DimensionX

It's not the best example of C64 graphics, but calling it a "smeary mess" is just trolling again. If you read the original posts properly you'd see that the request was for a game in that style rather than specifically R-Type and that i said it was a rushed six week conversion so of course it's not as good looking as it could've been. i'm guessing from some of your more ridiculous statements that you've never actually tried drawing graphics for any of the 8-bits, perhaps you should try to see how hard it actually is. I'm completly honest when i say that i don't like this type of messy graphics, some of the shots looks awful messy. Why, in the world...create something like this when you can create something that is both clear and colorful? If they had reworked the whole graphics to suit C64 and forgot the orginal arcade graphics they had done a much better job, because it's an impossible task to recreate the arcade orginal.

The problem isn't to "look better", the problem is to keep the orginal Bitmap look of the game. Some enhancements were made for both the Amiga and Megadrive. But the general look of the game was practically the same. No, the "original Bitmap look" was born in part from having to keep the colour count down for the ST to make converting the graphics easier in order to make cross development quicker and more efficient. The only thing stoppping the "Bitmap look" from being 32 colours was the ST hardware and there's no grand artistic plan that demands sixteen colours. And in the particular case of Xenon, i've always assumed that's a straight rip-off of Valtric since it's got a similar control mechanic and graphical style - it may be more detailed and a bit brighter, but the "Bitmap style" in that game is more "NMK style". ST was quite limited in the colour area thanks to 16 on screen colours so Bitmap Brothers had to choose their palette well from the 512 colour palette. I think that Xenon would have been a quite good game for Atari 800 to reproduce manily for one thing, the shades. Xenon was mainly about one thing, shades of colours, something that Atari 800 is built for with it's big palette. Shades of grey, shades of green, shades of purple, that's Xenon. As we've said repeatedly it's got shades of colour but using those colours is a problem - the C64 version had to make concessions because of the palette but it'd still be making less concessions than the A8 would need to. You're offering a converted C64 game to prove that the Atari could handle something better than the C64... nope, that argument falls flat on it's arse. The Amiga version probably isn't using hardware scrolling either - removing and redrawing the parallax each refresh would take longer than just dumping the background and foreground layers in like i'm assuming the engine currently does. The Megadrive is hardware scroll but, as i said, it had to be rewritten anyway to use the Megadrive display hardware, it probably wouldn't have been if they could've just fudged the ST code to run directly since hiring someone to convert it cost them money. I Agree, the Megadrive version isn't a very great job. The only thing that's a bit better is the sound and the scolling. Else it's the same game as on ST with a bit different colours. I don't have GENS on my harddrive right now but watched a video of Xenon II on Megadrive on YouTube. Xenon II From up Amiga Sega Master system Megadrive Atari ST I'll post some shots on Xenon too. From left to right. C64, Spectrum, Atari ST You can very well see what's missing in the C64 version, gradients. The Spectrum version is quite terrible.

Someone mentioned R-Type earlier. I took a closer look at R-Type for C64 To you who thinks that R-Type on C64 is so great. Well, i certanly need glasses in that case? Because to me it looks like a shoddy smeary mess of pixels. In fact, the Spectrum version looks about 10 times better because it's a lot cleaner and they haven't trying to do things that good ol' Speccy can't handle. Some of the shots are a pure pixel mess because C64 can't handle the graphics. To attempt to do nuances and gradients using C64 is quite insane and doomed to fail. If they had created the C64 version using fewer and more single colours, like in the Speccy version, it had been looking so much better and cleaner. Leave nuances and gradients to computers who can handle it, as Amiga. On C64 it just looks shoddy and smeary. The machine isn't even built to cope with that type of graphics. C64 is very good at certain types of graphics, but certanly not nuances and gradients. I have seen the same misstakes on the ST so many times, shoddy graphics because they trying to do something that the ST simply can't handle in combination with bad artwork. To you who thinks that games such R-Type on C64 looks good, i don't have a clue why, do you see something that i don't see in the pixel mess?. Why prefer shoddy messy graphics over clean colourful graphics? R-Type on the C64 could have looked great if they had created it different and used what C64 is good at instead of trying to do something that the maching simply can't handle. C64 version - Yuk, looks like a big smeary mess of pixels ZX Spectrum version - Looks much better and cleaner Amiga version - Now we're talking, much better even if we miss some of the nuances from the orginal arcade version If this is what you mean by good C64 graphics?, in that case i haven't a single clue of why it should be so much better then the 8 bit Atari? No question about that C64 are capable of producing stunning graphics, but this isn't what i would show someone who wants to know what a C64 is capable of. No way. Okey, the fun part with all older computers is... 1.Limits 2.How to raise them (that's why modern consoles is sooo boring with their almost unlimited prestanda) But you have to aim for realistic goals. C64 isn't exactly the R-Type machine and never gonna be either. To play R-Type, use MAME. To play a good homegame from the 80's, use C64 or Atari 800.

That's just caused by greed, or at least trying to milk the last bit of £ out of a game. Xenon and Speedball imo should've been left on the 16 bits. Still, you're now talking about back porting games from much more powerful machines to the C64/Speccy etc and that's not the point we're talking about here (or at least it isn't what I'm trying to get across). There are plenty of C64 games that are classics of their time with highly coloured screens without trying to do crazy stuff like backport from later hardware. Pete I agree, to backport a game is not always a good thing to do. The worst backport i have seen, must be Carrier Command. An excellent game on ST and Amiga that stinks on both C64 and Spectrum. Especially on Spectrum.

The problem isn't to "look better", the problem is to keep the orginal Bitmap look of the game. Some enhancements were made for both the Amiga and Megadrive. But the general look of the game was practically the same. ST was quite limited in the colour area thanks to 16 on screen colours so Bitmap Brothers had to choose their palette well from the 512 colour palette. I think that Xenon would have been a quite good game for Atari 800 to reproduce manily for one thing, the shades. Xenon was mainly about one thing, shades of colours, something that Atari 800 is built for with it's big palette. Shades of grey, shades of green, shades of purple, that's Xenon. Xenon II would have been much harder for Atari 800 to reproduce bevause of several things, the parallax in the game for exemple. Check out Warhawk to Atari 800 for exemple, that's shades, and lots of them to get that metallic look in several different colours. C64'limits of 16 colours in total makes it impossible to reproduce a game like Xenon. I mean the use of hardware. Xenon II used Megadrives and Amiga's hardware scrolling for exemple like almost every other game did too, something that ST couldn't do because lack of hardware support. The sound was also much better on Megadrive and Amiga and more nuances was used too. But the overall look was practically the same in all versions.

Because they dumped the ST graphics to the other machines. No, because they were quite happy with the results, and so were the gamers. BB games is still awesome designed even today. No, because they developed it using the shortest route possible; build for the least powerful machine and dump everything over to the rest. It was common practise in the software industry wherever they could get away with it, that's why the A8 and C64 have Apple 2 ports which don't take advantage of their hardware or why the Amstrad CPC got a metric feckload of Spectrum ports with the colour counts reduced. Absolutely right, BB wrote mostly on ST and ported (take a look at their earlier stuff, where did the initial versions appear) it was the best way to limit yourself on the lowest spec machine and make sure you still designed a good game then you've got an easy job of porting and you don't lose anything in the process. Dan Malone is one of my favourite game artists, had had the imagination and did the kind of thing I see little of on the Atari 800, that's using a limited palette with some seemingly very odd colours that still produces something amazing, rather than just using shades of the same colour. That's why you can still get amazing looking stuff with the C64 Palette, despite being limited it's well chosen and you can mix odd colours together and still get something pleasing. This is an interesting crit on the BB graphics styles http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=1025.0 Pete I have some more minutes before i must leave. The problem with changing anything of the graphics in a Bitmap game is, Xenon will not be Xenon anymore and Speedball will not look Spedball anymore. Xenon was ruined for both C64 and ZX Spectrum who couldn't reproduce the orginal bitmap look. Else they keeped the graphics identical for all platforms but used the superior power to make the game run better. And the Bitmap look is still classic today, it's simply the "Bitmap Brothers". All their games have a certain look that is "Bitmap Brothers" and if you change anything of it, it will no longer be a "Bitmap" game. JM Jarre shared the same problem, Oxygene was so perfect that he never could do anything better, that haunted him the whole career. Sometimes you'll hit bulls eye already from start.

How can the C64 NOT handle what it's BUILT FOR? I really don't understand your point with this one. Pete C64 was built for displaying the games in that time. Then came newer computers with far better graphic capabilitys... Well of course there's no denying that. The Atari came before the C64 but people still try to claim it's superior in every way (not aiming that at you btw). For it's time the Atari is a great machine, the C64 works differently, adds better hardware sprites, better colour placement thanks to colour RAM (especially in bitmap mode). How you can say any of that is messy or trying to do what the machine can't I don't know. Yes, if you look at the Atari and the C64 or other 8bit machines then compare them to the 16bit machines, of course they're going to be less capable but I still don't see why that means the C64 is bad at graphics? Pete Now we're talking Pete. I don't say that C64 has bad graphics, if you use it what's it best at and don't trying to do things that the machine can't handle. And that is the rule for all other computers as well. Thank you for several sensible thoughts in your posting. Now, i must log out for now.

So Uridium isn't clean but some random ASCII art is... nope, doesn't make sense. TMR, we'll better stop this discussion for now, it will do no good anyway. (i can see) Now, i must install XP on a laptop. Have a good day.

Because they dumped the ST graphics to the other machines. No, because they were quite happy with the results, and so were the gamers. BB games is still awesome designed even today.

How can the C64 NOT handle what it's BUILT FOR? I really don't understand your point with this one. Pete C64 was built for displaying the games in that time. Then came newer computers with far better graphic capabilitys...

@TMR And if you still don't understand what i mean. THIS is a clean C64 display.

So when those graphics are on the C64 they're a "smeared mess" but put them on the Atari and suddenly they're "clean". Not sure if i understand how that works but okay, i'll add a footnote about only ripping from Uridium or something. You know quite well what i mean. And if your taste is different from my own, nothing wrong about that. But don't expect me to admire what i see as a mess of pixels. No, i haven't got a clue what you mean and have been saying so for days now - you keep using the word "clean" without actually defining it but right now it seems that simple bias relief is "clean" (although apparently only in Atari colours for some reason) whilst more complex images with dithering somehow aren't. Clean is by using either few colours or more single coloured objects, else the display will become messy because the machine can't handle it. Try Amiga for clean multicoloured sprites.

Ah, so you just want ripped off C64 graphics! Okay, noted. No, i want clean graphics over a smeared mess of pixels that's often the case when you're trying to do more then the machine can handle. Many ST games was a big mess of pixels too. Bitmap Brothers on the other hand always created clean real good looking graphics instead. But the C64 CAN handle lots of colours on screen so why is that a mess? People continually try to copy C64 stuff on the Atari, there must be a reason for that? It's to show that the Atari can do it, sometimes they manage it, sometimes not. *edit* And has been said about the "rainbows", the fact the Bitmap's games looked good was down to the artist, not the ST. Pete For your knowledge. Bitmap Brothers games was so outstanding designed from the beginning that they never changed the look when converted to another console or computer. The Megadrive version looked just the same as the ST version. Instead of making a mess of the pixels, they produced clean graphics, using few colours. You might like that smeared look of dithered pixels, i certanly don't. Ok, for MY knowledge? thanks for that. For your knowledge, I used to work with one of the Bitmap Brothers guys, I've been a game coder/designer/producer since the mid 80s, I understand how this stuff works. I know why their stuff looks good and as I've said, it's the artist NOT the machine. You seem to be blaming the C64 for being ABLE to put lots of colours on the screen and somehow it's the C64 and every coders fault that you can't port that to other machines. The Megadrive/ST/Amiga etc versions looked the same because they all had around the same graphical capabilities, simple. Also, I've never said I like smeared pixels. You seem to take something I say like "I don't like those ugly rainbows behind Chop Suey, etc" and equate that as I hate everything you've posted. That's wrong. Pete A long time coder? It's lightyears difference between a Megadrive and a ST in just about everything thanks to Megadrives outstandnding support chips. The Amiga version look just the same as the ST version too. No, C64 can't produce clean multicolour games using methods as dithering. There's to few colours and to low resolution for that. Change to Amiga, then it's possible.

Ah, so you just want ripped off C64 graphics! Okay, noted. No, i want clean graphics over a smeared mess of pixels that's often the case when you're trying to do more then the machine can handle. So when those graphics are on the C64 they're a "smeared mess" but put them on the Atari and suddenly they're "clean". Not sure if i understand how that works but okay, i'll add a footnote about only ripping from Uridium or something. You know quite well what i mean. And if your taste is different from my own, nothing wrong about that. But don't expect me to admire what i see as a mess of pixels.

Ah, so you just want ripped off C64 graphics! Okay, noted. No, i want clean graphics over a smeared mess of pixels that's often the case when you're trying to do more then the machine can handle. Many ST games was a big mess of pixels too. Bitmap Brothers on the other hand always created clean real good looking graphics instead. But the C64 CAN handle lots of colours on screen so why is that a mess? People continually try to copy C64 stuff on the Atari, there must be a reason for that? It's to show that the Atari can do it, sometimes they manage it, sometimes not. *edit* And has been said about the "rainbows", the fact the Bitmap's games looked good was down to the artist, not the ST. Pete For your knowledge. Bitmap Brothers games was so outstanding designed from the beginning that they never changed the look when converted to another console or computer. The Megadrive version looked just the same as the ST version. Instead of making a mess of the pixels, they produced clean graphics, using few colours. You might like that smeared look of dithered pixels, i certanly don't. In the game "Gods" you will even find a gradient background to enhance the game.

C'mon Pete, i just trying to be honest and to tell you what graphics i personally prefer, and why i like the look of the games on Atari 800, but not all of them, off course. I don't really care about multicolored sprites because i prefer clean graphics instead. And A8 really delivers clean colours. That's why i like this 8bit computer so much.

Ah, so you just want ripped off C64 graphics! Okay, noted. No, i want clean graphics over a smeared mess of pixels that's often the case when you're trying to do more then the machine can handle. Many ST games was a big mess of pixels too. Bitmap Brothers on the other hand always created clean real good looking graphics instead. Speedball, Xenon, Magic Pockets, Cadaver, Chaos Engine and such games.

Oh now you really don't want to start that. Pete Because i'm going to be like you and complain about everything all the time? Well, show me something that's impress me and i won't complain at all. I have posted lots of screenshots, now it's your turn? Or, forget it. That's up to you. Wee seems to have different thoughts of what's "great graphics" anyway.

THIS is what i prefer. Clean graphics that aren't messy. Then i don't really care if that ship has 1, 2 or 15 colours. Ataris remake of Uridium

Unless you don't have a middle click on your mouse of course (i don't here and the trackpad on my laptop doesn't support it either). Or don't want to open another tab in the first place because you'd rather see the images in context with the text. And i notice you ignore the issues around attributation as well... it's an annoying way to post images and i hope that not one person adopts it because it just gets in the way of the conversation. So, essentially, all those Atari 8-bit coders currently trying to get multicolour objects going are wasting their time according to you. Right lads, pack up your cross assemblers because we've all been doing it wrong - DimensionX said so! No i didn't, i said what i personally prefer. I can't speak for you or anyone else, can i? Okey, i can post the pictures using the forums own upload feature with some text if you want. No problem for me.

On the other hand, i can link them to my blog and other forums. So can you. No, i will not remove them. I hope that this picture host is stable because i use them in my own blogs too. I link some of the pictures from Skydrive too, mostly animated gifs.

Just middleclick to open i a new tab. It's a plugin for Firefox that uses an real good image host that lets you upload and link your pics everywhere. Just click on the pic, then backspace back to the forum, or middleclick for opening in a new tab. Can't be easier. https://addons.mozilla.org/sv-SE/firefox/addon/13669 Wee seems to like different type of graphics. I don't bother too much about multicolored sprites. I want clear and vivid colours instead. That's okey by me if we don't share the same taste. As long as you stop complaining about Atari and trying to make C64 look like the worlds best 8 bit computer. In fact, you haven't show me a thing so far that's really impressed me. Perhaps it's about time? Go ahead and show what you got... I think that C64 is best at showing single clear colours like in many older games, else the display becomes messy when you use dithering and trying to put to many colours in the same place. I prefer clean graphics. Lot of Atari games is way to messy too when they try to do something that the machine simply can't handle. Even ST games can become a mess if you're trying to do a little too much with the graphics.

Nope. Ooh, i forgot. Sorry about that. I post Atari screens, you're not. Forget that tips, but perhaps other people can find it useful. PNG, 684x492px, 31 KB (0.03 MB)

Super Ghouls'n'Ghosts was one of my favourites on the Snes. Great music, graphics, gameplay and atmosphere. PNG, 792x2109px, 1366 KB (1.33 MB) You can download a longplay of it too in high quality. http://www.archive.org/details/Longplay-SuperGhoulsNGhosts_SNES (use the cinepack alternative for max resolution)

This is true to an extent, but the hallmark of a great game is that it will always be a great game. I have all the retro stuff in my basement, but there's a Wii and 360 in the living room. Of all those games, what does my now almost 8-year-old daughter want to play... Pac-Man on Xbox Live! Sounds great that todays kids like the old games too. Good games never grows old. My point was simply Game + Memories Is always a bit greater then Game + Nothing In that day Pac Man was something really big and fantastic. Today when kids can choose between Pac Man or the latest version of Counterstrike, Pac Man isn't quite as fantastic as it was for us in the early 80's when every new videogame was something really big. I remember myself early 1983, WOW, the latest game on tape for Vic 20, WOW the graphics are amazing.