frenchman
-
Content Count
345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by frenchman
-
-
Well, as history showed, Apple II wasn't the only casualty.
I wouldn't say Apple was a casualty at all - Commodore and Atari aren't the ones selling iPods and iPhones - and which company went tits-up first, Atari or Commodore?
Seeing as how the even the Vic-20 came out AFTER the Atari-8, why didn't the Commodore 64 (or the Vic, for that matter) best the Atari in every single way? After all those years to copy, it should have been expected. Even the Atari 2600 had 128 colors in 1977.
Actually Apple 2 was not a casualty at all, as the Apple 2 had already established itself in schools, that is something the C64 never managed, not even in UK. Apple 2 had the most software of all 8-bits (as I previously shown from that 1985 magazine report, here's a reminder):
and even after C64 support dried up in the USA, games were still being made for Apple 2, eg Prince of Persia, Mines of Titan...etc.
-
PAL is already superior to NTSC
Don't think the Japanese would agree.
-
Here's another one of those comparisons Rocky did:
Kick Off (Anco) C64 review in ZZAP! 64 issue 56
"the C64 just doesn't get started, appalling, graphics have ropey animation, sprite flicker (what? on a C64?), slow moving sprites, weak sound effects and no tunes...etc" 37% out of 100
Another crap game comparison from the 10 year old master.
-
What was your comparison? Milk Race.
Oh yes, as printed in ZZAP! 64 issue 28:
"blocky cyclists, Legoland backdrops, awful collision detection, badly animated riders, poor joystick control....etc; overall 34 out of 100%"
You stick to your low-res C64.
Sorry, your logic just totally collapsed there... the Zzap! review was pointing out the blockiness in Milk Race because what it was doing wasn't the norm on the C64, so your comment about the "low-res C64" when the mag you're quoting are lambasting that game specifically for being a lower res than the C64 would usually offer takes a severe kicking; even if it struggled back to it's feet, the A8 version of Milk Race being a lower resolution than the C64 one floors it a second time...
Nah my logic is spot on, Rocky Mountains compares a crap C64 title (which were common if you flick through the ZZAP! 64 issues) with an equally crap A8 title. No win situation for C64, now that's logic.
But feel free to pass on this info to Rocky, he adores those C64 titles.
So, your logic is spot on indeed....
. Well, thank you very much, but I knew this already.
-
Also, pretty sure you'd be taken a lot more seriously without all the silly emoticons. I like the comparisons myself, it's just too bad you write like a ten-year old...
--
Atari Frog
Contrary to most atarians I prefer more hi-res graphics than less low-res on screen. Therefore, I use a lot of emoticons.
Love me or hate me. 
What was your comparison? Milk Race.
Oh yes, as printed in ZZAP! 64 issue 28:
"blocky cyclists, Legoland backdrops, awful collision detection, badly animated riders, poor joystick control....etc; overall 34 out of 100%"
You stick to your low-res C64.
You still don't get any hints, do you ? but that's okay, I guess we shouldn't expect too much from you in that department LOL
Hints from a low-res C64er? Why? It would bring the A8 down.
-
What was your comparison? Milk Race.
Oh yes, as printed in ZZAP! 64 issue 28:
"blocky cyclists, Legoland backdrops, awful collision detection, badly animated riders, poor joystick control....etc; overall 34 out of 100%"
You stick to your low-res C64.
Sorry, your logic just totally collapsed there... the Zzap! review was pointing out the blockiness in Milk Race because what it was doing wasn't the norm on the C64, so your comment about the "low-res C64" when the mag you're quoting are lambasting that game specifically for being a lower res than the C64 would usually offer takes a severe kicking; even if it struggled back to it's feet, the A8 version of Milk Race being a lower resolution than the C64 one floors it a second time...
Nah my logic is spot on, Rocky Mountains compares a crap C64 title (which were common if you flick through the ZZAP! 64 issues) with an equally crap A8 title. No win situation for C64, now that's logic.
But feel free to pass on this info to Rocky, he adores those C64 titles.
-
Looks like you had lots of spare time today and shamelessly picking on non-programmer with your biased incorrect views of Atari hardware capabilities. If you are so much into higher resolution, you were better off with a PC CGA machine that does 640*200 and 320*200 in linear fashion. You also would have gotten a bigger color RAM in 80*25 text extendible to graphics modes and 16 color palette. As a bonus, you would have gotten linear graphics. One graphics mode does not make a machine. And your graphics mode isn't exactly 16 colors for any pixel not even at 160*200. You are wrong here as already demonstrated many times-- Atari can do more than 2 colors in Graphics 8. Leaving aside, DLI-based changes, here's a simple BASIC example that even you can understand:Obviously your sense of humour box needs a total reboot again..
If you can't see the irony in what I posted then god help you..
Anyway, I'm done with you now once and for all.. You're a tedious man with a penchant for twisting the words of others to meet your agenda.. Auf wiedersehen..
Damn you andym00...you did it again and I almost died laughing
Wow, you seem to laugh about anything Andym00 says, joined at the hip?
-
Also, pretty sure you'd be taken a lot more seriously without all the silly emoticons. I like the comparisons myself, it's just too bad you write like a ten-year old...
--
Atari Frog
Contrary to most atarians I prefer more hi-res graphics than less low-res on screen. Therefore, I use a lot of emoticons.
Love me or hate me. What was your comparison? Milk Race.
Oh yes, as printed in ZZAP! 64 issue 28:
"blocky cyclists, Legoland backdrops, awful collision detection, badly animated riders, poor joystick control....etc; overall 34 out of 100%"
You stick to your low-res C64.
-
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 then A8 users tamed the big bad c64 fans and showed them who's boss!
that's better
-
Look, I'm not following this discussion, all 384 pages of it. But I will tell you this. When I want to play classic computer games I use my C64.
There are two reasons. The main one is that 8-bit disk drives that work without repair or rehab are uncommon. I don't have the chops to get them all going, or the time. I rarely have trouble with 1701 drives. As I understand it, 8-bit Atari drives tend to need alignment and other maintenance.
The second reason is that the C64 was more popular, or at least the software is more readily available, and I happen to have found a ton of it. I wish I had found the same amount of 8-bit disks, but I simply haven't. I think that Atari disk soft is generally harder to find.
I would rather use Atari software and play games on my Atari computers, but I limit that to cartridges for the above reasons. And I boot up my C64 for most of my disk retrogaming needs. Shameful, isn't it?
As for breaking down A8 fdds, I got 4 working since 1985 without any problems. Some fantasy story you picked up from C64ers perhaps?
C64 was indeed more popular, that is why software was more readily available. But in Europe A8 software was always available, even in the UK all software shops used the 'Software Link Chain' which would order any piece of software for your A8 within the next day. No probs there.
Well, you got 300+ gorgeous A8 cartridges for excellent retro gaming needs to choose from. Nothing shameful about that.
-
Isn't that kind of the point I'm making?
No! Your point is that the C64 is the superior machine.
Superior implies that it is doing all better....
You wrote:
Why don't you just admit the shortcomings of the A8 instead of trying to pass off worse quality stuff than the C64 can do?
After putting a less complete version of the A8 to compare with a complete picture of the C64. And I was only showing the direction...
In other words, you again hammered on the weak spot of the A8, the intentional reduced colours, to show that the C64 can do better.... every C64 freak comes here and is doing the same.
.....
Here's a quote what the experts have to say about this subject (from Commodore magazine ZZAP! 64, Issue 10 and Issue 11 Lucasfilm interview).
" We're generally of the opinion that the Atari (8 bit) is a better computer for graphics at least, and it's easier to do fairly spectacular things on it."
"...the major problem I think with the Commodore version is its lack of high resolution and the graphic presentation. The game dynamics themselves are exactly the same as the Atari version and the two run at exactly the same speed. So, that was of primary importance -- in order to make the gameplay the same as the Atari version. The game originally was not designed with conversion in mind, and so it made extensive use of the advanced hardware in the Atari, so as to perform the animation of the grid and so on."
"I think our stuff looks the best on the Atari, but they're fairly close on the Commodore, although the graphics are certainly slower. We've been able to come across on both machines. There are some things you can do on the Atari that you just can't match, like the shading -- if you take a look at Koronis Rift on the Atari."
-
Have you played your Microvision today? I did. I took it to work to show a couple of people. We had a little Sea Duel tournament.
My real question is this. A lot of Microvision games were really clones of other popular games, especially one that appeared on the 2600. Is "Sea Duel" unique, or is it a clone of another game that's out there?
Maybe Seawolf (arcade) comes close.
My microvision works fine too, I got the German version of Sea Duel, which is called, funnily enough, See-Duell:
-
do you have a brain Rockford, I need no lecture on Arcade machines, I have nearly 50, including gyruss..You really are clueless.
You always seem to come up with some version that is not of the same period and try to pass it off as a direct competitor. Get a clue guy!Quite the contrary, you need some serious lecture on Arcade machines. When you ask me silly questions like above it only proves that you don't know what you are talking about
:D And right at this moment Rocky Mountains has become the authority on cabs, actually lecturing owners of arcade machines. He obviously googled.
The C64ers must be very saddened by the fact they have him to defend Commodore 64.
-
For all other comedians (like atarian63 or MaPa) I found a very interesting comparison. It's on hardcoregaming101.net (a very respectable site for multiplatform gamers who don't want to be a part of fanboyism). The reviewer compared all existing Gyruss versions to the Konami's arcade original, so he wasn't biased. And he wrote something like this:
"The Atari 2600 isn't too bad despite its choppiness, and manages to keep in a simplistic version of the theme song. The Atari 5200/8-bit version is a bit improved from this one, with more defined graphics, smoother action and better sound. The Colecovision version is roughly on par with the Atari 8-bit versions, but the best is the Commodore 64, which has smooth gameplay and excellent music."
Interesting isn't it
Sounds like you never played the arcade Rockford. Whatever the case it sure burns your butt that the A8 version is better!
Thanks budd 
You don't actually believe Rocky Mountains is capable of doing his own research, do you?
You know, judging by his posts so far, he might own a C64/tape player (plus all the budget titles from UK software houses from way back), probably never even touched a Colecovision nor a 5200 either (Yes, I know, it (5200) was never released in Europe, didn't stop me to own one). He just uses other forum replies and posts them here, that's all.
And the so-called hardcoregamerwhatever.net reviewer missed out the NES version in his comparison? Not very hardcore, if you ask me.
As for comedians, if we are you should be dead by now.
Go for it big boy.
-
At least give me a clue
All of the stuff on his site (8 bit stuff anyway) has got other people down as coders. I know he's been a designer and producer but not seen him mention coding anything.Pete
I don't know* what he coded-only, produced-only or designed-only, but he's an all-rounder alright.
*I know most, but sometimes attention's going (must visit 4chan to get those glasses)
Yes, and by the same lack of exact information you don't know what I coded, produced, etc from the C64 days through to now
Pete
Exactly, and Heaven/TQA has the same lack of information about the A8 posters here. Point proven.
-
At least give me a clue
All of the stuff on his site (8 bit stuff anyway) has got other people down as coders. I know he's been a designer and producer but not seen him mention coding anything.Pete
I don't know* what he coded-only, produced-only or designed-only, but he's an all-rounder alright.
*I know most, but sometimes attention's going (must visit 4chan to get those glasses)
-
Just out of interest and not to slight JBJ because I don't know what he's done but isn't he an artist/designer/producer and not a coder?
Pete
Just check out this thread (way back)
-
I don't see any C64 game coders here, wannabe coders yes, but coders no.As for A8 coders, Steve (Jetboot Jack) is highly here above all others, having published on A8, PS, CD32 Dreamcast and many other platforms.
You really haven't been paying attention have you..
Here, you can borrow my glasses
Wow, you gotta wear THOSE? Nah you keep 'em, my eyesight is perfect.
As for paying attention.....just to remind you: I don't see any C64 game coders here, wannabe coders yes, but coders no.
-
you know what I realised?
that most of the time (99%) non-coders on a8 side (except Atariski) are arguing against coders esp. game coders on the commie side...
I don't see any C64 game coders here, wannabe coders yes, but coders no.
As for A8 coders, Steve (Jetboot Jack) is highly here above all others, having published on A8, PS, CD32 Dreamcast and many other platforms.
-
Space War was not 'first person', but Star Raiders (1979 cartridge A8) certainly was, and it was the first 'killer app' were gaming was concerned.
But the first 'first person' was some tunnel game on Pet in 1977
Not much of a killer app given Atari waited until '82 to stick it on the VCS and 5200.. I guess they'd run out of other better options by then to raise some cash
And as for first first person games, go look up Spasim from 1974.. That'll be your first first person game I reckon, and it's a shooter as well as networked multiplayer as well
Ah you misunderstood, a killer app is a piece of software which sells hardware, on Apple 2 it was Visicalc, on 2600 it was Space Invaders, PC had Lotus 123, and the software which sold 800s was Star Raiders. Irrelevant on other platforms.
As for Spasim, great, even I who knows all, learnt something new, thanks. Looking on Wiki it says Maze War was also 1974.
-
Space War was not 'first person', but Star Raiders (1979 cartridge A8) certainly was, and it was the first 'killer app' were gaming was concerned.
But the first 'first person' was some tunnel game on Pet in 1977
-
Here is the US there is only one reason the c64 ever sold at all. Price,Price and price. It was extremely poor workmanship.High failure rate,Ugly as sin and no software library.. the only thing to love was Price!
Price is important factor... In any products success... I just somehow doubt that if A8s were cheaper they would sell well as C64...
My C64 is 22 years old and it is still working...
I have 10.000+ games for it...
And I love its looks!
Sometimes I try to put bread in it... but that is just early in the morning... Price is most important, otherwise Apple 2, the 8-bit computer with most software, would have been the top selling computer way back (in USA). I once found this article here on AA, it's from some US magazine from the mid-80s about the Apple ][ and its importance/impact in schools/homes etc. Also a video was mentioned here once, 'Thriumphing Nerds' or such, were the story was told that Apple 2 created an industry/companies were formed and so forth. A bit like Sinclair in UK:
-
Yes that's the trouble with C64 software in UK. C64 seemed to live mainly on budget softs, and when a full price piece of software was re-relased on budget, it sold even better than the full price title.
Just check out the soft charts in UK on C64 from that time, full of budget titles.
But I blame the Spectrum for this, Spectrum was leading the market where sales were concerend, eg budget titles, and software houses had to do the same on C64. They had no choice.
-
I find it interesting. The most games of the A8 tops, you don't have on 16 bit machines.
The most C64 tops you find in much better versions on 16 bit machines...
I guess its connected to year of release... by the time 16bits hit its peak, those games were old news...
But it also shows the superiority of the A8, for it's lifespan.... Having something really superior available. While the C64 only was a budget machine with budget software, easily outdone by other machines of the same time.
That is so true.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Atari v Commodore
in Atari 8-Bit Computers
Posted · Edited by frenchman
Sums nothing up.
C64 outsold other 8-bitters, but still Apple 2 was in USA schools, not C64. That was important for software companies back then.
And if your way of thinking 'best selling is better quality', you must love the Spectrum, best selling computer in UK. Or lets put it this way, Apple 2 had most software of all the 8-bits, in your way of thinking Apple 2 software is best then.