Bosconian for the 8-bits

[tjlazer]

Game is coming along nicely, well done!!!

 

I did notice a speed hit when you introduced the speech, is that the case or am I imagining things?

[Goochman]

Looks great. Whats sad is early on we knew the 8bit was capable of much better arcade ports but never got alot of great ones delivered. This is looking better and better.

[Paul Westphal]

I just played it off my myideII. ITS GREAT! nice work.

[Mclaneinc]

Game is coming along nicely, well done!!!

 

I did notice a speed hit when you introduced the speech, is that the case or am I imagining things?

 

Not noticed it, the speech itself is performed when there's no real on screen action as its not possible in the game to perform speech and any DLI's etc without speech being deformed so its done before the gameplay starts. (unless there's more speech than the initial bit that I've missed?)

 

Thinking of this, is there any Atari game with speech during action?

 

Was trying to remember if Kennedy Approach still moves planes during its speaking?

Edited October 19, 2016 by Mclaneinc

[shanti77]

Speech will be in the game, but right panel will be off in this time, play some simple animation.

[Gunstar]

 

Not noticed it, the speech itself is performed when there's no real on screen action as its not possible in the game to perform speech and any DLI's etc without speech being deformed so its done before the gameplay starts. (unless there's more speech than the initial bit that I've missed?)

 

Thinking of this, is there any Atari game with speech during action?

 

Was trying to remember if Kennedy Approach still moves planes during its speaking?

"Blast off" speech at the beginning and "game over" speech is all I remember hearing.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Gunstar

[Gunstar]

Looks great. Whats sad is early on we knew the 8bit was capable of much better arcade ports but never got alot of great ones delivered. This is looking better and better.

Yeah, just compare this game with the ~30 year old "lost" release of Sinistar. Quite similar game types, but Sinistar colors are ugly and bland, lots of software sprite flickering, etc. and then today's Bosconian being programmed my someone who cares and it isn't being rushed like most 8-bit ports of yesteryear. the difference is stunning.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Gunstar

[Jetboot Jack]

Don't be too harsh - you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

Back in the day the market for games meant that a 16K RAM standard and small cartridge size forced lots of compromises on games - and still MANY of them were simply stunning (like Star Raiders or Joust)

 

Just look at how much nicer the XEGS carts are when they have more RAM and cart space!

 

I do agree this Bosconian port is lovely!

 

sTeVE

[emkay]

Not noticed it, the speech itself is performed when there's no real on screen action as its not possible in the game to perform speech and any DLI's etc without speech being deformed so its done before the gameplay starts. (unless there's more speech than the initial bit that I've missed?)

 

Thinking of this, is there any Atari game with speech during action?

Space Harrier ofcourse.

[FifthPlayer]

I finally played this game on real hardware. Putting the game on a DOS disk allowed it to load on my 130XE, bypassing the problems I had with the SIO2SD loader.

 

It looks and plays great! It feels like the only thing missing is the test pattern from when the arcade hardware cold boots.

 

I assume the game hasn't been tuned yet for NTSC machines. On my TV, status GREEN is actually aqua, and status YELLOW is light green. Is the game timing the same on NTSC and PAL?

Edited October 19, 2016 by FifthPlayer

[tjlazer]

I assume the game hasn't been tuned yet for NTSC machines. On my TV, status GREEN is actually aqua, and status YELLOW is light green. Is the game timing the same on NTSC and PAL?

 

Plus it cuts off some txt on the bottom on the right too.

[littleman jack]

This is great. I'm looking forward to the finished version and hope there is a version for NTSC machines. I spent a lot of quarters playing this one in the arcades.

[Lord Thag]

This is great. I'm looking forward to the finished version and hope there is a version for NTSC machines. I spent a lot of quarters playing this one in the arcades.

 

I'm playing on real NTSC hardware and it runs without a hitch. Great port.

[tjlazer]

Here is what it looks like on my TV. Other than that it runs great for me. Round 1 is chopped off a bit.

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by tjlazer

[Gunstar]

Don't be too harsh - you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

Back in the day the market for games meant that a 16K RAM standard and small cartridge size forced lots of compromises on games - and still MANY of them were simply stunning (like Star Raiders or Joust)

 

Just look at how much nicer the XEGS carts are when they have more RAM and cart space!

 

I do agree this Bosconian port is lovely!

 

sTeVE

By the time Sinistar was ported, any so-called 16K standard was self imposed, even the 800 can work with some XEGS carts that are 48K. There weren't quite enough unexpanded 400 and 600XL users by then, they were probably a minority. And bank-switching tech was known long before the XEGS. Even Atari Inc. themselves would rather make inferior ports on 16K cartridges for lower cost of manufacture and higher profits than use larger capacity cartridges with room for superior games. let alone all those 3rd party companies with inferior ports because they spent more time on the C64 with it's larger audience. and then do inferior ports with less memory.

 

And I'm referring to software on any media, not just cartridges like Sinistar, but yes, Sinistar could have been released on tape or disk with 48K or 64K ram for cheaper than 16K cartridges. Almost all the great Atari 8-bit software from that era was original software made for the Atari and then later ported to other computers. A majority of software ported from other computers and arcade machines took the easiest port route with the Atari, often just porting to medium res 4 color because it was easy to make a quick buck also from the smaller Atari market. Very lazy, without even simple DLI's to make it more colorful. Half-hearted attempts that were rushed quite often.

 

Then, as we all know, we also had to put up with the lowest common denominator in the 400/800 machines with only 48K, instead of 64K like the C64 or even using 128K of the 130XE and Rambo, etc., upgrades could handle. And here we are, in 2016, mostly adults, middle-aged, who if they are still rampant fans of these old computers, should have no problem upgrading or buying 8-bits with more memory from the plethora of internal and plug-and-play external memory upgrades,

 

And we have only incrementally increased our "standard" (apparently) from 48K to expecting it to run in 64K. Those who refuse to upgrade memory can just accept that there will be some games that require more memory than they have and do without, just like 400/800 users have to accept that quite a few XEGS cartridges and 64K disk software are beyond their means without a huge upgrade like Incognito. Or buying an XL or XE machine with at least 64K to sit next to their beloved 400/800's to accentuate them.

 

No, a 16K cartridge, is no excuse for Sinistar's shortcomings, Atari could have chosen to make it bigger and better. By the way, Sinistar wasn't released back then due to the video game crash, which was due to a flood of inferior software, especially on Atari systems of all kinds, they were the juggernaut back then. So I forcefully stand by what I said in my post above that people making games for the Atari's now, care more and put a lot more effort into their work for the most part. With the exception of a very few developers back in the day that did care, and made games for Atari first, like Lucasfilm, for one example, but there are a lot more, but they are in the minority.

 

We are indeed, for the most part, getting higher quality software now, than back then, and memory limitations in rom or ram was been self-imposed to make it cheaper and/or reach a slightly larger audience and shear laziness for rushed ports out of greed and the fact that for many programmers back then it was just a job to get through with as little effort as possible if it's for a smaller audience or they were being required to program on a computer that was not their first choice and that they were not as skilled with as the on computers they prefered, had more experience with, and therefore knew well.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Gunstar

[Lord Thag]

Some good points Gunstar.

 

I like the fact that Atari game developers are taking advantage of the easy availability of RAM add ons nowadays. Homebrew software is really starting to shine. \ It's finally showing what a lot of us have known for years: that the Atari XL/XE line is a damn well designed game machine that just didn't get the attention it deserved due to Atari's dismal management and marketing. Very similar to the Atari 7800. The original library has a few good arcade ports and not much else. Add in all of Bob's arcade ports and it went from being an afterthought THE home arcade game console of choice. Seriously, I don't play any of my other 8 bit era consoles anymore, just the XL and the 7800.

 

But I disagree on Sinistar being sub par. It's beta software for sure, but like Stargate on the XL, if the programmer had been given time to finish and release it, it was a damn good port for the time it was made in.

[Bryan]

One other thing: although the Atari is powerful enough to do some high-quality ports, it isn't exactly an easy system to write them for. Anything beyond a few colors and monochrome sprites will require some special programming skills. Today's tools make the job easier, but back in the '80s I think there was a threshold for how much trickery could be employed in the allotted development time.

[Gunstar]

Both of you above make some good points as well. I do want to clarify that I am aware Sinistar is a beta, and I am not saying it isn't a good game, so far (as you say, it could have been better if it had been finished), but you've still missed the points I was attempting to make that being forced to use only 16k ram and NOT having proper development time IS EXACTLY why games back then are inferior to some games today, like Sinistar vs. Bosconian.(16K allowed vs. 64K+ allowed)I am not just blaming it on half-hearted attempts by many programmers back then, but the cheap and rushed restrictions forced on those who would have done better if allowed. If Sinistar was allowed to be put on tape and disk and allowed to use 64K instead of 16K (or even 48K for 800 compatiblity is still three times as much) and the programmer given as long as needed to use said "trickery" and finish it to their satisfaction, it could have looked better and IMHO played better like Bosconian. your points on this suggest I did not take these things into account when in fact they are exactly what I am talking about in themselves. Better tools could have been developed back then if the time and resources for research and development had been given to learn what we have learned in the decades since. If more time and ram on game development had been allowed using better tools gained by research and more time given to programmers to learn more as they went and not rush the job with only sophomoric knowledge and tools compared to the knowledge and tools we have today, Sinistar could have been like Bosconian back then.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Gunstar

[Gunstar]

One other thing: although the Atari is powerful enough to do some high-quality ports, it isn't exactly an easy system to write them for. Anything beyond a few colors and monochrome sprites will require some special programming skills. Today's tools make the job easier, but back in the '80s I think there was a threshold for how much trickery could be employed in the allotted development time.

It is the system Atari had to use, easy to use or not, and they should have stood behind it by doing the hard stuff. We didn't go to the moon because it was easy.

[+CharlieChaplin]

One other thing: although the Atari is powerful enough to do some high-quality ports, it isn't exactly an easy system to write them for.

 

Hmmm, reminds me of the Jaguar...

[Mclaneinc]

Space Harrier ofcourse.

 

 

Yes indeed, thank you...

[rdefabri]

One other thing: although the Atari is powerful enough to do some high-quality ports, it isn't exactly an easy system to write them for. Anything beyond a few colors and monochrome sprites will require some special programming skills. Today's tools make the job easier, but back in the '80s I think there was a threshold for how much trickery could be employed in the allotted development time.

 

Agreed! As a more sound / music oriented person, this is the same reason some of the A8 music pales to the C64 (take Panther for example...the A8 version is piss poor). It simply wasn't easy enough to warrant the effort, I suppose. Looking at what POKEY can REALLY do, I'm blown away. It may not be SID, but it's far more capable than many realized, and because it wasn't easy to flex its muscles, the "lazy" route was taken.

 

I'm not suggesting programmers were lazy, realize this is / was a business and cranking out revenue generating product was priority #1. It was a very young, immature market that has evolved over time - you couldn't get away with that now.

 

All I can say is "thanks" and show my appreciation to the dedicated folks still using and pushing the A8 platform. We all knew it was pretty powerful, but this level of quality has completely re-opened my interest in all things Atari.

[Bryan]

It is the system Atari had to use, easy to use or not, and they should have stood behind it by doing the hard stuff. We didn't go to the moon because it was easy.

Well yes, a "moon landing" budget would have produced some very good games.

 

Atari messed up a lot of things and spent a lot of money in the wrong places. I'm just saying we can do more today than was practical back then and it's satisfying (to me, at least) to see what can actually be done.

[Heaven/TQA]

just courious... how is the panel on the right side done? so no $d404 used?

[José Pereira]

just courious... how is the panel on the right side done? so no $d404 used?

I think is using PMGs and that turns possible the hardware scrolling on the playing area.