atariksi Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The C64 plays more smoothly and has better music, sprites, graphics in hi-res, in which it resembles arcade version (on C64 everything is near arcade perfect: displays, proportions of ships, death sequence - check out the last picture and compare). The Atari version has graphics in low-res (strange colours as always ) and chunky, deformed sprites - very often it's hard to distinguish asteroids from alien ships If you don't believe PLAY INSTEAD OF WATCHING THEM C64 is better again ROFL.. now I see you are really hopeless. C64 version may look better ONLY on static pictures because of higher resolution but in action it's really bad. C64 doesn't play more smoothly, it has horrible sound effect, the starfield looks more like kaleidoscope (symmetry) and choppy. The attack waves flicker all the time.... You should listen to your "PLAY INSTEAD OF WATCHING THEM" yourself first. I think it's bad coding on the C64 part-- the coder couldn't find the hardware collision registers he needed or which colors to switch to after every scene. This game shows the excellent use of colors between levels-- variety is the spice of life. They were better off cropping the game and getting to a faster frame rate to avoid the flicker-- probably the software collision detection overhead contributed to the flicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Actually Gyruss I don't see much difference between versions, could just be me though maybe A8 has more sprite sizes/positions. I'm rubbish at comparing stuff like this. lol http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSA1PERH9i8Q&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D98vAYjfR4u0 Pete Don't worry Pete, I am good at this, so relax, have a drink and let me act. I've had Gyruss on my list anyway. Try another Parker Brothers.. Gyruss 1984 Smoother and better game play than the c64 version. C64 is improving at this stage but still not as good as A8 For sure as I also own this arcade machine and play it frequently. Stuff that one Rockford. Aren't you dead yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1PERH9i8Q&feature=related Really... Imagine I've tested it on both computers and arcade too, and I've actually PLAYED 3 versions. You know, watching games on you tube is not enough. Do you actually own the Arcade? I do! The Atari version is easily the better one. Is yours the Parker Bros version? I have seen all three and have the Machine to base that opinion on.. Get a life... Do you know what you are talking about at all ? The original arcade was made by Konami, whereas A8 & C64 Gyruss was published only by Parker Bros. There are not other versions on A8&C64 LOL ... or maybe you have Parker's arcade do you have a brain Rockford, I need no lecture on Arcade machines, I have nearly 50, including gyruss..You really are clueless. You always seem to come up with some version that is not of the same period and try to pass it off as a direct competitor. Get a clue guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The c64 version is glitchey, slow and the sound is off.. ....yeahh and the BIG TEN is the best college football conference Daydreaming is good for you The Atari version is smooth,and much more like the arcade. In what aspect ? vivid purple & green stars and space ships or ugly sprites in low-res ? How did we get to football? I could care less. As for looks and play... again get a clue, I have the machine, and the A8 version looks and plays correctly, the c64 version is not smooth and doesn't play like my machine. Again C64 loses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 For all other comedians (like atarian63 or MaPa) I found a very interesting comparison. It's on hardcoregaming101.net (a very respectable site for multiplatform gamers who don't want to be a part of fanboyism). The reviewer compared all existing Gyruss versions to the Konami's arcade original, so he wasn't biased. And he wrote something like this: "The Atari 2600 isn't too bad despite its choppiness, and manages to keep in a simplistic version of the theme song. The Atari 5200/8-bit version is a bit improved from this one, with more defined graphics, smoother action and better sound. The Colecovision version is roughly on par with the Atari 8-bit versions, but the best is the Commodore 64, which has smooth gameplay and excellent music." Interesting isn't it Sounds like you never played the arcade Rockford. Whatever the case it sure burns your butt that the A8 version is better! Thanks budd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 ... The only problem is once again (as usual) the C64 version is coded by some retard at Atarisoft and is worse than the VIC-20 version. Also it clearly has nothing to do with to with the machines capabilities as a budget release of the 3rd game in the series called Gaplus is superior in every way to either version of Galaxian (as is the many rip-offs of Galaga like Zalaga etc) ... Yepp, like said, valid for both directions. I'd never cared about 'Q*bert' and like 'Pharaoh's Pyramid' more. In case of 'Galaxian' the good message is, that both machines have a very similar version of 'Bandits'. I typed in a version of Qbert from a magazine in 1984 and it wasn't bad considering I like Galaxian on the A8 and VIC (own both for use on real hardware) and have Galaga on the 7800 (which is really nice also) That Gaplus on C64 is totally impressive! I love that game! The 64 version appears to follow the mechanics of the original. I still have Namco Museum 2 (PS1) from day 1! I'll have to try to find that and try it. I'm not so sure about these others (above). I get bored pretty quick with most Galaxians, so I guess I'm not impartial, but I won't be playing A8 or Vic Galaxian anytime soon. (have real hardware too!) I just don't get it with the fans of the 7800 Galaga. I mean, yeah, if I have a 7800 it's a must-have, but only in the context of the 7800. It doesn't play like Arcade Galaga. The only thing that was close (from the day) was NES "Galaga: Demons of Death" which is the first time everything moved, played, and looked like REAL Galaga. I have to agree, I own an NES just for some of those early 80s arcade ports (not Mario/Zelda). Shame the NES pads are so crap though! If I had any spare 6 button Sega pads I would hack one up to use with my NES Anyway I agree really people should play any comparison game on an emulator...they take seconds to load up and have a quick go and give a far better idea than just screenshots or youtube videos. (so is the 7800 pads too by the way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) OK I don't see what the fuss is about, there is clearly no difference between both version using VICE or Win800plus. The only differences are sound (personal preference) and that you need to be slightly more accurate shooting the ships in the centre of the screen on the C64 version, possibly because it is running in a slightly higher resolution. There is the odd bit of flicker on the C64 version but this could be a sync issue on PC monitor/50hz PAL emulation of a C64. BUT on the A8 version (and I have two different copies of ATRs one with a trainer and one original dump) the enemy ships swarm around the screen at two thirds the speed of either the C64 or the Arcade version on MAME so clearly it is not exactly like the arcade as the ships move too slowly making perfect hits on the bonus stages on A8 a lot easier. So on has an interlace type effect and one runs the enemy ships at 66% of original speed. Hardly a slam dunk either way...pretty much 1:1 if you consider these faults compared to the Arcade. I can see nothing more than personal preference between the A8 and C64 version myself so unless anyone has a technical explicit issue to add that's how it's staying for me. And yes I know the arcade version very well and play it often but just played that too on MAME in succession. All games were played using one identical controller and I ended up on the same level on all three games with just 2 goes on each for fairness. Edited September 30, 2009 by oky2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) OK I don't see what the fuss is about, there is clearly no difference between both version using VICE or Win800plus. The only differences are sound (personal preference) and that you need to be slightly more accurate shooting the ships in the centre of the screen on the C64 version, possibly because it is running in a slightly higher resolution. There is the odd bit of flicker on the C64 version but this could be a sync issue on PC monitor/50hz PAL emulation of a C64. And yes I know the arcade version very well and play it often but just played that too on MAME in succession. All games were played using one identical controller and I ended up on the same level on all three games with just 2 goes on each for fairness. I can see nothing more than personal preference between the A8 and C64 version myself so unless anyone has a technical explicit issue to add that's how it's staying for me. needs to be played on REAL hardware including the arcade version. MAME is really off for most arcade systems that is why I don't do mame and just buy the actual arcade game,emulators just dont cut it. As for preference,when played on actual hardware and comparing to the actual arcade. A8 is closer and better. Edited September 30, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 C64 version is better and resembles arcade version more. In graphics... in some cases ... yes. But the gameplay of the A8 version is simply great. I second that emotion. The A8 version ROCKS! I have one or more Arcade Compiliations on (much) newer systems - like Konami classics (could be wrong, something like that) and YES THE GRAPHICS ARE ARCADE PERFECT but you won't catch me playing them because the control sucks - gameplay licks taint. The A8 version has almost fluid-like intuitive control to it when keeping the ship moving in a circle if you so intend. I was all excited when I got these compilation(s) and SO disappointed when I played them. So who cares about arcade graphics? ... That's just a stupid thing to say "arcade graphics" when the smooth motion is more significant for a game like this. I'm not sure I understand your criticism. I was saying exactly that; re-read above where you quoted me. I said even though the graphics were perfect the control sucks, the gameplay licks taint, that I was disappointed, and even ended with "who cares about arcade graphics?" What is it that we disagree on in this regard, and what is indeed stupid about that? The above statements appear congruous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Stop looking at screen shots and go play the game. In fast action games, the frame rate is more significant than what the screen looks like when you pause it. I don't recall C64 version having a pause. By your logic, the PC version of pac-man is superior to Atari version because it uses 320*200 although it plays like a piece of crap. You can go blind with the C64 palette but not with this game's excellent color useage. Man, you've not even begun to understand my logic.. You simply assume things again.. Sorry, but as a programmer I can't overlook certain things, my brain just doesn't allow me to when playing.. If something niggles me about a game technically then no matter how good the gameplay is or the graphics, that niggle will still eat away at me and take away some of the enjoyment of it.. If the platform wasn't capable of something better then it'd be no problem.. It is, therefore it's a bloody poor job in my opinion.. And anyway, I don't recall the arcade verison have a pause either, so by your logic, that makes the Atari version even better than the arcade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Does Lunar Blitz not waiting for Sack's Msx? Until you mentioned it in PM to me the other day i'd completely forgotten about it...! The code was completed and the graphics only took a little reshuffling to get over, but it was waiting for the music and i honestly forget who was doing it...! All Lunar Blitz would need to be finished off is a conversion of Matt Simmonds' tune "Zoomer" (which the C16 and C64 versions both use, the unexpanded VIC 20 version runs a sound effects engine because there wasn't space for a music driver) and whatever time i needed to actually integrate an RMT tune in considering that i've not done it in a while. =-) i've just been rooting through the old work directories (every time i reinstall Windows i leave the old directories behind and only transfer active projects to the new drive) and i've realised just how much i've coded over the years in the way of prototype A8 code! Several scroll engines using various techniques and fitted with column and tile map compression, at least four distinctly different character-based software sprite engines and a bitmapped one that uses "compiled" sprites (actually, i need a better look at that because it's quite a bit faster than i remember it being!), about half of an APAC picture swapping puzzle game where it's only missing the front and back end stuff and the actual game is fully functioning... reinstalled Windows??? get OS X... makes life easier... one stress factor less... reduce complexity of life... (oops... that's why we are coding 8bit machines... to INCrease complexity of life... ) but Lunar should be released... I don't know many coders who did not coded ever a Blitz version... even I have done one in basic in the 80s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) I think it's bad coding on the C64 part-- the coder couldn't find the hardware collision registers he needed or which colors to switch to after every scene. This game shows the excellent use of colors between levels-- variety is the spice of life. They were better off cropping the game and getting to a faster frame rate to avoid the flicker-- probably the software collision detection overhead contributed to the flicker. Not again with the collision mouse-crap.. If you've multiplexed your sprites, you'll be picking up the collision register at the end of each visible sprite anyway.. In this scenario you can use the collision registers as they were intended to be used and they provide all the information you need.. You know the displayed on screen vertical order, hence it's a simple bit operation, some modulo maths and an indexing operation to determine the collision since sprites are only finitely tall There's fuck all practical difference between how the Atari does things and the Commodore does things in this regard when programmed properly.. In fact, if we really think about it when players are being used as overlays to software sprites the hardware collision is pretty much useless since you might not be able to construct the collision shape you require given your graphics approach without it looking a bit spazzy.. Unless you go for the standard Atari one colour sprites, in which case they work as advertised on the packet, but unfortunately your game is firmly back in VCS-Land graphics-wise, umm, except the VCS players are usually a wee bit more colourful Edited September 30, 2009 by andym00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 reinstalled Windows??? get OS X... makes life easier... one stress factor less... reduce complexity of life... (oops... that's why we are coding 8bit machines... to INCrease complexity of life... ) That's why I keep using Windows. I still wonder what people do to have "stress" or anything else with Windows. Handling 8-bits has something "puzzle" like. Let's see, if we can get another puzzle finished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) The attackers are generated using the same system as Mirax Force so are nailed down vertically, but they do run to a simplified version of my wave scripting engine so the result is more complex than Humanoid, for example. What is this Humanoid you speak of ? I've heard it mentioned in other threads for sprite reasons, but can't seem to find it.. Edited September 30, 2009 by andym00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaPa Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The attackers are generated using the same system as Mirax Force so are nailed down vertically, but they do run to a simplified version of my wave scripting engine so the result is more complex than Humanoid, for example. What is this Humanoid you speak of ? I've heard it mentioned in other threads for sprite reasons, but can't seem to find it.. Yeah... really hard to find http://atari.fandal.cz/detail.php?files_id=2054 http://www.atarimania.com/lst_soft.php?SOFT_LIB=humanoid&MENU=8&TYPE_CODE=G&VERSION_ID=&Page=1&OK=OK&btn_sauver.x=0&btn_sauver.y=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 It's time to leave atarian fantasy land and return to reality 29 - GYRUSS C64 C64 C64 The C64 plays more smoothly and has better music, sprites, graphics in hi-res, in which it resembles arcade version (on C64 everything is near arcade perfect: displays, proportions of ships, death sequence - check out the last picture and compare). The Atari version has graphics in low-res (strange colours as always ) and chunky, deformed sprites - very often it's hard to distinguish asteroids from alien ships If you don't believe PLAY INSTEAD OF WATCHING THEM C64 is better again ATARI ATARI ATARI ARCADE VERSION The colors of your Atari screenshots are very inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Yeah... really hard to find Okay, normally I'd just type in 'Atarimania humanoid' (or whatever) into google and it finds it.. Humanoid didn't show up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The colors of your Atari screenshots are very inaccurate. Sometimes I ask myself why the standard colouring of the emulators were THIS of. People who don't know about this failure just use the wrong palettes. I wonder why the Fandal's site and Atarimania keep this full wrong colours for the screenshots in their databases. The mostly right colorus you find in "jakub" (PAL) and LAOO "NTSC" .... Example: Humanoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Or those: A800win default Close to PAL Atari XL : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 reinstalled Windows??? get OS X... makes life easier... one stress factor less... reduce complexity of life... As well as losing most of my development tools including the Pepto palette-modified versions of the SubChrist tools and all the self-written stuff like TileStream... and i only reinstall Windows once every couple of years on average (the most recent was unscheduled, but due to a drive failing, OS X couldn't have prevented that any more than Windows could) and as part of a hardware upgrade process; i put a new drive in as C, throw an operating system on and transfer the current projects to the work files directory, leaving all of the old ones on the previous drive. but Lunar should be released... I don't know many coders who did not coded ever a Blitz version... even I have done one in basic in the 80s... They're lost in the mists of time (or possibly on a tape in me dad's shed) but so did i. =-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchman Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) For all other comedians (like atarian63 or MaPa) I found a very interesting comparison. It's on hardcoregaming101.net (a very respectable site for multiplatform gamers who don't want to be a part of fanboyism). The reviewer compared all existing Gyruss versions to the Konami's arcade original, so he wasn't biased. And he wrote something like this: "The Atari 2600 isn't too bad despite its choppiness, and manages to keep in a simplistic version of the theme song. The Atari 5200/8-bit version is a bit improved from this one, with more defined graphics, smoother action and better sound. The Colecovision version is roughly on par with the Atari 8-bit versions, but the best is the Commodore 64, which has smooth gameplay and excellent music." Interesting isn't it Sounds like you never played the arcade Rockford. Whatever the case it sure burns your butt that the A8 version is better! Thanks budd You don't actually believe Rocky Mountains is capable of doing his own research, do you? You know, judging by his posts so far, he might own a C64/tape player (plus all the budget titles from UK software houses from way back), probably never even touched a Colecovision nor a 5200 either (Yes, I know, it (5200) was never released in Europe, didn't stop me to own one). He just uses other forum replies and posts them here, that's all. And the so-called hardcoregamerwhatever.net reviewer missed out the NES version in his comparison? Not very hardcore, if you ask me. As for comedians, if we are you should be dead by now. Go for it big boy. Edited September 30, 2009 by frenchman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 There's fuck all practical difference between how the Atari does things and the Commodore does things in this regard when programmed properly.. As regards programming properly, at a more general level most sensible coders wouldn't use the hardware collisions for shoot 'em ups anyway because pixel perfect collisions are too restricting; have a play of something like Gradius and you can get away with murder (especially if you do the volcanoes at the end of level 1 the way i do, with half the ship wedged into the upper landscape!) and the general rule of thumb is "the busier it gets, the smaller the hit box" to the point where Ikaruga and Psyvariar are only looking at a single pixel near the middle of the player's craft. Unless you go for the standard Atari one colour sprites, in which case they work as advertised on the packet, but unfortunately your game is firmly back in VCS-Land graphics-wise, umm, except the VCS players are usually a wee bit more colourful i gave splitting all the sprite colours a go a while back and i'm not entirely sure it's possible without some of the changes happen during the visible playfield. Laser Gates does three colours i think...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) As regards programming properly, at a more general level most sensible coders wouldn't use the hardware collisions for shoot 'em ups anyway because pixel perfect collisions are too restricting; have a play of something like Gradius and you can get away with murder (especially if you do the volcanoes at the end of level 1 the way i do, with half the ship wedged into the upper landscape!) and the general rule of thumb is "the busier it gets, the smaller the hit box" to the point where Ikaruga and Psyvariar are only looking at a single pixel near the middle of the player's craft. Of course, but knowing exactly what collisions are there in the first place, and then refining them, is a pretty handy starting point rather than manually faffing about and having no starting point to narrow things down with I've been using them more and more in my 8bit bullet hell attempts, and I wish I'd used them back in the day on more projects rather than just writing them off like seemingly everybody else did.. All I'm saying is that they're a cycle saver, no matter how accurate or sloppy you want your collision detection to be i gave splitting all the sprite colours a go a while back and i'm not entirely sure it's possible without some of the changes happen during the visible playfield. Laser Gates does three colours i think...? I thought long and hard about this, and possibly using a VCS style kernel to colour players, but it just wasn't viable to burn the entire display time, and in character modes it's really not going to happen unless you throw some ugly contraints into the colour and positioning equation.. I tried various other DLI driven kernels (ie: 16/32 of them selected on a per scanline basis by the active player bits[1]) but ran into colour changing problems as you mention.. And gave up and went back to players with underlays[2].. Anyway, I've got the day off today, so I think I'll amuse myself with trying to find more spare cycles in these sprites [1] Easily formed with your common or garden eor filler Just write the player bits on the start and and lines, when you've done them all, eor fill, and voila a nice bitmap of which scanlines contain which sprites, just ripe for a jump table Put the bits in the right place, and your current lines kernel is just a few cycles away.. Obviously a bit expensive to do when you're looking at 8 sprites or so, but with 32+ it pays for itself very quickly (more so if you're using variable height sprites and many little ones, say 8 lines) at a fixed cost of 8 cycles per scanline of computation, more so than manually figuring it out setting bits and clearing bits as you encounter the sprites in the interrupts, though possibly not the case if you chain through a seperate interrupt for each virtual sprite.. [2] Underlays as opposed to overlays, because then I can at least use the collision registers. in that case without spazzy looking sprites.. Though with expanded player underlays it's a murky and inaccurate world in collision-land Edited September 30, 2009 by andym00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 "The Atari 2600 isn't too bad despite its choppiness, and manages to keep in a simplistic version of the theme song. The Atari 5200/8-bit version is a bit improved from this one, with more defined graphics, smoother action and better sound. The Colecovision version is roughly on par with the Atari 8-bit versions, but the best is the Commodore 64, which has smooth gameplay and excellent music." Sounds like you never played the arcade Rockford. Whatever the case it sure burns your butt that the A8 version is better! Thanks budd Well, "not biased" ( ) testers of old games state that the Atari version of Rescue on Fractalus is as good as the C64 version !!! ;) ;) . Well, if poeple were not C64 biased, they would know the difference between a game and an interactive slideshow... And well, Gyruss does not benefit by the slightly higher resolution of the C64 version, BECAUSE, it uses 360 degree animations, which look odd , when the ship has to change the resolution, every 90 degree. If using any higher resolution, it is better to use 320x200. 160x100 is the correct resolution qouta for the game on an old 8 bit. Also, the starfield in the C64 version looks like some reuse of chars, which looks odd aswell. And, yes, the A8 music fits better to the arcade original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) And the so-called hardcoregamerwhatever.net reviewer missed out the NES version in his comparison? Not very hardcore, if you ask me. O DEAR, frenchman strikes again :D reviewer missed out the NES version in his comparison :D Go and check this out people ! http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/konamishooters/konamishooters2.htm Hey, frenchman will you ever learn to read and stop trying simply having the last word or winning arguments ? Thinking before posting is also highly recommended :D When you have a moment of doubt, google is your best friend :D Edited September 30, 2009 by Rockford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 It's time to leave atarian fantasy land and return to reality 29 - GYRUSS C64 C64 C64 The C64 plays more smoothly and has better music, sprites, graphics in hi-res, in which it resembles arcade version (on C64 everything is near arcade perfect: displays, proportions of ships, death sequence - check out the last picture and compare). The Atari version has graphics in low-res (strange colours as always ) and chunky, deformed sprites - very often it's hard to distinguish asteroids from alien ships If you don't believe PLAY INSTEAD OF WATCHING THEM C64 is better again ATARI ATARI ATARI ARCADE VERSION The colors of your Atari screenshots are very inaccurate. Blame Atari sites (like atarimania or fandal), not me 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