DimensionX
-
Content Count
447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DimensionX
-
-
What i mean Pete is...
THIS is Atari and you can't do this on any other computer.
This is how an Atari game should look.
Alternate Reality was very playable too.
-
If all of that is what makes an A8 game for you then I know at least one person who will be happy to oblige
That's nothing but tricks and demo routines as far as I'm concerned. Yes, it's VERY Atari but that's simply because it IS the one thing it does well. If all those rainbows that don't actually do anything don't enhance the actual game then it's a but like trying to polish a turd.A8 games that ARE specific to the machine are ones like the Lucas games that use the faster CPU and in some cases the slightly blocky graphics modes to display more shades/colours. If the A8 had survived longer it would've at least been close to the speccy in the isometric games, some more 3D stuff would've been great like Stuntcar Racer.
Pete
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.
-
...stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics.
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...
-
A8 I think more so than the C64, it all depends what it is. Honestly atm I think A8 owners should be happy with whatever they get (and seemingly are most of the time)
There have been some great games released but nowhere near the number or quality of most other machines (and please nobody read that as A8 games are inferior, that's not what I'm saying). I guess it's just the userbase at fault there. It's good to see certain prolific multi-platform coders targeting the A8 I think the more people release games the more other coders will want to join in the "fun".Pete
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.
-
@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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
In a Atari forum?
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.
-
And peace reigned over the programming forum again.
Damn! Spoke too soon
Aaah, at last, someone with some humour. I laughted at your previous posting.
Thanks.
And have a great weekend.
-
The problem with the A8 palette (and this has been argued about endlessly before) is it really isn't that great when you look at it. It's severely limited in colours, it's got lots of shades but shades of a small subset of a possible range of RGB values. There's no decent red for a start. Then comes the fact that you're more limited in how that palette can be shown on screen. Like you said, people who don't know better see the speccy as a poor competitor, until you realise you can have any 2 colours in any 8x8 square, something the Atari can't do.
Of course there are situations where the A8 can show more colours than nearly all of the other 8 bits but in a decent looking (and to me 4:1 pixel AR isn't decent, 2:1 is bad enough) and usable (not taking up most of the CPU time or by it's method imposing limits on what is possible using those colours). Same goes for the C64, if you want a screen with as many colours as possible you're going to be displaying a bitmap mode graphic and (apart from the hardware sprites) doing anything with that has big limitations.
Basically the C64 sacrificed a larger range of colours for a 2bpp mode for screen and sprites with colour RAM, sprite multicolours, individual sprite colours etc, the A8 sacrifices resolution to get 16 colours/shades. Saying one is better than the other then trying to boil it down to, "A8 has a bigger palette so it must be better", is simplifying it too much.
Pete
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.
-
Who have enough patience please continue
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.
-
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?
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 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.
What, you didn't say this lot then...?
Atari's graphics was better thanks to Jay Miners awesome Antic chipC64 won't beat Atari 800 in the graphics departmenti just want to show why Atari was the best 8bit computer in graphics.C64 was a good computer in many ways, but i can't match the graphics on the Atari 800.C64 can't use alternate fine nuances of red, green or any other colour. Atari can do all that. Therefore Atari is the better machine in the graphics department.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.
At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at.
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.
-
Please TMR, can you listen to what i say?It's you who isn't listening.
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.
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.
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.
-
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
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...
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.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.
-
You can't even do a simple thing like this on the C64. Because lack of colours.
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.
-
Atari was quite flexible in the graphic area.
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.
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
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.
-
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
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.
-
Hundreds of colours to choose from with dreadful restrictions. You comparing apples with oranges(St can put any of 16 colours anywhere on the bitmap, you can't do this on A8 unless you lose resolution dramatically).
How many games are there on the A8 using 16 colours out of 256 and placing them freely on the bitmap? static screens don't count.
Atari was quite flexible in the graphic area.
"Video Up to 320x192x16"The 320x192 mode was really "one and a half" colors - the background was one color while the foreground was a different brightness of the same hue. Special "GTIA" modes added to later 800's allowed up to 16 shades of one hue, 16 hues of one shade, or 9 independent colors in 80x192. The highest-rez mode with normal-shaped pixels and normal color behavior was 160x192x4. So there was no true "x16" mode.
But the graphics hardware was extremely flexible - in the vertical dimention. One could change the color palette on every scan line, and even change the number of displayed scan lines, so it was easy to get all 256 colors on screen at once, in resolutions of NNNx200 to NNNx224 or even more. You were just limited to how many colors you could get on a single horizontal line.
The speed was exactly half the TV color clock signal, which for NTSC works out to 1.79 MHz, almost twice as fast as the C64.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
-
Before i log out...
That's why ST games looks soooo much better.
ST has a limit of 16 on screen colours, but a palette of 512 to choose from.
Point made
Mute. A8 vs C64 (vs spectrum).
Didn't got the message?
A8 have hundreds of colours to choose from too.
Time to visit the store.
-
Before i log out...
That's why ST games looks soooo much better.
ST has a limit of 16 on screen colours, but a palette of 512 to choose from.
Point made
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
I prefer the "rainbow" long before white and brown.