Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

Instead of guessing how games work and saying that makes another version superior people should go disassemble them like I just did, and did the other day with RoF to show it does actually draw the whole landscape every time.

 

Pete

Yeah, but that takes a little bit of effort doesn't it Much easier to argue here than to try and code something.

 

Stephen Anderson

 

Basically proves my point that C64 game design is inferior if they had a choice of making it smoother. If they had no choice (as in PC CGA version of Pacman), then I can't really say bad design or coder's fault.

[atarian63]

 

Well, if you argue with Rockford, you just have to do random searches on the internet and do a speculative reconstruction. For example, you can prove A2600 of Gyruss is better by the price:

 

C64 full disk version:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370198398604

 

Just the manual for the A2600 version is more expensive:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260310066266

Funny, so far, only atarians have compared random games on different platforms (as you have just done). I've been comparing only C64 & A8 games. You know, day by day, meticulously according to my list. So, it's rather far from random, don't you think ? LOL But as always, you are the one who knows what other people think and do.

it was to point out some c64 games are so poor that they arent as good as even a much lesser system. Only a dolt could miss that.

[atarian63]

Today another "random" game. LOL

 

52 - WORLD SOCCER

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better hi-res graphics and more colours. The Atari version has worse graphics with limited colours. C64 wins again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

more waste of time selective comparisons. And the troll comment at the end.

[+wood_jl]

1541u is far more than just a drive emulation. It also emulates the Commodore RAM expansions including their DMA controller, it emulates several multifunction carts like Action Replay etc which give you a lot of resident tools like machine language monitor, basic extensions, resident fast loader, freezer etc etc.

 

Forgive me for straying here - I don't want to sound like a Commodore fanboy here. Allow me to express my opinion that the 1541 Ultimate is an *incredible* piece of technology. There are very few devices that I can say are FEATURE PACKED - that is, do everything I can expect them to, and go far beyond those expectations by doing shit I never dreamed possible. The 1541 Ulitmate is such a product. I can't tell you how this thing ALONE makes it "worth" owning a C64 - for this traditional Atari user, anyway. The creator of the 1541 Ultimate is working on a successor. As if there weren't enough features already. Anything that allows me to fool with old computers WITHOUT old unreliable floppies is very cool. (Insert shades of Atarimax SIO2PC USB version here).

 

The C64/1541 (traditional) combo was undoubtedly plagued with shortcomings, and there were workarounds like the "Fastload" cartridge (etc). Just let it be understood that the 1541 Ultimate includes all of thoses "workarounds" along with getting rid of the actual 1541 itself. Who'd want a hunk-of-junk like an actual 1541 anyway? Not me!!!

[+wood_jl]

 

The C64 version has better hi-res graphics and more colours. The Atari version has worse graphics with limited colours. C64 wins again.

 

 

Let's see the f*cking GAMEPLAY screens. Who gives a sh*t about the menu screens.

[atariksi]

Today another "random" game. LOL

 

52 - WORLD SOCCER

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better hi-res graphics and more colours. The Atari version has worse graphics with limited colours. C64 wins again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

more waste of time selective comparisons. And the troll comment at the end.

 

If he did random comparisons, that would actually be an improvement for him. Now he's purposely looks for those he thinks are better on C64 so it's worse than random comparisons.

[PeteD]

...

 

compare the play to the arcade, there is your proof. Really simple.

 

I doubt any arcade game would take the flicker graphics over smoother display even at half resolution. All flicker modes are inferior to flickerless modes. Otherwise, atari sprites can outdo c64 sprites.

 

I wonder if someone implemented the "insert quarter" gadget for A8 or C64 and then claim this is a closer to arcade.

 

It still doesn't make the A8 a superior version. It makes it look nicer but the gameplay is imho better on c64, so is the music, so is the fact it's hires.

 

 

 

Pete

Edited October 24, 2009 by PeteD

[PeteD]

Instead of guessing how games work and saying that makes another version superior people should go disassemble them like I just did, and did the other day with RoF to show it does actually draw the whole landscape every time.

 

Pete

Yeah, but that takes a little bit of effort doesn't it Much easier to argue here than to try and code something.

 

Stephen Anderson

 

Basically proves my point that C64 game design is inferior if they had a choice of making it smoother. If they had no choice (as in PC CGA version of Pacman), then I can't really say bad design or coder's fault.

 

What proves your point? That I disassembled some games to PROVE what I'm saying and you just guess that A8 uses hardware collisions and C64 doesn't or that it flickers the sprites because it's run out of CPU?

 

 

Pete

[atariksi]

Instead of guessing how games work and saying that makes another version superior people should go disassemble them like I just did, and did the other day with RoF to show it does actually draw the whole landscape every time.

 

Pete

Yeah, but that takes a little bit of effort doesn't it Much easier to argue here than to try and code something.

 

Stephen Anderson

 

Basically proves my point that C64 game design is inferior if they had a choice of making it smoother. If they had no choice (as in PC CGA version of Pacman), then I can't really say bad design or coder's fault.

 

What proves your point? That I disassembled some games to PROVE what I'm saying and you just guess that A8 uses hardware collisions and C64 doesn't or that it flickers the sprites because it's run out of CPU?

 

 

Pete

 

You haven't proven anything. Just speculated and concocted things. All you said was the colors are horrible (in your opinion), pause feature is useless (wrongly), and now blurted out some more garbage that C64 has better playback and hi-res the samething I refuted. It doesn't matter whether it's the sprites that flicker or software sprites that flicker, they are BOTH bad decisions on the part of the coder. I can take it logically rather than having to disassemble code. Regardless of whether they decided to flicker sprites (hardware) or use software sprites and made them flicker, they are both bad and worse than A8 having no flicker. Get a clue.

[atariksi]

 

Well, if you argue with Rockford, you just have to do random searches on the internet and do a speculative reconstruction. For example, you can prove A2600 of Gyruss is better by the price:

 

C64 full disk version:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370198398604

 

Just the manual for the A2600 version is more expensive:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260310066266

Funny, so far, only atarians have compared random games on different platforms (as you have just done). I've been comparing only C64 & A8 games. You know, day by day, meticulously according to my list. So, it's rather far from random, don't you think ? LOL But as always, you are the one who knows what other people think and do.

it was to point out some c64 games are so poor that they arent as good as even a much lesser system. Only a dolt could miss that.

 

And the fact that he tried to establish using similar logic that Atari was cheaper system. Just quote a few prices randomly from the web and thinks he has given some comprehensive analysis.

[oky2000]

Up to 128k was factory supported and configurations beyond that were commercially sold. Furthermore, use of up to 128k is common and customary though an unmodded 800XL suffices to run 99% of what's out there.

But then it's C128 vs 130XE and not C64 vs 800XL

Ahh I doubt the Commodore 128 would be allowed.

 

 

If it was, remember the up market Commodore 128D (and some 128 keyboard units) has a 720x700 overscan max resolution (PAL..v400 NTSC) resolution screen mode, the best keyboard I have ever used (better than PC/520ST/Amiga 500), amazing build quality, fast (by default) high capacity disk drives available blah blah. Hell you might even have 80x50 character screen with the same sort of any colour in 8x8 charblock...don't know. Also the VDC (80 column graphics chip of the 128) also has a blitter like function too. Given the faster CPU of 2mhz in 80 column mode that's the A8 pretty stuffed on every single point except colour palette, but given the A8 really strains to even get 16 unique colours anywhere on a 160x200 screen it's hardly a 'win' at all if it can't use them in a high resolution (already 400% less pixels than the C128D highest resolution).

 

So I will assume the C128 is excluded despite the 130XE being included and allowed? And yet they want even more...RAM boards that 5 people bought in 2 decades and no mass market games were produced

Edited October 24, 2009 by oky2000

[PeteD]

Instead of guessing how games work and saying that makes another version superior people should go disassemble them like I just did, and did the other day with RoF to show it does actually draw the whole landscape every time.

 

Pete

Yeah, but that takes a little bit of effort doesn't it Much easier to argue here than to try and code something.

 

Stephen Anderson

 

Basically proves my point that C64 game design is inferior if they had a choice of making it smoother. If they had no choice (as in PC CGA version of Pacman), then I can't really say bad design or coder's fault.

 

What proves your point? That I disassembled some games to PROVE what I'm saying and you just guess that A8 uses hardware collisions and C64 doesn't or that it flickers the sprites because it's run out of CPU?

 

 

Pete

 

You haven't proven anything. Just speculated and concocted things. All you said was the colors are horrible (in your opinion), pause feature is useless (wrongly), and now blurted out some more garbage that C64 has better playback and hi-res the samething I refuted. It doesn't matter whether it's the sprites that flicker or software sprites that flicker, they are BOTH bad decisions on the part of the coder. I can take it logically rather than having to disassemble code. Regardless of whether they decided to flicker sprites (hardware) or use software sprites and made them flicker, they are both bad and worse than A8 having no flicker. Get a clue.

 

Oh damn dude, you really can't cope with being proven wrong can you?

 

I'm not trying to PROVE the c64 OR a8 versions are better, that seems to be a need of yours, I keep stating I like them both equally. It IS MY opinion that SOME of the colours are crap on the A8 version. It is MY opinion that there's no need for a pause feature.

 

Now the sprite flickering is a coder problem, yes you're right so the sprites flickering on the A8 is a problem too. It doesn't happen as often but still happens but I've never said that makes the A8 version shit.

 

If you take it logically then it seems you are guessing. I have PROVEN some of your statements wrong by disassembling the code instead of guessing and saying C64 is shit BECAUSE of these false statements.

 

I think you're the one who needs to get a clue. You can NEVER be wrong. You've always been the same, when you are proven wrong you start this bullshit again trying to ignore the points you were proven wrong on. Now you'll start all this crap again and turn it into a big argument so you can as far away from that fact as possible.

 

Get help.

 

 

Pete

[oky2000]

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.

 

 

do you know which magazine and which issue this interview was in? I'd like to read it.

[atariksi]

...

 

compare the play to the arcade, there is your proof. Really simple.

 

I doubt any arcade game would take the flicker graphics over smoother display even at half resolution. All flicker modes are inferior to flickerless modes. Otherwise, atari sprites can outdo c64 sprites.

 

I wonder if someone implemented the "insert quarter" gadget for A8 or C64 and then claim this is a closer to arcade.

 

It still doesn't make the A8 a superior version. It makes it look nicer but the gameplay is imho better on c64, so is the music, so is the fact it's hires.

 

 

 

Pete

 

You missed the point about the Pac-man CGA example. "IMHO" is not proof. Pac-man w/hi-res and flicker is INFERIOR to 160*200 Atari Pacman. Nothing subjective about it. For fast action games, smooth motion (no flicker) is higher priority than higher resolution. Pac-man isn't even that fast moving as Gyruss so probably a better example can be had and yet still flickering pac-man is inferior.

[popmilo]

...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).

You put a smile on my face this morning, thank you

[PeteD]

...

 

compare the play to the arcade, there is your proof. Really simple.

 

I doubt any arcade game would take the flicker graphics over smoother display even at half resolution. All flicker modes are inferior to flickerless modes. Otherwise, atari sprites can outdo c64 sprites.

 

I wonder if someone implemented the "insert quarter" gadget for A8 or C64 and then claim this is a closer to arcade.

 

It still doesn't make the A8 a superior version. It makes it look nicer but the gameplay is imho better on c64, so is the music, so is the fact it's hires.

 

 

 

Pete

 

You missed the point about the Pac-man CGA example. "IMHO" is not proof. Pac-man w/hi-res and flicker is INFERIOR to 160*200 Atari Pacman. Nothing subjective about it. For fast action games, smooth motion (no flicker) is higher priority than higher resolution. Pac-man isn't even that fast moving as Gyruss so probably a better example can be had and yet still flickering pac-man is inferior.

 

I didn't "miss" the point. I haven't played either of them so unlike some people won't comment until I have BUT it's still your choice. If the flickering pacman played better then I might prefer it. It also has little to do with Gyruss which doesn't flicker 100% of the time, only on those occasions where there are too many sprites to display.

 

*edit*

And since when am I trying to PROVE anything? IMHO is MY OPINION, this seems to be what you never understand. I'm talking about ME here, not you. I have no wish to change your mind, I have no interest in what you as a person think. You are the one who is trying to prove one version is better. I do not "care" one way or the other because I like both C64 and A8.

 

 

 

Pete

Edited October 24, 2009 by PeteD

[atariksi]

Instead of guessing how games work and saying that makes another version superior people should go disassemble them like I just did, and did the other day with RoF to show it does actually draw the whole landscape every time.

 

Pete

Yeah, but that takes a little bit of effort doesn't it Much easier to argue here than to try and code something.

 

Stephen Anderson

 

Basically proves my point that C64 game design is inferior if they had a choice of making it smoother. If they had no choice (as in PC CGA version of Pacman), then I can't really say bad design or coder's fault.

 

What proves your point? That I disassembled some games to PROVE what I'm saying and you just guess that A8 uses hardware collisions and C64 doesn't or that it flickers the sprites because it's run out of CPU?

 

 

Pete

 

You haven't proven anything. Just speculated and concocted things. All you said was the colors are horrible (in your opinion), pause feature is useless (wrongly), and now blurted out some more garbage that C64 has better playback and hi-res the samething I refuted. It doesn't matter whether it's the sprites that flicker or software sprites that flicker, they are BOTH bad decisions on the part of the coder. I can take it logically rather than having to disassemble code. Regardless of whether they decided to flicker sprites (hardware) or use software sprites and made them flicker, they are both bad and worse than A8 having no flicker. Get a clue.

 

Oh damn dude, you really can't cope with being proven wrong can you?

 

I'm not trying to PROVE the c64 OR a8 versions are better, that seems to be a need of yours, I keep stating I like them both equally. It IS MY opinion that SOME of the colours are crap on the A8 version. It is MY opinion that there's no need for a pause feature.

 

Now the sprite flickering is a coder problem, yes you're right so the sprites flickering on the A8 is a problem too. It doesn't happen as often but still happens but I've never said that makes the A8 version shit.

 

If you take it logically then it seems you are guessing. I have PROVEN some of your statements wrong by disassembling the code instead of guessing and saying C64 is shit BECAUSE of these false statements.

 

I think you're the one who needs to get a clue. You can NEVER be wrong. You've always been the same, when you are proven wrong you start this bullshit again trying to ignore the points you were proven wrong on. Now you'll start all this crap again and turn it into a big argument so you can as far away from that fact as possible.

 

Get help.

 

 

Pete

 

It's more of a question of answering the main point here-- the flicker is significant on C64 version so that point cannot be dismissed by claiming "hi-res". Now, whether it's the hardware sprites causing the flicker or CPU overload of software sprites/collision detection -- they are both bad. And you did not yet prove it's hardware collision-- all you said was:

"It also uses hardware collision registers in probably the same way the A8 version..."

 

Probably does not mean proof. If in fact it uses hardware sprites interlacing, you already have added software overhead to the collision detection so how is it proving my statement wrong. That means I was right about the collision detection.

[popmilo]

...

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

And we "C64 guys" who came to atari forum are what ? Big birds who dare to fight cats ?

Nobody will eat you on a forum just because you are small bird... Maybe they feed you, and teach you, so you become big bad bird

 

Really, guys come to TMRs forum if you are interested in coding for more than one platform or if you want to learn something new, or just enjoy the competition....

There are no cats and birds over there, unless someone makes a game with big bad commodore cats eating small atari birds

[PeteD]

 

 

Oh damn dude, you really can't cope with being proven wrong can you?

 

I'm not trying to PROVE the c64 OR a8 versions are better, that seems to be a need of yours, I keep stating I like them both equally. It IS MY opinion that SOME of the colours are crap on the A8 version. It is MY opinion that there's no need for a pause feature.

 

Now the sprite flickering is a coder problem, yes you're right so the sprites flickering on the A8 is a problem too. It doesn't happen as often but still happens but I've never said that makes the A8 version shit.

 

If you take it logically then it seems you are guessing. I have PROVEN some of your statements wrong by disassembling the code instead of guessing and saying C64 is shit BECAUSE of these false statements.

 

I think you're the one who needs to get a clue. You can NEVER be wrong. You've always been the same, when you are proven wrong you start this bullshit again trying to ignore the points you were proven wrong on. Now you'll start all this crap again and turn it into a big argument so you can as far away from that fact as possible.

 

Get help.

 

 

Pete

 

It's more of a question of answering the main point here-- the flicker is significant on C64 version so that point cannot be dismissed by claiming "hi-res". Now, whether it's the hardware sprites causing the flicker or CPU overload of software sprites/collision detection -- they are both bad. And you did not yet prove it's hardware collision-- all you said was:

"It also uses hardware collision registers in probably the same way the A8 version..."

 

Probably does not mean proof. If in fact it uses hardware sprites interlacing, you already have added software overhead to the collision detection so how is it proving my statement wrong. That means I was right about the collision detection.

 

That really is a load of waffle and you know it.

 

The hi-res and the flicker have NOTHING to do with each other. I never said they did and you're trying to put words into my mouth AGAIN. Please STOP it.

 

If you'd like me to go and rip out the piece of code that reads the hardware collision registers and post it I'll be happy to, I was looking at it last night. IF you go rip out the piece of code that handles the A8 collisions and show me where it doesn't use any software apart from actually reading those registers. BOTH versions by the way they work MUST at least be notified of a collision and then run some sort of software check to see what it was they collided with.

 

I don't mean probably as in probably one does it and "probably" the other does too. I mean probably as in the A8 version "probably" does the same kind of thing but not necessarily in exactly the same way..

 

There does not need to be any overhead if you're interlacing the sprites. Less processing in fact because you only check the currently displayed sprites each frame. So if it's trying to display 10 sprites and interlaces them 1/2 and 1/2 it only need check 5 every frame.

 

 

Pete

[oky2000]

 

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.

 

Updated version of the CPU you have in A8, and maybe it is 1mhz but because of how your system works it is only about 33% slower in games maybe..hmmm

 

An analogue synthesizer (well technically an analogue phase accumulator) with full ring modulation/synchronisation/filtering and FULL ADSR enveloping on ALL channels PLUS a fourth sample channel effectively...compared to what? A limited VCS sounding chip which hasn't got a hope in hell of making either a decent piano sound or electric guitar sound let alone both let alone in more than two channel mode...hmmmm?

 

16 very well chosen colours that in fact most games use the same colours on the A8 version even when it was developed at the same time...and that's when you can get as many colours on screen...256 colour palette on a machine that struggles to put more than 2 of those colours in it's highest resoltion on screen and 4-8 in the same as the C64 multicolour mode. It's like a V8 running on 2 cylinders...terrible design they never bothered to fix EVER...not once...same old rubbish colour resolution. The C16 does better with it's 121 colours hmmmm

 

Inferior PM graphics compared to sprites...hmmm

 

Inability to have software fastloaders.....especially on tape which is pathetic hmmm thought that one out well...64kb machine with a tape loader fixed in hardware that takes 30 mins to load a game wow amazing NOT.

 

If you get a decent sound chip, fix the low tech PM graphics and fix the screen modes to a minimum of any unique 16 colours on screen out of 256 in 160x200 it might be a different story, but emkay conveniently forgets the crippling compromises on the A8 hmmm....trolling? Never!

 

And if you try to compare the 1200XL or 130XE to the Commodore 128D...be prepared to come with a stick and some white material spare haha

 

edit: forgot to mention the horrible Sinclair quality keyboards of the XEGS/65XE/130XE that are probably the biggest sellers of the A8s total sales and yet have keyboards I couldn't bare to use for more than 2 seconds. And then there is the 400 keyboard joke...why bother? Why not admit they can't afford the custom chips AND a keyboard on the same machine at an acceptable price that people will spend on a home computer?. So that leaves the OTT priced 800 and 1200XL models, both of which have inferior keyboards to the plastic cased (never used the metal case cost reduced version) of the Commodore 128D and about the same as the original VIC-20 'PET' keyboard. So...how many 800XL computers were sold then?...because that is the only realistically priced A8 machine which has a better keyboard than the C64.

Edited October 24, 2009 by oky2000

[atariksi]

...

 

compare the play to the arcade, there is your proof. Really simple.

 

I doubt any arcade game would take the flicker graphics over smoother display even at half resolution. All flicker modes are inferior to flickerless modes. Otherwise, atari sprites can outdo c64 sprites.

 

I wonder if someone implemented the "insert quarter" gadget for A8 or C64 and then claim this is a closer to arcade.

 

It still doesn't make the A8 a superior version. It makes it look nicer but the gameplay is imho better on c64, so is the music, so is the fact it's hires.

 

 

 

Pete

 

You missed the point about the Pac-man CGA example. "IMHO" is not proof. Pac-man w/hi-res and flicker is INFERIOR to 160*200 Atari Pacman. Nothing subjective about it. For fast action games, smooth motion (no flicker) is higher priority than higher resolution. Pac-man isn't even that fast moving as Gyruss so probably a better example can be had and yet still flickering pac-man is inferior.

 

I didn't "miss" the point. I haven't played either of them so unlike some people won't comment until I have BUT it's still your choice. If the flickering pacman played better then I might prefer it. It also has little to do with Gyruss which doesn't flicker 100% of the time, only on those occasions where there are too many sprites to display.

 

*edit*

And since when am I trying to PROVE anything? IMHO is MY OPINION, this seems to be what you never understand. I'm talking about ME here, not you. I have no wish to change your mind, I have no interest in what you as a person think. You are the one who is trying to prove one version is better. I do not "care" one way or the other because I like both C64 and A8.

 

 

 

Pete

I can't agree that a flickering CGA pac-man can have better playability than a non-flickering one on A8 even at half resolution.

 

Let's look at Joust which uses flicker on A8. That IS inferior to having zero flicker sprites. But it's low probability when it occurs. On the other hand, Gyruss is high probability of flicker on C64. So it doesn't even compare to Joust sprite flicker what to speak of Gyruss on A8 which does NOT flicker. Okay, so you expressed your opinion but I don't think flicker vs. nonflicker is subjective. Flicker is always worse.

[atariksi]

 

 

Oh damn dude, you really can't cope with being proven wrong can you?

 

I'm not trying to PROVE the c64 OR a8 versions are better, that seems to be a need of yours, I keep stating I like them both equally. It IS MY opinion that SOME of the colours are crap on the A8 version. It is MY opinion that there's no need for a pause feature.

 

Now the sprite flickering is a coder problem, yes you're right so the sprites flickering on the A8 is a problem too. It doesn't happen as often but still happens but I've never said that makes the A8 version shit.

 

If you take it logically then it seems you are guessing. I have PROVEN some of your statements wrong by disassembling the code instead of guessing and saying C64 is shit BECAUSE of these false statements.

 

I think you're the one who needs to get a clue. You can NEVER be wrong. You've always been the same, when you are proven wrong you start this bullshit again trying to ignore the points you were proven wrong on. Now you'll start all this crap again and turn it into a big argument so you can as far away from that fact as possible.

 

Get help.

 

 

Pete

 

It's more of a question of answering the main point here-- the flicker is significant on C64 version so that point cannot be dismissed by claiming "hi-res". Now, whether it's the hardware sprites causing the flicker or CPU overload of software sprites/collision detection -- they are both bad. And you did not yet prove it's hardware collision-- all you said was:

"It also uses hardware collision registers in probably the same way the A8 version..."

 

Probably does not mean proof. If in fact it uses hardware sprites interlacing, you already have added software overhead to the collision detection so how is it proving my statement wrong. That means I was right about the collision detection.

 

That really is a load of waffle and you know it.

 

The hi-res and the flicker have NOTHING to do with each other. I never said they did and you're trying to put words into my mouth AGAIN. Please STOP it.

 

...

 

I am not putting anything in your mouth. I agree that hi-res and flicker have nothing to do with each other so do not claim they both are equal versions. Flicker is more of a significant issue here than resolution; it's a fast paced game. Perhaps, for a game like the Pawn or something you can get away with the screen updates at lower frame rates.

 

I'm not into disassembling stuff. I take the reviews and their claim A8 uses hardware collision detection.

[oky2000]

 

Well, if you argue with Rockford, you just have to do random searches on the internet and do a speculative reconstruction. For example, you can prove A2600 of Gyruss is better by the price:

 

C64 full disk version:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370198398604

 

Just the manual for the A2600 version is more expensive:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260310066266

Funny, so far, only atarians have compared random games on different platforms (as you have just done). I've been comparing only C64 & A8 games. You know, day by day, meticulously according to my list. So, it's rather far from random, don't you think ? LOL But as always, you are the one who knows what other people think and do.

it was to point out some c64 games are so poor that they arent as good as even a much lesser system. Only a dolt could miss that.

 

I only paid 3 bucks for my boxed and complete VCS copy

[PeteD]

 

 

Oh damn dude, you really can't cope with being proven wrong can you?

 

I'm not trying to PROVE the c64 OR a8 versions are better, that seems to be a need of yours, I keep stating I like them both equally. It IS MY opinion that SOME of the colours are crap on the A8 version. It is MY opinion that there's no need for a pause feature.

 

Now the sprite flickering is a coder problem, yes you're right so the sprites flickering on the A8 is a problem too. It doesn't happen as often but still happens but I've never said that makes the A8 version shit.

 

If you take it logically then it seems you are guessing. I have PROVEN some of your statements wrong by disassembling the code instead of guessing and saying C64 is shit BECAUSE of these false statements.

 

I think you're the one who needs to get a clue. You can NEVER be wrong. You've always been the same, when you are proven wrong you start this bullshit again trying to ignore the points you were proven wrong on. Now you'll start all this crap again and turn it into a big argument so you can as far away from that fact as possible.

 

Get help.

 

 

Pete

 

It's more of a question of answering the main point here-- the flicker is significant on C64 version so that point cannot be dismissed by claiming "hi-res". Now, whether it's the hardware sprites causing the flicker or CPU overload of software sprites/collision detection -- they are both bad. And you did not yet prove it's hardware collision-- all you said was:

"It also uses hardware collision registers in probably the same way the A8 version..."

 

Probably does not mean proof. If in fact it uses hardware sprites interlacing, you already have added software overhead to the collision detection so how is it proving my statement wrong. That means I was right about the collision detection.

 

That really is a load of waffle and you know it.

 

The hi-res and the flicker have NOTHING to do with each other. I never said they did and you're trying to put words into my mouth AGAIN. Please STOP it.

 

...

 

I am not putting anything in your mouth. I agree that hi-res and flicker have nothing to do with each other so do not claim they both are equal versions. Flicker is more of a significant issue here than resolution; it's a fast paced game. Perhaps, for a game like the Pawn or something you can get away with the screen updates at lower frame rates.

 

I'm not into disassembling stuff. I take the reviews and their claim A8 uses hardware collision detection.

 

 

If you keep insisting you're not putting words into my mouth then I suggest you re-read your posts carefully before pressing "Add Reply" because you make a statement about 2 things I've said and link them together when I have never linked them together myself. At the very least that's making presumptions on what I am thinking...

 

 

C64 version doesn't flicker all the time, less than 1/2 the time, probably less than that. Did you actually play it or watch a youtube video? The A8 version also flickers (yes it does) but nowhere near as much as the C64 version. Seems to be more of a XOR sprite routine causing it.

 

Yes, I also don't "like" flicker in games and if they'd done a better job they could have stopped it happening. Usually only 8 hardware sprites appear at the same time in the middle alien zone BUT the main ship is hardware sprites too so even when the player ship is below the enemies it flickers because they didn't bother to put a raster interrupt there. They could have easily made the player from software sprites and coloured it differently to the enemies with colour ram, etc etc Having said that, it doesn't effect the gameplay on the C64 version. You telling me otherwise is just ridiculous because it's a decision I've made. Everyone else is free to play all versions and come to their own conclusions.

 

What I'm saying is (seems I've done nothing but repeat this). I like both versions as much as each other. I prefer the arcade version.

 

If you're not going to disassemble stuff and I am then please recant your earlier statements about hardware collisions, cpu time causing flicker etc It's easy to say, "Ok, I got it wrong on those points", when corrected by someone. It would reduce the number of arguments on the forum.

 

 

Pete

[Rockford]

 

Well, if you argue with Rockford, you just have to do random searches on the internet and do a speculative reconstruction. For example, you can prove A2600 of Gyruss is better by the price:

 

C64 full disk version:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370198398604

 

Just the manual for the A2600 version is more expensive:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260310066266

Funny, so far, only atarians have compared random games on different platforms (as you have just done). I've been comparing only C64 & A8 games. You know, day by day, meticulously according to my list. So, it's rather far from random, don't you think ? LOL But as always, you are the one who knows what other people think and do.

it was to point out some c64 games are so poor that they arent as good as even a much lesser system. Only a dolt could miss that.

Especially that he compared the ebay prices. Why didn't he compare the C64 disc to the gyruss arcade...it would make sense as well.

Look it's even more expensive.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Centuri-GYRUSS-arcade-coin-op-machine_W0QQitemZ320437688114QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4a9b931732

What does it prove ? That somebody put it out on ebay at that price. And so what ? What a brainiac you are.