Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

...

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.

 

Actually, there are two comparisons that took place. Arcade version vs. ported computer versions and C64 version vs. A8 version. Clearly, C64 version is inferior to A8 version for those have tried both. It's bad design decision on C64 side to allow for flicker -- they were better making it smoother even at cost of resolution (of course that's harder to do on C64). I think this Gyruss stuff has been compared many times in this thread.

[atarian63]

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.

Here is Galaga 88 on Turbografx 16. 1989.. Much Much better and an 8-bit system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2VzKogbOZ8&feature=PlayList&p=862F2471FC10696B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2VzKogbOZ8&feature=PlayList&p=862F2471FC10696B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17

[atarian63]

 

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

Gotcha on that. Just play them. It's obvious after playing them.

[atariksi]

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.

 

It's dead for him, but for those still use it and find use for it, it's not dead. It's easier to learn low-level stuff on a simple computer than on modern PCs w/all the levels of software overhead.

[Allas]

 

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

 

 

GYRUSS:

 

Only one detail of C64 version is good against Atari version, C64 version use 160x200 res meanwhile Atari use 160x100 res. But despite this:

 

- Atari animations are really good. Anbd don't forget Atari Gyruss is a NTSC version, so if you look on a real NTSC or emulator configured at NTSC you'll find a extraordinary 60fps.

- Planet looks better drawed on Atari version with his "worse-res"

- Stars move faster and more smoothly

- Enemies don't flick on Atari version

- C64 version doesn't have perfect collision on enemies, specially when they are so far.

- C64 version show some glitches on the video when mixing the text messages on screen

 

It's easy to choose the Atari version, you only need some playing minutes.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Allas

[invisible kid]

51 - LANCELOT

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has colourful graphics, whereas on Atari there is only text. C64 is better again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

I agree with another poster that you should actually play these games. How do these perform with disk drive access time? Of course with no third party after market fixes?

Edited October 23, 2009 by invisible kid

[emkay]

GYRUSS:

 

Only one detail of C64 version is good against Atari version, C64 version use 160x200 res meanwhile Atari use 160x100 res. But despite this:

 

- Atari animations are really good. Anbd don't forget Atari Gyruss is a NTSC version, so if you look on a real NTSC or emulator configured at NTSC you'll find a extraordinary 60fps.

- Planet looks better drawed on Atari version with his "worse-res"

- Stars move faster and more smoothly

- Enemies don't flick on Atari version

- C64 version doesn't have perfect collision on enemies, specially when they are so far.

- C64 version show some glitches on the video when mixing the text messages on screen

 

It's easy to choose the Atari version, you only need some playing minutes.

 

The double in vertical resolution doesn't help in the C64 version, because of the rotating animations.

And the stars in the background really hurt the gameplay there. This caleidoskopic effect you see very often in C64 games. "Chars" get reused with slighty changed content, to reduce this.

The Atari version of Gyruss is rounded up, just the arcade with a full half of the resolution, while the C64 is still a botch job, just like other games where the slow CPU must get worked out by VICII features.

[vcsdream]

I was talking to Pete Austin of Level 9 at the PCWS (London) asking why the latest ATARI versions don't contain graphics anymore, as they did with earlier games. He mentioned that although the ATARI 800 was always one of their favorite machines, financially it was just no doable anymore. No other reason. Soon after Lancelot Level 9 folded.

Edited October 23, 2009 by vcsdream

[emkay]

I was talking to Pete Austin of Level 9 at the PCWS (London) asking why the latest ATARI versions don't contain graphics anymore, as they did with earlier games. He mentioned that although the ATARI 800 was always one of their favorite machines, financially it was just no doable anymore. No other reason. Soon after Lancelot Level 9 folded.

 

See them being intelligent humans, I ask myself: If the A8 was their favorite, why have they done this final kill?

Just turning the good memorys of an early 80's died hero, into a hatefully resurrected Zombie?

Customers who wanted good new stuff for the A8, saw the "nice" graphics on the box, bought it for their prefered machine and realized after loading the game that there really is no graphics at all.

I wonder what those customers must have thought back then.

"Kill the coder"? "Harakiri Atari"? Or, at least "I want my money back" ?

 

Really, there is no excuse.

If financially not possible, why not simply drop the project?

Or:

If the favorite machine has to get pushed, just do some parts without money expectations.

 

It really is THAT simple.

[STE'86]

lol you're off again now u think the coast is clear arent you atariski and emkay?

 

the offer still stands to put your money where you mouth is (i doubt anyone but Bill Gates has that sort of money tho)

 

AND come on over to TMR's forum

 

and sign up for an A8/c64 "code off"

 

you like very much to "talk the talk" about how superior the A8 is and how easily u can do this and that. How about u "walk the walk" for once on here?

 

stop telling us how its better than the c64 and show us for a change eh?

 

or just bottle out and vanish for a few days like last time till u think its clear again.

 

Steve

[vcsdream]

You know, Matthew Smith was asked which is his favorite computer, ZX or Commodore 64. His answer was ATARI 800. Still, Smith never coded one line for the ATARI 800.

[Heaven/TQA]

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.

Here is Galaga 88 on Turbografx 16. 1989.. Much Much better and an 8-bit system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2VzKogbOZ8&feature=PlayList&p=862F2471FC10696B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2VzKogbOZ8&feature=PlayList&p=862F2471FC10696B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17

 

I need to get a PC engine... seems to be a cool console...

[vcsdream]

lol you're off again now u think the coast is clear arent you atariski and emkay?

 

the offer still stands to put your money where you mouth is (i doubt anyone but Bill Gates has that sort of money tho)

 

AND come on over to TMR's forum

 

and sign up for an A8/c64 "code off"

 

you like very much to "talk the talk" about how superior the A8 is and how easily u can do this and that. How about u "walk the walk" for once on here?

 

stop telling us how its better than the c64 and show us for a change eh?

 

or just bottle out and vanish for a few days like last time till u think its clear again.

 

Steve

 

We already know the ATARI 800 is far better, otherwise the Commodore 64 supporters wouldn't try so desperately to defend their machine over here (and posting mostly ga-ga information).

Edited October 23, 2009 by vcsdream

[STE'86]

lol you're off again now u think the coast is clear arent you atariski and emkay?

 

the offer still stands to put your money where you mouth is (i doubt anyone but Bill Gates has that sort of money tho)

 

AND come on over to TMR's forum

 

and sign up for an A8/c64 "code off"

 

you like very much to "talk the talk" about how superior the A8 is and how easily u can do this and that. How about u "walk the walk" for once on here?

 

stop telling us how its better than the c64 and show us for a change eh?

 

or just bottle out and vanish for a few days like last time till u think its clear again.

 

Steve

 

We already know the ATARI 800 is far better, otherwise the Commodore 64 supporters wouldn't try so desperately to defend their machine over here (and posting mostly ga-ga information).

 

 

well come on and show us then.

 

tell u what, if any of the "big talkers" on here have the bottle to go for it, i'll even try to provide the graphics for what they want. i cant say fairer than that.

 

Steve

[emkay]

lol you're off again now u think the coast is clear arent you atariski and emkay?

 

the offer still stands to put your money where you mouth is (i doubt anyone but Bill Gates has that sort of money tho)

 

AND come on over to TMR's forum

 

and sign up for an A8/c64 "code off"

 

you like very much to "talk the talk" about how superior the A8 is and how easily u can do this and that. How about u "walk the walk" for once on here?

 

stop telling us how its better than the c64 and show us for a change eh?

 

or just bottle out and vanish for a few days like last time till u think its clear again.

 

Steve

 

We already know the ATARI 800 is far better, otherwise the Commodore 64 supporters wouldn't try so desperately to defend their machine over here (and posting mostly ga-ga information).

 

 

It's really interesting. They really hammer their argues over and over again... I'd bet that they finally will stop, if we all say that the C64 was the all over "far superior" machine. But why spreading a lie?

The retarded CPU and the hard colour limits, the 3.6kHz restriction, only 3 channels, the huge borders, the slow Floppy access

... just NO ! It's only if you like this combinaton, you could get happy with it.

[emkay]

well come on and show us then.

 

tell u what, if any of the "big talkers" on here have the bottle to go for it, i'll even try to provide the graphics for what they want. i cant say fairer than that.

 

 

 

To go there is just like a small bird landing and getting surrounded by hungry cats

[PeteD]

well come on and show us then.

 

tell u what, if any of the "big talkers" on here have the bottle to go for it, i'll even try to provide the graphics for what they want. i cant say fairer than that.

 

 

 

To go there is just like a small bird landing and getting surrounded by hungry cats

 

There are plenty of guys from this forum over there.

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

 

GYRUSS:

 

Only one detail of C64 version is good against Atari version, C64 version use 160x200 res meanwhile Atari use 160x100 res. But despite this:

 

- Atari animations are really good. Anbd don't forget Atari Gyruss is a NTSC version, so if you look on a real NTSC or emulator configured at NTSC you'll find a extraordinary 60fps.

- Planet looks better drawed on Atari version with his "worse-res"

- Stars move faster and more smoothly

- Enemies don't flick on Atari version

- C64 version doesn't have perfect collision on enemies, specially when they are so far.

- C64 version show some glitches on the video when mixing the text messages on screen

 

It's easy to choose the Atari version, you only need some playing minutes.

 

I've played it plenty for the exact purpose of comparing it recently because I like to be unbiased and while "some" of what you say is true I still like BOTH versions. Neither is superior imho. The point I'm making is that because someone says they've proven a game is better, that's still only their opinion.

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

lol you're off again now u think the coast is clear arent you atariski and emkay?

 

the offer still stands to put your money where you mouth is (i doubt anyone but Bill Gates has that sort of money tho)

 

AND come on over to TMR's forum

 

and sign up for an A8/c64 "code off"

 

you like very much to "talk the talk" about how superior the A8 is and how easily u can do this and that. How about u "walk the walk" for once on here?

 

stop telling us how its better than the c64 and show us for a change eh?

 

or just bottle out and vanish for a few days like last time till u think its clear again.

 

Steve

 

We already know the ATARI 800 is far better, otherwise the Commodore 64 supporters wouldn't try so desperately to defend their machine over here (and posting mostly ga-ga information).

 

 

It's really interesting. They really hammer their argues over and over again... I'd bet that they finally will stop, if we all say that the C64 was the all over "far superior" machine. But why spreading a lie?

The retarded CPU and the hard colour limits, the 3.6kHz restriction, only 3 channels, the huge borders, the slow Floppy access

... just NO ! It's only if you like this combinaton, you could get happy with it.

 

You're mistaking people (at least some) for correcting information about either machine with saying one is better than the other. The sooner some of you guys learn that the sooner you can get past all the fanboy talk.

 

 

Pete

[TMR]

To go there is just like a small bird landing and getting surrounded by hungry cats

 

There are plenty of guys from this forum over there.

 

Yup, the numbers are about half and half unless the two lurkers both turn out to be on one side rather than the other.

 

i'm guessing that some people simply wouldn't dare enter the "lion's den" because they're not as sure of their arguments as they claim to be... still, since everybody Atarian there so far seems to have at least some coding experience (we've not even started "arguing" yet, yesterday it was helping heaven with a bug!) perhaps it's just a case of people here not wanting to look silly about how an A8 register works...? =-)

[oky2000]

Here is Galaga 88 on Turbografx 16. 1989.. Much Much better and an 8-bit system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2VzKogbOZ8&feature=PlayList&p=862F2471FC10696B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2VzKogbOZ8&feature=PlayList&p=862F2471FC10696B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17

 

Ahh but the PC-Engine is a 1988 16bit system that happens to use an 8bit CPU (6502?) to manage the custom chips (which are 16bit internal and 16bit DMA access). If the PC-Engine is 8bit then the Jaguar is 16bit same as the ST/Amiga

 

Galaga is OK on the 7800 which is a better comparison really given age and technology inside the case.

[oky2000]

 

GYRUSS:

 

Only one detail of C64 version is good against Atari version, C64 version use 160x200 res meanwhile Atari use 160x100 res. But despite this:

 

- Atari animations are really good. Anbd don't forget Atari Gyruss is a NTSC version, so if you look on a real NTSC or emulator configured at NTSC you'll find a extraordinary 60fps.

- Planet looks better drawed on Atari version with his "worse-res"

- Stars move faster and more smoothly

- Enemies don't flick on Atari version

- C64 version doesn't have perfect collision on enemies, specially when they are so far.

- C64 version show some glitches on the video when mixing the text messages on screen

 

It's easy to choose the Atari version, you only need some playing minutes.

 

Don't forget the game characters/enemy ships on A8 move noticeably slower than the C64 version AND slower than the arcade, coupled with shot accuracy being so incredibly lenient it is hardly a brilliant conversion. There is no problem with collision detection on the C64 version (difficulty shooting ships in centre of the screen is about the same as the arcade) it is the A8 collision detection which is wrong, and all down to the horrible 160x100 (or whatever) looking resolution of the A8 game. With pixels that size it's hard to miss anything really

Edited October 23, 2009 by oky2000

[Rockford]

51 - LANCELOT

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has colourful graphics, whereas on Atari there is only text. C64 is better again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

I agree with another poster that you should actually play these games. How do these perform with disk drive access time? Of course with no third party after market fixes?

How many times do I have to say that I always play each game. My comparisons are not based on pictures. Furthermore you still dont't stop amazing me. First some atarians wanted me to take pictures and toy with colours. And now you want me to measure a tape or disc access time ? Sweet...! It's normal and logical that a fullgraphics game takes more time to load than a graphicsless text game, isn't it ? Come on people, get real and stop picking holes in everything I write, because it sounds childish. The truth is that there are many C64 games that are better than A8 games and picking holes in my comparisons doesn't help. It only indicates a high level of desperation among atarians.

[Rockford]

 

GYRUSS:

 

Only one detail of C64 version is good against Atari version, C64 version use 160x200 res meanwhile Atari use 160x100 res. But despite this:

 

- Atari animations are really good. Anbd don't forget Atari Gyruss is a NTSC version, so if you look on a real NTSC or emulator configured at NTSC you'll find a extraordinary 60fps.

- Planet looks better drawed on Atari version with his "worse-res"

- Stars move faster and more smoothly

- Enemies don't flick on Atari version

- C64 version doesn't have perfect collision on enemies, specially when they are so far.

- C64 version show some glitches on the video when mixing the text messages on screen

 

It's easy to choose the Atari version, you only need some playing minutes.

 

Don't forget the game characters/enemy ships on A8 move noticeably slower than the C64 version AND slower than the arcade, coupled with shot accuracy being so incredibly lenient it is hardly a brilliant conversion. There is no problem with collision detection on the C64 version (difficulty shooting ships in centre of the screen is about the same as the arcade) it is the A8 collision detection which is wrong, and all down to the horrible 160x100 (or whatever) looking resolution of the A8 game. With pixels that size it's hard to miss anything really

Some good points in oky2000's reply. I could agree that Gyruss is a little bit controversial, but saying that A8 version is superior is seriously laughable !

[oky2000]

 

I need to get a PC engine... seems to be a cool console...

 

Very cool indeed, many of the games also on Amiga and PC-Engine were better on the PCE...like R-Type, Outrun, Afterburner, Chase HQ etc etc