Games genres that we dont have on our A8!

[emkay]

Give him the same resources as the A8 version had and I wonder what he could of come up with?.

You shouldn't put too much expectations into that. Games that used the sprites of the C64 had been easy ... and ... yes EASY PEASY, piece of cake ... been coded. Doing something similar on the A8 takes much more work and possibly wouldn't look as expected. What looks like a scrolling background on the Atari, could be a row of aligned Sprites on the C64, looking like a scrolling line. Then the Character mode of the C64 could easily overlay that.

If you do that A8 like, you get a row of background scrolling, and the PMg could do a restricted amount of moving objects.

Just aligning some PMg won't give the same result. that's why you often see Atari games with some odd "Background" , or more exaclty a scoreboard like screen off from the game range. Moving objects will never cross that range.

 

Have a look at International Karate or Buck Rogers ...

 

Sheddy used for Space Harrier Graphics 7 , the double scanline mode that allows to use 1.5MHz of the CPU. Compared to the C64 this means 3MHz CPU for Graphics. While hires Charactermodes drop the CPU to approx. 1.1MHz ... and so on.

 

The solutions for any game were inbetween those limitations. But a C64 easy peasy coder will never be able to code a similar quality on the A8. Less resolution and more colors means different , not better or worse...

Edited January 31, 2017 by emkay

[emkay]

How easy peasy it is to handle the C64's sprites is also easily explained.

 

If you draw a circle in hires in basic with "plot x,y" , you can see always a pixel. After adjusting the values of the sprites, you can get the same with "poke spr0x,x : poke spr0y,y" to have the sprite moving in a circle.

 

Only the x position is from the same "easy peasy" base when using PMg .

 

 

 

So that explains why so many games with sprites have been there on the C64.

Edited January 31, 2017 by emkay

[emkay]

Atari games would benefit by some fully different types of software...

 

 

[emkay]

Which means some "not hires" fullscreen action. Something unique for that time of the 70s-80s.

[kiwilove]

Space Harrier was never a game I got into - even on the MegaDrive. I gave the Atari conversion a good go - but it didn't work for me. I know the programmer did the best job possible - and I was always puzzled by the sprite colours - their lack of brightness as such. Was this a hardware limitation?

I would have liked to have seen Buck Rogers given another go - but it probably would not have been much better done this way? When the frame rate gets to be too low - I just feel it's not a worthwhile end result - this is no reflection on the programmer doing their best possible - as you're asking a home computer to deliver a costly arcade experience in your home - which we know is impossible to recreate given the differences in cost and hardware specs.

 

And I always wonder why sales of home computer versions did not fall flat? I know that I'd rather spend my money playing the arcade game - instead of purchasing a poorer rendition of it.

 

Anyway - I am still for attempting home conversions of any coin-op you'd like to see a competent Atari 8-bit port of - that has been less than satisfactory. Ones that stick out to me, would be Xevious, Galaga, Buck Rogers and Zaxxon. And a Marble Madness like game could be done - with new additions to it - to make it way more fun/etc.

The reason for doing such project(s) - would be to show that it was possible to do so. I don't think they'll be easy projects to pull off - as time, effort and expertise would be required.

 

And I'm all for thumbing my nose at the C-64 - to say - Oh, the Atari could have done a decent version/conversion/etc - if the right person or persons were prepared to have a go at it...

 

Harvey.

[+slx]

 

Personally I am not a fan of the C64 versions of Jumpman and the others you mention, they felt like ultra quick ports and way less vibrant than the Atari versions, also early sound on the C64 seemed to be all about playing with the filters so most stuff just sounded wrong for me, certainly not like the original but not better either.

 

Many C64 ports (or parallel publications) don't look as good as their Atari counterparts to my Atari biased eyes, mostly for lack of colours on the C64. The Atari could do a certain "glow" (at least on CRTs) that IMHO the C64 was never able to match. That is especially true for Archon which makes great use of shading to convey which side is stronger, while the C64 has to use cycling colours.

 

As for Jumpman, I don't recall the C64 port but to me it's so close to perfect on the Atari that I wouldn't know what to improve to make it a better game (not talking about eye candy). (Need to dig out that Jumpman Junior C64 cart I picked up some time ago and check it out .)

[kiwilove]

 

Many C64 ports (or parallel publications) don't look as good as their Atari counterparts to my Atari biased eyes, mostly for lack of colours on the C64. The Atari could do a certain "glow" (at least on CRTs) that IMHO the C64 was never able to match. That is especially true for Archon which makes great use of shading to convey which side is stronger, while the C64 has to use cycling colours.

 

As for Jumpman, I don't recall the C64 port but to me it's so close to perfect on the Atari that I wouldn't know what to improve to make it a better game (not talking about eye candy). (Need to dig out that Jumpman Junior C64 cart I picked up some time ago and check it out .)

 

Something not mentioned - when comparing ports - is that it's not just the hardware differences that are present - but also it does depend on who is doing the conversion work - their programming skill(s) - like in any other interest (sports definitely illustrate this) you are really comparing the competency of those involved - that who is showing the better quality work shines through.

This is rarely touched upon - probably because of possibly upsetting egos/etc. Quality work stands out - no matter what the hardware is. As is what the hardware cannot do - so why try a faithful rendition - but go for a variation instead, and do what the hardware allows you to do.

The C-64 has a muddy colour palette - and C-64 programmers are stuck with this.

 

Harvey

[+slx]

 

Something not mentioned - when comparing ports - is that it's not just the hardware differences that are present - but also it does depend on who is doing the conversion work - their programming skill(s) - like in any other interest (sports definitely illustrate this) you are really comparing the competency of those involved - that who is showing the better quality work shines through.

 

 

 

That's very true although in case of Shamus with early Electronic Arts I'd be tempted to assume that they insisted on the best that was possible on the machine. Difference should thus show differences in "ability" of the target machine.

 

There are of course lots of quick'n'dirty ports where the programmer didn't know (or care or get paid) to use the target machine's abilities to the max.

[Matej]

I watched Eidolon Inn video. And now I must play it!

Beautiful huge monsters. This is how MMORPG can be done.

At least hunting. For example pure utopian fantasy will be MMORPG

with hunting, crafting, mining. Space vehicles, planets, monsters, multiplayer.

RPI3s as servers. Ataris with special cartridge - ethernet + game in ROM as client.

With virtual properties, virtual currency. 8bit VR utopian atarian social network.

 

Eidolon Inn/Mercenary/Elite hybrid...

Edited February 1, 2017 by Matej

[TMR]

You shouldn't put too much expectations into that.

Lost Dragon was talking about Chris Butler and the C64 version of Space Harrier, given the resources that Sheddy had available it could've been a very different beast; Chris Butler had less months to do the work than Sheddy had years and the C64 version is a single 64K load so something was obviously going to give.

 

But take a look at the second stage of Savage, it's a simpler game but that's a single load and running at a reasonable speed without the options of unrolled or "compiled" draw code that a large cartridge offers or leaning on a RAM expansion's DMA for faster shuffling around of data which can basically move one byte per cycle.

 

 

Only the x position is from the same "easy peasy" base when using PMg .

The A8's X positioning is actually a little easier due to the C64's higher resolution in that respect; the X co-ordinate is nine bits wide, with the lower eight stored in a dedicated register and all of the sprites' ninth, most significant bit kept in an extra byte. That makes juggling them during a frame more difficult as can other factors.

 

And I always wonder why sales of home computer versions did not fall flat? I know that I'd rather spend my money playing the arcade game - instead of purchasing a poorer rendition of it.

If you had relatively easy access to a Space Harrier machine it made sense, but the closest cab i was aware of when the machine was current was a fairly major trek away so the home version had to suffice since i couldn't afford to be back and forth on the train every weekend. Yes, you took a punt when buying conversions though; sometimes it worked out well (even if the game was quite different to the original it may still be enjoyable) and other times... you get Karnov on the C64.

[Mclaneinc]

Arghhh...Karnov...I actually took that back to the software shop and swapped it for something else...Was AWFUL......

 

The point about depending on who is doing it is incredibly valid, any person that liked An Amiga and knew of ST's would be in horror if Peter Johnston was in charge of the ST to Amiga port, when he ported it was as quick a port as possible, machine abilities were never a choice as he was being handed ports left right and centre so time was indeed money...Not so good for the Amiga owner with all the nice graphical / sprite extra's under the hood. On the Atari to C64 route it normally ended up with the poor C64 getting a cruddy port, muddy colours, super simple sound and nothing much else.

 

Watch and listen to Jumpman on each, Shamus as well...

 

Shame, always been an advocate of using the host system to its fullest (waiting for a dig at this) but in those days games were just flowing everywhere and the aim was to get them on all these computers NOW.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Mclaneinc

[Heaven/TQA]

How is it, that this game from 1982 has never yet been topped?

 

people who are into raycasting and wolf engines know the game. same with way out... Paul was ahead of its time with using "modern" techniques like span buffers, ORA fillers etc. it's always mentioned in history docs when treating with wolfenstein engines.

 

That's what Paul wrote me some time ago:

 

Hello Karolj,

 

You have a fun hobby :-)

 

Helps to remind how far things have come from slow 8-bit with no multiplies, no floating point, and small amounts of memory, to the incredibly powerful gpu's we have today. My favorite first learned assembly was PDP/8... was simple enough to be able to directly understand the octal instruction codes in the 12-bit words.. and the computer used actual core memory... you could look inside and see the individual ferromagnetic rings for each bit of memory!

 

That was a long time ago now :-)

 

Yes, I first wrote the game for the Apple II and later ported it to the other systems.

 

The challenge back then was how to get something like that to run fast enough for real time on such slow systems.

 

As I recall, with the camera and world constraints I imposed, I only needed to do hidden surface removal effectively for one scan line. I was able to order enumeration of the walls within the view frustum to be ordered by depth (something like an octree rendering algorithm), so didn't need sorting, and I think I maintained a data structure of visible wall segments for the scan line and inserted new segments into that, updating it and doing hidden wall segment removal, as the walls were enumerated, in the end having an efficient list from left to right of the visible wall segments that needed to be rendered, basing the technique on old scan line based hidden surface removal 3d rendering algorithms predating the dominance of z buffer rendering techniques.

 

Fill rate was also a very critical issue, hence my use of jumping into the middle of a sequence of store instructions to do the fill for the solid color walls as fast as possible.

 

Back when I developed these games, I wanted people to be amazed and surprised something like that was even possible on such systems, nothing like that had been done before. (Also the initial Wayout logo on the Apple II even did a trick to render what looked like true 16 color high res, when the Apple II only supported 16 color low res and a kind of 6 color high res, if you didn't use color dithering. :-)

 

I also experimented with a full 3d general renderer for these consoles, but it just wasn't fast enough, despite all the performance tricks I tried :-)

 

Looking at your video, I saw something like Way out's maze rendering, but with textured walls. Curious if you were doing that still constrained to the performance limitations of the Apple II / Atari 800 / C64. Don't recall if the XL was clocked faster, though of course in an emulator you don't have to be limited to old clock speeds.

 

Best regards,

Paul

Edited February 1, 2017 by Heaven/TQA

[Heaven/TQA]

as you see... you definitly need techniqual excellence to code something outstanding... btw. same with Rescue on Fractalus/Eidolon/Koronis Rift... not only technical understanding of platform but also maths etc... if both come together... suddenly you have "outstanding" games.

 

now as you see Paul wrote the game on Apple 2 first... so nice to see the proper Atari800 port... (using tips and tricks of the Atari chip set instead of simple Apple port (like some EA games).

Edited February 1, 2017 by Heaven/TQA

[Lost Dragon]

Thank you TMR.

 

That was exactly the point i was getting at.

 

Chris Butler was working to commercial dealines when converting Space Harrier on the C64 and game had to be coded based on what he knew at that point, within the confines of a single load on a 64K machine and be done ready for a set release date.

 

 

That is a very different development enviroment to that we saw with A8 Space Harrier.

 

In terms of what could be done, purely from a commercial development enviroment on the C64, i always look back to the conversions of:

 

Carrier command...3D replaced with top down 2D view, to the stunning Battle Command, solid filled 3D, but only made possible (or so i've been told) by using the Cartridge format.

 

Anyway, this is the A8 thread

 

But yes, the space Harrier-esq stage on Savage was rather nice....

[emkay]

Chris Butler was working to commercial dealines when converting Space Harrier on the C64 and game had to be coded based on what he knew at that point, within the confines of a single load on a 64K machine and be done ready for a set release date.

As I wrote above: You shouldn't expect too much there. Possibly more details in the moving objects, but every plus here will drop speed there on the 1MHz CPU. Well, you could do some interactive movie with REU. On the A8 the memory enhancement really brings speedups due to the bit shifted stored object data , the better CPU usage and the really fast page flipping, which - in theory - can transport 20Megabyte per second.

Edited February 1, 2017 by emkay

[TMR]

As I wrote above: You shouldn't expect too much there. Possibly more details in the moving objects, but every plus here will drop speed there on the 1MHz CPU.

 

Well, you could do some interactive movie with REU.

Give or take and leaning on unrolled code, a stock PAL C64 can shift just shy of 2000 bytes per frame; with an REU it's possible to move over five times that, still a significant difference if used to erase the back buffer or for drawing objects rather than merely copying pre-rendered frames. A8 Space Harrier uses a lower resolution mode but is rendering two bitmaps for the interleaved colours, so it's updating around the same amount of memory per refresh as the C64 would have to deal with.

 

As a back-of-an-envelope example, if one frame is 160 by 96 pixels and two bitmaps for interleaved colours on the A8 (i haven't checked the exact height and assume it's smaller) that's 40x96x2 or 8,048 bytes of data so a 23.5K block of unrolled code can clear that in around 32,192 cycles (just a string of 8,048 STA commands basically). A C64 with an REU can clear the same space (for one 40x192 byte area) in a little over 8,048 cycles and even with the difference in CPU speeds that's significantly faster. This isn't a "real world" calculation natch because it just zeroes the back buffer and Space Harrier isn't doing that, but it gives a rough idea of the performance jump from an REU at least.

 

On the A8 the memory enhancement really brings speedups due to the bit shifted stored object data , the better CPU usage and the really fast page flipping, which - in theory - can transport 20Megabyte per second.

ROM-based cartridges on the C64 are page flipped as well, so bespoke code can be swapped out as needed; that allows for things like big wodges of unrolled code or "compiled" software sprites and the "transport" rate should be around the same as the A8, give or take. (And that's assuming we don't "cheat" by parking the 6510 and banking in a faster CPU with the cartridge. =-)

 

But one of the problems that Space Harrier had on the C64 is that the graphics had to be almost painfully simplified so that all of the level types would fit into the one load along with all the code and level data; take that restriction away and it can at least have the graphical detail of something like Turbo Charge whilst rendering in a character-based mode.

[kiwilove]

If you had relatively easy access to a Space Harrier machine it made sense, but the closest cab i was aware of when the machine was current was a fairly major trek away so the home version had to suffice since i couldn't afford to be back and forth on the train every weekend. Yes, you took a punt when buying conversions though; sometimes it worked out well (even if the game was quite different to the original it may still be enjoyable) and other times... you get Karnov on the C64.

 

I can't recall ever having seen the Space Harrier coin-op ever - running... So, Mame running it would be the only way for me to experience what Space Harrier is like.

But I'm always partial towards seeing a reboot of Buck Rogers - as the coin-op's visuals were simply amazing for me - but to ever expect an 8-bit Atari to recapture those kind of visuals for the home - is asking for the impossible - even the ST couldn't deliver a suitable frame rate, I'd guess?

 

While Ballblazer and Fractalus were eye openers at first glance - Eidolon and Koronis Rift - simply didn't excite me or failed to gain my gaming appreciation - meaning they fizzed than sizzled. The same could be said of Encounter and Mercenary - the former worked perfectly for it's heart stopping action and immersiveness - and the later simply became boring, boring with the vastness you had to explore - and the simple renditions not worthwhile seeing... That to have a fast enough frame rate - you had to keep designs very simple.

I never liked having to use small active windows so as to have a suitable frame rate - but it was the only way for it to work, as in Wayout and Capture the Flag.

 

While pretty graphics does not a game make - having nice graphics present, can enhance what gameplay there is present.

 

Harvey

[TMR]

I can't recall ever having seen the Space Harrier coin-op ever - running... So, Mame running it would be the only way for me to experience what Space Harrier is like.

Well, i was talking about the 1980s rather than now... back then it was either find an arcade cab or go for a home version. i think my current Facebook avatar is me playing Space Harrier (sit down but not hydraulic) at a retro gaming event a few years backand i paid good money for a 32X so my Mega Drive could play a reasonably close to arcade perfect version in the mid 1990s...

 

The same could be said of Encounter and Mercenary - the former worked perfectly for it's heart stopping action and immersiveness - and the later simply became boring, boring with the vastness you had to explore - and the simple renditions not worthwhile seeing... That to have a fast enough frame rate - you had to keep designs very simple.

i put huge amounts of time into completing Mercenary a couple of different ways "back in the day" and loved every minute of it personally; you had to put time into finding objects and all of the jokes and references, but that was fine by me and i also spent ages just zooming around in the cheese. =-)

[Mclaneinc]

Mercenary was too complex for me, I've always been a fan of stuff I could pick up, play for a bit and stop, it was only when I got in to Metroid and Zelda on the Snes that I discovered long term play properly. Sure Shamus, Whistlers Bros and Conan required LOTS of time but they were not as deep as those on the Snes for many reasons. With Mercenary flying the 'cheese' felt lonely, large expanses and then a few lines here and there which put me off, but hats off to you for completing it and solving the references. I personally loved Encounter and for me when it turned up on the Amiga (and ST) as both Encounter and Backlash it didn't improve it for me, the Atari 8bit version was already fast and furious and felt great fun to play, all props to Paul Woakes for such a fluid experience.

 

The thing with Space Harrier arcade was that to play it properly you needed to experience the full hydraulic version , same with 360' and to do that I had to venture in to central London and The Crystal rooms in Leicester Square and pay either 1 or 2 pounds a go which was a fortune after the travel and most of the day gone which meant I made do with Chris B's excellent port never ever thinking that someone would put years in to making a superb version for the 8bit Atari.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Mclaneinc

[carlsson]

On the Atari to C64 route it normally ended up with the poor C64 getting a cruddy port, muddy colours, super simple sound and nothing much else.

 

Watch and listen to Jumpman on each, Shamus as well...

Out of curiosity, how many post-1985 original Atari games got ported to the C64? Sound wise, I feel like C64 games took a huge leap forwards around 1986 and following years, and graphically as well with various raster tricks and so on. I'm sure post-1985 games on the Atari 8-bits also were improving, for as long as the platform was commercially successful but perhaps the two technically began to drift apart after learning more about how to use the hardware, so any talented Atari games in the late 80's were futile trying to port to the C64 and instead programmers tried to make games suited to respective hardware?

[José Pereira]

After 86 on Poland the game I know that has A8 and C64 versions is Hans Kloss and beeing so popular and by the way of looking I'm almost sure that is A8 to C64.

And on 80s I remember to read in AtariUser magazine that Gauntlet were done on A8 then ported but it turned from ours in GR.15 bitmap mode to C64 charmode so the code ended up changed.

Edited February 2, 2017 by José Pereira

[Mclaneinc]

Out of curiosity, how many post-1985 original Atari games got ported to the C64? Sound wise, I feel like C64 games took a huge leap forwards around 1986 and following years, and graphically as well with various raster tricks and so on. I'm sure post-1985 games on the Atari 8-bits also were improving, for as long as the platform was commercially successful but perhaps the two technically began to drift apart after learning more about how to use the hardware, so any talented Atari games in the late 80's were futile trying to port to the C64 and instead programmers tried to make games suited to respective hardware?

 

I don't have numbers but I imagine the the level dropped as time moved on and the Atari made an ass of itself again, thankfully people did indeed start to use the extra graphical and sonic abilities on the C64 but lets not call DLI's and Pokey old tech yet, people like on the C64 still find wonderful exploits in the hardware and music on the Atari has improved in leaps and bounds. I'm not a fan of ports unless they make use of the machine fully but back then it was just about getting a base of games and any thing and every thing was published both good and bad. I as a C64 owner was very happy when games started appearing that used the C64 properly just as much as when I saw games on the Atari pushing it hard, its what the machine and user deserve so I hate really quick and lazy ports to any machine, sadly when the business was taken from the bedroom programmers and managed by the suits the ideal became quick turn around and on to the next project which is nice for getting a big base of games but awful for the user quality wise.

 

Sure, there are exceptions but in general when the programmers lost much of the control as the suits just looked at it as cold hard business, thankfully we had the companies in Japan who would spend more time on the product on later machines and eventually some games were given the prolonged dev time they needed but it took a lot of casualties to get to that level.

 

But that gets on to the discussion about taking risks with games that is a whole different thing and not for this thread..

Edited February 2, 2017 by Mclaneinc

[Lost Dragon]

Spot On Mclaneinc

 

I can admire Mercenary, for what it's pulling off, i've just never found it my kind of game.

 

Encounter was much more my kind of thing and like Dropzone, Ninja, Rescue On Fract and Elktraglide, i found worked much better on the A8 than C64.

 

As for Space Harrier...i've played a lot of home versions (C64, ST, GBA, 32X and DC version on Shen Mue) and as great as the very best are, for myself, like Paperboy,Star wars, many others, it's something that i really need to play in the arcades, to feel at home with.

 

But, indeed to see such a wonderous version running on the A8, was a proverbial eye opener for myself and i have the utmost respect for the sheer amount of dedication put in, to making it happen.

 

@José Pereira:

 

From the feature in Atari user Magazine A8 used to design:Character sets, sprites and title screen for the 8bit Home Versions.

http://www.gamesthatwerent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/atariuser24023.jpg

Edited February 2, 2017 by Lost Dragon

[Mclaneinc]

Archer Mclean said about Dropzone, once you master the C64 version then you are ready for the Atari version, I know that because I was there when he said it. A friend was quizzing him over the difference in versions at one of the shows.

 

Can't remember if he himself did the port?

 

TMR will know for sure..

 

EDIT: I stopped being lazy and checked myself, seems he did ALL the ports according to him...

 

Apparently the Atari version is capable of running 2.5 times faster than the C64 and can handle a full screen of enemies, bullets 'blobs' as he calls them, perfectly well.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Mclaneinc

[fujidude]

 

Something not mentioned - when comparing ports - is that it's not just the hardware differences that are present - but also it does depend on who is doing the conversion work - their programming skill(s) - like in any other interest (sports definitely illustrate this) you are really comparing the competency of those involved - that who is showing the better quality work shines through.

This is rarely touched upon - probably because of possibly upsetting egos/etc. Quality work stands out - no matter what the hardware is. As is what the hardware cannot do - so why try a faithful rendition - but go for a variation instead, and do what the hardware allows you to do.

The C-64 has a muddy colour palette - and C-64 programmers are stuck with this.

 

Harvey

 

 

In racing, the cars characteristics are very similar due to rules. But it isn't just drivers you are comparing. There are pit crews, mechanics, engineers etc. that all contribute to the end results. A lot of people tend to focus on the drivers and forget that. Just like a lot of people tend to focus the hardware differences of old computers and overlook the programmers who port.

 

Another aspect to old computers and titles which were published for more than one that I think is important to keep in mind, is that there exists what I'll call a "home field advantage." When a is title originally written, it is often with a specific platform in mind, and often with a programmer who is narrowly focused on that platform. The title is designed from the start to take advantage of the hardware capabilities of the target platform, and avoid its weaknesses. Once an attempt is made by someone to port it to another hardware platform, they are often already working under a handicap. And you can see the effect go both ways. Without actually having experienced Ballblazer or Rescue on Fractalus on the C64, I'm going to place my bets that the the Atari8 versions are superior. I'm also sure that there are titles 1st made with the C64 in mind, that have an Atari8 port that is wanting, just based on the hardware limitations alone. But I do agree that programmer talent definitely is an important factor.

Edited February 2, 2017 by fujidude