Favorite 8-Bit Game Never Ported To The Atari Series

[emkay]

A second XL/ST comparision...

 

The ST is ca. 9 times faster than the XL.

The STs graphics-chip uses 320x200 pixel with 4 bit colordepth in Games

To scroll this screen, the CPU has to handle 32000Bytes...

The XL needs only to handle around 2000-4000 Bytes to do the same.

 

So by this simple calculation, the ST has up to 16x more Screendata to handle than the XL and is only 9x faster (but never 16x) than the XL....

[Randy California]

What is the main cause of buying a computer? The first time anyone is looking at the Software he wants and buys the computer on which the programs are available.

Exactly what I'm saying but if there is no user base, no software becomes available. Look at the UK market: the Atari 8-bit computers were there before the C64 but didn't sell enough at that time to attract game developers (1981-3 era). Had the Atari been successful in the UK (good distribution, affordable prices), houses like Bug-Byte, Ocean, Elite... would have developed on the Atari, not the C64. There was almost NO game development on the Atari 8-bit in the early days and all you could get was high-priced software from the US.

 

Regarding to the "Games are crap" thread, the Lucasfilm Games were the best in the time they were shipped first. I think, a lot of XL-Systems were sold this days, because people wanted to play those games.

Agreed but most of the the early successful titles on the C64 were ports from the Atari: Boulder Dash, Fort Apocalypse... People don't even know that these games were created on the Atari in the first place! You have to understand that the C64 was considered "hot" and developers quickly switched to that machine in place of the Atari.

 

As the Games on the C64 were coded to use the enhanced features of it, anyone wanted to play that "beautyfull" games and bought the computer on that the games were available.

True but that's because there was a booming market. Atari was having problems at the time and there was less money to be made on the 400-800-XL-XE line. As I said, most people thought that nothing better than Alternate Reality or Rescue on Fractalus! could be written and production values stalled because of the gloomy market.

 

Any discussions about marketing-lackings at ATARI are nonsens.

Pardon me but it's an essential point. You may have the best computer in the world but what do you end up with if you don't know how to sell it?

 

There are probably other reasons explaining the lack of innovation on the Atari but we'd probably have to go on on a country by country survey and study other points to fully understand the situation.

 

++

RC

++

[emkay]

Exactly what I'm saying but if there is no user base, no software becomes available. Look at the UK market: the Atari 8-bit computers were there before the C64 but didn't sell enough at that time to attract game developers (1981-3 era). Had the Atari been successful in the UK (good distribution, affordable prices), houses like Bug-Byte, Ocean, Elite... would have developed on the Atari, not the C64. There was almost NO game development on the Atari 8-bit in the early days and all you could get was high-priced software from the US.  

 

 

 

 

I knewed much more XL users. Guess why

The XL took profit by the already available games from the 400/800 series.

This was the best start a "new" system could have.

There were great looking games available too.... until the Lucasfilm Games

The only real cute gameseries on the XL/XE in germany (1988) was "HERBERT". The game shows how cute software-sprites at a res. of 160x200 can look.

But ATARI created 1989 "Food fight"

 

After 1985 it was not possible to make people think a XL was the better choice and everyone was buying a C64... or a ST or AMIGA.

 

By the lacking of new great looking games, XL for XL was sold and People bought an AMIGA or a PC

[Randy California]

I knewed much more XL users. Guess why

I know the Atari 8-bit computers were very successful in Germany and had good support but you may know that there weren't any big software developers at the time (correct me if I'm wrong): you mainly found US imports (Rushware, Ariola) and SOME game creators (Ariola again, Europa CC) but nothing like in the UK.

 

The XL took profit by the already available games from the 400/800 series. This was the best start a "new" system could have. There were great looking games available too.... until the Lucasfilm Games

It took some time for the Atari 8-bit line to take off. Nothing important happened between 1979 and 1982 (apart from the Atari releases) because the software industry was in its infancy. Then Datasoft, Electronic Arts, Synapse Software, First Star Software... entered the market and created innovative games in terms of playability and programming techniques. The problem is that Atari never secured the UK or US markets and this led to enormous C64 sales and development in these countries.

 

After 1985 it was not possible to make people think, a XL was the better choice and everyone was buying a C64... or a ST or AMIGA. By the lacking of new great looking games, XL for XL was sold and People bought an AMIGA or a PC

Agreed but this is mainly because Atari couldn't market their machines properly or because of software distribution problems.

 

++

RC

++

[Heaven/TQA]

emkay... your calculation is little bit too simple...

 

as 6502 is a 8bit CPU while 68000 is 16/32 bit....

 

compare a simple

 

lda adress

sta adress

 

vs. move.l (a0)+,(a1)+

 

so... don't underestimate the 68000...

 

hve

[Bryan]

Commodore sucked when it came to marketing, how many companies can you think of would take a machine as successful as the C64 and try to market another unit against it?!

 

So true. It's like, "are you sure you really want our best selling 8-bit computer? How about this slightly different one, or this one?" The only way to go with the 64 was up (the 128) not sideways (the Plus4).

 

-Bry

[Bryan]

To scroll this screen, the CPU has to handle 32000Bytes...

The XL needs only to handle around 2000-4000 Bytes to do the same.

 

160x192 /4 = 7680 bytes.

 

-Bry

[Bryan]

Doesn't it seem like there's a general programming conversation that just hops from topic to topic?

 

-Bry

[emkay]

emkay... your calculation is little bit too simple...

 

as 6502 is a 8bit CPU while 68000 is 16/32 bit....

 

compare a simple

 

lda adress

sta adress

 

vs. move.l (a0)+,(a1)+

 

so... don't underestimate the 68000...

 

hve

 

 

So we all know why the C64 is so much faster... It has a CISC CPU inside

 

The Acorn A3000 has a CPU without that complex commands an can handle any command by using less Cycles. Against the Archimedes the ST is like a snail

The 68000CPU was known for its high "comfortable" commands, that uses to much cycles. Simple copy operations are as not as effective like on the 6502CPU.

[emkay]

To scroll this screen, the CPU has to handle 32000Bytes...

The XL needs only to handle around 2000-4000 Bytes to do the same.

 

160x192 /4 = 7680 bytes.

 

-Bry

 

Wrong

 

1024 Byte PMG

1000 Bytes Character-Mode

up to 2048 Bytes Charmem at max. to change every(?) Frame or less

[Sharky]

But it did come to the Atari ST 16bits though, a pity thought the 8bit and 16bit Ataris werent compatible with each other.    

 

That's one thing i always moaned about; why didn't the 16bit Ataris just use an enhanced version of the 8bit graphics architecture - it's worked out far better than the way the ST is arranged...!

 

Same thing I moaned about that the Commodore Amiga wasnt compatible with the Commodore 64, like an 16bit enchanced version of the C64.

[emkay]

 

Same thing I moaned about that the Commodore Amiga wasnt compatible with the Commodore 64, like an 16bit enchanced version of the C64.  

 

One clue: Look on which computers the executable files are named PRG

[TMR]

That's one thing i always moaned about; why didn't the 16bit Ataris just use an enhanced version of the 8bit graphics architecture - it's worked out far better than the way the ST is arranged...!

 

Same thing I moaned about that the Commodore Amiga wasnt compatible with the Commodore 64, like an 16bit enchanced version of the C64.

 

Oh, that's what the C64DX (aka the C65) was for... =-)

[TMR]

Doesn't it seem like there's a general programming conversation that just hops from topic to topic?

 

Yeah... why do i get the feeling it's my fault too?! =-)

[ZylonBane]

To gain the best results in graphics, PM overlay with Charmode is a must.

Stop saying that. It's like you think "PM overlay with charmode, squawk!" is the ultimate solution to all Atari graphics.

[Sharky]

Oh, that's what the C64DX (aka the C65) was for... =-)

 

I forgot all about the unsuccessful C65.

 

Probably a good idea at the time, I heard it was even better than the Amiga. (Graphic modes)

 

But maybe it was just too expensive.

[emkay]

That's one thing i always moaned about; why didn't the 16bit Ataris just use an enhanced version of the 8bit graphics architecture - it's worked out far better than the way the ST is arranged...!

 

Same thing I moaned about that the Commodore Amiga wasnt compatible with the Commodore 64, like an 16bit enchanced version of the C64.

 

Oh, that's what the C64DX (aka the C65) was for... =-)

 

And there was 16Bit version of the XL planned with 65816 and a chipset of AGNUS, DAPHNE and PORTIA...

[Sharky]

 

And there was 16Bit version of the XL planned with 65816 and a chipset of AGNUS, DAPHNE and PORTIA...

 

Another great idea at the time. But obviously they tried to make their debut come out long after the Atari ST and Amiga making them unsuccessful, as those 2 machine became popular even that they were not compatible with their 8bit sisters.

 

[emkay]

 

And there was 16Bit version of the XL planned with 65816 and a chipset of AGNUS, DAPHNE and PORTIA...

 

Another great idea at the time. But obviously they tried to make their debut come out long after the Atari ST and Amiga making them unsuccessful, as those 2 machine became popular even that they were not compatible with their 8bit sisters.

 

 

I think you don't understand ...

As Jay Miner went from ATARI he used his knowledge to create a Computer with a Motorola instead. The first AMIGA 1000 has the chipset of AGNUS, DAPHNE & PORTIA.

[emkay]

To gain the best results in graphics, PM overlay with Charmode is a must.

Stop saying that. It's like you think "PM overlay with charmode, squawk!" is the ultimate solution to all Atari graphics.

 

The fastest and best looking games on the XL/XE are still using basicly this technique..do you know which?

[Jetboot Jack]

I don't think you can subscribe to one techique to cure all games needs!

 

Some require Antic E, some char mode, some Antic D, some use pmg, others don't. All that matters is the game plays good!!!

 

I'm happy to have discovered the GED and MCS concepts and the ideas for still images the PMG overlay ideas have put forward, but for games there are SO many different needs, that one solution does NOT fit all...

 

sTeVE

[emkay]

I don't think you can subscribe to one techique to cure all games needs!

 

You just have to. There is no other

 

The only thing is the different way to code in the different Game-needs.

[Lord-Chaos]

I think that using charmode graphics is better in almost all cases than using Bitmap graphics - the idea is to use the character mode screen with 3 different fonts.

 

Then it´s possible to move bitmap objects in the character graphics screen , set or delete pixels etc. and use - as a bonus - the fast character animation by rotating characters.(please note : we are not limited to 128 chars and use the characters as a different type of bitmap)

 

The only difference is that you have to use other techniques to set/delete pixels - but even vector-graphics games are no problem.

 

This is extremely helpful if you use double buffering , because in the last step you usually copy the whole screen from buffer to the screen - and in a bitmap mode this means 8 times more data = much slower.

 

But it´s important to have 3 character sets,changed with DLIs for a whole screen.

 

Player/Missile overlays are an additional "bonus" , which could be used for adding color in some cases.

 

Another important "bonus" is the 5th color.

 

There are games were such techniques are not useful - text adventures for example , but IMO P/M overlays are great for colorful software sprites to create NES - like graphics on the ATARI , since most classic games suffer from lack of color (usually 5 colors).

 

A software sprite in Antic 4 with one player as overlay can have 8 colors (5 background , the player color + 2 overlay colors) , that´s even better than a C64 sprite.

 

This means at least 4 8-color objects are possible even in BASIC (but very slow) , even more in assembler.

 

The speed of software sprites depends on the complexity of the background /or the masking techniques you use.

 

Thimo

[Jetboot Jack]

Believe me I know all about software sprites in char mode -- just checkout the Menace demo's on my site -- so for horizontal shooters its cool, for platform games too, very cool...

 

And why 3 charsets - that only gives 3 zones of unique character modelines of data, that seems very restrictive.

 

If you take a general case, of a simple game needing 5 software sprites (one Player and 4 enemies moving independently, so individually masked) as the minimum on screen need, at 12 X 16 pixels each, plus just a horizontal movement buffer (no vertical or diagonal movement) -- that uses 16x5 characters -- 80 characters in a character set, leaving just 48 characters for background, per zone for background, which is a pretty tight budget. I'd think you need at least 4 sets on screen (192 characters of data) to approach the visual complexity of a NES title. If you went for more axis of movement, then I would say you need to use 100 characters, reducing the background to 28 characers per zone....

 

THe advantage of using a bitmapped screen is that you have few restrictions, but ram, on the numbers of independent moving objects, each different. The higher levels of Donkey Kong on th 8bit regulalry puts 5 enemy characters plus mario on a line, with other objects moving elsewhere on screeen too...

 

BUT there are games where this method is not totally appropriate, a vertical shooter for instance, like last guardian would not benefit from this technique I think, nor would a true 3D game like Mercenary be useful in char mode...

 

sTeVE

[Lord-Chaos]

this was a little mistake - you need 8 charsets for the whole screen of course.

 

The idea is to use a "fixed" character graphics screen , that means , all the characters stay at the same place and after 3*40=120 Bytes , the charset is changed.8*2 = 24 lines , the same as 192 bitmap lines.

 

That means 3 lines ,starting by char 0 - 119.

 

After 3 lines , a DLI changes the charset.

 

It´s now possible to copy bitmap objects into the charsets - the positions of the characters on the screen will not be changed.

 

For example : In bitmap mode,I can set a pixel by setting the bit at the place I want.

 

In character mode , I change this bit in the charset , the one bit in the charcater at the same position.

 

Since each character is used only once , and the charset is changed va DLI every 4th line , only one pixel will appear on the screen.

 

The advantage is , that the screen itself takes only40*24 bytes =960 bytes , this makes the final "whole screen" copy faster when you use double-buffering.

 

The disadvantage is,that it takes additional 8192 bytes for the 8 charsets , but you need only 960 bytes as buffer instead of 7680.

 

And it´s possible to copy all bitmap objects into the charsets - the only difference is , that copying is different.

 

This allows vector-graphics games , too.

 

The important idea is , that the characters on the screen are not manipulated but the charsets itself - 8 charsets if the whole screen is used and objects are copied into the charsets.

 

I think on the C64 some programs used this technique.

 

Thimo