were already out of the discussion until you decide to post your drivel about the word carcass without addressing the main point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I may need to place an order for these titles for C64 and A8 and test them out. You can get them at http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=4293&d=18&h=0 and at http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=6276&d=18&h=0 Well, I tried those links but the files extract to .T64 and I can't currently upload them in that state-- need to know starting address and file format (unless there's an easy way to transfer to a real disk). Hmmm... Those are C64 tape files... You can test them in emulator... Vice is good enough... The original point was regarding seeing the fine scroll in those games. So emulator obviously can do fine scroll 1/2 color clock. I need to see it on the real thing to do the compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 ... Considering the fact that there are multiple valid definitions that can all be accurate depending on perspective, I really question whether or not is it irrelevant. Everything irrelevant becomes relevant when trying to throw up a smokescreen while muddying the waters with cries of 'Chewbacca Defence!' and 'Bullcrap!' Somethings never change fits in with your reply. Just label it "smokescreen" and confuse people. I won't even bother replying to your stupidity of replying to a portion of my reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 This is just for the record (although irrelevant to the point) so people can look it up themselves-- carcass is dead body of an animal. Although the most common definition, there are others; as in a human body, living or dead. Or, an unfinished framework of some type. Considering the fact that there are multiple valid definitions that can all be accurate depending on perspective, I really question whether or not is it irrelevant. Perhaps its the most relevant part of the discussion. desiv One more time for you: there are multiple definitions of carcass-- so what? When was that an issue? More colors and more shades make the world more beautiful. How is this being denied by whatever definition you use for the word carcass?? I see the side-kicks blindly follow their side, but I'm more interested in the truth. Take the same example: there's objectively better results when you take Mona Lisa and render it with 8 colors or 1 million colors. There's nothing subjective about it. If the viewer states the opposite, he's in a diseased state not that reality of the beauty becomes subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnacle boy Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) I won't even bother replying to your stupidity of replying to a portion of my reply. Who do you think you're kidding, atariksi? Let's be clear, when I replied to a portion of your reply, I did so like this: You can't see the self-contradictory remark of arguing in favor of color RAM and at the same time speaking against more colors and more shades and speculating they are subjective. Go try your bullcrap on someone else. I don't see what's so contradictory about saying that having the freedom to use more colours is useful when creating art, but that using more colours does not automatically ensure the creation of something beautiful. Whether something is beautiful or not will depend on HOW those colours are used, and even then, whether the result is classified at being beautiful or not will depend on the opinions/aesthetic preferences of the viewer. Because no matter how much you try to deny it, different people will have different ideas about what constitutes beauty. ...now are you seriously trying to say that your comment to TMR - "You can't see the self-contradictory remark of arguing in favor of color RAM and at the same time speaking against more colors and more shades and speculating they are subjective" - cannot be considered on its own? Are you saying that it must be taken as the whole quote, which is: Nice way to cop out-- another FALSE accusation after not being able to stick to the topic and being completely inept to reply such simple points. You falsely accuse others of chewbacca defense while committing it-- hypocrite. You also skipped over some relevant points. By the way, just google "beauty quotes" and you can get a whole bunch rather than being biased and distorting one quote to try to force fit it where it doesn't belong. You can't see the self-contradictory remark of arguing in favor of color RAM and at the same time speaking against more colors and more shades and speculating they are subjective. Go try your bullcrap on someone else. What possible value does the rest of that quote add to the comment "You can't see the self-contradictory remark of arguing in favor of color RAM and at the same time speaking against more colors and more shades and speculating they are subjective", and to my subsequent point about there being nothing contradictory about accepting that more colours is more useful but doesn't guarantee the creation of beauty? Edited September 28, 2009 by Barnacle boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 How many total man-hours do you think are invested in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) But it also shows the superiority of the A8, for it's lifespan.... Having something really superior available. While the C64 only was a budget machine with budget software, easily outdone by other machines of the same time. Yes... A8 was superior to apple 2, spectrum and such... From 1979 to 1983 until C64 appeared... It's nonsense to deny that. The lifespan of the A8 started earlier and ended earlier. In some case the C64 was able to "show" games "looking like" 16 bit, depending on the usable colour resolution, but all games (Supremacy, Turrican, Maniac Mansion, Pirates, ZakMcCracken, LN2, IK+, and Turrican 2) got lightyears better in graphics, sound and playability on the Amiga. Why wouldn't they get better on computer that is better in every way ? I admire C64 because someone thought its games were good enough to port to amiga. I admire C64 because it was possible to make ports of games from 16bits to it. There must be a reason why no one bothered to port ROF (don't get me wrong, I like that game, its great game for A8) Why didn't Lucasarts games division who loved atari so much, produced Maniac mansion and ZakMcCracken for A8 ? But you don't even find games with the playbility of Rescue on Fractalus, Yoomp!, MULE, Drop Zone, Boulder Dash, The Eidolon on the Amiga.... Pointless to comment claim like this, but I have to.... What have you been drinking ? Have you ever played games on Amiga ? Why would someone make game about flying around and rescuing people from barren planet when they could make much better games with whole living, moving worlds with tons of action and adventure ? Don't tell me rof is better than Midwinter, hunter, zeewolf,warhead,frontier, ashes of empire ... If you dont belive... try "Subtrade: Return to Irata" just to see how MULE can look like on Amiga... Thye probably did not make them for Atari 8 as the perception, though flawed was that the A8 days were done with Tramiel(commodore) running it.. As for Amiga it is essential the next gen ATARI so it should look good. Too bad they(commodore) cludged it up with that awful os and dull interlaced screen. Edited September 28, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 How many total man-hours do you think are invested in this thread? If you take into account the 9,000+ posts and the 150,000 views, you probably don't want to know. ..Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 27 - RUFF AND REDDY IN THE SPACE ADVENTURE C64 C64 C64 The C64 version has much better sound, graphics, sprites, handling and plays smoothly. The Atari version works slower (even though the play area is much smaller). C64 shows its power again. ATARI ATARI ATARI Specially for atarian 63 This game is better on C64 because: A - bad Atari programming B - much more love for C64 C- it's better on Atari Take a pick Arent you dead yet? Choice of dullard Rockford Errors a: Can't understand marketing at any point in time b: Doesn't get this title is 1990 (doh!) c: Needs to pull head from A__ d: All the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I find it interesting. The most games of the A8 tops, you don't have on 16 bit machines. The most C64 tops you find in much better versions on 16 bit machines... I guess its connected to year of release... by the time 16bits hit its peak, those games were old news... But it also shows the superiority of the A8, for it's lifespan.... Having something really superior available. While the C64 only was a budget machine with budget software, easily outdone by other machines of the same time. Yep, Bingo, that was it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SpiceWare Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) How many total man-hours do you think are invested in this thread? Dunno, but it's easy to see who invested the most (just click on the # of replies in the topic list) Who posted in: Atari v Commodore Member name Posts atariksi 1520 emkay 621 Oswald 404 Heaven/TQA 382 Wolfram 369 Bryan 357 Fröhn 354 TMR 344 atarian63 307 Crazyace 272 potatohead 260 PeteD 256 Rybags 238 oky2000 226 Allas 184 andym00 183 popmilo 168 frenchman 133 Tezz 129 Rockford 123 wood_jl 122 Barnacle boy 103 Edited September 28, 2009 by SpiceWare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Don't talk such nonsense. LOL It's nonsense to deny that. The lifespan of the A8 started earlier and ended earlier. In some case the C64 was able to "show" games "looking like" 16 bit, depending on the usable colour resolution, but all games (Supremacy, Turrican, Maniac Mansion, Pirates, ZakMcCracken, LN2, IK+, and Turrican 2) got lightyears better in graphics, sound and playability on the Amiga. But you don't even find games with the playbility of Rescue on Fractalus, Yoomp!, MULE, Drop Zone, Boulder Dash, The Eidolon on the Amiga.... No, your statement as a whole is nonsense. There are plenty of great games on C64 that's WHY they were also on 16bit machines, if they were so "budget" or mediocre they wouldn't have made them again on the next generation. And you're saying that the reason the A8 is better is because the 16bits don't have those games? They were either so old that nobody knew what they were any more or so new (yoomp) that the Amiga is long dead. Get a life, the A8 isn't the be all and end all of computers. btw, nearly all the games you listed as being so good are also on C64, so what does that mean? C64 could handle A8s top games AND had all it's titles copied on 16bit. Pete Sorry Pete... You'll never sell me on C64. Not then,not today,not ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Dunno, but it's easy to see who invested the most Here's a proper link: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=stats&do=who&t=134852 ..Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 No, you don't get it. I will never deny that the A8 was earlier than the C64 and that it DID have some great games but to say A) the C64 was a budget machine and the only good games came when other machines were superior is nonsense, you're an A8 fan, you obviously don't know the c64 titles. B) to say at the time the c64 was "not as good as" other machines of the time is nonsense as well. Why the hell do you think it sold so well? If you say price, then I say that's why the Spectrum was more popular because it was cheaper, it's hardware and games weren't as good. CPC, please, it was always 3rd. Pete Here is the US there is only one reason the c64 ever sold at all. Price,Price and price. It was extremely poor workmanship.High failure rate,Ugly as sin and no software library.. the only thing to love was Price! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SpiceWare Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Interesting, I thought it would do a pop-up list if I posted that link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) I love it, can't reply properly so out comes blablabla It's been "discussed" before, and that's YOUR side of the result of that "discussion" not mine I was a C64 coder, I know what it was capable of at the time, I also played those games in the 80s, also the spectrum versions because I had a spectrum. I also had an ST and Amiga and comparing games from an 8bit to a 16bit is kind of stupid especially when you consider some of you guys complain about comparing A8 vs C64 because C64 was later. At least A8/C64 was the same cpu, and slower on c64, or are you now going to change the last months arguments by most A8 fanatics that the C64 hardware wasn't superior? Pete Never thought it was superior, I only hear that from the c64 guys. Edited September 28, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 YOU listed them, right there for the whole world to see, you didn't state "here is a list of top games I got from somewhere else". YAK..... it seems really useless to argue with you... POPMILO listed the top 10 of lemon and atarimania.... then I stated my thoughts about them... you lost focus on that and start a new trolling phase.... OK, til tomorrow I go puking..... good night Semantics again. Just have a stand up fight if you're going to argue. Prove YOUR point, don't try to put it on someone else. YOU stated the C64 was inferior to every other machine available at the same time and used a list of games to prove that point. And why is it you guys have to get so rude when you're losing? btw, it seems you also don't understand what trolling is. It's generally making an "out of the blue" comment designed to cause a reaction. Something along the lines of "C64 only was a budget machine with budget software, easily outdone by other machines of the same time". I simply got sucked in by your trollage Pete He is correct you know. Let start with 1985, Atari ST, smash kill,dead c64. 1986-87 Amiga smash,kill c64, MAC Smash kill C64.. 1988 Pc Clones, Smash kill c64 with vga. In the states c64 was dead by late 87,early 88,done over finished. We used to have bargain bins full of c64 stuff and the local rep used to give us up to 70% off on c64 stuff,just to take most of it. 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