atarian63 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Today another classic. 50 - GORF C64 C64 C64 The C64 version has better sound, hi-res graphics, sprites, and more colours. The Atari version has ugly low-res graphics, one-coloured and small sprites. C64 wins again. ATARI ATARI ATARI You posted this already.. Some serious problems with reality...again.... I HAVEN"T POSTED THIS GAME BEFORE. LOL .. The Atari version is much closer to the arcade. I know as I own Gorf. You should really try owning some hardware before making these silly and uneducated statements here..... The ATARI version looks and plays worse than C64 one but it's closer to the arcade and you have many arcade machines, so you are automatically knowledgeable....BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. We have heard this fable many times before. You can as well cut and past the same rubbish from your previous posts. BTW, I know it must have hurt, because it's another classic from your mythical "golden age" and even atarians confirm that the C64 version is better Blah Blah, that is what you always say when you are proven wrong. I have over 30 arcade machines tool. Jealousy on your part I assume causes these type of replies. Also you didnt reply to what I told you about getting some real hardware. So you dont have any.. that figures. Again, having the REAL hardware and arcade machines. The Atari version plays much closer than the C64 version. Sounds closer plays better. A8 wins again thanks to rockford! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Today another classic. 50 - GORF C64 C64 C64 The C64 version has better sound, hi-res graphics, sprites, and more colours. The Atari version has ugly low-res graphics, one-coloured and small sprites. C64 wins again. ATARI ATARI ATARI You posted this already.. The Atari version is much closer to the arcade. I know as I own Gorf. You should really try owning some hardware before making these silly and uneducated statements here. Not only does the c64 version sounds a bit off and the game mechanics are wrong. Looks like GORF but does not play like gorf. Also the Atari version you are showing is a 16k cart and STILL beats the c64 Jump up and down as you usually do but remember I have the ACTUAL arcade to compare with. Sorry to burst your bubble.. At the beginning I tried to alert Rockford about bad comparisons. But with some attempts, I believe that's a waste of time. Some people (as me) look the games technologically, others (the most) look at the viewpoint of playability. Because games are not only pictures, there are animations, fps, sounds, music, etc. Rockford find what version have some blocks of hi-res definition, how many sprites is used, How many color have,.... Not really the best way. The result is 50% Rockford comparisons are argueable, because Atari have better performance. Maybe Rockford can't understand his own problem... Rockford, I give you an exercise comparison, and you'll find interesting results: - Do POPEYE Atari and C64 comparison - Please put all your concentration here Yes, he doesnt listen and probably wont now. I have enjoyed you posting of pics. Please post some more. Thanks! PLEASE ! OH PLEASE ! because I can only find games that look bad on C64 and comparisons are so laborious. But yeah, I'd love to see them too...if you can find anything that hasn't been posted yet. Maybe POPEYE ? Oh no, you have posted it before too. It's so pity. LOL Wow, the whine level has reached fever pitch for you today Rockford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Today another classic. 50 - GORF C64 C64 C64 The C64 version has better sound, hi-res graphics, sprites, and more colours. The Atari version has ugly low-res graphics, one-coloured and small sprites. C64 wins again. ATARI ATARI ATARI Amazingly both the inferior hardware [compared to the C64] of the Colecovision and also the VIC-20 hosts a more fun version of that game. I was quite disappointed with the C64 version after the Colecoversion I owned in the 80s. Also this nonsense about MAME not being able to perfectly recreate gameplay of early 80s 8bit arcade games on a dual core PC/Mac is just BOLLOX sorry. The only difference as far as gameplay goes with such games is your choice of controller to play the game...MAME will NOT drop frames, change the collision detection/accuracy or change character movement speeds or anything like that. You don't need to own the arcade boards to comapare such simple arcade games for the purpose of playability comparisons at all. That said unlike Gyruss (where the A8 'more accurate' conversion trolling has been proven to be not worth the LCD ink being used to display those comments) I haven't played the A8 version for sure. One old 80s arcade game that definitely is better on the A8 hands down I will admit (to prove I'm not a mindless fanboy) is Galaxian, a much better looking game and plays similar to the arcade too. The Atarisoft version on C64 is WORSE than the VIC20 version but even so I haven't seen a C64 version of Galaxian I would play either, clone or official releases. In fact the closest version is a 30K typed in listing from an old magazine...that's how bad the programming was on the commercial Galaxian rip-offs sold! Now Gaplus on the other hand (Galaxian 3) is very very lovely so it is not a technical issue with the C64, AND it was a budget game for 2 bucks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRliyebNjXY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR2LcpO3BVA And Gaplus on the C64 which if you check around 1:15 into the video you can clearly see if you used this game engine with a change of palette a C64 Galaxian would wipe te floor with any other version too as there are 32 'Galaxians' on screen and the scrolling starfield etc etc and it is all beautifully smooth just like an 80s arcade game should be and flicker free. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14F2ToL18J8 Edited October 22, 2009 by oky2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I know what you mean and I'm familar with this feeling too! My condolences. Hi there, Irgendwer. How is your work going ? Have you managed to make these Lemon score comparisons ? LOL Did you come to tell us about the progress of your work or you just dropped by to say something comical...as always. Wow, What a total Troll and troll comment. Is that really necessary... Not really, possibly a baiting response to an originally trolling unconnected comment many pages back regarding the scores given by non-professional[reviewers] average people on Lemon64 giving personal opinions and taking those as facts maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Today another classic. 50 - GORF C64 C64 C64 The C64 version has better sound, hi-res graphics, sprites, and more colours. The Atari version has ugly low-res graphics, one-coloured and small sprites. C64 wins again. ATARI ATARI ATARI Amazingly both the inferior hardware [compared to the C64] of the Colecovision and also the VIC-20 hosts a more fun version of that game. I was quite disappointed with the C64 version after the Colecoversion I owned in the 80s. Also this nonsense about MAME not being able to perfectly recreate gameplay of early 80s 8bit arcade games on a dual core PC/Mac is just BOLLOX sorry. The only difference as far as gameplay goes with such games is your choice of controller to play the game...MAME will NOT drop frames, change the collision detection/accuracy or change character movement speeds or anything like that. You don't need to own the arcade boards to comapare such simple arcade games for the purpose of playability comparisons at all. That said unlike Gyruss (where the A8 'more accurate' conversion trolling has been proven to be not worth the LCD ink being used to display those comments) I haven't played the A8 version for sure. One old 80s arcade game that definitely is better on the A8 hands down I will admit (to prove I'm not a mindless fanboy) is Galaxian, a much better looking game and plays similar to the arcade too. The Atarisoft version on C64 is WORSE than the VIC20 version but even so I haven't seen a C64 version of Galaxian I would play either, clone or official releases. In fact the closest version is a 30K typed in listing from an old magazine...that's how bad the programming was on the commercial Galaxian rip-offs sold! Now Gaplus on the other hand (Galaxian 3) is very very lovely so it is not a technical issue with the C64, AND it was a budget game for 2 bucks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRliyebNjXY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR2LcpO3BVA Your "Bullox" comment is really not worth replying to. First.. Mame is like a copy, it works but is not perfect,a poor substitute for the real machine. though I am sure you can keep telling yourself it's just as good.. (have you played many actual arcade games?) In the collector world of arcade machines it is not considered to be fully accurate. second.. As was shown earlier in the thread Gyruss A8 is the superior version. Have no idea when you got such a dopey idea. Your galaxian examples show neither is a good translation. Heck the A* version is really a differnet game due to the mechanics of it. Comparing gaplus is pointless. no a8 version. Nice to see you back. Edited October 22, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Here's one feather in the cap of the Commodore 64. Check out the price of (as of right now, anyway) the C64 DTV joystick on Amazon. (there are 5 digits in the price) http://www.amazon.co...&condition=used I haven't looked for one of these in a while, and while I'm sure this is a fluke, are these things really that rare? Are they any good? How do you play without the keyboard? I guess they'll crop up cheaper later. It's used and price may be subjective. I wonder about some people. What was the cause for that prizing? DTV is neither an 8-bit nor a real classic retro. It also doesn't have the only real benefit of the SID: The filter. It's just some low tech of "today" doing the C64 hardware "logically". And the Competition Pro never was my favorite also.... It's like those Atari flashbacks doing some A2600 games. Really in no-man's land-- neither allowing old cartridges to be plugged in nor programmable in the same way. 100% register level backward compatibility (or very close to it) is desired else better to just go buy a retro machine from Ebay (Amiga, Atari 800, Atari 2600, etc.). Sadly we didn't get the Flashback 2 in the UK which does allow you to play original 2600 cartridges? The DTV is a fine fine product, we need more of that kind of thing (with disk drive controllers and keyboard connectors and both joysticks ports being available to access) for ALL retro computers like the A8/ST/Amiga AGA etc. Yes the SID filter is not really implemented but still it is a full blown implementation of a C64 on an FPGA and it IS a real C64 as far as VIC-II and most of SID goes in a firmware emulation using FPGA technology I think and a beautiful piece of work by Jeri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Keep it civil guys. I'm enjoying this thread and would hate to ban people from posting in it. Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) I know what you mean and I'm familar with this feeling too! My condolences. Hi there, Irgendwer. How is your work going ? Have you managed to make these Lemon score comparisons ? LOL Did you come to tell us about the progress of your work or you just dropped by to say something comical...as always. Wow, What a total Troll and troll comment. Is that really necessary... Not really, possibly a baiting response to an originally trolling unconnected comment many pages back regarding the scores given by non-professional[reviewers] average people on Lemon64 giving personal opinions and taking those as facts maybe. Oh yes really Edited October 22, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Today another classic. 50 - GORF C64 C64 C64 The C64 version has better sound, hi-res graphics, sprites, and more colours. The Atari version has ugly low-res graphics, one-coloured and small sprites. C64 wins again. ATARI ATARI ATARI Amazingly both the inferior hardware [compared to the C64] of the Colecovision and also the VIC-20 hosts a more fun version of that game. I was quite disappointed with the C64 version after the Colecoversion I owned in the 80s. Also this nonsense about MAME not being able to perfectly recreate gameplay of early 80s 8bit arcade games on a dual core PC/Mac is just BOLLOX sorry. The only difference as far as gameplay goes with such games is your choice of controller to play the game...MAME will NOT drop frames, change the collision detection/accuracy or change character movement speeds or anything like that. You don't need to own the arcade boards to comapare such simple arcade games for the purpose of playability comparisons at all. That said unlike Gyruss (where the A8 'more accurate' conversion trolling has been proven to be not worth the LCD ink being used to display those comments) I haven't played the A8 version for sure. One old 80s arcade game that definitely is better on the A8 hands down I will admit (to prove I'm not a mindless fanboy) is Galaxian, a much better looking game and plays similar to the arcade too. The Atarisoft version on C64 is WORSE than the VIC20 version but even so I haven't seen a C64 version of Galaxian I would play either, clone or official releases. In fact the closest version is a 30K typed in listing from an old magazine...that's how bad the programming was on the commercial Galaxian rip-offs sold! Now Gaplus on the other hand (Galaxian 3) is very very lovely so it is not a technical issue with the C64, AND it was a budget game for 2 bucks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRliyebNjXY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR2LcpO3BVA Your "Bullox" comment is really not worth replying to. First.. Mame is like a copy, it works but is not perfect,a poor substitute for the real machine. though I am sure you can keep telling yourself it's just as good.. (have you played many actual arcade games?) In the collector world of arcade machines it is not considered to be fully accurate. second.. As was shown earlier in the thread Gyruss A8 is the superior version. Have no idea when you got such a dopey idea. Your galaxian examples show neither is a good translation. Heck the A* version is really a differnet game due to the mechanics of it. Comparing gaplus is pointless. no a8 version. Nice to see you back. A MAME cabinet with arcade controls is pretty much identical to playing Gyrus or Gorf on the same controllers on an original machine, like I said as far as gameplay goes the emulators running the original code in MAME for those games have been perfected to 99.99999% and comparing an A8 game and C64 game to a MAME version is not an issue. MAME does not place the graphics any different on the screen relatively speaking, does not change the collision detection, does not drop frames or alter the game speed to any significant noticeable degres so my opinion remains unchanged on this. You will have far more to moan about running C64 SID tunes on VICE as far as SID emulation goes (which is very good to be honest with reSID 2 on a Core duo machine) than ever having a valid comment about any 'differences' between such old arcade games for the purpose of these comparisons tbh. I only put Gaplus to show that even on a budget game....years later the game engine is light years ahead and games like Galaxian are just as much a showcase for the skill of the programmers involved as a machines hardware features available....sometimes more to do with the former than the latter especially if the same programmer does both versions. If anything it does go to show that comparing games without a specific purpose as I said before (ie to showcase a specific piece of code that utilises a hardware feature for ease of illustration) and this comment goes for both the C64 and A8 although the A8 is at a disadvantage as their was less duplication of titles mimicking the classic 80s arcade games compared to the greater output of titles for the C64 which in most cases offer an alternative to licensed version which may have been botched (like C64 Defender from Atarisoft and Donkey Kong from Atarisoft for example) edit: Gyrus on A8 is too slow to be considered more accurate and the resolution 50% lower than the arcade/c64 version making shot accuracy skewed to 'easy' due to the lack of pixels used to render the graphics. People who can't see that are fanboys sorry. Edited October 22, 2009 by oky2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 second.. As was shown earlier in the thread Gyruss A8 is the superior version. Nothing was "shown" to me as being superior. Just some people saying the A8 is better doesn't prove anything, same as you guys keep saying about Rockford's posts. As far as I'm concerned both Gyruss versions are ok, they each have their faults. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroovyBee Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Sadly we didn't get the Flashback 2 in the UK which does allow you to play original 2600 cartridges? Only if you mod the console yourself to add the cartridge connector. Its an NTSC region system only. As a side note can posters trim their quotes in this thread? It would make it much easier to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Only if you mod the console yourself to add the cartridge connector. Its an NTSC region system only. Ahh OK so it's similar to the DTV then, you have to wire up your own disk drive port PS/2, keyboard connector and second joystick ports as they're just points on the PCB. Still it is a nice system which sadly we never got. And no matter what people think I would buy an A8 version (5200?) of that kind of thing too. And point taken, I will trim my quotes to only include the last comment made for reduced post sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Ofcourse the C64 should be better, since it's made 3 years after the atari Personally I think both are a compromise, neither is perfect, nor was the Amiga and nor was the SNES/Genesis afterwards (SNES slow CPU and Genesis limited colour palette onscreen). In fact outside arcade land there have always been restrictions right up to this day I think. How you deal with these compromises imposed by late 70s/early 80s technological knowledge/advancement limits as a designer working for either C= or Atari is interesting and hence their resultant machines are interesting to me. Both companies are guilty of not improving the sound/graphics of their 'flagship' 8bit machines too so it's kind of fixed in stone regardless of which iteration of A8 or C64 you bought and what year it was. Personally any good game produced on either machine is a WIN for me, running any chipset to its limit is an artform we lost when Wintel machines killed the fun and diversity of home computing world wide as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroovyBee Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Ahh OK so it's similar to the DTV then, you have to wire up your own disk drive port PS/2, keyboard connector and second joystick ports as they're just points on the PCB. The cart modification is explained at Curt Vendel's (the FB2 designer) Atari Museum site :- http://www.atarimuseum.com/fb2hacks/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SpiceWare Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 In fact outside arcade land there have always been restrictions right up to this day I think. Even in arcade land - I think a big reason the arcades went away was they stopped advancing the technology. How many arcade games have you seen that exceeded 640x480? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApolloBoy Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Is anyone else finding it amusing that this thread which debates the merits of two old, long-dead computer systems has gone on for 11 months and 284 pages? I find it both amusing and sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Is anyone else finding it amusing that this thread which debates the merits of two old, long-dead computer systems has gone on for 11 months and 284 pages? I find it both amusing and sad. Why are you adding to the thread, then...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Today another classic. 50 - GORF C64 C64 C64 The C64 version has better sound, hi-res graphics, sprites, and more colours. The Atari version has ugly low-res graphics, one-coloured and small sprites. C64 wins again. ATARI ATARI ATARI Amazingly both the inferior hardware [compared to the C64] of the Colecovision and also the VIC-20 hosts a more fun version of that game. I was quite disappointed with the C64 version after the Colecoversion I owned in the 80s. Also this nonsense about MAME not being able to perfectly recreate gameplay of early 80s 8bit arcade games on a dual core PC/Mac is just BOLLOX sorry. The only difference as far as gameplay goes with such games is your choice of controller to play the game...MAME will NOT drop frames, change the collision detection/accuracy or change character movement speeds or anything like that. You don't need to own the arcade boards to comapare such simple arcade games for the purpose of playability comparisons at all. That said unlike Gyruss (where the A8 'more accurate' conversion trolling has been proven to be not worth the LCD ink being used to display those comments) I haven't played the A8 version for sure. One old 80s arcade game that definitely is better on the A8 hands down I will admit (to prove I'm not a mindless fanboy) is Galaxian, a much better looking game and plays similar to the arcade too. The Atarisoft version on C64 is WORSE than the VIC20 version but even so I haven't seen a C64 version of Galaxian I would play either, clone or official releases. In fact the closest version is a 30K typed in listing from an old magazine...that's how bad the programming was on the commercial Galaxian rip-offs sold! Now Gaplus on the other hand (Galaxian 3) is very very lovely so it is not a technical issue with the C64, AND it was a budget game for 2 bucks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRliyebNjXY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR2LcpO3BVA Your "Bullox" comment is really not worth replying to. First.. Mame is like a copy, it works but is not perfect,a poor substitute for the real machine. though I am sure you can keep telling yourself it's just as good.. (have you played many actual arcade games?) In the collector world of arcade machines it is not considered to be fully accurate. second.. As was shown earlier in the thread Gyruss A8 is the superior version. Have no idea when you got such a dopey idea. Your galaxian examples show neither is a good translation. Heck the A* version is really a differnet game due to the mechanics of it. Comparing gaplus is pointless. no a8 version. Nice to see you back. A MAME cabinet with arcade controls is pretty much identical to playing Gyrus or Gorf on the same controllers on an original machine, like I said as far as gameplay goes the emulators running the original code in MAME for those games have been perfected to 99.99999% and comparing an A8 game and C64 game to a MAME version is not an issue. MAME does not place the graphics any different on the screen relatively speaking, does not change the collision detection, does not drop frames or alter the game speed to any significant noticeable degres so my opinion remains unchanged on this. You will have far more to moan about running C64 SID tunes on VICE as far as SID emulation goes (which is very good to be honest with reSID 2 on a Core duo machine) than ever having a valid comment about any 'differences' between such old arcade games for the purpose of these comparisons tbh. I only put Gaplus to show that even on a budget game....years later the game engine is light years ahead and games like Galaxian are just as much a showcase for the skill of the programmers involved as a machines hardware features available....sometimes more to do with the former than the latter especially if the same programmer does both versions. If anything it does go to show that comparing games without a specific purpose as I said before (ie to showcase a specific piece of code that utilises a hardware feature for ease of illustration) and this comment goes for both the C64 and A8 although the A8 is at a disadvantage as their was less duplication of titles mimicking the classic 80s arcade games compared to the greater output of titles for the C64 which in most cases offer an alternative to licensed version which may have been botched (like C64 Defender from Atarisoft and Donkey Kong from Atarisoft for example) edit: Gyrus on A8 is too slow to be considered more accurate and the resolution 50% lower than the arcade/c64 version making shot accuracy skewed to 'easy' due to the lack of pixels used to render the graphics. People who can't see that are fanboys sorry. Wrong again, on Mame, as you say pretty much.. not the same, also some versions use digitized sounds etc. Not accurate. Arcade collectors use them mostly to preview a game before buying the real thing. To say games are the same except for controls is just foolish. Also, I have the arcade ( listen gain) I have the actual game, the A8 is closer. get over it. on gaplus.. it looks pretty good with some slow down. I would say it's a game that uses a synthesized sound so this is actually one game the 64 does well. It does suffer from a lack of colors but the trade off for detail is also good. I would never own a c64 just to play it. Buy the arcade if you want the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 second.. As was shown earlier in the thread Gyruss A8 is the superior version. Nothing was "shown" to me as being superior. Just some people saying the A8 is better doesn't prove anything, same as you guys keep saying about Rockford's posts. As far as I'm concerned both Gyruss versions are ok, they each have their faults. Pete Actually what we have said about rockfords post are accurate. Selective crap just to elicit a negative reaction. in other words.. trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Ofcourse the C64 should be better, since it's made 3 years after the atari Personally I think both are a compromise, neither is perfect, nor was the Amiga and nor was the SNES/Genesis afterwards (SNES slow CPU and Genesis limited colour palette onscreen). In fact outside arcade land there have always been restrictions right up to this day I think. How you deal with these compromises imposed by late 70s/early 80s technological knowledge/advancement limits as a designer working for either C= or Atari is interesting and hence their resultant machines are interesting to me. Both companies are guilty of not improving the sound/graphics of their 'flagship' 8bit machines too so it's kind of fixed in stone regardless of which iteration of A8 or C64 you bought and what year it was. Personally any good game produced on either machine is a WIN for me, running any chipset to its limit is an artform we lost when Wintel machines killed the fun and diversity of home computing world wide as far as I'm concerned. The 2nd paragraph of your statement I completely agree with, though wintel has made it handy for all of us to manage old school files and SD card mods are really a great thing. Seee we agree for once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 In fact outside arcade land there have always been restrictions right up to this day I think. Even in arcade land - I think a big reason the arcades went away was they stopped advancing the technology. How many arcade games have you seen that exceeded 640x480? Also true, it was really the death for them when they stopped advancing. The good news is that they still survive in basements and home arcades across the nation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 second.. As was shown earlier in the thread Gyruss A8 is the superior version. Nothing was "shown" to me as being superior. Just some people saying the A8 is better doesn't prove anything, same as you guys keep saying about Rockford's posts. As far as I'm concerned both Gyruss versions are ok, they each have their faults. Pete Actually what we have said about rockfords post are accurate. Selective crap just to elicit a negative reaction. in other words.. trolling. You misunderstand I think. I'm not saying what anyone thinks about Rockford's posts is correct or incorrect, I'm saying that nobody has proven A8 Gyruss is better apart from A8 guys saying it's so. And yet if Rockford posts a comparison and says the C64 version is better he gets told it isn't half the time. There's no "proof" either way. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 51 - LANCELOT C64 C64 The C64 version has colourful graphics, whereas on Atari there is only text. C64 is better again. ATARI ATARI 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Ofcourse the C64 should be better, since it's made 3 years after the atari This argument has been made a few times already like many others. Just a speculation. Not everything is linearly progressive even today. Not everyone has access to everyone's technology nor does having the technology means it will be used. PGA with 4096 colors was around at time of CGA but no one used that technology. Many other factors come into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Sadly we didn't get the Flashback 2 in the UK which does allow you to play original 2600 cartridges? Only if you mod the console yourself to add the cartridge connector. Its an NTSC region system only. As a side note can posters trim their quotes in this thread? It would make it much easier to read. Well if you are going to make hardware mods, you can do so on any machine and make it better but it's all nonstandard. 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