Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl

[Atarigmr]

No tie,

 

((sprites moving one at pixel resolution even in MCM) && (8 sprites either in MCM or Hires mode) && (Attributes either in char mode or bitmap mode) && (mix hires chars and MC chars in one mode) &&( 256 chars) && (half colour clock smooth scrolling) &&(16 colour palette)) != (more colours(either 128, 256, 512... 4096) when they cannot be placed freely in a bitmap or char mode).

 

Got it?

 

Even if both computers just use 7 colours for a game, Atari has so much more rich and vivid colours. C64 can't even come close reproducing the colors found in the Atari versions. So i see no competition at all in the colour area, Atari is superior to both C64 and Spectrum an any other 8 bit computer in that area. Thanks to much bigger pallette to choose from and som special hardware modes.

 

Se my earlier screenshot of the game H.E.R.O for exemple.

 

C64 pales right away in the colour area.

 

I'm not talking "sprites" but "colours". And the quality of them.

 

I have already said in one of my posts above:

 

 

If you want me to say that the A8 has a much bigger palette and can have nice rainbow effects, you have it, I didn't deny it anyway.

[ceti331]

C64 handles sprites better?

 

Atari is the better computer for rich and clear colours?

 

A tie?

 

Lets see A8 r-type or Armalyte before passing judgement.

 

until then, C64 = superior Games machine. More variety & detail in moving, interactable game objects, & game backgrounds. Rather than rasterbars which add no information to the game itself.

 

A8 = 'an interesting machine, an amazing design considering it was years earlier'.

I'd have been quite content with an A8 given how I used and enjoyed computers (tinkering with programming/graphics more than gaming)

 

call them a 'tie' as home-computers.

but the C64 = clear winner for games.

 

When doing multiplatform ports, the design is around a lowest common denominator.

 

Armalyte & r-type port (for me being side-scrolling nut) shows the superiority of the C64 as a gaming platform

also turrican (i had this on the amiga, but was suprised to see how good the c64 version was)

 

 

my take on the graduated backgrounds - they are used to fill 'empty'/background areas. wheras the C64's colors-per-tile allows richer interactive environments.. variety & detail in the areas you actually move through.

 

I'll conceed the rasterbars do look effective for set peice static screens.

[TMR]

I'm not talking "sprites" but "colours". And the quality of them.

 

And that's the problem, you're using colours to justify your claim of better graphics and they're not one and the same - having more colours doesn't automatically make for better graphics and there are other factors involved.

 

Edit: here's a thought, if the best 8-bit machine is the one with the most colours, the winner is probably the Amstrad CPC Plus since it has a palette of 4,096 - by your "logic", the superior 8-bit is built by a company that most people at Atari Age probably never heard of.

Edited April 24, 2010 by TMR

[TMR]

Armalyte & r-type port (for me being side-scrolling nut)

 

You, sir, have very good taste in game genres. =-)

[DimensionX]

ZX Spectrum almost always uses a higher resolution too because lack of different graphic modes, then it uses the bright command to get more colours on screen. Everything you see is in 256*192 pixels while the C64 version often use a much lower resolution. You can easily see that on the zig zag lines in the C64 versions of these games.

 

Please stop trying to bloody lecture me about how these machines work because, since i've developed and released games for all three, i sure as hell don't need the "how these work" speeches.

 

To reach spectrums resolution you will have to get rid of some colours. That's why both C64 and Atari lost some colours when trying to reproduce some of the spectrum games like Head over Heels for exemple.

 

The C64 doesn't have the same colours as the Spectrum so some have to be swapped over, but the amount of colours actually in use can remain the same because both machines have the same attribute-based mode when the C64 is in high res. For example...

 

 

...and the program version is here.

 

Spectrum has much sharper colours thanks to a pallette of only 8 colours where bright commande givs some extra nuances. And that is the big problem with C64 too, you can't use any fine nuances, like on Atari.

 

Is it your conversion?

 

Great job.

 

Have you seen Xenon on C64 and Spectrum?

 

It doesn't look even near the ST and Amiga version. Atari 800 could do it, but not C64 and Spectrum because ST uses gradiant nuances for the graphics and the computer must have a big palette to choose from for being able to recreate the game.

[DimensionX]

I'm not talking "sprites" but "colours". And the quality of them.

 

And that's the problem, you're using colours to justify your claim of better graphics and they're not one and the same - having more colours doesn't automatically make for better graphics and there are other factors involved.

 

Edit: here's a thought, if the best 8-bit machine is the one with the most colours, the winner is probably the Amstrad CPC Plus since it has a palette of 4,096 - by your "logic", the superior 8-bit is built by a company that most people at Atari Age probably never heard of.

 

No, i don't. Just in the colour area. Not in graphics.

 

What i'm trying to say is that you can't say that C64 was the best computer for graphics. I say that C64 is better on some things, Atari on other things. That's why i will call it a tie.

Edited April 24, 2010 by DimensionX

[Atarigmr]

A8 best for graphics? not in all areas certainly:

 

[DimensionX]

A8 best for graphics? not in all areas certainly:

 

 

Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream.

 

Let's be honest.

 

At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at.

 

You see, i'm not biased at all.

 

Which computer is best?

 

It depends on what you want.

Edited April 24, 2010 by DimensionX

[Atarigmr]

A8 best for graphics? not in all areas certainly:

 

 

Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream.

 

Let's be honest.

 

At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at.

 

You see, i'm not biased at all.

 

Which computer is best?

 

It depends on what you want.

 

These are hires pictures. If you can't see that there must be some kind of problem. Can you post a gif of 256 colour pictures from the A8 to compare?

[TMR]

Spectrum has much sharper colours thanks to a pallette of only 8 colours where bright commande givs some extra nuances. And that is the big problem with C64 too, you can't use any fine nuances, like on Atari.

 

The Atari couldn't get the colour into the picture in the first place, the C64 could use different colours to get the luminances right. Wibbling on repeatedly about "nuances" is rot even with 128 colour palettes anyway though, because there'll only ever be two or at a push three colours in the right luminance range when you're picking them.

 

Is it your conversion?

 

Great job.

 

What's good about it? i've been doing Spectrum conversions for years and it just takes a little while to paint in the colour manually, that's all. As was already said, the modes work in a very similar way and the only difference between the two machines is specific colours and the C64 having a higher resolution and being more flexible as to where colours can be used. Pictures designed for the C64 in high res like this...

 

 

...aren't possible on the Spectrum because they're 320x200 pixels and using colours it doesn't have (that one isn't mine, but it was drawn on a PC with a C64 palette and i converted it).

 

Have you seen Xenon on C64 and Spectrum?

 

It doesn't look even near the ST and Amiga version. Atari 800 could do it, but not C64 and Spectrum because ST uses gradiant nuances for the graphics and the computer must have a big palette to choose from for being able to recreate the game.

 

Sorry, this is all total and utter bilge - quite apart from the ST or Amiga resolution being twice that of the A8, it uses far too much colour per scanline to be possible as is; it'd have to be boiled down to less colours overall than the C64 version and all those "nuances" you go on about will disappear in the process as colours are selected for functional rather than aesthetic reasons.

 

And for reference, yes i have seen the Spectrum and C64 versions and in the latter case one of the issues is that it's an appalling conversion - if they hadn't arsed around with trying to retain the screen layout (and the A8 couldn't do what the C64 version is doing anyway) it could've looked significantly better.

[DimensionX]

A8 best for graphics? not in all areas certainly:

 

 

Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream.

 

Let's be honest.

 

At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at.

 

You see, i'm not biased at all.

 

Which computer is best?

 

It depends on what you want.

 

These are hires pictures. If you can't see that there must be some kind of problem. Can you post a gif of 256 colour pictures from the A8 to compare?

 

Yes, i saw it was high resolution pics. But nothing you can use in games anyway.

 

The best way to watch Atari art is to download WinAtari800 and to visit Homesofts page. There's several slidshows av Technicolour Dream pictures in the demo section.

 

Atari ST managed to show pics with 19.200 colours...

 

Of a palette of over 32.000 colours

 

Using Photochrome.

 

Of a limit of 16 on screen colours and a palette of 512 colours.

 

So, i'm not easily impressed.

Edited April 24, 2010 by DimensionX

[TMR]

Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream.

 

Let's be honest.

 

If we're being honest, 320x200x16 (and in case people are wondering, those pictures haven't been "deinterlaced", those are static C64 screens) is significantly better for graphics quality than 80x96x256 with some scanline distortion. Here's an APAC pic i did a few years ago...

 

 

...nowhere near as good looking.

 

At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie.

 

And your decision isn't final so please, in the middle of a programming sub forum, stop trying to dictate like that.

[DimensionX]

Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream.

 

Let's be honest.

 

If we're being honest, 320x200x16 (and in case people are wondering, those pictures haven't been "deinterlaced", those are static C64 screens) is significantly better for graphics quality than 80x96x256 with some scanline distortion. Here's an APAC pic i did a few years ago...

 

 

...nowhere near as good looking.

 

At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie.

 

And your decision isn't final so please, in the middle of a programming sub forum, stop trying to dictate like that.

 

Well, that's my personal opinion, no matter what you or anyone else say. To think that one single computer is best at everything it's plain stupid.

 

Better then to be realistic...

Edited April 24, 2010 by DimensionX

[Atarigmr]

And I am not impressed by any of the A8 screen you posted until now, they have nothing but rainbows.So I asked you for some pictures to compete with this hires ones from the c64. I know that they are very good A8 bitmap art around(g2f) they are good for hardware and can have nice colours but you can have any of these c64 pictures on the A8 without great restrictions, starting with the resolution and then with detail.

[Atarigmr]

 

If we're being honest, 320x200x16 (and in case people are wondering, those pictures haven't been "deinterlaced", those are static C64 screens) is significantly better for graphics quality than 80x96x256 with some scanline distortion. Here's an APAC pic i did a few years ago...

 

 

 

 

What is that grey blob at the background? Is this picture meant to be seen from a distance? It seems that for you colour is all there is to gfx.

[DimensionX]

And I am not impressed by any of the A8 screen you posted until now, they have nothing but rainbows.So I asked you for some pictures to compete with this hires ones from the c64. I know that they are very good A8 bitmap art around(g2f) they are good for hardware and can have nice colours but you can have any of these c64 pictures on the A8 without great restrictions, starting with the resolution and then with detail.

 

Why don't try it live?

http://a800win.atari-area.prv.pl/

 

Homesoft

http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?idx=6

 

It's easy to set up, you will be running a virtual Atari in no time. Then you can check out for yourself what an Atari 800 is capable of, and what it's not capable of. There isn't such thing as a "best computer", just different computers.

 

And you missed the point, Atari doesn't need a single raster to produce more rich and vivid colours. Check today postings in this thread.

[Atarigmr]

And I am not impressed by any of the A8 screen you posted until now, they have nothing but rainbows.So I asked you for some pictures to compete with this hires ones from the c64. I know that they are very good A8 bitmap art around(g2f) they are good for hardware and can have nice colours but you can have any of these c64 pictures on the A8 without great restrictions, starting with the resolution and then with detail.

 

Why don't try it live?

http://a800win.atari-area.prv.pl/

 

Homesoft

http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?idx=6

 

It's easy to set up, you will be running a virtual Atari in no time. Then you can check out for yourself what an Atari 800 is capable of, and what it's not capable of. There isn't such thing as a "best computer", just different computers.

 

And you missed the point, Atari doesn't need a single raster to produce more rich and vivid colours. Check today postings in this thread.

 

You assume too much. How do you know I don't have an A8 or those emulators? I have programmed for the 3 machines mentioned in this thread. I am far from being as a good programmer as TMR but I have dirtied my hands on many systems. So please don't be condescendant about my knowledge of the said platforms.

 

I have entered in this debate not to show the c64 a better machine, but to show you that more colours <> better graphics.

[DimensionX]

And I am not impressed by any of the A8 screen you posted until now, they have nothing but rainbows.So I asked you for some pictures to compete with this hires ones from the c64. I know that they are very good A8 bitmap art around(g2f) they are good for hardware and can have nice colours but you can have any of these c64 pictures on the A8 without great restrictions, starting with the resolution and then with detail.

 

Why don't try it live?

http://a800win.atari-area.prv.pl/

 

Homesoft

http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?idx=6

 

It's easy to set up, you will be running a virtual Atari in no time. Then you can check out for yourself what an Atari 800 is capable of, and what it's not capable of. There isn't such thing as a "best computer", just different computers.

 

And you missed the point, Atari doesn't need a single raster to produce more rich and vivid colours. Check today postings in this thread.

 

You assume too much. How do you know I don't have an A8 or those emulators? I have programmed for the 3 machines mentioned in this thread. I am far from being as a good programmer as TMR but I have dirtied my hands on many systems. So please don't be condescendant about my knowledge of the said platforms.

 

I have entered in this debate not to show the c64 a better machine, but to show you that more colours <> better graphics.

 

That's not true. To be able to create certain graphics you must have access to a certain amount of colours. Else you can't create that kind of graphics. And a palette of only 16 is VERY little to work with. You can't use finer nuances with so few colours and it shows on the C64 and Spectrum.

 

Not to say that you can't create good graphics on a 16 colour palette.

Edited April 24, 2010 by DimensionX

[DimensionX]

Before i log out...

 

That's why ST games looks soooo much better.

 

ST has a limit of 16 on screen colours, but a palette of 512 to choose from.

 

Point made

[Atarigmr]

Before i log out...

 

That's why ST games looks soooo much better.

 

ST has a limit of 16 on screen colours, but a palette of 512 to choose from.

 

Point made

 

Mute. A8 vs C64 (vs spectrum).

[GroovyBee]

vs 7800 and they all lose in terms of graphics.

[DimensionX]

Before i log out...

 

That's why ST games looks soooo much better.

 

ST has a limit of 16 on screen colours, but a palette of 512 to choose from.

 

Point made

 

Mute. A8 vs C64 (vs spectrum).

 

Didn't got the message?

 

A8 have hundreds of colours to choose from too.

 

Time to visit the store.

[TMR]

That's not true. To be able to create certain graphics you must have access to a certain amount of colours. Else you can't create that kind of graphics.

 

And if you don't have the colour depth there are many more kinds of graphics that can't be produced. So throwing colours around as a be all and end all of the better graphics argument is bogus.

 

For example, you're drawing a tree so you set all three playfield colours to nice shades of green for the top bit and brown for the bottom and it looks lovely. Then you want a grey wall to the right of the tree and... oh, we're using character mode so there's only one playfield colour left - that'll have to be grey... tell you what, we'll use colour splits to change it every couple of scanlines so the wall has a bit more detail. Now how about a bush on the far side of the wal... oh hang on, the wall has one colour and the trunk of the tree has the other three set to brown so a green bush isn't...

 

Anyone who has tried to actually design Atari 8-bit graphics has been through that kind of process hundreds if not thousands of times in their head and the colours that get used in games are more often than not compromises because they're the only ones that fit for whatever reason, not because the designer wanted a subtle nuance at that point on the screen.

 

Not to say that you can't create good graphics on a 16 colour palette.

 

And that's the massive, gaping chasm in your argument; good graphics can be done with or without a large palette but having a large palette doesn't necessarily mean you can do good graphics.

 

That's why ST games looks soooo much better.

 

ST has a limit of 16 on screen colours, but a palette of 512 to choose from.

 

And again, the difference is resolution and colour depth so it's not just about colours. As we've said. Repeatedly.

[Atarigmr]

Before i log out...

 

That's why ST games looks soooo much better.

 

ST has a limit of 16 on screen colours, but a palette of 512 to choose from.

 

Point made

 

Mute. A8 vs C64 (vs spectrum).

 

Didn't got the message?

 

A8 have hundreds of colours to choose from too.

 

Time to visit the store.

 

Hundreds of colours to choose from with dreadful restrictions. You comparing apples with oranges(St can put any of 16 colours anywhere on the bitmap, you can't do this on A8 unless you lose resolution dramatically).

 

How many games are there on the A8 using 16 colours out of 256 and placing them freely on the bitmap? static screens don't count.

[TMR]

vs 7800 and they all lose in terms of graphics.

 

Is it better spec than the Amstrad CPC Plus...?