What can an old Atari 400 (800 etc) do these days? Atari vs C64 all over a

[kiwilove]

The AtariBLAST! (formerly GTIABlast!) project is now into it's 3rd year of development - and it looks to be towards it's home stretch - as far as it's completion is concerned. It still has some way to go though...

 

Those who haven't seen it running yet - can see its progress in various Youtube videos.

 

Here's one of them...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IMWEb6HXf0

 

While this video is somewhat choppy - Youtube doesn't show the original video faithfully - because they compress the file.

 

You can go to the official website for other videos and specific information, etc...

www.playsoft.co.uk

 

Some nice progress has been made since the last video update...

 

In comparing the Atari 400/800 (etc) hardware say with the C-64 (which is around 3? years later in it's release date?) the most obvious difference between the two platforms is the sprite hardware comparison. The C-64 having many more independent muliticoloured sprites than say the Atari 400/800 sprites.

But through adept programming - this can be addressed - and what was thought to be impossible? Can be seen running ...

But it is of course an illusion as such.

Also there is so much else going on within this project - that it should be a welcomed surprise - the more you know about it.

 

The rarely seen and rarely utiilised GTIA modes are in full use (are not of high res). They come with their own drawbacks - but it is good to show that they are usuable if you are prepared to work within their limitations.

 

Also within this project is the chance to see what does twenty five? years difference make? In which I do use and re-use graphics done back in 1985 to 1989 - sprucing them up a tad in places to show what was always possible with the original hardware - if you took the time and effort to see what can it really do?

 

I do have to say though - that this kind of project was simply not possible back in the day - because I am making use of graphic tools running on a present day laptop - and for convenience using the Altirra Atari emulator. The game does run on the original hardware via a flashcart. The target hardware are 16k Atari 400/800/etc, as well as the upgraded 1088k Atari 800, and also the Atari 5200 console - in it's 3 versions.

 

Harvey

Edited March 25, 2015 by kiwilove

[TMR]

But through adept programming - this can be addressed - and what was thought to be impossible? Can be seen running ...

But, since you're slightly bizarrely pitching this as a C64 versus A8 discussion, it only takes someone to offer up Sensible Software's Shoot 'Em Up Construction Kit on the C64; that's over a quarter of a century old but using similar tricks for full screen scrolling with up to eleven colours and i think it maxes out at thirty two hardware sprites. It does flicker when the developer tries to put too many sprites into one place, but SEUCK Redux fixes some of that (along with adding some extra features) and being a bit more careful with your enemies goes a long way too.

 

I do have to say though - that this kind of project was simply not possible back in the day - because I am making use of graphic tools running on a present day laptop - and for convenience using the Altirra Atari emulator.

Cross development toolchains are awesome for making coding for classic computers and consoles so much easier of course, but they really aren't essential; if something is possible now it would've been possible then even if working completely native rather than relying on cross assembly from another 8-bit machine as John Harris used with two A8s or something more powerful like the 386 clones Graftgold and System 3 had or Ocean's homebrewed Atari ST setup.

[kiwilove]

All kinds of discussions are possible - using AtariBLAST! as the example of what if's? Though in this case - not the same programmer is involved with revisiting say Laser Hawk and Hawkquest.

I've revisited the Zaxxon game graphics with a twist/variation - but that is not the only game that is revisited in some way. Though it is only 'graphically' and not game-wise.

 

But specifically this project makes an effort to explore the GTIA modes fully - and it seems Battle Eagle and GTIABlast were in development about the same time? coincidentally .. the first demo/test was up and running in January and by the end of February it was in presentable form - but it's early demos were not publicly released.

 

My guess about why the GTIA modes were not fully explored in games - back then - is that the 16-bit computers were seen/hoped to be the future as such - and the 8-bits were regarded as being 'done with'. And it's only by investing time and effort - can the utmost be revealed in what the hardware can do?

But it is not one thing alone that makes AtariBLAST! worth checking out - other elements/aspects are brought into it - that I hope people will appreciate and notice?

 

Credit goes to Paul Lay, the programmer who has added these to the project.

 

I was unsure at the start of it all, what to expect going back into designing 8-bit graphics all over again. And it is certainly the graphic tools/designer(s) that Paul has written - that has made it all the easier. I had the opportunity to assist with a project with another programmer - using 8-bit graphic tools - but I couldn't take to it. I got too spoilt by using Web based browser tools.

 

While this project does use the original hardware back in the day - and the only concession is that it only runs now from a present day flashcart - the objective is not have something look like it was done twenty something years ago - that to make it the best looking possible - you incorporate whatever else that you can, into it.

So while theoretically you can say with some certainty - that this project could have been done back in the day - had someone or team wanted to put that much effort and resources into it - but there are other elements used - which are apparent now - 25 years later. But had you applied them 25 years ago - you would have been a true games programmer etc genius then.

 

Harvey

[TMR]

But specifically this project makes an effort to explore the GTIA modes fully - and it seems Battle Eagle and GTIABlast were in development about the same time? coincidentally .. the first demo/test was up and running in January and by the end of February it was in presentable form - but it's early demos were not publicly released.

The first change log entry in Battle Eagle's source code says September 2012 but the eariler prototype with bitmapped "backgrounds" (the tile rendering was never written) and colour splits on the players is dated May 2010.

 

My guess about why the GTIA modes were not fully explored in games - back then - is that the 16-bit computers were seen/hoped to be the future as such - and the 8-bits were regarded as being 'done with'.

It was more about commercial realities i reckon, not every Atari 8-bit has the option of GTIA so games using it can't be sold to everybody; it's the same reason that the majority of A8 games were written for 48K rather than 64K, publishers wanted to maximise their investment so aimed for the biggest audience and developers wanted to be friends with the publishers. The same is true for the other 8-bits, Space Harrier and Commando on the C64 suffered greatly because publishers Elite wanted the games to be a single load (Commando Arcade SE, which was released a few days ago, shows what could've been done with a cartridge the size you're working with or disk multiloading) and you only have to look at some of the C16 "conversions" of things like Green Beret or Ghosts 'n' Goblins to see what a publisher saying "it has to work in 16K" will do to a game.

 

While this project does use the original hardware back in the day - and the only concession is that it only runs now from a present day flashcart - the objective is not have something look like it was done twenty something years ago - that to make it the best looking possible - you incorporate whatever else that you can, into it.

It depends on the person doing the programming; i've always aimed for a 48K (or occasionally when needed 64K) Atari 8-bit or a stock C64 and the games have always ran as a single load because i want the challenge of making that work. i've dabbled with expansions but lose interest in finishing projects using them, mostly because it isn't as much fun.

 

You're still not really addressing the whole Atari vs C64 thing that you brought up still...

[kiwilove]

I wasn't going to address/add to the C64 vs Atari kind of debate - but I can imagine it has been done to death.

The best videogames on any system is to exploit/explore the capabilities of the hardware that is present and make as full use of it, as you can.

 

The shortfall for the Atari has it's been limited sprite system - and while multiplexing of sprites can be used to offset this, it still doesn't really deliver fully independent sprites as such.

Being able to choose what colours to include in a colour palette is a definite plus, as opposed to a fixed colour palette - but so is being able to include more colours on screen, than say 5 colours. As to which sound chip sounds better? Maybe that is more due to personal taste?

 

For companies selling home versions of coin-op videogames - very few titles delivered on that kind of promise/hope - and go from the range of dismal to amazingly faithful - with the later being a very low percentage.

 

I guess I am surprised by the odd classic title that has failed to materialise - when that particular computer system ought to be able to reproduce it?

 

One game that comes to mind - is Xevious for the C-64. I need to try it out, I guess. I think Probe purchased the license to produce the home versions - and the C-64 version particularly failed to live up to any expectation. And no other company or enthusiastic programmer/etc tried to do their own version of it?

 

Atari failed in their 8-bit version of it - to make a decent effort. I'm surprised no one has expressed interest in delivering a proper Atari home version of it (it's only the mothership appearance that I think would be hardest part of it to pull off successfully?). But then it is a lot of work required to try delivering such a version of the classic game. It's probably one of the most under-rated classic videogames? When you see an expert player playing the coin-op game - you can see it's one of the few hour(s) long game - one can play?

 

My impression of the early release of the Atari 400/800s - was that only few of the early batch went out with CTIA chips - and large numbers were not sold - because of it's pricing? That 1980/1981 would be the proper date of when the Atari 400/800s were widely available on sale? By that time 16K was viewed as the standard minimum memory requirement - and 8K went out the window - and the only reason why Basketball and Star Raiders were 8K games - was that these were the very first videogame titles developed for the Atari 400/800 computers?

That in 1979/1980 memory chips were very expensive - but that changed by 1980/1981. By 1985 it changed again..

 

Harvey

Edited March 27, 2015 by kiwilove

[carlsson]

If you're looking to compare hardware, wouldn't it be more interesting to put the GTIA up towards the TMS9918 etc? Those two are nearly contemporary. Of course you can pitch it against the Famicom PPU too, that is hardware released one year after the C64.

[TMR]

I wasn't going to address/add to the C64 vs Atari kind of debate - but I can imagine it has been done to death.

Your topic for this thread includes the words "Atari vs C64 all over" so that doesn't entirely tally... and yes, it's been covered at great length both here and elsewhere.

 

 

For companies selling home versions of coin-op videogames - very few titles delivered on that kind of promise/hope - and go from the range of dismal to amazingly faithful - with the later being a very low percentage.

 

I guess I am surprised by the odd classic title that has failed to materialise - when that particular computer system ought to be able to reproduce it?

Commercial game programming from that era is all about getting the job in on time and within budget, sometimes a decent programmer would be hired and we'd get an R-Type on the Spectrum or Salamander for the C64 (which isn't perfect but does at least play well) but these top programmers were expensive so a lot of the time it'd be the [ahem] less capable people given the job.

 

It's probably one of the most under-rated classic videogames? When you see an expert player playing the coin-op game - you can see it's one of the few hour(s) long game - one can play?

i'm not a massive fan of the design behind Xevious to be honest, i think i like it more now than i did in the 1980s but it isn't the vertically scrolling shooter i'd play given a choice; that'd probably be Starforce, 1942 or perhaps Vulgus.

 

My impression of the early release of the Atari 400/800s - was that only few of the early batch went out with CTIA chips - and large numbers were not sold - because of it's pricing? That 1980/1981 would be the proper date of when the Atari 400/800s were widely available on sale? By that time 16K was viewed as the standard minimum memory requirement

Give or take, so publishers aimed at 16K without GTIA because they were sure of hitting the widest possible audience; that seems to have carried on after 48K became the minimum RAM as well, possibly because it removes the chance of getting games returned on those rare occasions where a CTIA-equipped, 48K 800 is used.

[kiwilove]

It's always a personal choice as to what project - people work on these days.

 

While I don't like to sound negative about the Space Harrier port to the A8 hardware (to each their own favourite/etc). I would have preferred to see something done in which the A8 hardware can cope better with - namely say Xevious or Zaxxon or even Galaga?

 

I didn't survive much past the mothership in Xevious - but it's design was always more interesting to me than say 1942 (which I didn't play much of, or Vulgus. As part of the research for Hawkquest - I did know of an excellent player of Xevious - so I asked him if he would mind playing it, while being videotaped? He also played various other games - including Vulgus - which he said he liked playing also.

 

Andrew Bradfield - who programmed Hawkquest - was never much of a coin-op player - in that he never went into them - for fear he would become hooked - and end up putting lots of money into them. Though he was a fan of such games - preferring instead to play the Atari home computer versions of them, when possible. The aim of the videotape was for Andrew to see all of the attacks, etc in the game - and it was up to him, if he could copy or mimic some of them?

 

I'll take the guess - that now - anyone could try developing their own version of a classic videogame - and not be hassled by any company about copyright/etc problems? Because the retrovideogaming market is so small - and if you made it as a free game - that they won't bother you at all - hopefully. And it won't be worthwhile doing a game that has been competently written - such as Donkey Kong, Qix, Pacman etc.. Of course it'll be a lot of work - so they'll be doing it for the love of doing it.

And some people may do it - because it is fun for them, as such, while others may work on it - just so as to produce something really nice - even though it's not really that much fun - working on it.

 

In any comparison between C-64 and Atari - where various games are cited as examples - it is really not the hardware being compared at all - but that it is more about the competency of the programmer involved - unless it is the same programmer writing both versions - Dropzone comes to mind - whereas it's an unfair comparison - say with Blue Max and Zaxxon.

 

Harvey

[high voltage]

Archer MacLean said: 8bit Atari the Porsche of home computers, C64 just a BMW 3 series...

[TMR]

It's always a personal choice as to what project - people work on these days.

 

While I don't like to sound negative about the Space Harrier port to the A8 hardware (to each their own favourite/etc). I would have preferred to see something done in which the A8 hardware can cope better with - namely say Xevious or Zaxxon or even Galaga?

But that's exactly how the whole personal choice thing works; Sheddy really wanted to do Space Harrier and if someone wants a different project it falls to them to actually put the time and effort into getting it done.

 

i'm currently finishing a C64 game that plays like Action Biker but with top view Last V8/Red Max graphics; with family life, the day job and my tendancy to become sidetracked by other projects (Battle Eagle, an Apple II Snake-style game called Hissing Sid which is currently broken after i tried to install my Mockingboard driver that plays RLE compressed YM streams and the nearly done Blok Copy for the Plus/4 were all written whilst it was temporarily back burnered and there's a dozen different prototypes and experiments too) not necessarily leaving me with a lot of free time, it's taken a couple of years but is a game i wanted to see made and "ppphhhpppt" to anyone who feels i should've been working on what they wanted me to. =-)

 

I'll take the guess - that now - anyone could try developing their own version of a classic videogame - and not be hassled by any company about copyright/etc problems? Because the retrovideogaming market is so small - and if you made it as a free game - that they won't bother you at all - hopefully.

It seems to be relatively safe overall, but there are examples of people getting burnt when playing with existing IP. i've received a cease and desist email over a name before now and the developer of Smurf Rescue on the Amiga received a particularly nasty legal letter not long after it's December 2014 release so, along with things like the countless Star Trek PD games from the 1990s or the more recent fan Windows remake of Streets Of Rage that was stomped on, it does happen.

[TMR]

Archer MacLean said: 8bit Atari the Porsche of home computers, C64 just a BMW 3 series...

His wording (my emphasis) was a little different:

 

The Atari, being the Porsche of home computers, is capable of running Dropzone 2.5 times faster than the 64 and can handle any amount of blobs on screen, even when you release a Strata Bomb. It is visually, sonically etc., identical and about 12K shorter. However, the 64 is still a respectable BMW316

So the Atari 8-bit programmer Archer MacLean did say something approaching what you said but with a different emphasis and referring specifically to Dropzone rather than discussing the two machines more generally. Some of the claims there are... well, lets call them "bold" rather than questionable because i honestly doubt that the A8 version of Dropzone can really handle "any amount of blobs on screen", that just sounds like hyperbole.

 

We could easily push the argument in the other direction by asking people who struggled to port C64 games to the Atari 8-bit about which of the two is better; perhaps Ian Copeland or Brian Jobling would have something to say having porting Zeppelin games like Zybex, Blinky's Scary School or Draconus since they had to drop half the vertical resolution and a lot of colour to make them work? Or how about John Kavanagh's opinion as regards Green Beret compared to the C64 version or Andrew and David Blott who converted Red Max and had to deal with losing lots of detail, colour and half the horizontal scroll resolution? (Speaking of which, i wonder if Dropzone on the C64 takes advantage of that...?)

 

Come to think of it, how about me? i converted my own C64 game Reaxion to the Atari 8-bit and, despite it being nearly a decade ago, i can probably still give you chapter and verse on how much more difficult the A8 version was to write?

[kiwilove]

I haven't compared Encounter to see how they compare against each other. It should look better on Atari - simply because of having colour choice present.

Nor Spelunker... Here - I'd guess the Atari would make use of a larger active screen area.

 

I think Miner 2049'er wasn't ported that well for the C64... Games of this type should be virtually identical in gameplay - and it's only the colours being different.

 

Bristles ought to be same on both too.

 

But in these examples the hardware is not being stretched to it's limit(s) - say as in Armalyte? Which will probably suffer in an Atari version?

 

When you look at Blue Max - you can see that the C-64 conversion wasn't successfully done - that it could have been done better - but would have used a smaller active screen area - but with more sprites available - a deluxe version would have been possible - with more planes in the air.

 

You should be able to see that if you push the hardware to it's limit(s) - porting it to another computer - something will be lost in conversion - usually. Depending whether it pushed the source computer to it's limit(s).

 

Harvey

[TMR]

But in these examples the hardware is not being stretched to it's limit(s) - say as in Armalyte? Which will probably suffer in an Atari version?

There are games that push the C64 further technically than Armalyte too, Enforcer or Turrican 2 to pick a couple of examples from just one programmer. But Armalyte on the Atari 8-bit... i'm not sure it's even doable in a form that'd be recognisable as Armalyte. Something like Subterranea might be possible (and Humanoid on the A8 sort of tried even if it wasn't anywhere near as complex for the attack patterns) but that's just stock hardware sprite counts and i'd assume a double buffered scroller so nowhere near pushing the C64's hardware.

 

You should be able to see that if you push the hardware to it's limit(s) - porting it to another computer - something will be lost in conversion - usually.

That depends in part on the restrictions on each platform and how strict you're going to be when it comes to conversions; Zybex on the A8 is a good game but graphically it suffers from far less colour and being converted down to a lower resolution, Dropzone on the C64 is a good game too and visually far closer to the original but it doesn't have as much going on during play.

[kiwilove]

I remember all too well the full page adverts of home computer conversions of then popular coin-op games in the mid 80s? in such magazines as Comptuer and Videogames - and I thought it was rather cheeky of the software company to do this. I've always thought that the player would be better spending their money at their local video arcade, instead of shelling out for these 'dud' home versions... That it would be an exception - if they managed to deliver a decent worthwhile version?

At least the Atari 8-bit computers were spared these tacky conversions - though of course we did not appreciate being left out.

 

I did think that such a game as Flying Shark - would not be possible on the Atari 8-bit hardware?

 

However as the development of AtariBLAST! has progressed - it does look like there will plenty enough of on screen activity and mayhem going on - while it will not be up to Flying Shark standard - it'll probably do better than any other previous A8 game before... Certainly it'll be different to Hawkquest - and will show what difference does 25? years make...

While the game does feature horizontal scrolling levels - it was not envisaged that the game would support this - being tacked on, it's was not designed for this mode and so is not the best it could be for these levels. Hopefully players won't be too critical about this... We didn't want to add an extra year to the project for that extra optimisation possible.

 

AtariBLAST! was not meant to be such a huge project (of 3 versions) in which it has turned into.

 

Harvey

[TMR]

I remember all too well the full page adverts of home computer conversions of then popular coin-op games in the mid 80s? in such magazines as Comptuer and Videogames - and I thought it was rather cheeky of the software company to do this.

Cheeky? Not really, once the demand had been demonstrated it would've been incredibly hard for any business to ignore. Conversions of big name titles from both the arcade and from other platforms were, for better or worse, usually big sellers so people either took a punt or less often read one of the gaming mags to see which was worth buying. Sometimes they did a cracking job like Salamander on the C64 and R-Type for the Spectrum, more often it was like a passing nod but playable in it's own right like Power Drift on the C64 which was great fun but not necessarily a close conversion and then there was the bilge like Karnov where it was hard to really see anything past the basic mechanics of the original in there.

 

But that same scale can be applied to all games because there are excellent, good, average, bad and appalling games generally so singling out conversions is a bit unfair. Some people rag on budget releases but quite a few well-loved games and indeed series came from Mastertronic, Codemasters or Firebird like Warhawk, Kikstart 2, Voidrunner, Action Biker, Spellbound, Return Of The Mutant Camels, Proof Of Destruction....

 

At least the Atari 8-bit computers were spared these tacky conversions - though of course we did not appreciate being left out.

Not always and Green Beret immediately springs to mind, but that lack of noise is because there was also a lack of signal.

[kiwilove]

Thanks for pointing out Enforcer - it was good to see - although I thought the graphics could be a little better? Design wise. I did have a limited correspondence with a mate of Manfred Trenz, Erik Simon back in the day. While Turrican is certainly a good series - it is of course a simplified version of Metroid - and Super Metroid (SNES) is an excellent example of the puzzle element within that game. Although I never played the NES version.

 

Yes - I've been surprised by some of the Spectrum conversions - achieving better than what I thought that hardware can handle - although I'm not sure what to expect from Sinclair hardware - but it seems the best games are those designed with the Spectrum in mind - doing what the Spectrum hardware can do best. And that is not using lots of software sprites - and not doing full screen scrolling.

 

Harvey

[TMR]

Thanks for pointing out Enforcer - it was good to see - although I thought the graphics could be a little better?

Since i think it's one of the better looking 8-bit shoot 'em ups, there isn't much room for improvement in my mind. Crush or the Enforcer 2 previews might take things a step or two further (as does Metal Dust but that requires a SuperCPU to run because it's constantly pulling in new sprite data and playing sampled music during play) so it can be improved on, but there's only a certain amount of "wiggle room".

 

Yes - I've been surprised by some of the Spectrum conversions - achieving better than what I thought that hardware can handle - although I'm not sure what to expect from Sinclair hardware - but it seems the best games are those designed with the Spectrum in mind - doing what the Spectrum hardware can do best.

That's true of any 8-bit and, to a degree at least, the 16-bit systems too.

[kiwilove]

For me - the 16-bit computers didn't deliver the in-home arcade game experience - although SWIV and other such games were the exception - and far too few. I was unhappy with the jerky scrolling and jerky moving sprites present in most games - coin-op quality purists demand silky smooth scrolling and sprite movement - which 16-bit computers failed to deliver. Although one of the early Amiga games did deliver this - Battle Squadron - which did not receive the rave reviews I expected of it. XR-35 also looked impressive - but I guess these 2 failed on addictive gameplay?

 

And so I had no choice but to go 16-bit consoles - of which the SNES came out on top. The consoles only have professional development teams working for them - and as such the quality present is very high indeed. But if you were more into 3D simulations and strategy etc games - the PC was the system for that. This is where Andrew Bradfield and I differed. He went off the arcade games - which I can understand why - as they get rather samey - whereas I was not into reading detailed instruction manuals and the 3D simulations etc. Anyway I was highly impressed by Super Aleste, Super SWIV and Contra III etc on the SNES.

 

Turrican in it's 16-bit versions were simply visually stunning

 

Yes - it's possible to do some amazing stuff on the 8-bit computers - if enough time and effort is put into it - by those who have enough experience behind them, to get the utmost out of them.... or perhaps from fresh new talent - who are only starting out?

 

You really can't expect the first big program/game you worked on - to show what you're really capable of? Using the sports analogy - and if you do play a sport? or two - you'd know it does take time to really take to a sport - and it takes a lot of practice and game experience etc etc to start playing to a competent standard.

We should always encourage those who wish to - to have a go - whether it is a sport - or developing videogames of their own. And while I can only work on graphics design - to try different things out - to see if you can come up with something new or different?

And I will admit that I do like to use others' graphics and tweak them somewhat - hoping they'll not mind me doing this - that people will recognise when I have done this - and what I have done with it.

For a commercial game as such - you really can't do this - but if you are working on a free game as such - I hope I don't offend anyone by doing this - because I am really praising their work.

 

Harvey

[TMR]

For me - the 16-bit computers didn't deliver the in-home arcade game experience - although SWIV and other such games were the exception - and far too few. I was unhappy with the jerky scrolling and jerky moving sprites present in most games - coin-op quality purists demand silky smooth scrolling and sprite movement - which 16-bit computers failed to deliver. Although one of the early Amiga games did deliver this - Battle Squadron - which did not receive the rave reviews I expected of it. XR-35 also looked impressive - but I guess these 2 failed on addictive gameplay?

Battle Squadron seemed to suffer from bad timing, it was a great shooter but came out when there was a glut of them on the various markets; for a while, Amiga games were judged on if they were "current gen" enough and shooters were, by and large, not really in that camp in part because the 8-bits had done them so well.

 

That said, the Amiga might struggle a bit for solid shooters compared to something like the C64 or later the Megadrive but there's also Battle Squadron's predecessor Hybris, Z-Out and to a lesser degree X-Out, Cybernetix, Project X (in the remixed, slightly less evil budget form), Menace, Blood Money, Agony, Katakis, Necronom, Apidya, Super Stardust, Banshee, Disposable Hero, Factor 5's official port of R-Type and quite a few other older or budget titles like Sarcophaser or Scorpio which have aged more graphically but still play well and, in the majority of cases, are pootling along at 25FPS or 50FPS.

 

But not feckin' Xenon 2...

 

And so I had no choice but to go 16-bit consoles - of which the SNES came out on top.

There are a couple of decent blasters on the SNES but nowhere near the catalogue available for the Megadrive or, if it was an option depending on location, the PC Engine; the latter wasn't available where i grew up and i had daily access to a SNES, but it was the Megadrive (and in particular the Japanese one) that got all the decent shooty stuffs so that's what i owned.

 

The consoles only have professional development teams working for them - and as such the quality present is very high indeed.

Most of those crap ports that the computers suffer from were written by professional coders as well, people whose day job was converting games from platform to platform via the path of least resistance. And the professionals on the 16-bit consoles were, for the European market, mostly people who came from backroom or demo/cracking scene backgrounds as well because that was the only way to learn. Quite a few Japanese developers got their break from being involved with Doujin releases and worked their way up to professional status in a similar way.

 

You really can't expect the first big program/game you worked on - to show what you're really capable of? Using the sports analogy - and if you do play a sport? or two - you'd know it does take time to really take to a sport - and it takes a lot of practice and game experience etc etc to start playing to a competent standard.

i'm not sure anybody claimed otherwise, but some people do completely nail it on their first go and, whilst the technical aspects may not be perfect, there are quite a few more "first time callers" whose games are still remarkably playable.

 

We should always encourage those who wish to - to have a go - whether it is a sport - or developing videogames of their own. And while I can only work on graphics design - to try different things out - to see if you can come up with something new or different?

Sorry no, as an analogy that really doesn't work; sports are built around some very rigid rules that govern how they're played and have people enforcing those rules during the game; if you want to "have a go" at sport you're not allowed to change those rules by halving the size of your goal, releasing a trained timber wolf to attack the opposing team or arming your players.

 

Designing a game is different and you can wander off in whichever direction appeals to you personally, but it's worth noting that there isn't much that hasn't been tried already but we only see a record of the reasonably successful attempts in released software because those are the ones that make it to market. Even then we have exceptions where things went awry somewhere and these are just as often going to be something "professional" getting stuck in development hell so the difficulty is slowly ramped up ridiculously high.

[kiwilove]

I did not play the last wave of shooters for the Amiga - around the time of Stardust.

 

While graphics does not a game make - it has to have that addictive - playable feel to it, in which it is nicely paced. Graphics though, can make a game look interesting.

 

I did own both Megadrive and SNES/SFC consoles and played the best of both systems. Although console games were supposedly done by professionals and/or companies as such - there were still duds and disappointments among them. And although the Megadrive was suppose to have a decent colour palette - I couldn't help but notice the use of only 4? colours in some games - there'll be more than 4 colours on screen - but in certain broad areas - only 4 colours present.

 

I was using the sports analogy - in broad terms, in relation to acquiring the skill - that applies to any interest/hobby etc.

 

Even though I wanted to, back then - to get into videogames graphic design - full time as such --- I know now, I wouldn't have made it - able to put up with the time pressure, and deliver the quality required - all the time. I perform better in flexible time - in my own time - and the longer the better because I tend to be inconsistent - and I can require several attempts to get something working - or not at all.

 

I did have correspondence with Roy Lynch - who did manage to get into that work field - and it was no paradise, nor picnic for him. It is a pity that he could not get a good matching competent/talented programmer to work with straight away - when he was an amateur as such.

I know that finding a good match in a partnership is very hard - and I had the good fortune to be able to be in touch with Andrew Bradfield - and Paul Lay, to work with them.

I had other contacts with other programmers - but nothing eventuated, probably because of distance ... maybe..

 

Harvey.

[TMR]

I did not play the last wave of shooters for the Amiga - around the time of Stardust.

Most of the stuff i listed predates Stardust and are games i'd personally consider to be at least reasonably playable... although that's subjective, of course.

 

While graphics does not a game make - it has to have that addictive - playable feel to it, in which it is nicely paced. Graphics though, can make a game look interesting.

Looks really aren't everything and see the professionally developed Xenon 2 again for reference; it looks very nice but those visuals are papering over a very choppy refresh speed and some ominous-looking cracks in the design; don't even get me started on the shop, the "professional" who decided that breaking the flow of a shoot 'em up with two visits per level to the arms supermarket really shouldn't be allowed to play in the same sand pit as the rest of us!

 

I was using the sports analogy - in broad terms, in relation to acquiring the skill - that applies to any interest/hobby etc.

Technical skills do take some time to build up, but they're not essential to producing a decent game (because some decent games have got truly atrocious code "under the hood", even the professionally developed ones) and the rather nebulous thing that is required to make something playable can often be picked up just from playing other people's work and learning how the various elements go together before sitting down to write the first line of code.

 

I know that finding a good match in a partnership is very hard - and I had the good fortune to be able to be in touch with Andrew Bradfield - and Paul Lay, to work with them.

i started as a coder and just taught myself how to produce passable graphics through trial and error, i don't do music because i can't but know some very talented people who can. And there's nothing stopping almost anyone from learning assembly language, especially these days with online resources and cross assemblers; it does take some time, effort and to a degree restraint because diving in and claiming you're going to write the next [insert popular/complex game title here] is pretty much guaranteed to see you stall at the first jump but it really isn't the black art people seem to think it is.

[kiwilove]

While I did spend a year trying to learn programming BASIC and COBOL - on an intro to Data Processing course - prior to buying my first home computer - the Atari 800 - I wasn't much good at it.

 

While I was a whiz kid at maths throughout high school - I really didn't understand it much - and had to be shown first how to do equations etc, before I can do them. I think that I would need such help - to really get into programming - but I would rather get onto other projects altogether - and spend my time and effort there.

 

Whatever ability I have in design, is of course self taught as such - and I usually try tweaking things better and better. Rarely does something happen first time perfectly with me. Putting together a larger version of the Atari robot (as such) was relatively easy - but all I did, was to simply copy it. I did like what you did in the Battle Eagle background.

 

Harvey