Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

 

Atari sprites and sound chip work as they are supposed to. If you had to simulate the C64 sprites on A8, that would be problematic. And doing overscan is problematic on C64 and Atari ST.

 

ah but u do have to simulate 64 sprites don't u?

thats been the problem for 25 years. and the main reason there have been about 4 decent games in that time.

 

Steve

 

You don't have to simulate C64 sprites-- only if you are porting stuff over from C64. Of course, I would agree that more sprites on A8 would help a lot since they are inter-related to getting more colors in hires as well as 160*200. GTIA modes have enough colors. I suggested before (also someone else) about using the empty PMBase so it has 8 sprites rather than 5 and 8 missiles which use the same data as one of the players.

[atarian63]

Here is a 1990 c64 commercial soccer game vs an early 80's Atari 2600 soccer game.

I think the 2600 looks better with more detailed characters.

Atari 2600 wins

 

It's a little dishonest to compare a soccer management game (British Super League on c64) against a more typical realtime soccer game, isn't it?

 

Dishonest, but not surprising.

 

 

I almost feel sorry for you, old chum. As you pick your way through Lemon64's list of Worst 100 Games, it must be kind of depressing to face the fact that half of them still look better than the typical GOLDEN AGE Atari game.

 

NOTE: That link isn't entirely worksafe. There are a couple of dodgy 'adult' games on the list.

Actually considdering it's 1990 c64 vs 1983 2600 it's no wonder coming from you that you would cry foul . 1990 commercial c64 game Vs the lowly Atari 2600 and the Atari 2600 wins. Very sad.

I'm simply pointing out your dishonesty in the way you're attempting to draw a false comparison between two games in different genres. Soccer management games typically don't place much emphasis on graphical frills. That's common knowledge.

 

What will you do for an encore? Compare a text-only adventure to a platform game?

 

 

 

Seems it must irritate you that the c64 fanboy site has a top 100 awful games list. There are many many more bad games than that on c64.

 

Of course there are many more bad games than the ones on that list. Is anyone disputing that? Given the huge number of releases on the c64 over its lengthy lifespan, there are bound to be loads of cruddy titles. The Atari certainly has its fair share of crud too. But so what?

 

What do you think you will gain by saying "Hey look! I found some bad games on the c64"? You've even had a long-time Atari gamer point out to you that anyone could do the same in regards to the Atari. You just end up looking desperate, like one of those politicians who has nothing to offer and so resorts to trying to sling mud at his opponent, while everyone else finds themselves thinking of the old saying about people in glass houses throwing stones. Mind you, the good old "Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool..." one also comes to mind in this case.

 

By the way, I'm not at all troubled about Lemon64 having a list of the 100 lowest ranked games. Sometimes it's fun to check out the real stinkers. I think you'll find that most c64 owners aren't particularly bothered by the existence of bad games on the system, simply because there was such a steady stream of excellent titles to keep us busy.

What a silly reply, you have been show the facts on many occasions and still just dont get it. Well as Al has asked.. back to the comparisons, if you want to name call I think the moderators will take some issue as they have stated here.

So.. here is some quality c64 from 1987 Intergalactic cage match.

Edited October 11, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

 

No, another fact twisted with a biased mentality and the myth of C64 being more expensive being propated. I purchased my Atari 800 for $899 and around that time C64 was around $500. Just doing some random searches on the internet is not going to help. You have compare prices at same time from start of marketing of C64 and onwards where the starting is more significant. What the heck is the point of finding some expensive prices if the C64 is already flooded the market (i.e., inferior product has already saturated the market and left no choice to the competitor but to drop prices and take losses).

and that is exactly correct! Well put!

[Rockford]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

Here in the US, they were $199 at a time when Atari was $349. So not only was the c64 cheaper is was so incredibly cheaply made.

When exactly and which Atari ? A800 or A800 XL ? They were differently priced (since 800 XL was cheaply made), and I was talking about A800 XL (scroll up if needed).

Edited October 11, 2009 by Rockford

[Rockford]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

 

No, another fact twisted with a biased mentality and the myth of C64 being more expensive being propated. I purchased my Atari 800 for $899 and around that time C64 was around $500. Just doing some random searches on the internet is not going to help. You have compare prices at same time from start of marketing of C64 and onwards where the starting is more significant. What the heck is the point of finding some expensive prices if the C64 is already flooded the market (i.e., inferior product has already saturated the market and left no choice to the competitor but to drop prices and take losses).

Again, I was talking about A800 XL vs C64, NOT A800 vs C64 (scroll up). So, who is twisting the facts ? It seems that only you

[oky2000]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

 

No, another fact twisted with a biased mentality and the myth of C64 being more expensive being propated. I purchased my Atari 800 for $899 and around that time C64 was around $500. Just doing some random searches on the internet is not going to help. You have compare prices at same time from start of marketing of C64 and onwards where the starting is more significant. What the heck is the point of finding some expensive prices if the C64 is already flooded the market (i.e., inferior product has already saturated the market and left no choice to the competitor but to drop prices and take losses).

 

If Atari or anyone else had commissioned the VIC-II and the SID the cost of the computer would be $200-300 MORE, the C64 was only cheaper than the A8 at launch because Jack Tramiel had the foresight to actually purchase his own chip design and manufacturing facility after Texas Instruments screwed CBM when dumping calculators at cost in the market place. The VIC-II and SID were at cost price to Commodore, if Atari had the foresight to purchase a chip fab business then they could have competed on price, they didn't and they lost market share like a there was no tomorrow.

 

If you can't follow this logic about the pricing then it's not my fault but that is how it is and just shows a lack of business understanding or basic mathematical skills relating to basic running of any business, but that is the reason the C64 launched at the price it did. If you wan't to compare cars well the A8 was like a twin carburetted engine and the C64 with fuel injection. Progress brings many improvements like high levels of colour resolutions in previously monochrome resolutions and sophisticated feature rich analogue synthesizer chips that weren't far off some synthesizers of 1982 in all but available sound channels and filter consistency.

 

Edit...Dropzone is just a defender clone, far more sophisticated shootem ups (both technically and playability wise) were coded later on...you show me Dropzone and I show you an incredible translation of an Amiga specification exceeding arcade board called Salamander/Lifeforce Archer Maclean couldn't have code Uridium a far technically superior game....and then there is Morpheus from the coder of C64 Uridium which would make Archer faint just thinking how to even do that game.

 

Dropzone is nice but it is hardly cutting edge, and it's a bit mad for anyone to assign this game as some sort of show of the technical possibilities of either machine really come on.

Edited October 11, 2009 by oky2000

[Barnacle boy]

What a silly reply, you have been show the facts on many occasions and still just dont get it.

Really? What facts are you presenting that I’m not getting? Feel free to state them clearly.

 

 

 

Well as Al has asked.. back to the comparisons, if you want to name call I think the moderators will take some issue as they have stated here.

So.. here is some quality c64 from 1987 Intergalactic cage match.

Back to comparisons, he says, and posts a shot of one game on a single platform.

 

That aside, Intergalactic Cage Match is by all accounts a terrible game. C64 owners at that time would have been well-advised to stick to one of the superior wrestling titles that came out before it, such as Championship Wrestling.

 

Meanwhile, Atari owners didn’t have to worry about making a choice, as it seems they had only one contender in the wrestling ring: Bop n Wrestle - not a bad game, maybe, provided you can stomach the ugly CGA-like graphics (it makes you wonder how Intergalactic Cage Match would have ended up looking on the Atari):

 

...and apparently it needs 128KB to run! Oh dear.

 

 

Of course, you can count on the c64 to deliver the winning blow in this match:

 

Edited October 11, 2009 by Barnacle boy

[Rockford]

 

 

 

 

Well as Al has asked.. back to the comparisons, if you want to name call I think the moderators will take some issue as they have stated here.

So.. here is some quality c64 from 1987 Intergalactic cage match.

Back to comparisons, he says, and posts a shot of one game on a single platform.

 

 

ROTFL

[Chickybaby]

There is more then one moderator watching this thread believe me.

 

Well as Al has asked.. back to the comparisons, if you want to name call I think the moderators will take some issue as they have stated here.

So.. here is some quality c64 from 1987 Intergalactic cage match.

 

As long as it's respectful without insults or name calling, I have no problems with a good discussion and people often agree to disagree.

[andym00]

I almost feel sorry for you, old chum. As you pick your way through Lemon64's list of Worst 100 Games, it must be kind of depressing to face the fact that half of them still look better than the typical GOLDEN AGE Atari game.

 

It's very true that, how most of those 100 worst games still look better than the tat on the A8..

 

It's startling the number of US versions of big name games in there though that were considerably trumped by the European versions.. Must have been something in the water over there..

 

And, as usual, it brings a huge smile to my face to see Afterburner in there at #65

 

That Wheelchair Race though is utterly fantastic!! Absolutely perfect for a quick game on a Sunday morning.. Definitely the A8 could do with a port of this, though it'd be tricky (colours, moving objects and that pesky hires score panel) and no doubt push the hardware a fair bit..

[Heaven/TQA]

What a silly reply, you have been show the facts on many occasions and still just dont get it.

Really? What facts are you presenting that I’m not getting? Feel free to state them clearly.

 

 

 

Well as Al has asked.. back to the comparisons, if you want to name call I think the moderators will take some issue as they have stated here.

So.. here is some quality c64 from 1987 Intergalactic cage match.

Back to comparisons, he says, and posts a shot of one game on a single platform.

 

That aside, Intergalactic Cage Match is by all accounts a terrible game. C64 owners at that time would have been well-advised to stick to one of the superior wrestling titles that came out before it, such as Championship Wrestling.

 

Meanwhile, Atari owners didn’t have to worry about making a choice, as it seems they had only one contender in the wrestling ring: Bop n Wrestle - not a bad game, maybe, provided you can stomach the ugly CGA-like graphics (it makes you wonder how Intergalactic Cage Match would have ended up looking on the Atari):

 

...and apparently it needs 128KB to run! Oh dear.

 

 

Of course, you can count on the c64 to deliver the winning blow in this match:

 

 

 

I guess I should patch B'n W on A8 to get away of the bad colors... same like with Summer Games or is the pig-like purple same on NTSC like on PAL?

[TMR]

I almost feel sorry for you, old chum. As you pick your way through Lemon64's list of Worst 100 Games, it must be kind of depressing to face the fact that half of them still look better than the typical GOLDEN AGE Atari game.

 

It's very true that, how most of those 100 worst games still look better than the tat on the A8..

 

Number 11's one of mine... it's still something of an achievement despite being deliberately shite though, i managed to get what is essentially a n non game into a worst 100 games chart! Yay me!

 

It's startling the number of US versions of big name games in there though that were considerably trumped by the European versions..

 

Y'know... i'm going to get myself a macro that adds "don't tell frenchman!!" to posts.

[TMR]

I guess I should patch B'n W on A8 to get away of the bad colors...

 

[scratches head] What are the odds that the hardware sprites aren't in use there and could be used to build a grey for the floor of the ring...?

[STE'86]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

 

No, another fact twisted with a biased mentality and the myth of C64 being more expensive being propated. I purchased my Atari 800 for $899 and around that time C64 was around $500. Just doing some random searches on the internet is not going to help. You have compare prices at same time from start of marketing of C64 and onwards where the starting is more significant. What the heck is the point of finding some expensive prices if the C64 is already flooded the market (i.e., inferior product has already saturated the market and left no choice to the competitor but to drop prices and take losses).

 

not an internet search actually.

 

that was the price they were when i bought mine in june of '85.

 

actually mine was £170 (without the cassette) and c2ns were almost £30 so i bought a "compatible"

 

any other facts on costs u would like to dispute with me?

 

Steve

[andym00]

..jibber jabber, mumble mumble, golden era..

 

Obviously the film industry disagrees on the on-screen looks and cultural recognition of such things

 

Inspired by the other thread where there's apparently atari disk drive sounds (woohoo!) in a film, I thought I'd browse the computer appearances on film and TV

 

Judging by this site, that seems to having nothing better to do than keep track of on screen appearances, the Atari family was clearly more Richard Kiel than Arnold Schwarzenegger

 

And so, for the Atari family we have..

• 
  

1200 XL

• Whiz Kids - Episode 9 "Red Star Rising" (1983)

400

• Micro Men (2009)

600/800 XL

• Big (1988) • D.A.R.Y.L. (1985) • Klatwa doliny wezy (1987)

800

• Chocky (1984) • Max Dugan Returns (1983) • Micro Men (2009) • Time Walker (1982)

Mega ST

• The One Game (1988)

Portfolio

• Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)

ST

• 23 (1998) • Chocky's Challenge (1986) • Joshua Tree (1993) • Married with Children - Season 7, Episode 11 "Old College Try" (1992)

STacy

• Nothing But Trouble (1991)

And for the glamour-puss that is the Commodore family

• 
  

128

• Crash and Burn (1990) • Klatwa doliny wezy (1987)

64

• 23 (1998) • Airwolf - Season 2, Episode 3 "Moffett's Ghost" (1984) • Being Erica - Season 1, Episode 1 "Dr. Tom" (2009) • Electric Dreams (1984) • G.O.R.A. (2004) • Der Himmel über Berlin (1987) • Klatwa doliny wezy (1987) • MacGyver - Season 1, Episode 15 "The Enemy Within" (1986) • Micro Men (2009) • Nightmares and Dreamscapes: From the Stories of Stephen King - Episode 4 (2006) • Red Dwarf - Season 1, Episode 5 (1988) • Torrente 2: Misión en Marbella (2001) • Trois Couleurs: Rouge (1994) • Whiz Kids - Episode 6 "Airwave Anarchy" (1983)

64C

• 23 (1998)

Amiga 1000

• Bionic Showdown: The Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman (1989) • Crash and Burn (1990) • Disorderlies (1987) • Food of the Gods II (1989) • Get Smart, Again! (1989) • Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993) • Me Myself I (1999) • Not Quite Human (1987) • Sidekicks (1992) • Sledge Hammer! - Season 1, Episode 22 "The Spa Who Loved Me" (1987)

Amiga 1200

• Bones - Season 3, Episode 7 "Boy in the Time Capsule" (2007)

Amiga 2000

• ALF - Season 4, Episode 4 "We're in the Money" (1989) • Bionic Showdown: The Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman (1989) • The Gods Must Be Crazy II (1989) • Screwball Hotel (1988) • Sidekicks (1992) • The Substitute (1996) • Trancers II (1991) • Wiseguy - Season 1, Episode 14 "Smokey Mountain Requiem" (1988)

Amiga 500

• Betrayed (1988) • Ebba och Didrik - Season 1, Episode 3 (1990) • The Gods Must Be Crazy II (1989) • The Rachel Papers (1989) • Stepfather III (1992)

CBM-II

• The Jewel of the Nile (1985)

PET 2001

• The Adventures of Bob & Doug McKenzie: Strange Brew (1983) • Airwolf - Season 2, Episode 2 "Firestorm" (1984) • Airwolf - Season 2, Episode 12 "Condemned" (1985) • Arrested Development - Season 3 "Family Ties" (2006) • Ashes to Ashes (2008) • Buck Rogers in the 25th Century - Season 2, Episode 6 "Mark of the Saurian" (1981) • The IT Crowd - Season 1 (2006) • The IT Crowd - Season 3 (2008) • Look Around You - Season 1 (2002) • Look Around You - Season 2, Episode 5 "Computers" (2005) • Micro Men (2009) • Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan (1982) • Street Hawk - Season 1, Episode 1 (1985) • Terminator 3 (2003) • Whiz Kids - Episode 6 "Airwave Anarchy" (1983)

Plus/4

• Ebba och Didrik - Season 1, Episode 3 (1990)

SX64

• 23 (1998) • ALF - Season 1, Episode 4 "Pennsylvania 6-5000" (1986)

VIC-20

• Airplane II: The Sequel (1982) • Class of Nuke 'Em High Part II: Subhumanoid Meltdown (1991) • The Philadelphia Experiment (1984) • What Waits Below (1984)

Obviously since we've been discussing 'computers' I opted to leave out the VCS and family since it would be clearly out-gunned in on-screen appearances when compared to the the Ultimax & Commodore-GS consoles

Edited October 11, 2009 by andym00

[atariksi]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

 

No, another fact twisted with a biased mentality and the myth of C64 being more expensive being propated. I purchased my Atari 800 for $899 and around that time C64 was around $500. Just doing some random searches on the internet is not going to help. You have compare prices at same time from start of marketing of C64 and onwards where the starting is more significant. What the heck is the point of finding some expensive prices if the C64 is already flooded the market (i.e., inferior product has already saturated the market and left no choice to the competitor but to drop prices and take losses).

 

not an internet search actually.

 

that was the price they were when i bought mine in june of '85.

 

actually mine was £170 (without the cassette) and c2ns were almost £30 so i bought a "compatible"

 

any other facts on costs u would like to dispute with me?

 

Steve

 

The fact that I am disputing you forgot to address along with your sidekick. I'll requote it.

[atariksi]

Andreas..

Wow, thats a really uninformed and totally incorrect view. It would be hard to be much more wrong than that.

The statement is very correct and 82/84 or so. and yes the c64 stuff basically does not count due to progression and tricks etc. Had atari dev continued obviously it would have been much better. The public though is a but dull and chose the inferior product due only to price.

You may not like "over and over again" but when certain c64'rs do not learn repitition is necessary.

 

It's more marketing (lower prices) and propaganda that promoted the C64. The best product doesn't always get the bigger market share even now. And add to the fact that Atari products were targetted to low-RAM based machines and non-GTIA.

 

See key phrase "marketing (lower prices) and propaganda". Append that to my point made above and you will see that just quoting some price arbitrarily on the internet is meaningless to refute this point. Hint, A800 was being sold when C64 came around.

[atariksi]

Time involved to do the job has nothing to do with machine capabilities.

A precision device needs more care and work, where the cheap knockoff is easy.

 

It has everything to do with them if the machines are essentially having to "carry" the programmer because there wasn't much time allocated to the project; in all of the cases we're talking about, the "cheap knockoff" as you so delicately call it is actually proving itself the more capable machine in that respect...

 

Wrong. It doesn't prove anything about the machine (computer). If the game was written in BASIC, Atari would have been easier to work on. If machine requires moving sprites in all directions, C64 would be an easier one to build on. If machine required overscan, Atari would have been easier to build on. Etc. etc. Depends on which machine was targetted first as well since then the port would be harder than targetting the hardware or built-in features directly.

 

[atariksi]

...

The 64 clearly comes out smelling of roses again, as is usual when there's anything involving the words hi-res, colours and sprites

...

 

Don't think somehow it's a monopoly of C64 during 8-bit Era to have hires (320*200) w/colors and sprites. Your color RAM isn't exactly good for moving those graphical objects in hi-res nor can it easily achieve 384*240 (higher-res). While A8 has to use up sprites to get more colors in hi-res, you have to use up the sprites to get the "higher-res". And repeating the same thing over and over again (as you and others have done) doesn't establish your machine to be superior. I can also repeat shades and CPU speed but A8 has a lot more hardware aspects like some mentioned before:

 

1. CPU Freq 1.78979Mhz

2. Rock solid timing and more accurate (No indeterminate signals to throw off cycle-exactness)

3. Easy overscanning

4. LMS -- easy to access more video memory, mirror images, repeat scanlines, etc.

5. VScroll/HScroll on per scanline basis (8-dir scrolling windows)

6. More priorities and playfields (and GPRIOR mode 0 mostly unexplored)

7. Linear and easy to use high color depth modes (GTIA)

8. Fast keyboard reading

9. Faster joystick I/O and SIO I/O (16-bit reads/writes)

10. Display lists w/various modes (use by themselves or for speeding up screen updates)

11. WSYNC for easier to start writing cycle-exact code

12. DLIs (more optimal than raster IRQs)

13. BOOT Up to cassette files or disk files (without user intervention)

14. A lot more collision detection combinations (60-bits)

15. 4 DACs w/more accurate sampling rate (lower latency)

16. Better interlace (due to more shades to reduce flicker)

17. More colors/shades (bigger palette)

18. Horizontal re-use of hardware registers (much easier)

19. Backward compatible with all A8 computers

20. Easy 2000+ sprites multiplexor...

 

Nor do many of your games use higher res. For slow-processor based machines, it's better to have many lower resolution options since they help to accelerate screen updates. I don't buy the argument that just because something is in higher resolution, it makes it better (see Gyruss discussion). Even most Amiga/ST games are in 320*200 (lower-res) rather than 640*200. If game objects are well-defined in 160*200, then why bother with higher-res. which is more restricted on both machines.

[STE'86]

Atariksi

 

but you bought an 800 and the prices of c64s then i would assume in the uk to be £350. thats the price i remember them being in '83 when i had a Dragon (coco 1 compatible). that price wasnt cheap. it was WAY above the affordable price over in the UK.

 

and if that statement that rockford posted is accurate (and i have no reason to believe its isnt. have you?), then the price of an 800xl in the UK at the end of '84 would have been £130(ish).

 

well seeing as how the 64 took of big in the UK in '85 when they were somewhere between £175 and £199 and again referring to that document the 800xl would have been £130(ish), then the 800xl would have the advantage of being "cheap ass" and not the c64.

 

carry on

[Irgendwer]

bearing in mind that mercenary was the only real "true" 3d game ever produced on it. or hadnt u actually realised that?

 

Steve

 

The fact that you don't know the A8 catalogue of games, doesn't mean that such games do not exist.

[Barnacle boy]

Nor do many of your games use higher res.

 

Really? Would you care to estimate (or simply guess) how many c64 games either use high-res or use a mix high and low? You can ignore games that only use high-res in the score display if you like.

 

I'm curious to see how many you think is 'not many'.

[STE'86]

 

Nor do many of your games use higher res. For slow-processor based machines, it's better to have many lower resolution options since they help to accelerate screen updates. I don't buy the argument that just because something is in higher resolution, it makes it better (see Gyruss discussion). Even most Amiga/ST games are in 320*200 (lower-res) rather than 640*200. If game objects are well-defined in 160*200, then why bother with higher-res. which is more restricted on both machines.

 

oh behave.

 

the use of lower resolutions on the 64, ST, and amiga has nothing to do with processing requirements and everything to do with more available colours in the lower modes.

 

the 64 in "hi res" is basically a speccy mode with sprites. and who would have bought and ST game in 4 colour medium res or 2 colour hi res?

 

Steve

[Irgendwer]

...

so amongst all these mounds of glorious software u were tripping over, would u care to post some of the good stuff thats NOT one of the usual 8 to enlighten us poor unfortunates that dont subscribe to the hype?

...

 

Some posts back, I have supplied lists of high rated C64 games which are better on the A8. There were more than 8 games. But what is a good game depends also from the taste: Crisis Mountain just have a score of 4.2 in Lemon. IMHO it is a good game (esp. on A8), but you have to know the 'instructions'. Reading the comments there, it seems that the 'robbery' lead also to misunderstanding of games.

 

BTW: I like also "The Count" (very nice 4-colour graphics ), but you have to like adventures then. Seems there is no C64 version?

[STE'86]

bearing in mind that mercenary was the only real "true" 3d game ever produced on it. or hadnt u actually realised that?

 

Steve

 

The fact that you don't know the A8 catalogue of games, doesn't mean that such games do not exist.

 

fire away then. (edit my apologies u have FS2 aswell) anymore?

 

Steve

 

edit: i have looked at crisis mountain. what i want to see are games that "look" good that arent the "glorious 8" there are plenty of rubbish looking games that play really well on all formats (pete and i played "space taxi" for hours on the 64) however i keep getting told that there are great looking games out there so i want to see them.

Edited October 11, 2009 by STE'86