Jetboot Jack Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Fröhn - hey nice positive attitude! But seriously - look at the screens closely - the bath level has around 18 unique colors on screen, excluding the rasterbars around the status line (that adds another 8 I reckon) - and that is not the most colorful level of the game... My point was here is a popular game style, typical of the UK market, converted from the C64 the A8 and resulting in a better looking (and IMHO better playing) game. Sure it's not Mayhem In Monster Land, but it is a nice game, well converted, without indulging in mad programming tricks... sTeVE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 But seriously - look at the screens closely - the bath level has around 18 unique colors on screen, excluding the rasterbars around the status line (that adds another 8 I reckon) - and that is not the most colorful level of the game... Yes, the C64 version might have 2 colors less, but the A8 version lacks the hires resolution on some items and has less sprites in some areas (look at the smilies below the hat). And now a long discussion will follow what of these extras outweights each other My point was here is a popular game style, typical of the UK market, converted from the C64 the A8 and resulting in a better looking (and IMHO better playing) game. The game logic is quite the same. I doubt you would notice any gameplay difference. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhyte Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 The C64 sold more... hence it was the better machine... The C64 had more talented programmers... hence the better machine... The C64 had more and better games... hence the better machine... All this talk of what could have, should have is pointless... The proof is in the pudding, so to speak... The Master System was technically superior to the NES, but it wasn't the better machine... I'd honestly like to see and end to this pointless thread... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 The C64 sold more... hence it was the better machine... The C64 had more talented programmers... hence the better machine... The C64 had more and better games... hence the better machine... All this talk of what could have, should have is pointless... The proof is in the pudding, so to speak... The Master System was technically superior to the NES, but it wasn't the better machine... I'd honestly like to see and end to this pointless thread... This debate gets brought up all the time.... hence it is the better thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 (edited) The C64 sold more... hence it was the better machine... The C64 had more talented programmers... hence the better machine... The C64 had more and better games... hence the better machine... All this talk of what could have, should have is pointless... The proof is in the pudding, so to speak... The Master System was technically superior to the NES, but it wasn't the better machine... I'd honestly like to see and end to this pointless thread... OK! Hey, listen up everybody, Atari Commander-In-Chief dwhyte would like everyone to cease and desist from discussing the finer points of hardware and software for the A8 and other machines from the same era. All of these technical specifications and concrete examples are only causing people to become more confused about things that have already been figured out and simplified for us by Atari Commander-In-Chief, dwhyte. So, let's come back to our senses and realize that real machines capabilities are only understood in the light of "popularity" and subjective ideas like "better games" and "talented programmers". The sooner we realize this, the quicker we can get back to enjoying these forums without letting "pointless" activities like: thinking for ourselves, hearing other's perspectives, and learning by comparison, get in the way... This discussion is now officially CLOSED. Thank you for your cooperation. Edited July 26, 2007 by MrFish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 (edited) Fröhn two points there: The game logic is quite the same. I doubt you would notice any gameplay difference. Chris murray himself on lemon 64 admits the A8 version is better to play! Yes, the C64 version might have 2 colors less, but the A8 version lacks the hires resolution on some items and has less sprites in some areas (look at the smilies below the hat). And now a long discussion will follow what of these extras outweights each other 18 is the conservative number, on some screens it's more like 30+ colors (including the rasterbar at the bottom). What confounds me about discussions of ths relative merits of the A8 vs C64, as soon as ANY advantage appears for the A8 it is dismissed as minor, wheras any advantage of the C64 is a soaring difference. Well looking at the level done mostly in hires on the C64 the A8 version in multicolor is FAR nicer (you need to look past the fact the emulator has messed the pallette and the ghost sprite a bit): Edited July 26, 2007 by Jetboot Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhyte Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 The C64 sold more... hence it was the better machine... The C64 had more talented programmers... hence the better machine... The C64 had more and better games... hence the better machine... All this talk of what could have, should have is pointless... The proof is in the pudding, so to speak... The Master System was technically superior to the NES, but it wasn't the better machine... I'd honestly like to see and end to this pointless thread... OK! Hey, listen up everybody, Atari Commander-In-Chief dwhyte would like everyone to cease and desist from discussing the finer points of hardware and software for the A8 and other machines from the same era. All of these technical specifications and concrete examples are only causing people to become more confused about things that have already been figured out and simplified for us by Atari Commander-In-Chief, dwhyte. So, let's come back to our senses and realize that real machines capabilities are only understood in the light of "popularity" and subjective ideas like "better games" and "talented programmers". The sooner we realize this, the quicker we can get back to enjoying these forums without letting "pointless" activities like: thinking for ourselves, hearing other's perspectives, and learning by comparison, get in the way... This discussion is now officially CLOSED. Thank you for your cooperation. Bitterness gets you nowhere... Atari C.I.C.... thank you for the title... lmao... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmel_andrews Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 The C64 sold more... hence it was the better machine... The C64 had more talented programmers... hence the better machine... The C64 had more and better games... hence the better machine... All this talk of what could have, should have is pointless... The proof is in the pudding, so to speak... The Master System was technically superior to the NES, but it wasn't the better machine... I'd honestly like to see and end to this pointless thread... DW....To widen the point slightly, Although the Amiga was 'technically' better then the ST, very few Amiga games ported over from the ST were actually any better Also, in Europe and the UK, the ST was better supported by the software houses (i realise ofcourse the reverse was true in the US/Canada) The Portable PC engine (unfortunately i've forgotten what it was called) was technically better then the lynx, unfortunately, whilst it did have a superior software library (i.e. shear amount of titles available) it wasnt supported by many s/w companies outside Asia/Japan And given that the Amiga 1200 had VGA alike capabilities before VGA became a standard for the PC, the PC won Out (mostly becuase CBM were making the same mistakes Atari were, but succombed earlier) Fact is, Atari/Commodore made the same mistakes with their 8bit machines as they did with their 16bit machines (namely, marketing the machines at a very narrow, niche market), even apple and IBM could see the mistakes Atari/CBM were making and avoided that market like the plague The Main problem with commodore and Atari during the 8bit cum 16bit period is that they simply didn't have the faith in supporting their product and the technology behind the product, if they did have the faith and supported their product.... The C65 would have become a reality Amie/Amy or Quad Pokey would have become a reality Dataque's 8/16 proccy/os upgrade would have been an Atari product (and not 3rd party) And whatever Atari's massive R&D instructure (under warners) were working on would have also become a reality (or at least hit the marketplace in some form) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 What confounds me about discussions of ths relative merits of the A8 vs C64, as soon as ANY advantage appears for the A8 it is dismissed as minor, wheras any advantage of the C64 is a soaring difference. Actually it is you dismissing the advantages of the C64 version as minor. Well looking at the level done mostly in hires on the C64 the A8 version in multicolor is FAR nicer (you need to look past the fact the emulator has messed the pallette and the ghost sprite a bit): What have you been smoking? On the only comparable screen (1st level shot) only the hand and the fly are hires vs multicolor, and the hand is 1 color multicolor resolution on atari vs 1 color hires on C64. Now what's better. Apart from this, both games are all multicolor everywhere. Btw, the colors on both screenshots do not reflect the colors of the real machines, so don't use that excuse to push the A8 version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 What confounds me about discussions of ths relative merits of the A8 vs C64, as soon as ANY advantage appears for the A8 it is dismissed as minor, wheras any advantage of the C64 is a soaring difference. Actually it is you dismissing the advantages of the C64 version as minor.9 Both sides are dismissing the other machine's strong points and trying say the weak points of their machine aren't a big deal. The slower CPU speed of the C64 and the limitations of Player Missile Graphics are just a couple things that come to mind. Well looking at the level done mostly in hires on the C64 the A8 version in multicolor is FAR nicer (you need to look past the fact the emulator has messed the pallette and the ghost sprite a bit): What have you been smoking? On the only comparable screen (1st level shot) only the hand and the fly are hires vs multicolor, and the hand is 1 color multicolor resolution on atari vs 1 color hires on C64. Now what's better. Apart from this, both games are all multicolor everywhere. Btw, the colors on both screenshots do not reflect the colors of the real machines, so don't use that excuse to push the A8 version. Ok... first of all... the emulator totally missed the C64 palette by a mile and it looks really drab. At least the Atari colors are close. That alone would bias any screen shot comparison. After that the differences appear minor. The game logic was already complete when the author made the Atari version and he could have spent time tweaking things for better game play on the Atari. The additional colors of the Atari version appear to be mostly in the score area although a couple sprites appear to be multi-color. That doesn't mean the C64 couldn't have done the same with the sprites. If you pick and choose, you can find stuff that is better on one machine than the other no matter which you support. In this case I give the edge to Atari but on another game I might go the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 What confounds me about discussions of ths relative merits of the A8 vs C64, as soon as ANY advantage appears for the A8 it is dismissed as minor, wheras any advantage of the C64 is a soaring difference. Actually it is you dismissing the advantages of the C64 version as minor.9 Both sides are dismissing the other machine's strong points and trying say the weak points of their machine aren't a big deal. The slower CPU speed of the C64 and the limitations of Player Missile Graphics are just a couple things that come to mind. I was referring to the "Henry's House" example, not to the machines in general. Ok... first of all... the emulator totally missed the C64 palette by a mile and it looks really drab. At least the Atari colors are close. That alone would bias any screen shot comparison.After that the differences appear minor. The game logic was already complete when the author made the Atari version and he could have spent time tweaking things for better game play on the Atari. The additional colors of the Atari version appear to be mostly in the score area although a couple sprites appear to be multi-color. Well, there are no "right" colors until you emulate the PAL decoder correctly. There is a lot of color tone mixing on a real monitor, most importantly the color tone of two rasterlines mix each other 50:50 (which is why the 256 color mode on the A8 works). This means: A palette based emulation NEVER results in the right colors, even if the palette is perfect. That doesn't mean the C64 couldn't have done the same with the sprites. For rasterbars you don't need sprites. It's one of the most simple things to do on C64 and A8, I did it the first time when I was 14 years old and didn't have much clue about coding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Well, there are no "right" colors until you emulate the PAL decoder correctly. There is a lot of color tone mixing on a real monitor, most importantly the color tone of two rasterlines mix each other 50:50 (which is why the 256 color mode on the A8 works). This means: A palette based emulation NEVER results in the right colors, even if the palette is perfect. This used to really confuse me when I'd download these awsome 256 color demos for the Atari and they'd just look like a bunch of ugly stripes. Alas, there is no mixing with NTSC - each line is an island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasholzer Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Let's bring the MSX (Japans top selling 8-bitter) into the battle.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Well, there are no "right" colors until you emulate the PAL decoder correctly. There is a lot of color tone mixing on a real monitor, most importantly the color tone of two rasterlines mix each other 50:50 (which is why the 256 color mode on the A8 works). This means: A palette based emulation NEVER results in the right colors, even if the palette is perfect. This used to really confuse me when I'd download these awsome 256 color demos for the Atari and they'd just look like a bunch of ugly stripes. Alas, there is no mixing with NTSC - each line is an island. Yeps, it only works when the color carrier is decoded by a PAL decoder and only if that PAL decoder uses the original PAL patents and not those japanese circumventions of the patents. The jap devices often lack that color mixing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastRobPlus Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 (edited) To widen the point slightly, Although the Amiga was 'technically' better then the ST, very few Amiga games ported over from the ST were actually any better I agree. But didn't Amiga have a lot of Amiga original and Amiga only games too? Why would you want to compare ported ST games when you have better origianls to look at? Or even ports from other systems like the Westwood games? Also, in Europe and the UK, the ST was better supported by the software houses Is that true? I thought Amiga was better supported overall. Clearly by the early 1990s, we were seeing games like King's Quest VI and Links still being ported to Amiga, but not ST. And given that the Amiga 1200 had VGA alike capabilities before VGA became a standard for the PC, the PC won Out (mostly becuase CBM were making the same mistakes Atari were, but succombed earlier) Is there a point that VGA is generally accepted as the standard? I ask becuse I remember many companies (like Access) moving to make only VGA games back in 1989-90, a few years before the 4000/1200. The Main problem with commodore and Atari during the 8bit cum 16bit period is that they simply didn't have the faith in supporting their product and the technology behind the product, if they did have the faith and supported their product.... Hard to argue that management at theses comanies did anything well, but I'm not an insider by any means. I do doubt that Atari Tramiel and Atari Warner mande the same mistakes. I'll bet they were different enough to make different mistakes. As for Tramiel's Atari not supporting thier 16-bit hardware and game consoles; I've seen that said often, but there is also the matter of how they did not support thier distribution well and had a reputation for not paying debts. This made it increasingly hard to support thier products in the market even when they did devote thier full energy to doing it. *edit* Sorry to make this an ST versus Amiga thread. Those are as bad as Atari vesus Commodre threads. I am in the (at least here) minority of those who firmly believe that the Amiga is the true spiritual prdecessor to the Atari, and the ST is a very good but inferior computer. Edited July 26, 2007 by FastRobPlus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhyte Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Same classic discussion that's paralleled elsewhere... chevy vs. ford... k.y. vs. astroglide... etc, etc. I love my Atari's... I love my Commodore's... they both have their strengths and weaknesses... Saying which one is better is like saying which atomic particle is the best one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artlover Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 k.y. vs. astroglide... Gee, what other webforums do you visit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastRobPlus Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 k.y. vs. astroglide... Gee, what other webforums do you visit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 As for Tramiel's Atari not supporting thier 16-bit hardware and game consoles; I've seen that said often, but there is also the matter of how they did not support thier distribution well and had a reputation for not paying debts. This made it increasingly hard to support thier products in the market even when they did devote thier full energy to doing it. The more people I met in the Atari world, the more stories I'd hear about the notorious Tramiels. After a while, I felt a little soiled by it. There's an interesting Atari computer show story of Leonard standing in front of a vendor's booth and openly criticizing the product to the people standing there. Apparently Jack came running over to break up the ensuing argument. It's nice when you can believe in the company and the product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 And given that the Amiga 1200 had VGA alike capabilities before VGA became a standard for the PC, the PC won Out (mostly becuase CBM were making the same mistakes Atari were, but succombed earlier) VGA was standard even before the A1200 came out. I remember how disappointed everybody was about the A1200, even us Amiga advocates. Commodore released the original Amiga in 1986 and was around 4 years ahead of it's time, but then sat 7 years on it's ass doing nothing but counting money and when the A1200 came out, it couldn't even compete with the average IBM-compatible PC. The C65 would have become a reality The Amiga was the better choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Bitterness gets you nowhere... Atari C.I.C.... thank you for the title... lmao... Alright, that's it! Your title has now been officially revoked, on grounds of disobeying your own decree! This discussion is now officially OPEN again (due to technical difficulties). We appreciate your continued patience and support... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadmeow Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 For the Apple II basher above, the Apple II displayed red with no problem. NTSC artifacting?? I believe that is an Atari thing. I had clean red, and all the other colors on my RGB monitor. The sound on the 8 bit Apple II's is nothing special, but it was adequate for a home computer in 1979. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 (edited) For the Apple II basher above, the Apple II displayed red with no problem. NTSC artifacting?? I believe that is an Atari thing. I had clean red, and all the other colors on my RGB monitor. The sound on the 8 bit Apple II's is nothing special, but it was adequate for a home computer in 1979. http://apple2history.org/history/ah06.html "The Revision 0 board had only four colors (green, violet, black, white), but Wozniak had learned that by making a simple alteration he could get two more colors (blue and orange) and two more varieties of black and white. The Revision 1 and later boards were capable of displaying all eight colors." And if you hook up a monochrome monitor and color monitor to older IIs and draw to the hi-res graphics screen in basic you will see colors appear as dot patterns on the monochrome display. You can see games like Space Eggs actually take advantage of this by shifting the sprite left or right by individual bits... which causes the color of the sprites to change color as they fly around the screen. But where there are multiple set bits side by side to form white, the color stays white. You will also notice a slight shift in the position of the pixels in relation to each other where they are different colors even though they should be right on top of each other. Also, check out the photo of the screen drawn with just lines on the page I linked to above. The colors are artifacts. Double hi-res (IIe/c) added red but the mode wasn't on older machines. You seem to have ignored the part of my post that said "Let's face it... if you pick and choose you can make any 8 bit look bad." BTW, just announced last night... someone has created a CoCo 3 in an FPGA. http://www.geocities.com/gary_L_becker/coco3fpga.html Edited July 27, 2007 by JamesD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Fröhn said - "Actually it is you dismissing the advantages of the C64 version as minor." Am I where? I fully admit the sprites, SID, colormap and hi-res are great features. BUT when the evidence of the A8's superior palette, and vertical screen flexibility to create colorful and exiting game graphics is demonstrated it is regularly dismissed by C64 fans. So when I see 26 colors on screen used in a creative way to enhance a game and then compare them to a rather drab (my opinion, noit via emulation BTW) 16 color palette versions of the same game am I somehow not allowed to find that a positive point in favor of the Atari???? Actually the point I was TRYING to raise is that in truth "I" prefer the A8 version of HH, and can see the larger onscreen palette and tweaked gameplay as evidence that C64 ports did not have to suck. And if the A8 has been on the agenda of more software houses (maybe by selling more units) I feel certain the games would have been far more comparable than they actually eneded up appearing when rarely converted (just look at the awful Green Beret or Arkanoid). On the only comparable screen (1st level shot) - why because it the only low color screen in the game??? Btw, the colors on both screenshots do not reflect the colors of the real machines, so don't use that excuse to push the A8 version. - yeah I kinda pointed that out already, emulation is flawed. HOWEVER I am NOT using the quality of the emulation to PUSH the A8 at all - if you dislike favourable comparisons of the A8 and the C64 perhaps you're on the wrong messageboard? only the hand and the fly are hires vs multicolor, and the hand is 1 color multicolor apart from this, both games are all multicolor everywhere - no level 8 is almost exlusively monchrome on the C64 - and I think worse for it: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 For the Apple II basher above, the Apple II displayed red with no problem. NTSC artifacting?? I believe that is an Atari thing. It's a thing for anyone who uses the timing of luminance signals to get color. The Apple II didn't generate a color signal, it just delayed the luminance by varying amounts create artifacts. It's low-tech color. I had clean red, and all the other colors on my RGB monitor. The sound on the 8 bit Apple II's is nothing special, but it was adequate for a home computer in 1979. RGB? You're not talking about a stock Apple II. Try looking at an Apple II on a composite color monitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.