DimensionX
-
Content Count
447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DimensionX
-
-
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?
And what are you talking about?
Show some relevant shots please.
-
Please post relevant pictures...
He did. You offered Blinky's Scary School previously as an example of "nuances" and he posted it next to the C64 version which is twice the resolution and has far more colour.
That's not comparable with the AR shots i posted. Blinky contains brown and yellow, where yellow is dithered. Looks terrible.
No, that's just you misunderstanding again; if he's comparing Blinky's Scary School on the Atari 8-bit (which you offered as some kind of "proof" previously) to Blinky's Scary School on the C64. There was a change of topic away from your ST to A8 comparison of Alternative Reality but you missed it.
No, that's NOT comparable with the shots from AR, even an idiot can easily see that. Stop fooling around.
-
Please post relevant pictures...
He did. You offered Blinky's Scary School previously as an example of "nuances" and he posted it next to the C64 version which is twice the resolution and has far more colour.
That's not comparable with the AR shots i posted. Blinky contains brown and yellow, where yellow is dithered. Looks terrible.
YOUR opinion. Stop trying to apply that to other people, it's not going to stick and when you think we're trying that tactic with you, you get annoyed.
Pete
Even an idiot can see the difference. Stop defending brainless postings from "buddies" who's just making fools of themselves.
-
If conversions looks and plays like that. Don't bother to convert from the beginning.
Better then to make specific C64 games.
Exactly, although *FACT WARNING* most programmers here know it could've been a lot better than it was. So now we've agreed on that once again (I think that's about 20 times now), please stop trying to prove that point by posting other stuff that ONLY you prefer. I'm sure EVERYONE agrees that it's greed that made companies try this stuff on the 8 bits and greed that made them do such a poor job. They know it's not going to be perfect so why waste even more money trying, kick out something that has the bare minimum resemblance to the arcade machine, sell it to unsuspecting kids who think they're going to get SFII on their 8bit computer.
Pete
In fact, even the first ever released beat'em up, beats the crap out of this pixel mess.
Once again, I agree that games like Exploding Fist and IK/IK+ absolutely destroy SF2 for graphics and gameplay, once again that's not really relevant to this discussion. Once again you've ignored a whole post I just wasted my time typing and post a reply that responds to nothing in it.
Pete
Do you think that a machine can be serious overloaded, even if it can run the code?
If yes, i'm satisfied with the answer.
-
I'm sure EVERYONE agrees that it's greed that made companies try this stuff on the 8 bits and greed that made them do such a poor job. They know it's not going to be perfect so why waste even more money trying, kick out something that has the bare minimum resemblance to the arcade machine, sell it to unsuspecting kids who think they're going to get SFII on their 8bit computer.
Even getting Streetfighter 2 onto a 16-bit machine with a single button joystick is going to at best produce a very rough representation of the original, so they didn't put much more effort into the Amiga and ST ones.
Agree, both ST and Amiga versions stinks big time, not only in graphics but also in control.
-
Please post relevant pictures...
He did. You offered Blinky's Scary School previously as an example of "nuances" and he posted it next to the C64 version which is twice the resolution and has far more colour.
That's not comparable with the AR shots i posted. Blinky contains brown and yellow, where yellow is dithered. Looks terrible.
-
If conversions looks and plays like that. Don't bother to convert from the beginning.
Better then to make specific C64 games.
Exactly, although *FACT WARNING* most programmers here know it could've been a lot better than it was. So now we've agreed on that once again (I think that's about 20 times now), please stop trying to prove that point by posting other stuff that ONLY you prefer. I'm sure EVERYONE agrees that it's greed that made companies try this stuff on the 8 bits and greed that made them do such a poor job. They know it's not going to be perfect so why waste even more money trying, kick out something that has the bare minimum resemblance to the arcade machine, sell it to unsuspecting kids who think they're going to get SFII on their 8bit computer.
Pete
In fact, even the first ever released beat'em up, beats the crap out of this pixel mess.
-
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.
Please post relevant pictures...
Pictures with lots of shades. Like in Alternate Reality.
I don't call two colours, brown and yellow for shades, do you?
-
Check this out. Streetfighter II on C64.
Unplayable.
First, you'll need a magnifying glass to find Ruy and Ken on the screen. Then you'll need some glasses to be able to tell what is what in the pixel mess.
(yes i have tried to actually play this terrible version)
Spectrum version was totally awful.
You're still not getting the point being made here. I give up as I can't believe after all these posts you just don't understand so you must've made a conscious decision to be argumentative. You ignore 99% of what is said in people's posts by way of explanation of their point, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint they're either blind or lying.
*edit*
There's a difference between overloading a machine and someone just being bad at the job they've done. Without being a programmer or having at least a good grasp of what is possible you can't make that distinction. And it STILL "runs" on the C64. Doesn't matter if YOU like it or not.
Pete
If conversions looks and plays like that. Don't bother to convert from the beginning.
Better then to make specific C64 games.
-
Check this out. Streetfighter II on C64.
Unplayable.
First, you'll need a magnifying glass to find Ruy and Ken on the screen. Then you'll need some glasses to be able to tell what is what in the pixel mess.
(yes i have tried to actually play this terrible version)
Spectrum version was totally awful.
Ha ha ha ha ha
Check Blankas stage.
A big mess of pixels.That's to overload a machine...
-
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!
Perhaps you should get yourself a pair of glasses?
-
"Run" Streetfighter II on C64.
Good luck
Some games don't run very well, are they?
At least I've got a chance at doing it
Look at Exploding Fist or IK+ then SFII, extrapolate from that how many frames of animation/sizes of sprites you'd need (and as a programmer I can tell you the sprite storage in both is sub-optimal) and it's possible to produce something much closer to the arcade SFII than HAS been done.
Pete
Even on ST, SF II is unplayable.
-
Trying to do Xenon on C64, is to overload the machine with something it can't handle. Trying to emulate the R-Type arcade, is to overload the machine with something it simply can't handle.
In both cases those jobs could've been done better but are at least handling the majority of what is required. There are no Atari 8-bit versions of those games so at the moment the Atari 8-bit isn't anywhere near to handling those games.
Why make a shoddy version of a great arcade game?
Isn't it better to make specific C64 games, that the machine can handle?
-
Trying to do Xenon on C64, is to overload the machine with something it can't handle. Trying to emulate the R-Type arcade, is to overload the machine with something it simply can't handle.
But you don't have a clue of what i mean?
I understand that. However they're STILL games, they STILL run on the C64. Compromises have to be made and of course you can go crazy about it but as long as the game is there in a playable form it's STILL possible on that machine, or are we suffering some mass hypnosis? The thing you don't seem to be taking into account is the Atari has to compromise too.
*edit*
SFII, actually you can do a LOT better than has been done. It just needs to be multi-load so you've got RAM available for all the sprite frames.
Pete
"Run" Streetfighter II on C64.
Good luck
Some games don't run very well, are they?
-
All computers can make a mess, but you will not get a very good game. If you want a clean colourful game, that the machine was built for to produce, don't overload it with things it can't handle. An Amiga is much better suited for shaded detailed graphics.
Since when did complex graphics mean no gameplay? Really, I don't understand your stance on these "simple" graphics. As I KEEP saying. Nobody minds you having an opinion or a preference but PLEASE stop doing what you keep saying everyone else is doing and saying another machine is bad JUST because you THINK so. Amiga has nothing to do with this thread, it's C64/Atari 800.
If the C64 can display all 16 colours on screen, in almost any pixel position and multiple sprites then please tell me HOW using that in a game is doing something it's not meant to do? Honestly, if you come up with a reasonable explanation I'll be happy to agree with you but it's nonsensical.
Pete
Trying to do Xenon on C64, is to overload the machine with something it can't handle. Trying to emulate the R-Type arcade, is to overload the machine with something it simply can't handle.
But you don't have a clue of what i mean?
Do you think that a descent version of Streetfighter II is possible too?
-
Then, go ahead and show me the better version of Mirax Force.
You have one ready?
You just aren't understanding are you? Either you're trying to cause arguments or maybe you're right, go away and come back when your English is more advanced. YOU posted screenshots of a "Uridium clone" (your words) A C64 GAME. There's no need to post anything else to prove my point. Read my post PROPERLY don't just 1/2 read it and see someone else seemingly disagreeing with you and have a knee jerk reaction to that.
Pete
You are just talking, nothing else.
How about to do what TMR says?
Show me.
Else it's nothing but empty words...
Go ahead and show me the better Mirax Force on C64.
-
Pete
In fact, i showed you was C64 was good at, and built for.
But no, that was off course too simple for you. C64 was built for "anything it runs". You said.
Wrong, C64 was built for that games of that time. The games that we all like.
OF COURSE IT IS FOR ANYTHING IT "RUNS"! Good God are you dense? If a game is running on the machine, no matter if its got all 16 colours in stippled "messy" combination and 128 sprites multiplexed with 3 channel + digi music ITS STILL RUNNING therefore (and I thought you were intelligent enough to understand this) the machine IS CAPABLE of these things.
Pete
All computers can make a mess, but you will not get a very good game. If you want a clean colourful game, that the machine was built for to produce, don't overload it with things it can't handle. An Amiga is much better suited for shaded detailed graphics.
-
I like the old graphics too.
I took a closer look at Mirax Force on the Atari, looks like an Uridium clone. It was very smooth scrolling too. By the same programmer as Last Guardian. Chris Murray seems to be a skilled programmer.
Smooth scrolling shouldn't be a bonus on the atari, it's hardware is built for it (*WARNING FACT ALERT* although it scrolls at 1/2 the resolution the C64 does, 160 "pixels" for Atari, 320 for C64).
There's nothing wrong with those graphics, they're simple 5 colour character mode as was the other game. Black, 3 shades of the chosen colour and the "swap" colour that changes colour 4 into colour 5. Then multicolour (so 1/2 the usable number on a horizontal line) PMGs (hardware sprites).
If you were to write that on the C64 *WARNING FACT ALERT* you wouldn't be able to have as many different "properly" ramped colour shades but you could put 16 colours on screen for those seemingly important enhancements. You could however have 8 sprites available in bigger sizes (instead of 2), a finer scroll/sprite moving resolution.
If ALL you're trying to say in this thread (which seemed your intention a few pages back) is that you prefer the more shaded Atari capability then I don't see why you're labouring the point and turning it into an argument by skewing it into the technical side.
Pete
Then, go ahead and show me the better version of Mirax Force.
You have one ready?
-
At last, someone who is honest in this thread. You have my deepest respect. Because you see C64 for "what it is", not for what you "want it to be".
I'm afraid there's only one person in this thread doing that. Everyone else is giving factual reasons for why what you're saying won't work and even posting mockups, you seem content to call everyone liars and fanboys and post some 30 year old screenshots that do not prove your points. I'm getting rather sick of it as it's threads like this that give those of us who do know what we're talking about a bad name (eg, no doubt certain people on this forum would just call me an egotist for saying that).
Stick to the facts and your personal preferences. As has been said over and over, you're entitled to "prefer" one machine over the other but when someone who has written code for all these machines tells you something is impossible or at least so difficult it will mean there's no way to make a game out of it, it's NOT because they hate the Atari and prefer the C64, it's just facts.
Pete
Pete
In fact, i showed you was C64 was good at, and built for.
But no, that was off course too simple for you. C64 was built for "anything it runs". You said.
Wrong, C64 was built for that games of that time. The games that we all like.
-
I'm not a C64 fanatic by any stretch of the imagination: I had a BBC micro. There's a big hole in my childhood lasting up until Amiga where SHADES didn't exist at all
I'm just interested in retro games.
The C64 wins for me for being able to display different bas-relief elements seperated from eachother.
But i'm still interested enough to see how far the A8 would get to do the mockups. It reminds me of the 8bit days, and the A8 feature set is a BIG step forward over the BBC micro.
At last, someone who is honest in this thread. You have my deepest respect. Because you see C64 for "what it is", not for what you "want it to be".
I like the old graphics too.
I took a closer look at Mirax Force on the Atari, looks like an Uridium clone. It was very smooth scrolling too. By the same programmer as Last Guardian. Chris Murray seems to be a skilled programmer.
-
I played that game right now. A Xenon for A8 is possible by judging of that experience.
You're not aware enough of the Atari 8-bit hardware to make that judgement, you've proved that several times now. Sidewinder 2 is a good game, but can't use the "nuances" you felt were so important and can't replicate the "Bitmap style" either - it won't even stretch to managing the attack patterns.
And you have nothing to show either.
If you have, carry on.
If you can make games like Sidewinder II, a Xenon is possible.
Now you argue by yourself.
-
Where the HELL are you getting that palette from?
Pete
Atarimania, demo section.
-
Between us, they aren't programmers in this discussion, even if i whish they were, they are plain C64 fanatics, and that's something completely different.
Here's the Atari 8-bit game i've finished and released:
Try playing it yourself. i have another game that's complete barring the music and several others in prototype form. Here's the little demo i was asked to write:
And again, you might want to try it yourself. These are programs for the Atari 8-bit that i personally have written, that makes me a programmer regardless of your "logic".
If they were programmers we should have a sensible discussion instead of dealing with impossible arguments when fanatics trying to defend something to death, no matter what methods. Not even the rainbow TRM posted...was one. All i saw was shoddy C64 colours in wrong resolution.
The "mock-up or shut up" image you mean? That was drawn from an Atari 8-bit palette rather than a C64 one so it seems that after you repeatedly going on about how good the Atari colours are, you can't tell them from the C64 palette.
What happened to the picture?
Did you washed it?
Okey, now we are even and i have posted off some of the irritation.
-
Whaddayanow...
Oh yeah... another three colour bias-relief that doesn't match any of the criteria you've been going on about or prove a single point as regards Xenon.
I played that game right now. A Xenon for A8 is possible by judging of that experience.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl
in Programming
Posted
Dear Pete, it just becomes silly when arguing like that. All people can watch the screens i have posted, and they say more then anything else. Think about that.