Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl

[DimensionX]

 

In a Atari forum?

 

 

 

Anyone owning or having knowledge of any other machine, please leave your opinions at the door. Free thinking will not be tolerated

 

 

Pete

 

I'm the one who has changed my opinion so far. The other has not.

 

Does that say something?

 

Belive me, i'm always open.

 

Atari forum was because he called me a troll.

Edited April 24, 2010 by DimensionX

[DimensionX]

 

 

Before i leave, i will answer you.

 

That would have been true IF the C64 palette was less limited.

 

16 colours makes all games look the same. You can't even make gradients with only 16 colours. If the C64 palette have been a bit larger i could have bought that argument. But now it's way to limited.

 

That's my honest opinion.

 

And if you don't agree with that, it's okey by me.

 

Of course I agree that the C64 palette is limited, I just said so, but if you think it makes all the games look the same and the A8's palette doesn't, I STRONGLY suggest you go check out some screenshots on both machines. There's a reason why people who don't know much about the A8 think all the games are "mono" and that same thinking probably applies to people who say all C64 games look the same.

 

 

Pete

 

Atari games often use lots of different colours, even if they are few. And that's the point. You have hundreds to choose from, even if you just use 3 for the game they are different. On C64 it's always the same colours.

[PeteD]

 

 

Before i leave, i will answer you.

 

That would have been true IF the C64 palette was less limited.

 

16 colours makes all games look the same. You can't even make gradients with only 16 colours. If the C64 palette have been a bit larger i could have bought that argument. But now it's way to limited.

 

That's my honest opinion.

 

And if you don't agree with that, it's okey by me.

 

Of course I agree that the C64 palette is limited, I just said so, but if you think it makes all the games look the same and the A8's palette doesn't, I STRONGLY suggest you go check out some screenshots on both machines. There's a reason why people who don't know much about the A8 think all the games are "mono" and that same thinking probably applies to people who say all C64 games look the same.

 

 

Pete

 

Atari games often use lots of different colours, even if they are few. And that's the point. You have hundreds to choose from, even if you just use 3 for the game they are different. On C64 it's always the same colours.

 

I can't really agree with you there. From what I've seen there is a severe lack of artistic imagination with A8 games. People seem to get lost in the fact they CAN use 3/4 shades of blue or green and then do so rather than trying to mix in some other colours, hence the "mono" look I mentioned earlier. Of course that's not strictly the machines fault, more the artists.

 

*edit*

Also, exaggeration doesn't help the cause A8 has 256 (ok, 2.5 is more than 1, so hundreds) colours ONLY in selected modes. In normal "game" modes there's 128, a lot of which if you check any palette are too similar to count as distinct.

 

 

Pete

Edited April 24, 2010 by PeteD

[GroovyBee]

From what I've seen there is a severe lack of artistic imagination with A8 games. People seem to get lost in the fact they CAN use 3/4 shades of blue or green and then do so rather than trying to mix in some other colours, hence the "mono" look I mentioned earlier. Of course that's not strictly the machines fault, more the artists.

 

I'd say its more a problem of programmer art than anything a real artist could do.

[DimensionX]

 

 

Before i leave, i will answer you.

 

That would have been true IF the C64 palette was less limited.

 

16 colours makes all games look the same. You can't even make gradients with only 16 colours. If the C64 palette have been a bit larger i could have bought that argument. But now it's way to limited.

 

That's my honest opinion.

 

And if you don't agree with that, it's okey by me.

 

Of course I agree that the C64 palette is limited, I just said so, but if you think it makes all the games look the same and the A8's palette doesn't, I STRONGLY suggest you go check out some screenshots on both machines. There's a reason why people who don't know much about the A8 think all the games are "mono" and that same thinking probably applies to people who say all C64 games look the same.

 

 

Pete

 

Atari games often use lots of different colours, even if they are few. And that's the point. You have hundreds to choose from, even if you just use 3 for the game they are different. On C64 it's always the same colours.

 

I can't really agree with you there. From what I've seen there is a severe lack of artistic imagination with A8 games. People seem to get lost in the fact they CAN use 3/4 shades of blue or green and then do so rather than trying to mix in some other colours, hence the "mono" look I mentioned earlier. Of course that's not strictly the machines fault, more the artists.

 

 

Pete

 

True.

 

I have seen several games where people just use lots of gradients without any artistic skill. But that's not Ataris fault as you say. C64's biggest drawbacks are a quite slow main processor and a very limited palette. Else it's a great computer.

[PeteD]

From what I've seen there is a severe lack of artistic imagination with A8 games. People seem to get lost in the fact they CAN use 3/4 shades of blue or green and then do so rather than trying to mix in some other colours, hence the "mono" look I mentioned earlier. Of course that's not strictly the machines fault, more the artists.

 

I'd say its more a problem of programmer art than anything a real artist could do.

 

Probably right. It's a good job nobody has ever had to suffer MY programmer art

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

@Pete

 

I'm not the one to sit here and judge C64 as a good or bad computer because all computers are good AND bad in their own ways. Therefore it isn't such thing as a "best computer". The only thing we can say is that a computer is good for a certain purpose. Atari is better then C64 in some areas while C64 is better then Atari in other areas.

 

Then we are honest.

[PeteD]

@Pete

 

I'm not the one to sit here and judge C64 as a good or bad computer because all computers are good AND bad in their own ways. Therefore it isn't such thing as a "best computer". The only thing we can say is that a computer is good for a certain purpose. Atari is better then C64 in some areas while C64 is better then Atari in other areas.

 

Then we are honest.

 

Totally agree with you. I think what got TMR riled was your seeming blanket statements that read like "a8 is better than c64 for graphics" and that's impossible to say and not have a LOT of people disagree. It's just a thing that happens on this forum. It's so hotly contested by the A8 stalwarts and us "outsiders" that any sign of slightly outlandish claims tends to make people go "oh no, not ANOTHER one" and have a terrible urge to reply and point out that maybe they're mistaken

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

@Pete

 

I'm not the one to sit here and judge C64 as a good or bad computer because all computers are good AND bad in their own ways. Therefore it isn't such thing as a "best computer". The only thing we can say is that a computer is good for a certain purpose. Atari is better then C64 in some areas while C64 is better then Atari in other areas.

 

Then we are honest.

 

Totally agree with you. I think what got TMR riled was your seeming blanket statements that read like "a8 is better than c64 for graphics" and that's impossible to say and not have a LOT of people disagree. It's just a thing that happens on this forum. It's so hotly contested by the A8 stalwarts and us "outsiders" that any sign of slightly outlandish claims tends to make people go "oh no, not ANOTHER one" and have a terrible urge to reply and point out that maybe they're mistaken

 

 

Pete

 

Always a pleasure to having a discussion with a sensible person. I have learned several new things that i didn't knew when i first posted in this thread.

 

Time for me to log out

 

Have a great weekend Pete.

[PeteD]

 

 

Have a great weekend Pete.

 

You too.

 

 

Pete

[ceti331]

Anyone owning or having knowledge of any other machine, please leave your opinions at the door. Free thinking will not be tolerated

 

arguing on the internet. I think its called the special olympics.

 

Why am I getting into an argument about 2 machines i never owned

..because i was curious to know if A8 could handle something r-type-esque.

raster rainbows dont help at all IMO

[PeteD]

I think the A8 could handle anything the other 8 bits could but people have to be realistic about the limitations. Look at the rather impressive Spectrum version. All the background stuff has an 8 pixel gap so they can change colours without seeing the attributes, it shifts around quite a lot of sprites but pretty much all of them only move on 8 pixel boundaries over a black background with no masking when they overlap. In doing so it manages things the C64 one doesn't even attempt, all be them somewhat jerky due to the 8 pixel movement.

 

If you did software sprites like that on the A8 it could be much faster than the speccy because A8 has a character screen mode. Problems then arise with there only being 128 chars so you have to start splitting the screen. Then there's the question of colours. You could do a fairly decent job with some DLIs to change background colours/sprite colours, add some PMGs either as underlay for background colour leaving PF colours free for sprites or for the moving stuff which would probably allow more colour variety but be a bit slower.

 

It basically all depends on what you're willing to put up with. Nothing is impossible but do you want 8 pixel moving non-masking low colour software sprite R-Type on the A8? People were happy with it on the speccy.

 

 

Pete

[Atarigmr]

 

It basically all depends on what you're willing to put up with. Nothing is impossible but do you want 8 pixel moving non-masking low colour software sprite R-Type on the A8? People were happy with it on the speccy.

 

 

Pete

 

To me it seems that speccy fans are more forgiving than say their c64 and a8 counterparts. If you get something on the c64 or A8 under 50fps would it be accepted as easily?!

[PeteD]

A8 I think more so than the C64, it all depends what it is. Honestly atm I think A8 owners should be happy with whatever they get (and seemingly are most of the time) There have been some great games released but nowhere near the number or quality of most other machines (and please nobody read that as A8 games are inferior, that's not what I'm saying). I guess it's just the userbase at fault there. It's good to see certain prolific multi-platform coders targeting the A8 I think the more people release games the more other coders will want to join in the "fun".

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

A8 I think more so than the C64, it all depends what it is. Honestly atm I think A8 owners should be happy with whatever they get (and seemingly are most of the time) There have been some great games released but nowhere near the number or quality of most other machines (and please nobody read that as A8 games are inferior, that's not what I'm saying). I guess it's just the userbase at fault there. It's good to see certain prolific multi-platform coders targeting the A8 I think the more people release games the more other coders will want to join in the "fun".

 

 

Pete

 

I agree. Atari was a huge hit in USA but sadly not in Europe. Britain produced more good games then any other country for quite a long time and almost non of them was released for the Atari 8bit. While softwarehouses like Ocean, Gremlin, Hewson, CRL etc released one after another hit on C64, Spectrum and Amstrad, almost non was released for the Atari.

 

But there's more...

 

They had to make good versions of the game for Spectrum and C64 because of the huge userbase while the (rare) Atari version in many cases was inferior to both C64 and the Spectrum versions of the game, the did not even bother to make a special version that used Ataris hardware. Arkanoid is a fine exemple of that among many half done games.

 

The exception was Polen, and still is. Atari was a big hit in Polen and i have seen lots of great remakes and demos from Polen that shows what an Atari is capable of.

 

As you say, it's about userbase.

 

There's even an Atari remake of the game Knightlore.

 

PNG, 684x996px, 58 KB (0.06 MB)

 

Then there's a polish Mortal Kombat among other remakes.

Edited April 25, 2010 by DimensionX

[DimensionX]

I think that most of are you missing the point with gaming on Atari 800.

 

All the colours in gold and silver and all the rainbows are an importand part in Atari gaming. Without them it's not much left and the games is like on all the other 8bit machines. That is why gaming on Atari is so special.

 

When i played Atari games on my Atari 800 for the first time, i just sat there looking at the magic glimmering colours that no other 8bit computer could produce. When my friends C64 produced "normal games" i had the magic machine who could produce rainbows. Glowing magic colours is a vital part in Atarigaming.

 

Don't think anything else, but then, you will know that if you are an old Atarigamer like me.

 

I will never forget that day i loaded the game Dimension X for the first time. I just sat there with my mouth open. WOW, those colours...

Edited April 25, 2010 by DimensionX

[DimensionX]

...stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics.

Now I feel depressed about my stupid project that has a rainbow behind some three colour graphics

 

p.s. I know what you mean but its just so complicated to do anything else

 

Don't feel depressed.

 

The point in making games on Atari isn't to make regular games, it's to make "Atari games". Games that no other 8 bit computer can produce. Games with glimmering menus in gold and silver. Vast spreads of warm colours and lots of gradient rainbow effekts. That is making games on Atari. Use the hardware what it's best at. Fluid warm colours.

 

Leave the regular games to C64 or Spectrum or Amstrad programmers

Edited April 25, 2010 by DimensionX

[PeteD]

 

But there's more...

 

They had to make good versions of the game for Spectrum and C64 because of the huge userbase while the (rare) Atari version in many cases was inferior to both C64 and the Spectrum versions of the game, the did not even bother to make a special version that used Ataris hardware. Arkanoid is a fine exemple of that among many half done games.

 

 

That's something of a misconception. I'm not sure if you're a coder or not but if you are producing something similar to the arcade style games on the C64 and even speccy on the A8 is a LOT more work. The machine is just about capable of it but it's no easy task as anyone who has tried will tell you. That's one of the main reasons imo there aren't more great ports from that era.

 

The remake of KL is the BBC Micro version with a wrapper around it to make it think it's still running on the beeb. Beeb is 2mhz 6502, A8 is 1.8mhz 6502 - some DMA etc so it's a good match. OK, it's got some nice additions by xxl but it's basically hardware wise about as simplistic as you can get on any machine and relies on CPU speed alone. That's why the speccy had so many isometric games and the C64 had barely any.

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

...stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics.

Now I feel depressed about my stupid project that has a rainbow behind some three colour graphics

 

p.s. I know what you mean but its just so complicated to do anything else

 

Don't feel depressed.

 

The point in making games on Atari isn't to make regular games, it's to make "Atari games". Games that no other 8 bit computer can produce. Games with glimmering menus in gold and silver. Vast spreads of warm colours and lots of gradient rainbow effekts. That is making games on Atari. Use the hardware what it's best at. Fluid warm colours.

 

Leave the regular games to C64 or Spectrum or Amstrad programmers

 

If all of that is what makes an A8 game for you then I know at least one person who will be happy to oblige That's nothing but tricks and demo routines as far as I'm concerned. Yes, it's VERY Atari but that's simply because it IS the one thing it does well. If all those rainbows that don't actually do anything don't enhance the actual game then it's a but like trying to polish a turd.

 

A8 games that ARE specific to the machine are ones like the Lucas games that use the faster CPU and in some cases the slightly blocky graphics modes to display more shades/colours. If the A8 had survived longer it would've at least been close to the speccy in the isometric games, some more 3D stuff would've been great like Stuntcar Racer.

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

If all of that is what makes an A8 game for you then I know at least one person who will be happy to oblige That's nothing but tricks and demo routines as far as I'm concerned. Yes, it's VERY Atari but that's simply because it IS the one thing it does well. If all those rainbows that don't actually do anything don't enhance the actual game then it's a but like trying to polish a turd.

 

A8 games that ARE specific to the machine are ones like the Lucas games that use the faster CPU and in some cases the slightly blocky graphics modes to display more shades/colours. If the A8 had survived longer it would've at least been close to the speccy in the isometric games, some more 3D stuff would've been great like Stuntcar Racer.

 

 

Pete

 

I had many both good and very playable games for my Atari 800. The 800 version of Millipede was truly outstanding, even better then the arcade. Boulder Dash was better on Atari too. But, what i mean is that glowing menus and multicolored backgrounds is a part of Atari gaming for the 8 bit computer. The games would have been poor without that eye candy.

 

A simple task as Arkanoid should not be any problem on Atari 800. Yet the programmer fails, big time by making an almost unplayable version of it. In some other games it was missing a lot of graphics, and levels. That's a poor job from the programmer, or he was told that, don't make a good Atari version because it will not sell well anyway. What you got was a game with missing levels and poor executed. Especially in the beginning of the 90's when Atari 800 was practically dead and even the ST began to struggle.

 

Take ZX Spectrum for exemple.

 

When you make games FOR ZX Spectrum, they are best. When you make games to emulate something else on another machine, they don't look good anymore because Spectrum could only do "Spectrum games", games especially written for Spectrum. The same applies for Atari, when you write games FOR Atari.

 

All computers differs and when you write a game for that particular computer, it will look different and no other computer can make it look like that. That's the beauty by having different computers. An arcade conversion vill look shit on Spectrum, but a game especially written for it will be great and differs from anything else.

 

Sorry if my english sucks sometimes.

Edited April 25, 2010 by DimensionX

[DimensionX]

What i mean Pete is...

 

THIS is Atari and you can't do this on any other computer.

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996387

 

This is how an Atari game should look.

 

Alternate Reality was very playable too.

[PeteD]

Oh I totally agree that machines should be targeted for what they're best at. Unfortunately people want (or at least wanted) arcade conversions (I'm not talking simple stuff like Centipede) and out of all the 8bit machines the C64 was most geared towards doing that. CPC had some of the best versions, speccy even managed to outdo other machines for some games. So do you forget all those later arcade or arcade style games on the Atari because it can't move around lots of different colour objects and just do 3D, or more simplistic stuff with rainbows through it?

 

As Atarigmr said earlier, Spectrum owners are realistic about the limitations of the machine and are more forgiving. They have some really good arcade ports within the limits of the machine, much better in fact to PLAY than the A8 equivalents (when there are any) and to me that's the important thing. In the end you make your choice, buy your computer, buy games, deal with it and be realistic about it's capabilities. Anything else is wishful thinking. I've owned plenty of different 8bits both back then and now and I stuck with one longer than the others, that doesn't mean I think the others are bad.

 

In the end you can't look at one machine (obviously your favourite one) and say this is better for games because it's got more colours. They might look nicer to you but to most people that's not what makes a game good. It might be what Atari people recognise as an Atari game, but does that make it better? It's basically personal choice and taste. Nobody is trying to make you change your mind, just give you another point of view

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

What i mean Pete is...

 

THIS is Atari and you can't do this on any other computer.

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996387

 

This is how an Atari game should look.

 

Alternate Reality was very playable too.

 

I understand what you're saying. That's what you expect A8 games to look like. To me the A8 version is somewhat overkill, like they've gone hmmm what can we do with this plain looking screen? I know, lets blast a load of colour stripes down the screen. In some areas of the game it works fine, in others where there aren't enough different possible colours displayable on screen it becomes a mess because it ends up effecting the buildings as well as the floor/sky. It definitely looks like an A8 game though

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

What i mean Pete is...

 

THIS is Atari and you can't do this on any other computer.

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996387

 

This is how an Atari game should look.

 

Alternate Reality was very playable too.

 

I understand what you're saying. That's what you expect A8 games to look like. To me the A8 version is somewhat overkill, like they've gone hmmm what can we do with this plain looking screen? I know, lets blast a load of colour stripes down the screen. In some areas of the game it works fine, in others where there aren't enough different possible colours displayable on screen it becomes a mess because it ends up effecting the buildings as well as the floor/sky. It definitely looks like an A8 game though

 

 

Pete

 

I prefer the "rainbow" long before white and brown.

[DimensionX]

Oh I totally agree that machines should be targeted for what they're best at. Unfortunately people want (or at least wanted) arcade conversions (I'm not talking simple stuff like Centipede) and out of all the 8bit machines the C64 was most geared towards doing that. CPC had some of the best versions, speccy even managed to outdo other machines for some games. So do you forget all those later arcade or arcade style games on the Atari because it can't move around lots of different colour objects and just do 3D, or more simplistic stuff with rainbows through it?

 

As Atarigmr said earlier, Spectrum owners are realistic about the limitations of the machine and are more forgiving. They have some really good arcade ports within the limits of the machine, much better in fact to PLAY than the A8 equivalents (when there are any) and to me that's the important thing. In the end you make your choice, buy your computer, buy games, deal with it and be realistic about it's capabilities. Anything else is wishful thinking. I've owned plenty of different 8bits both back then and now and I stuck with one longer than the others, that doesn't mean I think the others are bad.

 

In the end you can't look at one machine (obviously your favourite one) and say this is better for games because it's got more colours. They might look nicer to you but to most people that's not what makes a game good. It might be what Atari people recognise as an Atari game, but does that make it better? It's basically personal choice and taste. Nobody is trying to make you change your mind, just give you another point of view

 

 

Pete

 

Exactly, there isn't such thing as a best computer. Just a best computer for you, and only you. To do battles between Atari, C64 or Spectrum is like saying, is Linux better then Windows, or OS X? It depends on what you're looking for. The only thing that we can say is that different computers are...different, no less no more.

 

Either you like Atari best, or C64, or Spectrum. That's your personal choice because neither of them is best, just different.