Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

Haines Chromaview vs Nikyo FunCenter [super Plus 16]

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

 

Has anyone got a lossless, artefact-free version of this bit?

 

 

Bear in mind it has a few frames of animation for the jaw opening and closing.

 

I still remember reading seeing a shot of that fish in the Zzap review many years ago and thinking "That is one well-drawn fish!"

 

http://www.zzap64.co.uk/cgi-bin/displaypage.pl?issue=061&page=009&magazine=zzap

 

...and then turning the page and seeing a very cool looking boss from X-Out, and thinking "That is one well-drawn... err... thing!"

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

You have dissed my Atari shots and videos, now i have dissed yours.

 

Back to square one.

 

When you start to act honest and less C64 biased, i will too. Because i don't want to dislike any of the older computers.

 

Your motivation is already painfully obvious, but at least you're up front about your determination to find only fault with any c64 games.

 

But still... yeah Mayhem isn't big on parallax. However, there is some parallax scrolling in that video I linked to. It's fairly simple, and it's not immediately apparent due to the fast scrolling speed plus youtube framerate limitations, so I'm not surprised you missed it in the few moments you watched the vid before rushing back here to try to crap all over it.

 

Speaking of parallax, I couldn't help laughing at your comment "A static black mountain." The way you throw this in as an attempt at some kind of criticism while completely ignoring the parallax layer mountain range in front of said static mountains makes it quite clear that you're really reaching in your attempts to find fault.

 

Then we have your "typical green." (Hey, maybe later it can be typical blue, typical brown, typical yellow, etc, etc.) Yes, the c64 is limited to a fixed 16 colours (PAL blending notwithstanding). Yes, we know. I'm OK with that, and it's fine by me if you're not.

 

Sure, a big palette would be nice. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. But if implementing a larger palette on the c64 had meant that more compromises would have been made elsewhere - if it had meant there would be greater restrictions on colour placement, or fewer sprites, or narrower sprites, or coarser scrolling - then I'm glad they went for the 16. I mean, I like colourful rainbows too, but I'm not a frickin leprechaun!

 

I have to say though, dismissing everything as 'unplayable' is kind of meaningless. Apart from the fact that playability is usually hugely subjective, and apart from the fact that watching a minute or so of a youtube vid before declaring that a game has no playability is pretty shaky ground in the first place, bringing playability into the equation in this context smacks of desperation, especially given that you were asking about games similar to Crownland - a game you regard as being unplayable anyway.

 

All up... I dunno man. This whole thing about 'dissing'. (You dissed my shots so now I diss yours!) This virtual admission that you're not being honest because you want to get back at those who you perceive as being c64 guys... it all makes me wonder: Just how big is the chip on your shoulders, and for how many years have you been lugging it around with you?

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.

 

Now you see the differences between the machines.

 

The games are nothing you even could call for similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...

 

Each level in Mayhem has two states, first 'sad' (all grey and miserable), then 'happy' (bright and colourful). The video you linked to above was a level in sad mode.

 

Happy mode looks like this:

 

 

It's Magic 2 is another one to check out:

 

 

and Flimbo's Quest has some nice parallax scrolling:

 

 

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display. To see something like C64, but way better, watch Atari ST in action. To watch something like A8, the only thing is to watch another A8 in action. Either you like it, or not, but that's A8.

 

To see something like the A8, but way better, watch the c64 in action.

 

It's just my opinion! Let's hope for more new fantastic games for both Atari and C64 in the future.

 

Remember, the only thing that matters is to make or play a good game.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

Thus spake Lord Rainbow.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

From now on, i don't going to answer your irrelevant postings. I didn't posted that pic because of the rock wall...

 

Oh I know you didn't. I almost wonder if you don't even see the rock wall until you're forced to look at it. For you, it's all about the rainbows! Nothing. Else. Matters.

 

BTW, my so-called irrelevant postings were simply direct responses to screenshots you posted. Perhaps you just didn't like my responses and so decided to dismiss them as irrelevant?

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

I posted lots of pics that i quickly choosed from a big map of screenshots, Blinky must have entered there by misstake, because it don't look very good. On the other hand, Blinky is far from Alternate Reality so it was an idiotic exemple from the beginning.

 

I agree. Blinky was an idiotic example for you to post. I don't what possessed you to post it in the first place. In fact, it's almost as unattractive as that ugly Alternate Reality shot you look upon so fondly.

 

 

I mean, look at it. Look at that rock wall. Yurk! It's as if the over the top gradient is desperately trying to divert attention from that wall.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

No, o don't post things like Blinky. Take a look again on my posted screens.

 

You don't post Blinky. Except for that one time when you did.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

And what are you talking about?

 

Show some relevant shots please.

 

Hmm. You seem to be confused, so I'm going to gently walk you through my earlier post in two parts.

 

 

PART ONE - In which I criticise the two colour blurky mess that is Alternate Reality's rock wall, and ask if throwing a high contrast gradient behind it makes it CLEAR.

 

To the left we have the ST version, including gradients. But if you compare with the A8 version to the right the pale in clarity and richness. Not even comparable. The A8 colours are sooo much clearer.

PNG, 668x240px, 15 KB (0.01 MB)

Hmm. So a rock wall drawn in a grey and a purple of about the same luminance all blended together in a murky mess becomes CLEAR so long as a high contrast gradient is slapped in behind it?

 

PART TWO - In which I wondered if you could have chosen a poorer example of so-called clear graphics, and suggested that your earlier inclusion of Blinky's Scary School was almost an equally poor example.

 

I wonder if you could have chosen a poorer example. Certainly your Amber-Vision screenshot of Blinky's Scary School comes close.

 

SOOOO CLEEEEAR!!! So nuanced!

 

EWW! URK! BLEH! Get it away from me!

 

So you see? Saying "But Blinky is no relevant to Alternate Reality!" is actually irrelevant in itself. I am comparing Blinky to AR in no way except to suggest that is a similarly poor example of these so-called clear Atari graphics you keep harping on about.

 

I hope I've made myself CLEAR. LIKE ATARI!

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

Please post relevant pictures...

 

Pictures with lots of shades. Like in Alternate Reality.

 

But you originally posted that Atari Blinky picture in one of your big blocks of screenshots, and you asked:

IF C64 was as good as Atari 800?

 

Why, didn't any of the games looked like this?

 

You tell me.

 

Let me guess. It can't be done with only 16 colours?

 

...but now, what happened? It's suddenly irrelevant?

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

 

SOOOO CLEEEEAR!!! So nuanced!

 

EWW! URK! BLEH! Get it away from me!

 

Perhaps you should get yourself a pair of glasses?

 

Are you implying I would need to have defective vision to prefer the look of the Atari version of Blinky's Scary School? Hmm. Good point. You may be right.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

To the left we have the ST version, including gradients. But if you compare with the A8 version to the right the pale in clarity and richness. Not even comparable. The A8 colours are sooo much clearer.

PNG, 668x240px, 15 KB (0.01 MB)

Hmm. So a rock wall drawn in a grey and a purple of about the same luminance all blended together in a murky mess becomes CLEAR so long as a high contrast gradient is slapped in behind it?

 

I wonder if you could have chosen a poorer example. Certainly your Amber-Vision screenshot of Blinky's Scary School comes close.

 

SOOOO CLEEEEAR!!! So nuanced!

 

EWW! URK! BLEH! Get it away from me!

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

And if you could speak swedish you would understand why by visting one of my blogs where you can read about my theories about both time, metaphysics, consciousness and secondary perception. The world isn't anything that you think it is. But we can save that for another time.

 

Translation: "On my blogs I take my love of creating my own reality to a whole new level!"

[Atari v Commodore]

Reading through the past few pages I missed... OK, so I'm quoting stuff from about 8 pages ago, but this thread moves too damn fast!

 

Where is the difference between 25fps and doing 50fps with double steps?

Well, there is none, if you need the same speed.

 

I'm not sure what you were trying to get at here, but if you had the same game running at 25fps in one case, and at 50fps with double steps (ie, all moving objects move twice as many pixels per frame update) in the other case, then the objects in 50fps game would be moving at four times the speed of the objects in the 25fps game.

 

If in fact you meant 'What's the difference between a game running at 50fps, and one running at 25fps with double the step size', then the difference is that the 50fps one will be perceptibly smoother.

 

 

And "combing artifacts"... don't exist on either machine. PAL 312 line output works just like NTSC 262 lines... you get a "Progressive" display with each field identical in construction to the previous/next.

 

Indeed. I wonder if you're getting the same sense of deja vu I'm getting regarding this subject.

 

 

 

You don't really get combing artifacts on a CRT anyway - thanks to the persistence of the phosphors and the fact they tend to "bloom" a bit, ie occupy pixel spaces outside their boundaries, you get the appearance of smooth transition between fields, even though only half the display is being updated at a time.

 

Yeah, if you sit real close to the TV you may spot a little combing if you're running a 50/60fps game in an interlaced display mode - eg: I've spotted it while playing a game in MAME on xbox connected to an SDTV, as MAME on xobx runs in 480i. Combing is considerably easier to spot when running in an interlaced display mode at 25/30fps. Fire up a game on dreamcast/ps2/xbox that runs at 25/30fps and play it on an SDTV. Sit close, and you'll notice that the 'ghosting' effect you can see on vertical edges as they move horizontally is a comb effect.

 

However, as has already been pointed out, none of this applies to images output at 240p/288p. ie: images output from systems (c64, atari, nes, master system, etc) not running at 480i.

 

 

 

NTSC allows 30 FPS and PAL 25FPS without interlace. That's why games like Yoomp! were 100% fluent there.

 

Connect your Atari or your c64 to an SDTV, and you can get 60fps (for NTSC TVs) and 50fps (for PAL) without interlace. However I've heard that some HDTVs aren't compatible with these old 240p/288p outputs as it's apparently a nonstandard implementation of NTSC and PAL. Some people have found they can't play Ico on PS2 on certain HDTVs due to Ico running at 240p.

 

 

 

Clean quantized frames need only 18 updates per second to have the eyes recognizing a full fluent movement. So you will only see a difference between 50Hz and 25Hz , if the quantization has jitters. Jitters are not possible on the A8, if using vertical sync.

 

That's wrong. You don't need to introduce 'jitters' into the scenario to see a difference between 50hz and 25hz. If you showed me a sprite moving across the screen in 8px steps, synced to the refresh rate but only updating every second frame (ie: 25hz), and also showed me the same sprite moving across the screen in 4px steps at 50hz, I would easily be able to tell you which was which. If it was a case of 2px steps @ 25fps vs 1px steps at 50fps, it would be more difficult to distinguish between the two, but I probably could still pick it. I'm fussy that way.

[Atari v Commodore]

aw man... this thread looks like it's about to get real interesting right before I go on holiday.

 

 

Although it might not be suitable for this showdown, I've often wished there were a prettier and more accurate version of Rastan Saga on c64. Even without changing the number of sprites used in the player/enemies, it could have been considerably cleaner and closer to the arcade in terms of looks.

 

 

before

 

after

 

Of course, after redrawing those sprites, I realised I should get over it and just play the game in MAME instead.

[Atari v Commodore]

Doh! Linked to the wrong one.

 

That should have been:

 

Already been done!

[Atari v Commodore]

Atari A8 Frogger Vs C64 Frogger.

 

Already been done. Thanks for the stereo view though. Should we cross our eyes and pretend the vids are in 3d?

 

 

You want a game that looked alot better on the atari?

 

How about Koronis Rift by Lucasfilm..

 

Already been done!

[Atari v Commodore]

@TMR

 

Well I wouldn't want that much colour at the expense of better sprite control, but still, it was weirdly appealing in a wild '70s colour kind of way. And who can resist smooth colour gradients? Not me.

 

Plus the potential for more restrained shading was clearly there. It got me dreaming about how it would look with a consistent backlight/fill-light tone on the underside of the tubes. For example: picture a grey tube with a blue backlight giving it blue tones on the underside. Then elswhere on the screen, a reddish tube with purpleish shading on the underside - the purpleish colour being due to the effect of the blue backlight illuminating the reddish surface. I love stuff like that. And although I think the c64's palette is extremely well-chosen (I doubt I'd be able to pick a fixed 16 colour palette that is more widely usable than the c64's), there are still times when you just can't get the shade you want. Seeing some of those unattainable shades in action (particularly deep greens) does give me a bit of a thrill.

[Atari v Commodore]

Re: Knight Orc

 

I just meant that since there ARE no graphics on the Atari version, why are we spending so much time arguing about it? The Atari version sucks. Let's move on and compare games that DO have graphics, so we can compare screenshots, which are the meat-and-potatoes of this thread. By "not a valid comparison" I meant that it's silly to try to assess the Atari against the beautiful Commodore version when there's nothing to compare. Sure, it's the same title so everyone who wants to frame the entire arguement around that fact alone....enjoy yourselves. I'd just rather move on and compare screenshots of things that are - in my opinion - more comparable - such as comparative graphical screenshots from each platform, of equivalent games.

 

 

Sorry, I missed this post earlier. I wish I hadn't missed it, because you have helped me see your point. While I think the comparison is valid in itself, I certainly agree that comparisons in which both versions actually have graphics are not only more interesting in general, but can lead to some cool insights into why the graphics might have been handled a certain way on each platform, and even how it could have been done better.

 

Oddly enough, after those Bop'n'Rumble shots I posted earlier, I spent a surprisingly long time dreaming about how DLIs could have been used to make the game better looking. (I think I might be in danger of catching emkayitis! )

 

As a matter of fact, I'd like to see more examples of Atari games that make good use of DLI colour splits. I don't mean just whacking a gradient in a sky (although that can look very nice) or just a somewhat distracting rainbow colourbar effect behind some background (Alternate Reality style), but actual clever use of colour splits. I remember the example reworking of Konami's Ping Pong that was floating around these forums some time ago (by Tezz, I think?). That was pretty damn cool. As was TMR's sneak preview of his Atari shmup. I actually get a real kick out of seeing shots like that. After spending so many years carefully choosing pixels from the good old c64 16-colour palette, there's something strangely thrilling about seeing non-c64 colours and shades put to good use in that very familiar 160px resolution.

[Atari v Commodore]

So, in your expert opinion would you care to enlighten me what was copied ?

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding The Knight Orc Controversy (Coming soon, from Robert Ludlum), I wonder if the few posters here who are complaining that the comparison is somehow invalid would have objected if the situation were reversed. Imagine if the Atari version had graphics while c64 version was text only, and it had been posted earlier in the thread as an example of a game being better on Atari than on c64. Would the guys complaining now have piped up saying it didn't count? Or would they have accepted that, yes, the lack of graphics is a valid and significant negative point in the comparison.

 

I agree that Rockford could be less inflammatory with his wording in his comparisons. But still, instead of beating around the bush with cries of 'TROLL!', or with talk about the original purpose of the thread (a few hundred pages after derailment), or with objecting to each and every comparison (doesn't count cos one doesn't have graphics! not golden age! lazy programmer! etc), why not just come out and say "I don't want to see any more examples where the c64 version of a game is better than the Atari version."

 

And fair enough if you don't want to see any more. This is Atariage. You come here to soak up some Atari goodness. Maybe one day TMR will fire up his platform agnostic site for these discussions and everyone can go at it until the cows come home. But at the moment, it's looking like some of you have realised that Rockford probably has a list of fifty or more comparisons to get through, and you're looking for ways to shut him down without really acknowledging why you wish he'd just go away.

[Atari v Commodore]

It's neither embarrassment nor a valid comparison. Comparing a text game to a graphics game is apples and oranges.

Sorry, but it IS the same game. It's a graphics Adventure where the graphics has been removed for the A8 version.

It's the essential spot of that game.

Ok, I stand corrected. What a fantastic way to compare two computers. Run the game with graphics on one, and run text on the other, then conclude the graphics "suck" on the one with text-only. Ok, you win. My hat is off to you. Point taken. The Atari sucks. Everybody feel better?

 

Your post implies that you're under the impression that Rockford somehow put the Atari version into a 'text only' mode. Apparently, the Atari version simply does not have any graphics. It is the same game on two different platforms. One features graphics; the other does not. As emkay has pointed out - blame the guys responsible for the Atari version, not Rockford.

 

Also, compare Rockford's comparison of the same game across the two platforms, and then think about Atarian63's earlier attempt to draw a false comparison between two completely different games in different genres (under the loose heading of 'soccer games'), and then think about who is really resorting to invalid comparisons.

 

 

 

 

You really are trolling here. Nothing but trolling

 

More selective pics. more trolling..

 

more insults and trolling.

 

Atarian63, why do I get the feeling that if anyone kept labelling you a troll the way you're slapping the label onto others, you'd be hammering away at that report button as fervently as a certain someone kept hitting the +1 button on every one of Frenchman's posts several pages ago?

[Atari v Commodore]

That's one of the nice features of the 64 that I've always liked, having that available mix of hi and low res elements would be something I'd love the A8 to have available (amongst others ). It's possible to a degree with some cpu grunt to mix modes on the same scanline exploiting the well known GTIA quirk of course. I did the Chimera picture below this way a few years back.

 

So, the restrictions of our colour usage in hi-res can be overcome somewhat with miscanline mode and colour changes along with pm under/over lays which you can see some examples from Tebe below.

 

Certainly some good examples there... just a couple of years ago, if someone had shown me those pics and asked me to guess what platform they were on, I would never have guessed the Atari. Nowadays, I know better.

 

Actually, that's something for Atari lovers to bear in mind when feeling like they have c64 lovers crawling through their windows and scuttling down their chimney. Somewhere, amidst all the hoo-hah, info is exchanged and maybe horizons are broadened a little. You can bet that if I encounter someone else on another forum who says something like 'The Atari can only display two shades of the one colour in hires', I'll be piping up with 'Well, that's not really true!' etc etc...

 

As for c64 owners signing up to defend the honour of the c64 - no doubt there have been a few. Considering the link to this thread was posted over on lemon64 months ago, it's almost surprising that there haven't been more righteous defenders mounting their 8-bit steeds. (hmm... now there's a metaphor that doesn't bear close inspection.)

 

But that's bound to happen, isn't it? I don't think any of the pro-c64 guys are wanting (let alone expecting) Atari fans to forgo their preference and prostrate themselves at the Commie alter. But dagnabbit, that doesn't mean they're going to sit quietly if some posters decide that the best way to praise the Atari is to say crazy misleading or inaccurate things about the c64. I mean, I signed up back in 2007. Normally I just lurk - maybe drop by every couple of weeks to see what's up in Atariland. I even watched this thread stagger along for more than 80 pages before some wild claim finally drove me to dig out my password and sign in. Hell, I'm only human!

 

 

 

Nevertheless, there are no rabid Atari users over there attacking Commodore users, so the question still stands why the opposite is so common here. Just inviting speculation as to why that is constantly the case. Rabid goes both ways, it seems, but somehow the rabid Atari users don't "invade" Commodore forums for the sole purpose of flamewar; I'd say Atari Age is a reasonable place for them.

 

There are a couple of other possibilities to consider. I don't know if they're correct, or even likely, but they're possibilities:

 

a) Maybe the Atari isn't discussed much on c64 forums.

b) Maybe when it is, there aren't many posters making outrageously flamebaity anti-Atari posts likely to goad wandering Atari fans into wanting to set the record straight.

 

Or maybe there are simply more c64 fans out there (consider how many millions of units were sold), so whereas a 'vs' discussion like this on a c64 forum might see a couple of Atari fans enter the fray, when it goes the other way, you get a minivan full of c64 fans on your doorstep (although as has been mentioned, it seems that most of the ones in this thread were already Atariage members).

[Atari v Commodore]

But higher color depth is preferred to making things more restricted in 320*200 as opposed to 160*200.

 

 

I understand you're speaking in general terms there, but obviously it's going to depend on the game in question. Strategy games, for example, can benefit from having more detailed graphics by sticking to high-res, while still displaying a fair degree of colour.

 

And don't forget, you can easily mix high-res and standard multicolour-res graphics as needed.

 

 

So you might choose to design all your graphics around the high-res restrictions:

 

 

 

Or you might decide to use mc-res for the graphics, while using hi-res for text. Maybe even use a little extra hi-res detail in the graphics, as seen in the third shot in this next batch:

 

 

 

Maybe you'll use some hi-res to add detail to the sprites:

 

 

 

...or perhaps you'll use it with the background graphics too, while still mixing in some mc-res as needed:

 

 

 

...or maybe you'll make use of it in your parallax scrolling background:

 

 

 

Whichever way you go, there's a lot of flexibility on offer. It's not as if you're faced with an either/or choice of doing your whole screen in the more restrictive 320*200 or the higher colour depth but lower res 160*200.

[Atari v Commodore]

The c64 games I have listed were typical and representative of the time. True there are some that are later like 1990 when the system was sooo advanced Which some have decided just do not exist though proof has been show.

 

First off, who said bad games on the c64 did not exist in 1990? Did someone actually say that or anything like it? Or did you just throw in a straw-man in the hope it would float?

 

Secondly, the cruddy games you listed were:

 

Abrasco Golf (1983)

The A-team (1985)

Bionic Commando (US version) (1988)

Chuck Norris (1983)

Hard Drivin' (1989)

Ikari Warriors (US version) (1986)

Glider Rider (1986)

Kick Off (1983)

British Super League (1990)

Intergalactic Cage Match (1987)

 

Yet now you say: "The c64 games I have listed were typical and representative of the time." Really? Do you honestly believe you've made a supportable statement there? After all, that's quite a range of years you've covered in your examples. (BTW, feel free to let me know if I missed any.)

 

If your intent was in fact to argue that the c64 had numerous poor quality games in 1983, back in the early days of the system, then perhaps you should have focussed on that. But it wouldn't be much of a point, would it? In fact, it would be worthy of nothing but a puzzled 'So what?' I mean, of course the c64 would have seen numerous cruddy games in its early days. That's nothing unique to the c64, surely? It takes time for programmers to come to grips with a new system. It takes time for a system to gain some traction. And after all that, you're still left with the problem that plenty of 'golden age' 1983 Atari games look just as amateurish, if not worse.

 

BTW, eight of the ten games you listed are on Lemon64's Worst 100 list. You can see how someone might conclude that you were picking through that list for examples. If that suggestions offends you somehow, I'm quite sorry.

 

 

Anyway, all that aside, that 1990 Atari game certainly looks quite slick. It's interesting to see what can be done on Atari when a game is expressly designed around the system's DLI features.

 

 

edit: fixed ma typos!

[Atari v Commodore]

I came here because of the VCS. I happened to see this topic from the main Forum list, saw some erroneous info and was quickly attacked by rabid Atari fans for daring to correct it.

 

heh. I remember that. Weren't you accused of being blinded by love for the Vic20 or something?

 

 

 

 

Poor job, poor programming. The same usual.

 

'The same usual' indeed.

 

I think the same usual in question is in fact your same usual golden rule, which apparently goes like so:

 

Any bad game on Atari can be safely dismissed as a mere case of poor programming and/or being past the elusive GOLDEN AGE.

 

Any bad game on c64 is damning proof of the system being a blight upon mankind!!!

 

 

 

BTW, on the previous page you said:

 

What a silly reply, you have been show the facts on many occasions and still just dont get it.

...so I invited you to clearly state any facts you've presented that I haven't grasped. Have you managed to come up with anything yet, or was that just a bit of good ol' bluff and bluster?

You are supposed to be discussing games not using insults. Thanks I have reported it.

 

It's kind of ironic that the guy who was peppering his posts with things like Barnacle Butt the bottom dweller and Rocky the dullard in mama's basement and Aren't you dead yet? and posting vids of guys lighting farts is now trying to hunt out insults where there are none.

 

Let me make this point very politely: Atarian63, it appears that you previously used insults as a poor substitute for constructing an argument, and now, denied that avenue, you're using false accusations of insults as an equally poor substitute.

 

However, if there is anything in my above post that you feel insults you, I apologise. Yet the point I was making with my playful parody of your rule of thumb remains: posting shots of cruddy c64 games in an attempt to disparage the system while dismissing outright all cruddy Atari games as merely cases of poor programming or as coming after the so-called golden age and therefore somehow not counting is a contradictory position.

 

For my part, I feel that digging out shots of cruddy games on either system achieves nothing. Comparisons are more interesting, if only to see what might have been. I think most of us know enough about both systems to have a fair idea of when a game could have been improved.

 

 

Generally, I've tried to avoid insulting the Atari in this thread, because 1) I don't really dislike the system, and 2) I'm aware that it's impolite to roll up to a forum dedicated to a particular platform only to try to disparage said platform.

Wow, that is totally unbelievable. Amazingly so..

 

Go ahead and search through my posts in this thread. You'll be hard-pressed to find me heaping scorn on the Atari as a platform. The closest I came to that was pointing out that half the games on Lemon's Worst 100 Games list still look better than the typical 'golden age' Atari game. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean they play better - they're on the Worst 100 list for a reason!)

 

PS. Look, I'm so nice I even fixed your broken quote tags!!

 

 

 

@potatohead, Lemon64 is the creation of a guy called Kim Lemon. I wonder if he anticipated how large the site would get when he chose the domain name.