Bill Loguidice

APL is on the Legends Ultimate, Legends Pinball, and Legends Ultimate Mini, and it's going to be on some other upcoming products.

Is it possible it was a type-in (especially with the "slow pace" you describe) or do you think it was a commercial release? It would be odd to have a vertically-oriented game on a home computer at the time.

I used to play the C-64 version of Chopper Hunt all of the time as a kid. It was not without its flaws, though, so I would have liked to have seen the compelling concept explored in a bit of a more refined production (even though Chopper Hunt was itself a refined Buried Buck$).

While I greatly admire and enjoy "super" 8-bits like the MSX2 (and beyond) and CoCo 3, etc., I still go back to the whole depth and breadth thing when it comes to both impressive games and visuals (say static images or demo scene stuff). I mean, the C-64 can hold its own with still images, like in the examples that follow (don't know if they've been posted earlier in the thread), but then I feel like EVERY system, even the super modest ones like the VIC-20, can output impressive still images with the right tricks employed. That's why I'd personally rather focus on actual games and gameplay above all else: Again, because we can find beautiful pixel art by talented artists who know how to take advantage of still image creation quirks, just about any system can be pushed to do all kinds of things not really possible in an actual game (and don't get me wrong, I love to look at them, but that's not the end-all, be-all for me). That's why I'd personally rather point to actual games like Sam's Quest, A Pig's Quest, Zeta Wing, etc., on the C-64, that are super colorful, super smooth, and have pixel-perfect control for reasons why I'd give the overall (there's that word again, "overall" rather than in all cases) nod to the C-64 over other 8-bit systems, again, adding in all the stuff that came before. I just don't experience that same combination of color, smoothness, control, etc., regularly on any other 8-bit system. And when I do, I acknowledge it's something pretty special.

It's claimed they were 800K floppies similar to Amiga. That's roughly 7Mbit in cartridge storage terms. In terms of power, it sounds like it was going to be in the Amiga/STe range, but with some added of-the-time 3D wireframe capabilities. As usual, it also sounded like there were some bottlenecks that would hold back much of its potential, and certainly the games shown were underwhelming.

That was something I wondered about and if that would even be possible (I suppose it could be similar to multi-CDs or DVDs). Of course, floppies are less reliable than cartridges, and even CDs, so certainly that might be a factor for a console audience that has different expectations of how things should work (and I'm certainly aware of the few alternative removable media add-ons for other platforms like the Famicom and N64, and certainly the Dreamcast dodged a bullet by not having its Zip drive released and face the infamous click of death). It would have still been fascinating to see how a floppy-based console would have worked out on the market, though, so on that level it's kind of a shame we never got one.

It's OK that something is better than something else, especially when we're being specific about a use case. It doesn't necessarily mean the other thing is bad or doesn't have ways in which it shines. I've been very clear on all of that, so to pull the "how dare you!" card on me is being disingenuous. Gaming-wise, especially as a US gamer, the ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPC, and BBC Micro are all sub-standard games machines in comparison to what we had in the US, which AGAIN and for ALL TIME doesn't mean that there weren't instances where each of those systems shined or have a special appeal. We also had the benefit here in the US of more or less standardizing on disk drives by 1984, for instance. Different markets, different tastes, different experiences. It's hard to appreciate the lack of smoothness on Amstrad CPC games or the color clash on the ZX Spectrum when we rarely had to deal with such things here in the US on our most dominant platform. And yes, despite the extra colors on the CPC, they were often not used well in actual games. No crazy statement made there. Again, I can personally appreciate - and DO personally appreciate - any and all machines, warts and all, and can simply state there never was a perfect computer. I also don't think it's outrageous to say that the C-64 was the best all around 8-bit games computer, both back in the day and homebrew-wise now. You just can't match its extensive library and the consistent audio-visual quality pulled from a single machine, the one machine you could buy in 1982 and not have to do anything special with to enjoy 99% of its library even today. It doesn't mean the generic "you" has to agree with that statement about the C-64 being the best overall 8-bit games computer, especially when it comes down to personal taste and a preference for how other machines do something, but if we have to pick, you'd have a hard time convincing me there's a better option out there based on my experience with, well, nearly everything. As just one example, there are of course die-hard fans of the ZX Spectrum (mostly outside the US, of course) that despite the color clash and other limitations vastly prefer it, but to say it's better than the C-64 is a stretch, particularly since it has gaps in its library in comparison thanks to variable memory configurations and standardizing on cassettes. In other words, I'd argue that the Spectrum has many of its fans because of its very special quirks, including the atypical keyboard usage and color clash, etc., things we'd say define the platform's "personality." That's a good thing, but also one of the indicators of why it's not reasonable to say it's a better games machine than something like the C-64. And to tie it back to the C-64 vs. Atari 8-bit comparison that's the actual thread topic, the Atari 8-bit is a brilliant architecture and a class act, but again, has more architectural limitations overall than something like the C-64 and is thus harder to get the same consistent results, even putting aside the big gaps in depth and breadth of libraries, which really has to be a significant factor in this type of evaluation. Theoretical power, prowess, or gameplay possibilities are one thing, but to see consistent quality implementations in actual practice is something else entirely. Anyway, I've basically been saying the same thing throughout this thread. That's just my opinion and the reasons why I feel that way. It's OK that other people may and do feel differently. I'll happily continue to enjoy anything and everything, because that's one of the great luxuries of being an enthusiast today. We have no limits to what we can enjoy or experience and that includes the absolute best each platform has to offer.

I agree. I think the Konix was built around the controller gimmicks, which I think were inspired, but probably not fully thought through. That paired with the focus on relatively underpowered hardware and the British-centric software development would not have made it a market success. I LOVE the basic concept of it being 3.5" floppy-based, which would both lower costs and allow for smaller production runs (more games), but it would have limited the games to being roughly equivalent to 7Mbit cartridges, which would have also eventually presented issues getting some bigger games on the system in the 16-bit era it would be competing in. Regardless, I still find it a shame that the convertible controller concept was never tried again by a major player. We have wonderful steering wheels and flight sticks, but nothing that's really convertible (as far as I know) between the two, let alone anything that doubles as a motorcycle-style control. That idea could still potentially do well if done right, especially with today's haptics and force feedback technologies.

Sorry, but I just don't see the appeal of the Amstrad CPC as a games machine. The proof is in the games and very few games hold up to the performance of either of the two platforms in question. In terms of the palette, sure it can push a good amount of color, but they're often quite garish due to other limitations. The CPC platform feels like a better Spectrum, which is really not saying much, and many of the games lack speed or smoothness. Of course, I'm an American who came to both the Spectrum and CPC platforms well after their commercial lifespans and I was already spoiled by platforms like the Apple II, Atari 8-bit, and C-64, among others, not to mention the 16-bit stuff that came after, so I don't have the nostalgia for what either of those British-centric platforms can do. And of course, for everyone in this thread, it comes down to a person's personal history, nostalgia, and their preferred platform what they'll find superior. For me, I no doubt have a slight C-64 bias, but then I feel like there are not only plenty of stellar back-in-the-day examples, but plenty of stellar top-notch homebrews on a near daily basis to back up my opinion that it overall outperforms any of the platforms mentioned when it comes to gaming. It has to make the fewest concessions with nearly every game type.

You're paying for the form factor and look, not the games. You get the same games (and tons more) and better spinners on competing products for the same or less money.

I just funded it at the sidecar level. I figured it's a good way to both support the project and get some accessories I don't yet have.

I've speculated in the past that Atari missing out on having a 16-bit console was a big factor in being so far behind with software, distribution, and other things with the Jaguar. Even if the Panther ended up doing Jaguar numbers, it could have led to better things foundationally for the Jaguar. Of course, the Panther also would have been have to have been released early enough and be at least slightly better than its competitors in most areas to make up for the given lack of software it would have suffered.

Considering how basic it was, it's not a stretch to think that Crescent Galaxy could have started life as a Panther game, but then one would wonder why it wasn't more developed/sophisticated. I guess based on what we know and what Lostdragon reported, it's easier to believe that 99% of Jaguar stuff was wholly (or at least substantially in ways that it mattered) originated on that platform.

It could just be a simple matter of investing x amount of dollars into the project and not being able to absorb the losses, so the easiest answer was just to release as-is (as was likely the case with several of the worst titles). It could also be Atari management at the time not really understanding what a good game was or maybe not trusting the intelligence of their audience, i.e., it's a 3D open world racer and that's enough, so the actual play doesn't matter. It's no doubt related to the texture mapped 3D edict when that had terrible - and obvious - effects on playability and smoothness (though some of the non-textured mapped stuff suffered as well, so who knows?). Maybe the answer is no more than something like a lack of strong, and informed, vision at the top of Atari at the time that affected the whole platform.

At least they got Rise of the Robots right. 🙂