Atari v Commodore

[Rockford]

45 - PRO MOUNTAIN BIKE SIMULATOR

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

 

ATARI

ATARI

 

Actually apart from the title screen the A8 version looks far better. The centre part is clearly much better on the A8 with the nice road in the middle and teh riders look really stupid on the C64 version, like fat little girls on push bikes. The riders on the A8 version actually look like proper cyclists.

 

 

Oh my......ROTFL

 

 

 

A8 wins easy here for me. (and yes I have played them too )

I really doubt it. you wouldn't have written such nonsense

Edited October 15, 2009 by Rockford

[STE'86]

now i am completely at a loss.

 

Atariksi says "If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are."

 

so therefore "64 pictures are ugly"

 

I REPLY "If they are so ugly why do the devs of G2F use them as demos as what u can accomplish with their app on the atari"

 

and you dont get it?

 

seriously?????

 

Steve

Well, according to how I understand linguistic logic I'd say atariksi's words "If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are." contain the word construction "as {adjective} as" , so it is a comparison.

 

Then you made this remark: "so therefore "64 pictures are ugly". This isn't a comparison anymore. It's a statement.

 

However, I might agree, the linguistic 'style' of atariksi's words might be chosen a bit unfortunate. BUT, is he the only one? When Rockford uses the SAME words (see his last comparison) I didn't hear anyone complain (yet).

 

no sorry u are wrong he meant it EXACTLY how i took it.

 

if u just wanted to say "better" or "even better" then u could but he specifically says "as ugly" which means he considers them "ugly" so my statement about the G2F devs opinion differing stands.

 

sorry but u are in this case mistaken. there is no doubt.

 

Steve

[PeteD]

now i am completely at a loss.

 

Atariksi says "If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are."

 

so therefore "64 pictures are ugly"

 

I REPLY "If they are so ugly why do the devs of G2F use them as demos as what u can accomplish with their app on the atari"

 

and you dont get it?

 

seriously?????

 

Steve

Well, according to how I understand linguistic logic I'd say atariksi's words "If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are." contain the word construction "as {adjective} as" , so it is a comparison.

 

Then you made this remark: "so therefore "64 pictures are ugly". This isn't a comparison anymore. It's a statement.

 

However, I might agree, the linguistic 'style' of atariksi's words might be chosen a bit unfortunate. BUT, is he the only one? When Rockford uses the SAME words (see his last comparison) I didn't hear anyone complain (yet).

 

But then if you'd followed the whole thread today you'd see not far before that Atariski proclaim (for at least the 2nd time).

 

The world is more beautiful without C64's distorted color images.

 

I think after reading things like that you can guess what his real meaning of "wouldn't be as ugly" is.

 

 

Pete

[The_Laird]

Look at the screenshots you posted Rockford!!! You have clearly shot yourself in the foot with this one! You have to love them green clouds on the C64 version.

 

Clear win for Atari

[analmux]

...But then if you'd followed the whole thread today you'd see not far before that Atariski proclaim (for at least the 2nd time).

The world is more beautiful without C64's distorted color images.

 

 

I think after reading things like that you can guess what his real meaning of "wouldn't be as ugly" is.

Hmmm, there's again another interpretation . What atariksi's saying doesn't mean ALL C64 pictures are distorted. Saying that distorted color images (of C64) exist is a complete side-topic. We could argue how many C64 pictures are distorted, and which ones do benefit from some 'untraditional' colouring. However, this is subjective.

 

Van Gogh made paintings with distorted colours (on purpose!), and whether the world is a more beautiful place with or without them is kind of subjective. However, many agree Van Gogh did the right thing.

 

It's another topic to come to an agreement about exactly WHICH C64 pictures are distorted. To my opinion there are indeed some distorted pictures, f.e. using green for clouds, or yellow for cheeks, and some times I don't like them, just by the effect. But, other times it can give some positive artistic effects. However, maybe it's just again another point people can agree on. So, it's subjective.

 

Atariksi's sentence is of course not an objective statement, just a subjective one. At least I hope he realizes that .

 

 

...But, let's get back on topic, because Rockford's pictures are far more interesting

[atarian63]

45 - PRO MOUNTAIN BIKE SIMULATOR

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

 

ATARI

ATARI

try it on the real hardware, I think the A8 looks better and does play better..

[PeteD]

...But then if you'd followed the whole thread today you'd see not far before that Atariski proclaim (for at least the 2nd time).

The world is more beautiful without C64's distorted color images.

 

 

I think after reading things like that you can guess what his real meaning of "wouldn't be as ugly" is.

Hmmm, there's again another interpretation . What atariksi's saying doesn't mean ALL C64 pictures are distorted. Saying that distorted color images (of C64) exist is a complete side-topic. We could argue how many C64 pictures are distorted, and which ones do benefit from some 'untraditional' colouring. However, this is subjective.

 

Van Gogh made paintings with distorted colours (on purpose!), and whether the world is a more beautiful place with or without them is kind of subjective. However, many agree Van Gogh did the right thing.

 

It's another topic to come to an agreement about exactly WHICH C64 pictures are distorted. To my opinion there are indeed some distorted pictures, f.e. using green for clouds, or yellow for cheeks, and some times I don't like them, just by the effect. But, other times it can give some positive artistic effects. However, maybe it's just again another point people can agree on. So, it's subjective.

 

Atariksi's sentence is of course not an objective statement, just a subjective one. At least I hope he realizes that .

 

 

...But, let's get back on topic, because Rockford's pictures are far more interesting

 

Well you're kind of preaching to the choir with most of that post. I tried to point out earlier to Atariksi that a lot of artists used less colours (*edit* as in odd/unusual ones) either through choice or necessity and that didn't make their pictures any less beautiful. I think he kind of ignored that part of my post. But really, there's not much need to guess his meanings, it's not like he hides his contempt for C64 graphics, and that, (as I keep trying to point out to him) is his right but that doesn't mean anyone else agrees.

 

The world is more beautiful if the C64 didn't exist with it color-distorted pictures.

 

Just another quote of his. Once again he's totally entitled to his opinion but when he uses it over and over as if it somehow proves the A8 is better it starts to grate somewhat..

 

 

 

Agreed, back on topic. Those C64 sprites kind of DO look like little fat girls

 

 

Pete

Edited October 15, 2009 by PeteD

[Rockford]

Look at the screenshots you posted Rockford!!! You have clearly shot yourself in the foot with this one! You have to love them green clouds on the C64 version.

 

Clear win for Atari

If ugly low-res graphics and slower gameplay is better, then I shot myself in the foot indeed LOL eh, atarians you never stop surprising me

[atarian63]

...But then if you'd followed the whole thread today you'd see not far before that Atariski proclaim (for at least the 2nd time).

The world is more beautiful without C64's distorted color images.

 

 

I think after reading things like that you can guess what his real meaning of "wouldn't be as ugly" is.

Hmmm, there's again another interpretation . What atariksi's saying doesn't mean ALL C64 pictures are distorted. Saying that distorted color images (of C64) exist is a complete side-topic. We could argue how many C64 pictures are distorted, and which ones do benefit from some 'untraditional' colouring. However, this is subjective.

 

Van Gogh made paintings with distorted colours (on purpose!), and whether the world is a more beautiful place with or without them is kind of subjective. However, many agree Van Gogh did the right thing.

 

It's another topic to come to an agreement about exactly WHICH C64 pictures are distorted. To my opinion there are indeed some distorted pictures, f.e. using green for clouds, or yellow for cheeks, and some times I don't like them, just by the effect. But, other times it can give some positive artistic effects. However, maybe it's just again another point people can agree on. So, it's subjective.

 

Atariksi's sentence is of course not an objective statement, just a subjective one. At least I hope he realizes that .

 

 

...But, let's get back on topic, because Rockford's pictures are far more interesting

Actually his bias picture selections are slipping up. Though you can depend on him for some one sided,distorted trolling

[Bryan]

Some thoughts...

 

If we were to merely compare games on each platform then we're really not discussing hardware, but rather the accomplishments of software programmers.

 

If we were to discuss hardware then no piece of software could conclusively prove superiority, but rather the existence of capability.

 

What we fall into the trap of doing is selectively using software to try to prove superiority which is often intellectually dishonest. We choose titles to support or positions rather than to build a bigger picture of capability.

 

I respect those who can give and take in this thread and try to tune out those who continually seek to confuse the issue or otherwise derail civil discussion.

[+wood_jl]

Atari A8 Frogger Vs C64 Frogger.

 

Already been done. Thanks for the stereo view though. Should we cross our eyes and pretend the vids are in 3d?

 

 

That's Frogger 2 - not as fun and not a classic. Original Frogger rocks, though.

[Barnacle boy]

Doh! Linked to the wrong one.

 

That should have been:

 

Already been done!

[Retro Rogue]

Ok, bunch of things to address from a bunch of people from a bunch of posts. Doing it all in one post to cut down space:

 

I'm thankful, Commodore got the rights on the Amiga. So History didn't repeat itself. The better design got shipped well, even if more expensive.

 

Even if Atari had released their console/computer based on Amiga technology, Amiga still would have had theirs and still could have licensed it to Commodore or anyone else. Theoretically, you could have had competing Amiga products on the market from several different companies.

 

1979 was surely the nail in the coffin for Atari. As a company they no longer valued their world-class R&D talent and instead thought they could survive on hype and marketing alone. For the next few years they would continue to repackage their existing technologies.

 

Only for a few years, until the 1200XL debacle. Then they were doing world class R&D again, and yes 68000 based computers and consoles.

 

 

I find that this interview is really interesting, http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/jayminerinterview.html

 

Thanks for the link. Even though it's only a paragraph in the article, it's good to see him telling the truth about the Atari deal rather than regurgitating RJ Mical's BS as he did sometimes in his later years.

 

I found another quote to be really interesting - Jay says that the original design only had 320 pixel colour ( even in 640 mode ) - and the Commodore guys fixed that. So it sound's like the Video side was an evolution of the Atari 8 bit NTSC centric design - and HAM dropped out of the keep colour, change luminance stuff.

 

Good insight. In actuality, that was an issue that caused some concern at Atari Inc. when Jay and Dave Morse first approached them in '83. They were worried about the Amiga design infringing on some of the patents from Jay's earlier work at Atari.

Edited October 16, 2009 by wgungfu

[emkay]

45 - PRO MOUNTAIN BIKE SIMULATOR

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

 

ATARI

ATARI

 

Hmmm, now I see.

The 'clouds' in the C64 version picture are green. In the A8 version they are white. But still the A8 version's gfx is 'ugly'

 

 

The only ridiculous stuff here its the "Rasters" used in the C64 version, while in the A8 version not even a single DLI is used. Some guys must have been really "head hitten" when producing this software.

And, well, I'm not sure whether the "slower" working in such games is a bad thing.

In theory, the lower resolution makes it easier to handle the speed "faster". Sometimes we really should look behind the game-mechanics. C64 Games often get faster by using bigger steps for the movement, to compensate the slower CPU.

[pseudografx]

The screenshot of the atari version also uses a wrong palette which makes it look quite dull; here is how it looks with a more exact palette (OlivierP.pal):

 

Compare to the original version:

[TMR]

Well, according to how I understand linguistic logic I'd say atariksi's words "If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are." contain the word construction "as {adjective} as" , so it is a comparison.

 

Then you made this remark: "so therefore "64 pictures are ugly". This isn't a comparison anymore. It's a statement.

 

The key phrase is "C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are" - that's stating that all C64 pictures are ugly, not a specific image or a series but every single one of them. It isn't a comparison as such, more a generalisation.

 

When Rockford uses the SAME words (see his last comparison) I didn't hear anyone complain (yet).

 

When Rockford describes the graphics in Pro Mountain Bike as being ugly, that charge is aimed only at the one game and that isn't the same thing as tarring all A8 graphics with the ugly brush. Nobody complains about the generalisation there because he hasn't made one.

[TMR]

The only ridiculous stuff here its the "Rasters" used in the C64 version, while in the A8 version not even a single DLI is used. Some guys must have been really "head hitten" when producing this software.

 

Apart from the title page, there appear to be less splits on the C64 version than the A8 one.

 

i've just had a thought about why the graphics were redrawn, if the C64 version's font was using over 128 characters it wouldn't have been possible to port it directly without trying to rejuggle character use and it may well be that there simply wasn't the space.

 

C64 Games often get faster by using bigger steps for the movement, to compensate the slower CPU.

 

Pretty much all 8-bits do that on object movement, at least the ones synchronised to the screen refresh like the C64 and A8 do; if the objects in Mirax Force start going faster, the value being subtracted from their X position has been increased and they're moving in bigger steps.

[Irgendwer]

(HUGE NUMBER HERE) - WAYOUT

 

C64

C64

 

The Atari version has better graphics (more and better colours) and works smoothly . The C64 version has ugly graphics and works much slower . C64 lost again.

 

Atari

Atari

[andym00]

C64 Games often get faster by using bigger steps for the movement, to compensate the slower CPU.

 

Pretty much all 8-bits do that on object movement, at least the ones synchronised to the screen refresh like the C64 and A8 do; if the objects in Mirax Force start going faster, the value being subtracted from their X position has been increased and they're moving in bigger steps.

 

You have a degree of patience that would make any saint envious..

I bow down to you

[TMR]

You have a degree of patience that would make any saint envious..

I bow down to you

 

See previous comment about masochism. =-)

[Rockford]

(HUGE NUMBER HERE) - WAYOUT

 

 

The Atari version has better graphics (more and better colours) and works smoothly . The C64 version has ugly graphics and works much slower . C64 lost again.

 

 

Hi there, Irgendwer. Nice to see you alive and kicking dude. BTW, what happened to your "super sophisticated percentage system" ? ROTFL

[emkay]

The only ridiculous stuff here its the "Rasters" used in the C64 version, while in the A8 version not even a single DLI is used. Some guys must have been really "head hitten" when producing this software.

 

Apart from the title page, there appear to be less splits on the C64 version than the A8 one.

 

i've just had a thought about why the graphics were redrawn, if the C64 version's font was using over 128 characters it wouldn't have been possible to port it directly without trying to rejuggle character use and it may well be that there simply wasn't the space.

 

 

You know that you're talking about a simple horizontal scrolling game. Any thougts about "character juggling" is wasting thoughts.

 

 

C64 Games often get faster by using bigger steps for the movement, to compensate the slower CPU.

 

Pretty much all 8-bits do that on object movement, at least the ones synchronised to the screen refresh like the C64 and A8 do; if the objects in Mirax Force start going faster, the value being subtracted from their X position has been increased and they're moving in bigger steps.

 

We know that. But appearently Rockford was mixing "faster" with "raw" gameplay.

Edited October 16, 2009 by emkay

[TMR]

The Atari version has better graphics (more and better colours) and works smoothly . The C64 version has ugly graphics and works much slower . C64 lost again.

 

At this point i think someone is meant to point out that it's too early in the C64's lifespan for the programmers to have done a better job... look, can you take it as read that someone did and save us becoming repetitive like the "not golden age" thing? Ta. =-)

 

(By the way, "more and better colours"... y'probably should've found a screenshot that showed off a more colourful part of the game because the C64 screen appears to have one more colour than the A8 in the shots you've used...?)

[Rockford]

(HUGE NUMBER HERE) - WAYOUT

 

 

C64

 

The Atari version has better graphics (more and better colours) and works smoothly . The C64 version has ugly graphics and works much slower . C64 lost again.

 

 

Atari

BTW, try to count colours in these pictures, you know, just for kicks. These are from the game, right.. ? Oh boy... ROTFL

[emkay]

At this point i think someone is meant to point out that it's too early in the C64's lifespan for the programmers to have done a better job... look, can you take it as read that someone did and save us becoming repetitive like the "not golden age" thing? Ta. =-)

 

 

Again wrong here.

The Atari version is one year older. The coder has learned in that time to make some things better on the C64. It's similar to Rescue on Fractalus.

One example is the compass. The coder used "better" colours for the directions. Not to tell about the "simple" Gr. 0 lines.

 

Well, as we might see, to have more colours sometimes means, the "artist" has to take care about the correct ones. Having only "some" colours restricts the coder to use what that hardware has to offer. Sometimes it seems to be better to restrict other's thoughts

 

Wayout is simply faster due to the double scanline mode, and has nothing to do with some "superior" coding. The superior coding is done on the C64 for sure.