Barnacle boy

Interesting. The shots on Mobygames are considerably less porcine indeed, if a little red: With its static background and the generally horizontal nature of the elements within that background, perhaps this game would have been a good candidate for some nifty DLI colour trickery. @wood_jl: some of us just like to stick up for the humble c64 when mean nasty atari fans say outrageous things about it. 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. Having said that though, certain posters have made it hard to resist making a few digs at the good old Atari from time to time.

Could you even do 32 colour graphics at 640 res on non-AGA Amigas? (not counting copperlist effects) I thought 640 res was limited to 16 colours.

'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: ...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?

Really? Would you care to estimate (or simply guess) how many c64 games either use high-res or use a mix high and low? You can ignore games that only use high-res in the score display if you like. I'm curious to see how many you think is 'not many'.

Really? What facts are you presenting that I’m not getting? Feel free to state them clearly. Back to comparisons, he says, and posts a shot of one game on a single platform. That aside, Intergalactic Cage Match is by all accounts a terrible game. C64 owners at that time would have been well-advised to stick to one of the superior wrestling titles that came out before it, such as Championship Wrestling. Meanwhile, Atari owners didn’t have to worry about making a choice, as it seems they had only one contender in the wrestling ring: Bop n Wrestle - not a bad game, maybe, provided you can stomach the ugly CGA-like graphics (it makes you wonder how Intergalactic Cage Match would have ended up looking on the Atari): ...and apparently it needs 128KB to run! Oh dear. Of course, you can count on the c64 to deliver the winning blow in this match:

It's a little dishonest to compare a soccer management game (British Super League on c64) against a more typical realtime soccer game, isn't it? Dishonest, but not surprising. I almost feel sorry for you, old chum. As you pick your way through Lemon64's list of Worst 100 Games, it must be kind of depressing to face the fact that half of them still look better than the typical GOLDEN AGE Atari game. NOTE: That link isn't entirely worksafe. There are a couple of dodgy 'adult' games on the list. Actually considdering it's 1990 c64 vs 1983 2600 it's no wonder coming from you that you would cry foul . 1990 commercial c64 game Vs the lowly Atari 2600 and the Atari 2600 wins. Very sad. I'm simply pointing out your dishonesty in the way you're attempting to draw a false comparison between two games in different genres. Soccer management games typically don't place much emphasis on graphical frills. That's common knowledge. What will you do for an encore? Compare a text-only adventure to a platform game? Of course there are many more bad games than the ones on that list. Is anyone disputing that? Given the huge number of releases on the c64 over its lengthy lifespan, there are bound to be loads of cruddy titles. The Atari certainly has its fair share of crud too. But so what? What do you think you will gain by saying "Hey look! I found some bad games on the c64"? You've even had a long-time Atari gamer point out to you that anyone could do the same in regards to the Atari. You just end up looking desperate, like one of those politicians who has nothing to offer and so resorts to trying to sling mud at his opponent, while everyone else finds themselves thinking of the old saying about people in glass houses throwing stones. Mind you, the good old "Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool..." one also comes to mind in this case. By the way, I'm not at all troubled about Lemon64 having a list of the 100 lowest ranked games. Sometimes it's fun to check out the real stinkers. I think you'll find that most c64 owners aren't particularly bothered by the existence of bad games on the system, simply because there was such a steady stream of excellent titles to keep us busy.

It's a little dishonest to compare a soccer management game (British Super League on c64) against a more typical realtime soccer game, isn't it? Dishonest, but not surprising. I almost feel sorry for you, old chum. As you pick your way through Lemon64's list of Worst 100 Games, it must be kind of depressing to face the fact that half of them still look better than the typical GOLDEN AGE Atari game. NOTE: That link isn't entirely worksafe. There are a couple of dodgy 'adult' games on the list.

LOL. I totally missed that the first time around. Nipped that one right in the bud! And it looks like it beat Terra Cresta to the punch too, as Zzap reviewed it in issue 16, whereas Terra Cresta wasn't reviewed until issue 22. Terra Cresta was the one that springs to mind with me too as the first pro commercial game i saw with the borders off. we were used to that by then ofc on the cnet circuit. but it was quite a buzz none the less the see "real" programmers following the demo lead. It's funny, but back when I first played Terra Cresta, I hadn't seen any demos showing sprites in border and so had no idea it was possible. I still remember the moment when I suddenly realised that the score display was positioned too high up to be in the normal screen area. It was a real WTF? experience. Like, wha...? How the hell did it get there? I even stuck my finger on it and reset the c64 to make sure I wasn't imagining things. An excellent point, well made!

Apologies for being pedantic, but not only did Ikari Warriors have sprites in the border (as others have pointed out), but it was released in '88, whereas Delta was '87. Incidentally, the first game I encountered that used sprites in the border was Terra Cresta in '86. I wonder if there were any before that... Anyway, quibbles about screen dimensions aside, the UK version of Ikari Warriors was a cracking game (pretty damn hard though!). And they certainly did a good job of getting a lot of sprites onto the screen. There are 18 visible in this shot, and that's not counting any of the border sprites (which would be another 16).

Oh, allow me to refresh your memory, old chap! In reference to your recent habit of posting shots from crappy-looking c64 games, you said: So I said: And then look what happened!: And after all that, you pop up with: Huh? Were you waiting for me to start raving about that Chuck Norris game falling outside of the c64's GOLDEN AGE or something like that? That kind of pointless ranting is your thing, not mine. I wouldn't want to steal your thunder. Anyway, it's obvious you're not going to answer my question. Either way, I think the point is well and truly made, so I'm going to let it go now. I'm not really keen on obsessing over it for the next ten pages like he who shall not be named... As a matter of fact, it's probably I good idea for me to heed the advice I gave PeteD a month ago.

Where did you make post a that required a reply? What question did you put to me? Hmm? I don't mind a bit of mud-slinging, a few digs... it's all in fun. But come on, you have to be at least a little clever with it. Otherwise you just wind up looking like a doofus. So anyway, how are you going with answering that question. Do you need to phone a friend?

Heheh. I was wondering who would snag that (dubious) honour. NEXT STOP 20,000!!! Sure, I try not to discriminate against appearances. I also try to be tolerant of dumbasses. It's not easy. Hey, you. Yeah, you! Instead of just dribbling out witless jibes, how about you answer my question: But does it? I mean, really? If I post one hundred screenshots from crappy looking Atari games released in '82-'83, would you say "Well yes, that just shows how bad the Atari was during that period". Or would you start up with the "Yeah but, no but, see, the thing is... they were just bad programmer jobs, etc etc." Or would you prefer to lie low until we're on a new page and then start gibbering again, like last time?

I said it some months ago and it's still apt today. Frenchman, YOU GO GIRL! RAH RAH RAH! POST 10,000!!!!!! That's it. We can all go outside now. By the way, in about one month and two weeks, this thread will have been running for a year!

Are you sure about that? I just tried it out to refresh my memory. I would bet money it is scrolling at 50fps.

Goodness me, what were they thinking? It's almost as if they wanted to make the layout a little closer to the vertical orientation of the arcade original. If only you had been there to witter pointlessly at them and show them the error of their ways.

You really don't want to answer this question, do you? But does it? I mean, really? If I post one hundred screenshots from crappy looking Atari games released in '82-'83, would you say "Well yes, that just shows how bad the Atari was during that period". Or would you start up with the "Yeah but, no but, see, the thing is... they were just bad programmer jobs, etc etc."

Man, seeing that you were on here and posting, I waited something like fifteen minutes just to see what you had to say... And that ramble the best you could do? Disappointing. I won't bother sticking around next time. But does it? I mean, really? If I post one hundred screenshots from crappy looking Atari games released in '82-'83, would you say "Well yes, that just shows how bad the Atari was during that period". Or would you start up with the "Yeah but, no but, see, the thing is... they were just bad programmer jobs, etc etc." Do you not see how dumb (and hypocritical) your position is here? Come on. Be honest with yourself.

Geez Oky, at least link to a vid in which the guy playing knows how to get in a tank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZk5GGtvjr8 Of course, we're looking at the far superior UK version here, whereas the screen posted earlier was from the dire US version. (Don't tell frenchman that!) Atarian63, this thing you're doing where you run off to Lemon64, search for low-rated games, and then post pics of them here is pretty dumb, honestly. You must know that anyone with the inclination could post an absolute boatload of shots of extremely crappy looking Atari games from your so-called golden age. But what would that prove? That there were crappy games released even during the system's best years?* OMG, say it aint so! At least Rockford is actually comparing games that appeared on both systems, rather than just digging out shots of any crappy game he can find. Meanwhile, you're starting to look like a guy with a full-body skin condition who is trying to point and laugh at the odd patch of scaly skin on somebody else's elbow. *I say 'best years', but the way you're carrying on, I'm starting to wonder if your so-called Atari 'Golden Age' is actually maybe three weeks somewhere near the start of 1983. Except, funnily enough, although you'll immediately insist that a game like Gauntlet is unfit for comparison due to coming after this mythical 'Golden Age', I have a feeling that somehow we wouldn't hear a peep out of you on that score when it comes to certain other '85 releases being put on the comparison table: Rescue on Fractalus, for example. The Eidolon, maybe? Alternate Reality?

Once upon a time, one quiet autumn afternoon, the Atari fans were sitting around relaxing on their favourite forum. Then suddenly, the big bad c64 fans arrived to cause a ruckus! Eek!!! Soon there was some flaming going on, and everyone had fun barking at each other and playing with pencils! And they all lived happily ever after... in the past!

Meanwhile, I made this somewhat ordinary-looking ship almost three times as beautiful! Objectively!

Who do you think you're kidding, atariksi? Let's be clear, when I replied to a portion of your reply, I did so like this: I don't see what's so contradictory about saying that having the freedom to use more colours is useful when creating art, but that using more colours does not automatically ensure the creation of something beautiful. Whether something is beautiful or not will depend on HOW those colours are used, and even then, whether the result is classified at being beautiful or not will depend on the opinions/aesthetic preferences of the viewer. Because no matter how much you try to deny it, different people will have different ideas about what constitutes beauty. ...now are you seriously trying to say that your comment to TMR - "You can't see the self-contradictory remark of arguing in favor of color RAM and at the same time speaking against more colors and more shades and speculating they are subjective" - cannot be considered on its own? Are you saying that it must be taken as the whole quote, which is: What possible value does the rest of that quote add to the comment "You can't see the self-contradictory remark of arguing in favor of color RAM and at the same time speaking against more colors and more shades and speculating they are subjective", and to my subsequent point about there being nothing contradictory about accepting that more colours is more useful but doesn't guarantee the creation of beauty?

I don't see what's so contradictory about saying that having the freedom to use more colours is useful when creating art, but that using more colours does not automatically ensure the creation of something beautiful. Whether something is beautiful or not will depend on HOW those colours are used, and even then, whether the result is classified at being beautiful or not will depend on the opinions/aesthetic preferences of the viewer. Because no matter how much you try to deny it, different people will have different ideas about what constitutes beauty. Everything irrelevant becomes relevant when trying to throw up a smokescreen while muddying the waters with cries of 'Chewbacca Defence!' and 'Bullcrap!'

Dead? I might be getting on a bit, but I'm still hanging in there...

Yep, back in 1983, in the early days of the c64, there were a number of rather primitive-looking titles, no doubt about it. Meanwhile, 3-4 years into the its lifespan, the Atari was at its peak, and was enjoying the prestige of awesome games like this: The above game doesn't appear on the Atari. Instead, in those golden years you keep harping on about, the Atari showed how a buffalo game should be done! I'd like to see you try to find even 10 games in the gb64 database that have multiple entries for different cracks. That should keep you busy for a while.

Heheheh. Well I can't argue with that. Particularly that last bit. That would be an interesting one to try converting to the Amstrad CPC. With the fast scrolling, you could use that CRTC trickery that shifts the screen a byte at a time, maybe double buffer it for half-byte widths. Plus as it's fairly lacking in colour, you could probably use the amstrad's mode 1 4-colour 320x200 res. Except you'd have to get around the amstrad's total lack of greys in its palette. Maybe go with a blue+purple scheme.