DimensionX

Perhaps many of you think that gradiant colurbars are something useless? I don't think so, i think they enhance a game quite a lot because the game looks much more classy with some gradients in the background. Look at the sky. Hmmmm, they also add a feeling of depth to the game. PNG, 684x492px, 13 KB (0.01 MB) In this game gradients enhance the sky too even if the foreground is very simple PNG, 684x492px, 19 KB (0.02 MB) I personally think that the colours of Atari's 8 bit computers have stunning clarity and richness and it's hard to belive that the first models were launched already in 1979. PNG, 684x492px, 13 KB (0.01 MB) For some history behind Atari 800 http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/400800/ATARI800/A800.html I recently learned that the custom chips in C64 was meant for next generations videogame console but ended up in C64 instead because Jack Tramiel wanted to launch a powerful computer to be able to compet with Atari. And it's not all about gradients, Jet Set Willy is a perfect exemple of that. The first release use gradients and stinks in gameplay and graphics. Jet set Willy 2007 don't use a single gradient and is almost monochome but is so much more fun to play and true to the Spectrum orginal then the first version. The first version of the game, including gradients. PNG, 684x744px, 23 KB (0.02 MB) Jet Set Willy 2007, superior in every way, including graphics. PNG, 684x996px, 38 KB (0.04 MB) To watch it live Atari has some awesome software driven graphic modes too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-driven_graphics_modes_for_the_Atari_8-bit_computers As i understand of this discussion... C64 is better at handling different screen resolutions and keeping the colours. C64 is better at handling multicolored sprites too. And the only drawback is the limited palette. Thanks for an interesting discussion, i have learned several new exciting things i didn't knew before i entered this thread. No hard feelings, we retrobuffs should stick together instead of fighting. Long live both C64, Atari and Speccy. Three great computers who have entertained so many under so many years, and still does today. *shaking hands with TMR and the other ones on this thread* For Last... Have you heard the atari (pokey) music from polish group Greyscale? I just sat there with my mouth wide open when i first heard these chiptunes and what they have done with the old atari chip. I really whis that my orginal Atari would have sounded like this. Download it here... Player + Some tunes http://www.speedyshare.com/files/22117684/Pokey_Music_by_Greyscale_Sap_Player.zip Unpack, no need to install anything. Just drag and drop the tunes on the player. Begin listen to the AWESOME tune jatatap.sap

Exactly, there isn't such thing as a best computer. Just a best computer for you, and only you. To do battles between Atari, C64 or Spectrum is like saying, is Linux better then Windows, or OS X? It depends on what you're looking for. The only thing that we can say is that different computers are...different, no less no more. Either you like Atari best, or C64, or Spectrum. That's your personal choice because neither of them is best, just different.

I understand what you're saying. That's what you expect A8 games to look like. To me the A8 version is somewhat overkill, like they've gone hmmm what can we do with this plain looking screen? I know, lets blast a load of colour stripes down the screen. In some areas of the game it works fine, in others where there aren't enough different possible colours displayable on screen it becomes a mess because it ends up effecting the buildings as well as the floor/sky. It definitely looks like an A8 game though Pete I prefer the "rainbow" long before white and brown.

What i mean Pete is... THIS is Atari and you can't do this on any other computer. http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996387 This is how an Atari game should look. Alternate Reality was very playable too.

I had many both good and very playable games for my Atari 800. The 800 version of Millipede was truly outstanding, even better then the arcade. Boulder Dash was better on Atari too. But, what i mean is that glowing menus and multicolored backgrounds is a part of Atari gaming for the 8 bit computer. The games would have been poor without that eye candy. A simple task as Arkanoid should not be any problem on Atari 800. Yet the programmer fails, big time by making an almost unplayable version of it. In some other games it was missing a lot of graphics, and levels. That's a poor job from the programmer, or he was told that, don't make a good Atari version because it will not sell well anyway. What you got was a game with missing levels and poor executed. Especially in the beginning of the 90's when Atari 800 was practically dead and even the ST began to struggle. Take ZX Spectrum for exemple. When you make games FOR ZX Spectrum, they are best. When you make games to emulate something else on another machine, they don't look good anymore because Spectrum could only do "Spectrum games", games especially written for Spectrum. The same applies for Atari, when you write games FOR Atari. All computers differs and when you write a game for that particular computer, it will look different and no other computer can make it look like that. That's the beauty by having different computers. An arcade conversion vill look shit on Spectrum, but a game especially written for it will be great and differs from anything else. Sorry if my english sucks sometimes.

Now I feel depressed about my stupid project that has a rainbow behind some three colour graphics p.s. I know what you mean but its just so complicated to do anything else Don't feel depressed. The point in making games on Atari isn't to make regular games, it's to make "Atari games". Games that no other 8 bit computer can produce. Games with glimmering menus in gold and silver. Vast spreads of warm colours and lots of gradient rainbow effekts. That is making games on Atari. Use the hardware what it's best at. Fluid warm colours. Leave the regular games to C64 or Spectrum or Amstrad programmers

I think that most of are you missing the point with gaming on Atari 800. All the colours in gold and silver and all the rainbows are an importand part in Atari gaming. Without them it's not much left and the games is like on all the other 8bit machines. That is why gaming on Atari is so special. When i played Atari games on my Atari 800 for the first time, i just sat there looking at the magic glimmering colours that no other 8bit computer could produce. When my friends C64 produced "normal games" i had the magic machine who could produce rainbows. Glowing magic colours is a vital part in Atarigaming. Don't think anything else, but then, you will know that if you are an old Atarigamer like me. I will never forget that day i loaded the game Dimension X for the first time. I just sat there with my mouth open. WOW, those colours...

I agree. Atari was a huge hit in USA but sadly not in Europe. Britain produced more good games then any other country for quite a long time and almost non of them was released for the Atari 8bit. While softwarehouses like Ocean, Gremlin, Hewson, CRL etc released one after another hit on C64, Spectrum and Amstrad, almost non was released for the Atari. But there's more... They had to make good versions of the game for Spectrum and C64 because of the huge userbase while the (rare) Atari version in many cases was inferior to both C64 and the Spectrum versions of the game, the did not even bother to make a special version that used Ataris hardware. Arkanoid is a fine exemple of that among many half done games. The exception was Polen, and still is. Atari was a big hit in Polen and i have seen lots of great remakes and demos from Polen that shows what an Atari is capable of. As you say, it's about userbase. There's even an Atari remake of the game Knightlore. PNG, 684x996px, 58 KB (0.06 MB) Then there's a polish Mortal Kombat among other remakes.

Totally agree with you. I think what got TMR riled was your seeming blanket statements that read like "a8 is better than c64 for graphics" and that's impossible to say and not have a LOT of people disagree. It's just a thing that happens on this forum. It's so hotly contested by the A8 stalwarts and us "outsiders" that any sign of slightly outlandish claims tends to make people go "oh no, not ANOTHER one" and have a terrible urge to reply and point out that maybe they're mistaken Pete Always a pleasure to having a discussion with a sensible person. I have learned several new things that i didn't knew when i first posted in this thread. Time for me to log out Have a great weekend Pete.

@Pete I'm not the one to sit here and judge C64 as a good or bad computer because all computers are good AND bad in their own ways. Therefore it isn't such thing as a "best computer". The only thing we can say is that a computer is good for a certain purpose. Atari is better then C64 in some areas while C64 is better then Atari in other areas. Then we are honest.

Of course I agree that the C64 palette is limited, I just said so, but if you think it makes all the games look the same and the A8's palette doesn't, I STRONGLY suggest you go check out some screenshots on both machines. There's a reason why people who don't know much about the A8 think all the games are "mono" and that same thinking probably applies to people who say all C64 games look the same. Pete Atari games often use lots of different colours, even if they are few. And that's the point. You have hundreds to choose from, even if you just use 3 for the game they are different. On C64 it's always the same colours. I can't really agree with you there. From what I've seen there is a severe lack of artistic imagination with A8 games. People seem to get lost in the fact they CAN use 3/4 shades of blue or green and then do so rather than trying to mix in some other colours, hence the "mono" look I mentioned earlier. Of course that's not strictly the machines fault, more the artists. Pete True. I have seen several games where people just use lots of gradients without any artistic skill. But that's not Ataris fault as you say. C64's biggest drawbacks are a quite slow main processor and a very limited palette. Else it's a great computer.

Of course I agree that the C64 palette is limited, I just said so, but if you think it makes all the games look the same and the A8's palette doesn't, I STRONGLY suggest you go check out some screenshots on both machines. There's a reason why people who don't know much about the A8 think all the games are "mono" and that same thinking probably applies to people who say all C64 games look the same. Pete Atari games often use lots of different colours, even if they are few. And that's the point. You have hundreds to choose from, even if you just use 3 for the game they are different. On C64 it's always the same colours.

Anyone owning or having knowledge of any other machine, please leave your opinions at the door. Free thinking will not be tolerated Pete I'm the one who has changed my opinion so far. The other has not. Does that say something? Belive me, i'm always open. Atari forum was because he called me a troll.

Aaah, at last, someone with some humour. I laughted at your previous posting. Thanks. And have a great weekend.

Before i leave, i will answer you. That would have been true IF the C64 palette was less limited. 16 colours makes all games look the same. You can't even make gradients with only 16 colours. If the C64 palette have been a bit larger i could have bought that argument. But now it's way to limited. That's my honest opinion. And if you don't agree with that, it's okey by me.

Nah, i've had enough... if i don't walk away now i'll just report him to the admins as a troll or something. Do you report all people who don't think that you're a master programmer on the worlds best computer? With an unlimited palette of almost uncountable 16 colours? In a Atari forum? C'mon, get real. I suggest that we end this diskussion for now, because you can't take any criticism, and neither can Atarigmr. You don't even bother to use any links i give you. Well, i don't want to be called troll from someone who don't even listen to any arguments. This discussion is over for me. Sure, go ahead and report me. Show what nasty postings i make that not even contain the word troll. I'm outta here... Because speaking to you...is like speaking to a wall.

It's fanboys like you that stop me finishing Atari 8-bit projects; i look at the garbage you've posted and feel like the months of work i put into getting my scrolling engine going is a waste of time because you'd be happy with a stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics. I'm not a fanboy of any kind, in fact i hate fanboys and fanatics. I'm trying to talk to you, i can't because you are not listening. I have changed my mind several times under this diskussion. Have you? Well, is Atari the better computer in the colour area? Thanks to a much larger palette?

No, i didn't say that. I said that the colours is better on Atari, not the graphics. What, you didn't say this lot then...? If that lot wasn't you, someone's been using your account. I knew that you would post something like that, therefore i posted two links to my postings that i posted earlier today. Now, did you use my links? No? Then you should have saved youself some work. I wrote earlier this afternoon One of the links was to this posting. Next time, use my links and save yourself some unnecessary work.

Sorry, now i'm off to finish some stuff on my other blog. To you guys. I'm sure that you are skilled programmers and big fans to C64. Nothing wrong about that. More the opposite, i'm glad to meet people who still like the old computers because i'm a big retro fan myself. But STOP this fanboy stuff, it almost makes me hate the C64 even if i don't want to do that, it's like fanatic linux fansboys in action. Why can't you admit that A8 has better colours because of a much bigger palette? Is that so hard to admit? Both machines is great in their own ways and have their own unique qualities. I don't mind at all if C64 is better at 100 other things, but definitely NOT in the colour area thanks to a much larger palette. Have a nice weekend.

It's you who isn't listening. NO YOU BLOODY HAVEN'T JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT JUST COLOURS. You've repeatedly said it had better graphics and for just one more time before i get thoroughly sick of saying it, having more colours alone (and how many more times to i have to say that before you realise i've said it?) does not equate to having better graphics and never will. No, i didn't say that. I said that the colours is better on Atari, not the graphics. That is two different things. C64 might handle sprites better, be more flexible, but it don't beat Atari for colours. And if you think that i said graphics you should read this. http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996406 http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996408 And about the main processor. Why i posted that was because TMR said that Atari didn't hade an "almost twice as fast" main processor. Wrong, it has an almost twice as fast main processor, the Pal version is 0.902 Mhz faster then a Pal C64 processor. And if we trying to change that, the Mhz is still the same.

Yes it is... as long as the screen and sprites are all turned off, otherwise the A8's CPU power drops to the approximates i quoted previously. Now we're talking sprites again? A talk about the "amount of colours" to choose from and the "quality of them". No you weren't, you were quite specifically talking about processor speeds at that point. Processor speed on both machines is affected by what the video hardware is up to, both have DMA fetches for sprites and screen but the C64 is affected far less despite having more going on. The Atari also has to deal with more data shifting for sprites, juggle software sprites and spends quite a bit of time locked into time-consuming loops generating all those bloody rainbows so it's probably for the best it's faster - it has to do a lot more... Don't talk rubbish, the A8 can't produce games that look like the Amiga or ST either; 160x192 with 128 colour palette and five colours a scanline is bloody leagues away from even 320x200x16 from 512 on the ST. You can easily creat fine hues of any colour on both A8, ST and Amiga. Something impossible on C64 and Spectrum thanks to their limited colour palette. The game Ballblazer from Lucasarts You can't do this on a C64 or Spectrum, it's impossible thanks to the limited colourpalette.

If you want to play the "machine A is better because this would be impossible on machine B" game, there are several thousand horizontally scrolling C64 games moving at half a colour clock per frame, thousands more using mixed graphics mode or high resolution and probably tens of thousands using half colour clock sprites or sprite movement... You'll run out of "impossible" games well before before i do so if having things that are impossible is some kind of benchmark (and my point is that it's not so your using it is pointless) then the C64 "wins" by default. Please TMR, can you listen to what i say? I talking about colours, how many you can choose from, and the quality of them. Atari is better in that area because of a much larger palette. Can we agree about that? Then if C64 handles sprites better? And is more flexible? That's no problem for me.

But not as flexible as the C64 or Spectrum. 320x192 is only 16 colours with some incredibly painful issues and all of the hardware sprites helping out to generate it - the mode itself without the hardware sprites is 320x192x2 and that's actually two luminances of colour with the same hue. Even with the sprites in place, that "two shades/one hue" thing still applies so it's not possible to have unset pixels as red and set ones as blue like the Spectrum or C64 can do. Oh, and actually putting that colour where you need it... well, there aren't any games running at 320x192x16. Yes it is... as long as the screen and sprites are all turned off, otherwise the A8's CPU power drops to the approximates i quoted previously. Now we're talking sprites again? A talk about the "amount of colours" to choose from and the "quality of them". Then i talking about that C64 only has 16 colours to choose from, no more. And that's why you can't create graphics like on the A8, ST or Amiga who uses fine hues of colour in many games.

See post #53 by TMR I have read that, but the Mhz is the same anyway. You can't even do a simple thing like this on the C64. Because lack of colours. http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996349

Atari was quite flexible in the graphic area. http://www.vintage-computer.com/atari_800.shtml Pal Atari 800 1.77 Mz Pal C64 0.985 Mhz That makes a difference of 0.902 Mhz Almost twice as fast main processor in Atari 800