Atari v Commodore

[PeteD]

No, 50FPS is always better than 25FPS. If faster framerates weren't better, you wouldn't have spent so much time banging on about how the C64 version of RoF was slower.

 

I'm just curious: How would a 50 FPS rate game would look like on a PAL system? Don't the systems put out a 25Hz full screen? There must be 'comb-artefacts' due to interlacing if they would update the screen with 50Hz?

 

Not sure how the PAL output on a C64 works, I do seem to remember it being weird and not doing the whole odd/even fields thing so therefore no combing. I certainly never noticed any either on a TV or monitor.

 

*edit*

From what I can find with a quick google its something to do with the C64 outputting a 312 line not 312.5 line frame so there is no 1/2 line shift on the odd frame so the odd frame displays the same as the even one. hmmm It also seems that's why you get that reasonably serious "blackline" thing going on with PAL (try it in an emu with PAL emulation switched on to see what I mean).

 

 

Pete

Edited October 16, 2009 by PeteD

[TMR]

...

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.

Yes, but comparing A8 and C64 in this situation: When increasing the needed CPU processing the C64 would f.e. need to drop framerate from 25 fps to 12 fps, but the A8 can still keep 25 fps, and needs to drop to 12 fps far later.

 

That's not comparing the C64 and A8, that's comparing a specific situation on both, but if we're just talking about "C64 Games often get faster by using bigger steps for the movement, to compensate the slower CPU" that statement is a generalisation and at no point talks about a drop in framerate does it? All it says is "to make stuff go faster, the C64 programmers add bigger numbers" and, as i bloody said, that's a constant across any 8-bit that is synchronised to the frame. Yes that's a constant, my point is why single the C64 out for it.

 

By adding the bit about refresh speeds, you're changing the subject.

 

Not that I want to flame you, but to me this just sounds like double standards. When somewhere in this thread someone says something postive for C64 or something negative for A8 I don't hear you. But when it's the other way around, here comes TMR.

 

So now i'm meant to be the only unbiased, objective person in this thread... i wish people would bloody tell me these things, i thought it was allowed to be like everybody else!!

 

Of course i don't respond to everything, i have something that vaguely resembles a bloody life! i respond to things i personally consider wrong, so if someone says something positive about the C64 that i agree with i don't usually reply, if someone says something negative about the A8 that i agree with i don't usually reply and even in the reverse cases i don't always reply to disagree.

Edited October 16, 2009 by TMR

[Rockford]

...

Okey then, I' ve posted 45 games so far (there will be more ) so, could you please find other 45 C64 titles with a higher 'Lemon-rating' where the Atari version is even better. Good luck

 

You can find them already in this thread. I noticed you are lazy, but please take a look to 'Allas' posts and mine. (It would be much easier if we had a list... )

First it's you who is lazy. You see I post my comparisons every day, while you made your statement and then you have Allas doing your work for you. Secondly you are wrong. These comments are from Allas comparisons: "A classic game, both versions had been programmed equal, only differs from color choice.", "Practically both versions are the same. I prefer the Atari because his colors combinations along of different screen levels." "Practically is equal on both, but there are some little issues with the color on Atari version that make the difference" "Again colors seems to be the same, but Atari has the right tone." etc. According to Allas a lot of ATARI games are better because of colour tone... ROTFL Anyway, could you please move your a.. and prove me wrong. Good luck again

Edited October 16, 2009 by Rockford

[TMR]

Yep - I just sat through an episode of Jeremy Kyle (with my wife) and it's a good idea. Mind you - most of his guests looked like they'd already had a good kicking...

 

Yeah, i don't deliberately watch it but my partner has it on and it's like a rather hideous form of hypnosis... you wander past the television and can't bloody help yourself! What i still don't get is why there is apparently not even one example of somebody making a dive for Jeremy though, a few times i've seen him really take a pop at someone and they just sit there - okay, perhaps they edit it, but hasn't even one of them cleared that distance before security can respond and got a swing in to leave a bruise for the rest of the show?!

 

Anyway - sorry if I seemed to over-react. It just goes to show that there's no such thing as irony on the Internet! However, I'm prepared to blame the flu for being touchy.

 

Eeek, flu! [Runs and hides!]

[Irgendwer]

According to Allas a lot of ATARI games are better because of colour tone... ROTFL Anyway, could you please move your a.. and prove me wrong. Good luck again

 

Generous as I am, I allow you to put these out and even allow you take the weak 'Gyruss' comparison and 'green cloud game' into consideration. You still find more than your entries.

Verify your statements!

[Rybags]

PAL... blackline???

 

NTSC gets it much worse.

 

And "combing artifacts"... don't exist on either machine. PAL 312 line output works just like NTSC 262 lines... you get a "Progressive" display with each field identical in construction to the previous/next.

 

You don't really get combing artifacts on a CRT anyway - thanks to the persistence of the phosphors and the fact they tend to "bloom" a bit, ie occupy pixel spaces outside their boundaries, you get the appearance of smooth transition between fields, even though only half the display is being updated at a time.

[emkay]

No, 50FPS is always better than 25FPS. If faster framerates weren't better, you wouldn't have spent so much time banging on about how the C64 version of RoF was slower.

 

I'm just curious: How would a 50 FPS rate game would look like on a PAL system? Don't the systems put out a 25Hz full screen? There must be 'comb-artefacts' due to interlacing if they would update the screen with 50Hz?

 

Yes.

NTSC allows 30 FPS and PAL 25FPS without interlace. That's why games like Yoomp! were 100% fluent there.

The main problem, when games get apparrently not fluent, the quantisation gets lost, or at least slower than the desired framerate.

[Rockford]

According to Allas a lot of ATARI games are better because of colour tone... ROTFL Anyway, could you please move your a.. and prove me wrong. Good luck again

 

Generous as I am, I allow you to put these out and even allow you take the weak 'Gyruss' comparison and 'green cloud game' into consideration. You still find more than your entries.

Verify your statements!

Why me ? After all, It's your idea and system, so support it. I do my work day by day. OK, then let's cut Gyruss as a controversial example. You have still 44 (and more will come ) games to find. Go on, prove me wrong, make some tables with Lemon percentages (you are good at this) and show everybody here those games. Or maybe you have alreaady checked it ? And what, it's turned out to be a daunting and impossible task. Go on, be a tough atarian. Don't be afraid and we will see who will win

Edited October 16, 2009 by Rockford

[atariksi]

I give up, same old round and round. Your opinion is right and nobody else is allowed to disagree (you PROVED it after all). It's ALL down to opinion, the whole of the last few posts. Your opinion that more colours is better or more beautiful etc and mine that it isn't but somehow you're right and I'm not.

 

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just trying to get you to admit you also aren't RIGHT because I'm allowed a choice. You're also trying to alter the meanings of my post again (I didn't say better for the "world", just better for the individual, as in personal opinion) so what's the point in continuing when you can't just be straight with me. If you think you aren't read your replies again if you still think you aren't then please go back to ignoring me because it'll save both of us some time..

 

btw, C64 pictures are NOT ugly, that's your opinion, not fact and every time you say it as if it was outright fact I lose even more respect for your opinion as I think other people are.

 

 

Pete

 

You are allowed a choice but that has nothing to do with the objectivity of beauty based on colors and shades. I am comparing not just declaring C64 pictures to be ugly. C64 pictures would be more beautiful (less ugly) if it had a bigger palette. You write some game targetting a particular system and you have to take into account objectivity of beauty that in general people will see the game where it's beautiful. And in the statement I made about distorted colors, that's the abuse of colors so that's where more colors and more shades does not make it more beautiful. In that case 8 color image with accurate colors/shades is better than 16 color image where colors are substitutes of shades or distorted in another fashion.

[Irgendwer]

Why me ? After all, It's your idea and system, so support it. I do my work day by day. OK, then let's cut Gyruss as a controversial example. You have still 44 (and more will come ) games to find. Go on, prove me wrong, make some tables with Lemon percentages (you are good at this) and show everybody here those games. Or maybe you have alredy checked it ? And what, it's turned out to be a daunting and impossible task. Go on, be a tough atarian.

 

You're just funny. If you do your work with the same care like posting here...

Just for you I moved my a... (astral body, that was the word you meant, correct?) and

made a small compilation of the contents:

 

1. Archon

2. Blue Max

3. Chuckie Egg

4. Encounter

5. Koronis Rift

6. M.U.L.E.

7. Pitfall II

8. Rescue on Fractalus

9. River Raid

10. Seven Cities of Gold

11. Stealth

12. The GACC Road Race

13. Zenji

14. F-15 Strike Eagle

15. Wayout

16. Mercenary (EFT)

17. Mercenary (TSC)

18. Frogger II

19. Alternate Reality (TC)

20. Alternate Reality (TD)

21. O'Riley's Mine

22. Mr. Robot

23. Oils Well

24. Space Shuttle

25. Colossus Chess 4

26. Chess 7.0

27. Jet-Boot-Jack

28. Popeye

29. Spy Hunter

30. Crystal Castles

31. Karateka

32. Ralley Speedway

33. Moon Patrol

34. Flight Sim. II

35. Star Wars

36. Floyd of the Jungle

37. Battlezone

38. Tomahawk

39. Flighter Pilot

40. Attack of the Mutant Camels

41. Ballblazer

42. Star Raiders II

43. Elektra Glide

44. Dropzone

45. Pole Position

46. The Eidolon

47. Pastfinder

48. AMAUROTE

49. (stop this for now, there are even more in this thread)

 

More will come? It seems that you have more time than telling me. I don't care. This is getting to silly. (Hey, I forgot 'Donkey Kong'!)

[atariksi]

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

 

You heard it here first folks! The line between beautiful and ugly falls precisely between the 800 and the 64.

 

I am not sure what you are reading into it. I mean so many people paint the Mona Lisa yet there's an objective standard that they have to match-- Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. So the world has an analog palette and the more accurate the mapping, the more beautiful the results. Even A8 can be considered ugly in one sense there's only 16 shades (32 in interlace) since you can see the gradiences whereas 256+ shades are less noticeable. Just instantiating the principle for these two machines.

[atariksi]

 

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

 

if so it does beg the question:

 

why do the developers of G2F (which u all seem to quote as tho it was the most awesome software available) use these "ugly" c64 images to demo their software of what the Atari should/could/might be able to display?

 

its a very odd choice on their part if anyone except you thought they were ugly wouldnt u say? (have u actually considered its JUST you?)

 

and on the subject of many shades, it is i'm afraid supremely boring to draw an image with many colours simply because half the fun is whether u can actually pull it off with a limited palette. when u know it can be done because u have 256/truecolour why bother? u may as well use a scan or a photo.

 

Steve

 

Logic does not care as to how many people call it ugly or beautiful. I am not calling your C64 graphics stuff ugly but claiming it'll be less ugly with a bigger palette and without distorted colors. If the earth is round, then regardless of how many people look out the window and claim "it looks flat to me", it remains round. I am not familiar with G2F stuff. It may be fun to do things with a limited palette, but that has nothing to do with the my statement that the world is more beautiful with more shades and more colors.

[Rockford]

Why me ? After all, It's your idea and system, so support it. I do my work day by day. OK, then let's cut Gyruss as a controversial example. You have still 44 (and more will come ) games to find. Go on, prove me wrong, make some tables with Lemon percentages (you are good at this) and show everybody here those games. Or maybe you have alredy checked it ? And what, it's turned out to be a daunting and impossible task. Go on, be a tough atarian.

 

You're just funny. If you do your work with the same care like posting here...

Just for you I moved my a... (astral body, that was the word you meant, correct?) and

made a small compilation of the contents:

 

1. Archon

2. Blue Max

3. Chuckie Egg

4. Encounter

5. Koronis Rift

6. M.U.L.E.

7. Pitfall II

8. Rescue on Fractalus

9. River Raid

10. Seven Cities of Gold

11. Stealth

12. The GACC Road Race

13. Zenji

14. F-15 Strike Eagle

15. Wayout

16. Mercenary (EFT)

17. Mercenary (TSC)

18. Frogger II

19. Alternate Reality (TC)

20. Alternate Reality (TD)

21. O'Riley's Mine

22. Mr. Robot

23. Oils Well

24. Space Shuttle

25. Colossus Chess 4

26. Chess 7.0

27. Jet-Boot-Jack

28. Popeye

29. Spy Hunter

30. Crystal Castles

31. Karateka

32. Ralley Speedway

33. Moon Patrol

34. Flight Sim. II

35. Star Wars

36. Floyd of the Jungle

37. Battlezone

38. Tomahawk

39. Flighter Pilot

40. Attack of the Mutant Camels

41. Ballblazer

42. Star Raiders II

43. Elektra Glide

44. Dropzone

45. Pole Position

46. The Eidolon

47. Pastfinder

48. AMAUROTE

49. (stop this for now, there are even more in this thread)

 

More will come? It seems that you have more time than telling me. I don't care. This is getting to silly. (Hey, I forgot 'Donkey Kong'!)

Wait a second, but you forgot to compare percentages from Lemon. Are you trying to cheat ? Besides enlighten us please why for example: pastfinder, spy hunter, mr robot, oils well, road race, seven cities of gold, river raid, blue max, archon are better on Atari....because of the colour tone.. ? ROTFL

Edited October 16, 2009 by Rockford

[emkay]

Wait a second, but you forgot to compare percentages from Lemon. Are you trying to cheat ? Besides enlighten us please why for example: pastfinder, spy huunter, mr robot, oils well, road race, seven cities of gold, river raid, blue max, archon are better on Atari....because of the colour tone.. ? ROTFL

 

 

Archon , yes

Road Race, yes

Seven Cities of Gold, yes

 

simply better due to the available palette already.

[atariksi]

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

 

You heard it here first folks! The line between beautiful and ugly falls precisely between the 800 and the 64.

 

[scratches head] so that makes the C64DTV beautiful...? A8 style 256 colour palette with sixteen colours a scanline before the CPU needs to get involved, the C64's hardware sprites, the option of either approach for bitmapped graphics, a variation on the A8's memory window and a C64-style DMA to get at expansion memory, what is essentially a reduced power SID and all strapped to a 6502... and if it's a DTV2 or better, full-blown 8BPP bitmap and character modes and a two source blitter.

 

You mean the C64DTV *pictures* more beautiful, yeah, but then you are no longer in 8-bit era. You then have to take into account IIGS, Amiga, etc. In 8-bit era, you mainly have the PC with it's CGA, Apple with it's 16 colors, C64 with it's 16 colors, Coleco, and A8.

[Rockford]

Wait a second, but you forgot to compare percentages from Lemon. Are you trying to cheat ? Besides enlighten us please why for example: pastfinder, spy huunter, mr robot, oils well, road race, seven cities of gold, river raid, blue max, archon are better on Atari....because of the colour tone.. ? ROTFL

 

 

Archon , yes

Road Race, yes

Seven Cities of Gold, yes

 

simply better due to the available palette already.

So Atari handles more colours on screen or just different shades of the same colour ? And what about the remaining games river raid, spy hunter etc. ?

[atariksi]

This thread never ceases to amaze me, and not just by virtue of its astounding longevity. It seems to have turned into an argument about aesthetics, and aesthetics really are subjective. Personally, I love black and white films. I hate colourised black and white films. That said, there are many colour films I enjoy. I used to draw portraits in pencil: pure monochrome. I've spent hundreds of pounds on fancy digital cameras and I often end up purposely removing the colour and upping the grain. Why? It looks nice.

...

You're confusing two different things here. You may have emotional attachment to old style photography/video but that has nothing to do with the fact that more color and more shades make the image/video more beautiful. You are just preferring your attachment over the beauty of the colors/shades.

 

More colour might equal more beauty to some: to others it won't. It really depends how that extra colour is used. Sometimes it's used appallingly badly on the Atari...

To keep things objective, I stated that without abusing the colors. It's not subjective as "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" since that was made before digitization, takes into account factors like form, expression, etc. not just colors/shades. If two artists paint the same picture with same palette, and you prefer one over the other that's subjective. But if you gave one artist 16 colors and the other 256-- the objective factor comes in that he will wind up painting things that are ugly regardless of his skill.

[atariksi]

...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

 

If Van Gogh art is beautiful than those distorted colors are considered normal for that artwork. Nonetheless, if he had 256 distorted colors in his artwork and that same image was rendered on 16 color system, it will be uglier. You can only claim it's distorted if it's not representative of the original. So when representing the analog imagery of the world on a computer (even the artists imagination contain analog imagery-- has a Platonic existence), the more colors/shades you have, the more beautiful the results. It's objective.

[roland p]

Well, if a big palette means great graphics then the atari 2600 should have 'better' graphics than the C64

Which ofcourse isn't true, you just can't compare those figures. The specs are built around the bandwith limitations of the RAM (many colors > low resolution, few colors > high resolution, charmode etc.). Some may prefer one, some prefer the other.

[STE'86]

 

To keep things objective, I stated that without abusing the colors. It's not subjective as "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" since that was made before digitization, takes into account factors like form, expression, etc. not just colors/shades. If two artists paint the same picture with same palette, and you prefer one over the other that's subjective. But if you gave one artist 16 colors and the other 256-- the objective factor comes in that he will wind up painting things that are ugly regardless of his skill.

 

that is such a load of complete b*llocks its laughable.

 

so, more colours will always win out?

 

RUBBISH.

 

Witness the MANY Atari ST and amiga pieces of artwork that are compositionally and artistically challenged compared with the best 8bit stuff in the late 80s. and the fact that Dave Thorpe used to do commercial Spectrum artwork that knocked alot of the c64 stuff into a cocked hat.

 

your opinion is not defensible and is seemingly only held by yourself in your own little world.

 

quite simply u have painted yourself into a corner because u cannot just admit its your own opinion. why can't u do this?

 

its because as u well know, several pages back u denied to TMR and PeteD that any such subjectivity existed. so in effect u have stated the fact that "i am right. everyone else is wrong because subjectivity and personal preference doesnt exist"

 

now u are just squirming around as usual trying to make everyone get bored with your nonesense (which even Albert thought was nonesense didnt he?)

 

no. i dont think this time i will let it go.

 

Steve

[flashjazzcat]

This thread never ceases to amaze me, and not just by virtue of its astounding longevity. It seems to have turned into an argument about aesthetics, and aesthetics really are subjective. Personally, I love black and white films. I hate colourised black and white films. That said, there are many colour films I enjoy. I used to draw portraits in pencil: pure monochrome. I've spent hundreds of pounds on fancy digital cameras and I often end up purposely removing the colour and upping the grain. Why? It looks nice.

...

You're confusing two different things here. You may have emotional attachment to old style photography/video but that has nothing to do with the fact that more color and more shades make the image/video more beautiful. You are just preferring your attachment over the beauty of the colors/shades.

My point is that "more colour and more shades" do not automatically make the image more beautiful. They make it more colourful. You, in fact, may be confusing the words "colourful" and "beautiful".

 

More colour might equal more beauty to some: to others it won't. It really depends how that extra colour is used. Sometimes it's used appallingly badly on the Atari...

To keep things objective, I stated that without abusing the colors. It's not subjective as "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" since that was made before digitization, takes into account factors like form, expression, etc. not just colors/shades. If two artists paint the same picture with same palette, and you prefer one over the other that's subjective. But if you gave one artist 16 colors and the other 256-- the objective factor comes in that he will wind up painting things that are ugly regardless of his skill.

I disagree basically with the last point... but let's get down to brass tacks. What if the artist with 16 colours had 1:1 AR pixels at 320x200 while the guy with 256 had 2:1 pixels at 80x100 with dark horizontal bands across every second line of his canvas? OK - so that's in GTIA mode (the only mode where all 256 colours are available at all: the rest of the time, we have 128 to choose from). Perhaps he'd be better off in one of the higher res modes, wisely using a smaller number of colours from the available palette. That might look better...

Edited October 16, 2009 by flashjazzcat

[saehn]

If Van Gogh art is beautiful than those distorted colors are considered normal for that artwork. Nonetheless, if he had 256 distorted colors in his artwork and that same image was rendered on 16 color system, it will be uglier. You can only claim it's distorted if it's not representative of the original. So when representing the analog imagery of the world on a computer (even the artists imagination contain analog imagery-- has a Platonic existence), the more colors/shades you have, the more beautiful the results. It's objective.

 

That's got to be the most ridiculously stubborn thing you've ever written in this forum, and I've seen you write a lot of things like that. You have no significant arts background, or you would not write something as ignorant as that.

 

beauty - The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.

Obviously (to any balanced perspective) this indicate a high level of individual taste. Beauty is a subjective concept. It is not quantifiable. What is beautiful to one person may not be beautiful to others. More colors do not necessarily make something beautiful. A black and white photo can be more beautiful to someone than a color version of the same photo. You think emotional response invalidates that perspective? Defining something as "beautiful" IS an emotional response.

 

News flash: you are not right about everything. You are often wrong, just like everyone else. You would be a much more balanced person if you would admit your mistakes to yourself and others.

[Retro Rogue]

Sorry, this just has to be done - the ultimate comparison:

 

[flashjazzcat]

Sorry, this just has to be done - the ultimate comparison:

 

LOL!

[potatohead]

:thumbsup: