Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl

[TMR]

Graphics and sound is always secondary.

 

You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.

[DimensionX]

Graphics and sound is always secondary.

 

You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.

 

Nope.

 

I shouldn't.

 

And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.

[ceti331]

Trying to do Xenon on C64, is to overload the machine with something it can't handle. Trying to emulate the R-Type arcade, is to overload the machine with something it simply can't handle.

 

In both cases those jobs could've been done better but are at least handling the majority of what is required. There are no Atari 8-bit versions of those games so at the moment the Atari 8-bit isn't anywhere near to handling those games.

 

Why make a shoddy version of a great arcade game?

 

Isn't it better to make specific C64 games, that the machine can handle?

 

This is why i like games *like* armalyte or that A8 uridium clone. Something *inspired* by a great game on better hardware, but designed from the ground up within the limitations of the machine its running on

arcade conversions are a usefull 'benchmark'

[DimensionX]

All i hear is tech talk all the time, not even a hint of to make a game fun or any new ideas for games. Then it's easy to think that only the tech part matters. Many of the most entertaining games are very old but still very fun to play. Robotron, Millipede etc.

 

You have spent several days not doing that so trying to lecture other people about it is just so much garbage.

 

Let's put that talk to kingdom come, it doesn't matter in the end. The only thing that matters is to make or play a good game.

 

And the technical discussion is part of the process of making a good game; you can't write a good game without technical knowledge, you can't even design a good game without knowing how the hardware you're aiming at is going to handle things. At the moment, none of us are talking about games we're writing so no, we're not talking about how to make them playable.

 

That's pure bull

 

If you are talented enough, you can write a great game on a simple LCD screen, like Nintendo.

 

So, what are we discussing?

 

The sprites...bla bla bla...it's not possible to....bla bla bla

 

It doesn't matter.

 

In the end...the only thing that matters is to write at good game.

 

With rainbows. lol I'm sorry but your comments are just hilarious considering your continued position that games look better with some pretty colours behind them.

 

 

Pete

 

Yup, a discussion like this is quite insane. We are arguing about computers almost 30 years old. Like someone said, it's no good. We'll better put it on ice. Good lyck with your game programming.

 

Well if we can agree that there's no point continuing please stop trying to make YOUR point. You daily come to this conclusion then daily kick it all off again as if you feel you've lost somehow and have to have one more try. I repeat, nobody is trying to say you can't prefer what you prefer or change your mind somehow.

 

If you want to show people what graphics/games you prefer, there are sections of this forum where people will be happy to discuss it with you without bothering to get into the technical side. It's a public forum after all, it's just in the wrong part of it atm.

 

 

Pete

 

No more screens posted.

[PeteD]

 

 

No more screens posted.

 

..but you're happy to continue arguing about nothing?

[Audiophile]

To all programmers in this thread...

 

Remember, a game it not only about graphics and animation, or even sound. The hard part is to write a great game that is fun to play containing well thoughout levels, good balance and lots of replay value that really make this game great and fun to play. A "one more go" game. Else you can write a demo instead. Very few programmers can make a great game. Nintendo was outstanding good at making simple games that really was fun to play and had lots of replay value. Even if they just used simple LCD displays, like Game & Watch.

 

Many programmers forget that part and concentrate their effort on graphics and sound instead. I think anyone who makes a great fun game does more for these old computers then anything else. Because todays youngsters will not be impressed of any graphics on a C64 or Atari 800. But a real good game would impress them a lot more. So instead of to just show off some graphics and sound, make a fun and great game instead. It can be a simple puzzle game, or a real fun platform game, but it will have to be fun to play.

 

That's great such a wish, but I think many people (also atari people) like nice graphics and sound too at the same time. Hmmm I think programming a game in 2010 like a game from 1983 would be a bit of a shame, people expect (also most atari xl people) nice graphics and sound too. Also in my opinion I think a decent and nice graphical/sound programmed game will be attractive for most people to just play the game. If we can have both why not?

 

Graphics and sound is always secondary. Most importand is to make a game fun to play. Nice graphics will not make a good game but it can enhance an already good game.

 

Well I agree with you that gameplay is the most important part, but I think that you also have to create at least a decent display and decent sound.

But I think it is not a big problem anymore to make a decent display and decent sound because there is meanwhile so much knowlegde in the heads of the programmers that everybody will be satisfied...

[PeteD]

Graphics and sound is always secondary.

 

You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.

 

Nope.

 

I shouldn't.

 

And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.

 

Please just stop. Nobody has said this. You've continually said the Atari is BETTER because it has more colours. All anyone else has done is give an opposing viewpoint (which is FACT) that despite having less colours the C64 can display them more freely. So as a standard bitmap screen do you "prefer" 4 colours or 16? There's been no better involved in the argument, you're just seeing that because people are disagreeing with you.

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

Trying to do Xenon on C64, is to overload the machine with something it can't handle. Trying to emulate the R-Type arcade, is to overload the machine with something it simply can't handle.

 

In both cases those jobs could've been done better but are at least handling the majority of what is required. There are no Atari 8-bit versions of those games so at the moment the Atari 8-bit isn't anywhere near to handling those games.

 

Why make a shoddy version of a great arcade game?

 

Isn't it better to make specific C64 games, that the machine can handle?

 

This is why i like games *like* armalyte or that A8 uridium clone. Something *inspired* by a great game on better hardware, but designed from the ground up within the limitations of the machine its running on

arcade conversions are a usefull 'benchmark'

 

I couldn't agree more. A game can be awesome in it's own right when using what the computer is good at. Often straight conversions will look bad when the hardware can't handle the graphics from the orginal machine. Besides that, they can add a few good things to the game to that isn't in the orginal version to make the game more fun to play.

Edited April 29, 2010 by DimensionX

[ceti331]

Yup, a discussion like this is quite insane. We are arguing about computers almost 30 years old. Like someone said, it's no good. We'll better put it on ice. Good luck with your game programming.

 

no. we'll keep going for another few decades until we've reached a consensus

only kidding

[DimensionX]

Graphics and sound is always secondary.

 

You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.

 

Nope.

 

I shouldn't.

 

And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.

 

Please just stop. Nobody has said this. You've continually said the Atari is BETTER because it has more colours. All anyone else has done is give an opposing viewpoint (which is FACT) that despite having less colours the C64 can display them more freely. So as a standard bitmap screen do you "prefer" 4 colours or 16? There's been no better involved in the argument, you're just seeing that because people are disagreeing with you.

 

 

Pete

 

I don't really care, what i care about is a fun game to play.

[DimensionX]

Yup, a discussion like this is quite insane. We are arguing about computers almost 30 years old. Like someone said, it's no good. We'll better put it on ice. Good luck with your game programming.

 

no. we'll keep going for another few decades until we've reached a consensus

only kidding

 

Nah, perhaps next year.

[PeteD]

 

 

Well I agree with you that gameplay is the most important part, but I think that you also have to create at least a decent display and decent sound.

But I think it is not a big problem anymore to make a decent display and decent sound because there is meanwhile so much knowlegde in the heads of the programmers that everybody will be satisfied...

 

I think the problem is Atari gamers are happy with ANYTHING new for their machine. As Atarigmr said, Spectrum owners are more forgiving, probably because they're sensible about the machines limitations. C64 gamers don't mind something that doesn't look so great but kind of expect things that DO look and sound good. Atari it's kind of a middle ground. There's been so little new stuff over the past 20 odd years (including pro stuff to the end of it's actual sales life) compared to some other platforms that anything playable is great, but at the same time I think everyone wishes there were more impressive looking games. It's simply time constraints for people working on them for a lot of games. eg ports of Space Harrier, NRV's APAC 256 colour Wolfenstein clone, IK+ etc some of this stuff has been in dev for 5 years!

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

Graphics and sound is always secondary.

 

You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.

 

Nope.

 

I shouldn't.

 

And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.

 

Please just stop. Nobody has said this. You've continually said the Atari is BETTER because it has more colours. All anyone else has done is give an opposing viewpoint (which is FACT) that despite having less colours the C64 can display them more freely. So as a standard bitmap screen do you "prefer" 4 colours or 16? There's been no better involved in the argument, you're just seeing that because people are disagreeing with you.

 

 

Pete

 

I don't really care, what i care about is a fun game to play.

 

 

Stop bloody going on and on about it then!! Jeeeez

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

Let me put it like this.

 

If i am about to choose from playing either Turtles on XBOX360 or Millipede on Atari 800, the choice is simple.

 

Millipede on Atari 800.

 

So much for graphics...

Edited April 29, 2010 by DimensionX

[DimensionX]

Graphics and sound is always secondary.

 

You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.

 

Nope.

 

I shouldn't.

 

And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.

 

Please just stop. Nobody has said this. You've continually said the Atari is BETTER because it has more colours. All anyone else has done is give an opposing viewpoint (which is FACT) that despite having less colours the C64 can display them more freely. So as a standard bitmap screen do you "prefer" 4 colours or 16? There's been no better involved in the argument, you're just seeing that because people are disagreeing with you.

 

 

Pete

 

I don't really care, what i care about is a fun game to play.

 

 

Stop bloody going on and on about it then!! Jeeeez

 

 

Pete

 

I don't, if you read the latest postings.

Edited April 29, 2010 by DimensionX

[TMR]

Graphics and sound is always secondary.

 

You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.

 

Nope.

 

I shouldn't.

 

And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.

 

No, in a thread titled Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl in a part of Atari Age dedicated to discussion of programming i'd be perfectly entitled to do that even though i didn't. Atari Age's description of this sub-forum says that the "programming forums are technical discussions of programming various classic gaming consoles" (my emphasis) and you haven't been doing that at all.

[PeteD]

 

 

Stop bloody going on and on about it then!! Jeeeez

 

 

Pete

 

I don't, if you read the latest postings.

 

I'll wait and see..

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

Graphics and sound is always secondary.

 

You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.

 

Nope.

 

I shouldn't.

 

And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.

 

No, in a thread titled Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl in a part of Atari Age dedicated to discussion of programming i'd be perfectly entitled to do that even though i didn't. Atari Age's description of this sub-forum says that the "programming forums are technical discussions of programming various classic gaming consoles" (my emphasis) and you haven't been doing that at all.

 

Then you can continue to discuss who's the "better" computer yourself.

 

For me it doesn't matter anymore.

 

Now i'm off for a few rounds of Millipede.

[+GroovyBee]

Jeez... more comebacks than Status Quo!

 

Oh... I forgot... Status Quo with rainbows.

[Audiophile]

 

 

Well I agree with you that gameplay is the most important part, but I think that you also have to create at least a decent display and decent sound.

But I think it is not a big problem anymore to make a decent display and decent sound because there is meanwhile so much knowlegde in the heads of the programmers that everybody will be satisfied...

 

I think the problem is Atari gamers are happy with ANYTHING new for their machine. As Atarigmr said, Spectrum owners are more forgiving, probably because they're sensible about the machines limitations. C64 gamers don't mind something that doesn't look so great but kind of expect things that DO look and sound good. Atari it's kind of a middle ground. There's been so little new stuff over the past 20 odd years (including pro stuff to the end of it's actual sales life) compared to some other platforms that anything playable is great, but at the same time I think everyone wishes there were more impressive looking games. It's simply time constraints for people working on them for a lot of games. eg ports of Space Harrier, NRV's APAC 256 colour Wolfenstein clone, IK+ etc some of this stuff has been in dev for 5 years!

 

 

Pete

 

Maybe it is my problem, but for what I have seen and learned (machinecode) in the past and seen on youtube I am convinced that both machines are about the same in possibilities.

I just cannot believe that some games of the c64 cannot be done on the atari XL.

If you can see what some coders did on ST, really everybody said it is impossible. But as I said before some coders did the job. Unfortunately there are not enough coders (like those st coders) on the atari XL. I do not know what is is, people just do not like to programm the atari or there are simple not enough coders around like the c64 has.

 

A part of my opinion comes from the words of Atariski in a thread like this on this website, he seems to be a advanced atari 8 bit programmer and I just believe what he said, but again this is only a part of what my opinion is.

 

You can pull a conclusion out of my words : There is no better machine between these two (atari xl and c64.

[PeteD]

 

Maybe it is my problem, but for what I have seen and learned (machinecode) in the past and seen on youtube I am convinced that both machines are about the same in possibilities.

I just cannot believe that some games of the c64 cannot be done on the atari XL.

If you can see what some coders did on ST, really everybody said it is impossible. But as I said before some coders did the job. Unfortunately there are not enough coders (like those st coders) on the atari XL. I do not know what is is, people just do not like to programm the atari or there are simple not enough coders around like the c64 has.

 

A part of my opinion comes from the words of Atariski in a thread like this on this website, he seems to be a advanced atari 8 bit programmer and I just believe what he said, but again this is only a part of what my opinion is.

 

You can pull a conclusion out of my words : There is no better machine between these two (atari xl and c64.

 

That's why people like me and TMR are here. Because we're pretty sure that with a bit of thought, experience and time behind some A8 projects you CAN port C64 games (or spectrum or BBC Micro, etc). Not all of them and for quite a lot there's just no way to do them exactly but as I kept saying to DimensionX, you've got to be sensible about the machines limitations and as long as the core of the game is there, even if it doesn't have all the colours or there are other compromises, it should still be a good port.

 

*edit*

I shouldn't really post this because it's kind of off topic and he's not here BUT Atariksi is one of those guys I mentioned earlier who seems to have a wealth of A8 knowledge and will happily spend days posting about it. He does however miss out all the impossibilities, pitfalls or incompatibilities with his lists so that the A8 ALWAYS looks like the most capable machine. As for being an advanced coder, I think a fair few people are still waiting for him to actually code something to back up the claims he makes

 

 

Pete

Edited April 29, 2010 by PeteD

[potatohead]

I'm glad for it. I enjoy programming on older computers. Right at this particular moment, I'm working on one that's a bit out of the mainstream, but I always come back to Atari machines, particularly after new tricks are seen.

 

There are not as many Atari programmers, and the machine is considerably more difficult and complex. That's part of the appeal of the Atari machines, IMHO. They are capable of a lot, but it takes a sustained effort to get there.

 

Given that these machines are not sold anymore, but second hand / hobby purposes, this is all any user has left, meaning we should take care of one another, not throw a bunch of shit around. Seriously!! This is a great hobby, why fight over "BEST", when there is a lot of fun and good challenges to be had.

 

And citing incorrect facts in the Programmer section is gonna trigger this. Has nothing to do with "BEST", just the machine attributes themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe it is my problem, but for what I have seen and learned (machinecode) in the past and seen on youtube I am convinced that both machines are about the same in possibilities.

I just cannot believe that some games of the c64 cannot be done on the atari XL.

If you can see what some coders did on ST, really everybody said it is impossible. But as I said before some coders did the job. Unfortunately there are not enough coders (like those st coders) on the atari XL. I do not know what is is, people just do not like to programm the atari or there are simple not enough coders around like the c64 has.

 

A part of my opinion comes from the words of Atariski in a thread like this on this website, he seems to be a advanced atari 8 bit programmer and I just believe what he said, but again this is only a part of what my opinion is.

 

You can pull a conclusion out of my words : There is no better machine between these two (atari xl and c64.

 

That's why people like me and TMR are here. Because we're pretty sure that with a bit of thought, experience and time behind some A8 projects you CAN port C64 games (or spectrum or BBC Micro, etc). Not all of them and for quite a lot there's just no way to do them exactly but as I kept saying to DimensionX, you've got to be sensible about the machines limitations and as long as the core of the game is there, even if it doesn't have all the colours or there are other compromises, it should still be a good port.

 

*edit*

I shouldn't really post this because it's kind of off topic and he's not here BUT Atariksi is one of those guys I mentioned earlier who seems to have a wealth of A8 knowledge and will happily spend days posting about it. He does however miss out all the impossibilities, pitfalls or incompatibilities with his lists so that the A8 ALWAYS looks like the most capable machine. As for being an advanced coder, I think a fair few people are still waiting for him to actually code something to back up the claims he makes

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

I'm glad for it. I enjoy programming on older computers. Right at this particular moment, I'm working on one that's a bit out of the mainstream, but I always come back to Atari machines, particularly after new tricks are seen.

 

There are not as many Atari programmers, and the machine is considerably more difficult and complex. That's part of the appeal of the Atari machines, IMHO. They are capable of a lot, but it takes a sustained effort to get there.

 

Given that these machines are not sold anymore, but second hand / hobby purposes, this is all any user has left, meaning we should take care of one another, not throw a bunch of shit around. Seriously!! This is a great hobby, why fight over "BEST", when there is a lot of fun and good challenges to be had.

 

And citing incorrect facts in the Programmer section is gonna trigger this. Has nothing to do with "BEST", just the machine attributes themselves.

 

 

 

You've only got to look at some of those games I mentioned earlier, NRV's Wolf clone and Space Harrier. Both are making use of software screen modes to get more colours and relying on the extra CPU grunt to be able to move graphics around without the hardware being involved. Once I'm done scratching my itch to port some C64 games to the A8 I'll surely be looking at some dedicated A8 code

 

 

Pete

[Audiophile]

It's nice to see and read that there are still a lot of people spending time on the atari xl and c64.

I think things according to graphics and sound will become even more interesting, because of more knowledge of both machines. Maybe you find me stupid, but the 8 bit I like more to discover as the 16 bit ST and Amiga.

I hope I will be a good Atari xl coder someday, I am glad I already learned a lot in the past.

 

Maybe we can do some more peace talking between each other about which machine is the best, in my opinion already said both are about the same in possibilities, you just have to know how to code things.

[José Pereira]

I'm back again.

 

First sorry if this is a little bit out of Topic (I'm not the only one (like the Song...)), but the old ones at AA know about my LN crazy.

 

 

O.k. I was quiet in the past Months with this but not STOP on it.

I was trying to get a Master on the colours/PFs. with all my ideas for Ored Colours.

 

The real trick (Months...) was getting some Master colour/luminances for all the LNs. PFs. that will Ored well for the PM2&3 Backgr. Gfxs. and with PM0&1 for Ninja&Enemy.

This is a great headache. Yes it is. More than if it look good or not, I have to choose some colours and by trial (Ored) them eachother and constantly running on Emulators with different Palletes.

Expect the resurrection of this in the next Days (but now I know what I am doing...).

 

Don't worry, I'll not put them here but on specific Post/Threads about LNs.

 

 

But just as an Example of how the A8 is so difficult IMHO and that even with 128colours on 160Resol. I cannot use them arbitary (Ored needed).

This is how the things started: The first one, the START Screen of LN1 on C64:

 

Is there any screen so simple looking, no difficult nº of colours, bright ones,... Blah, blah, blah.

To turn it into A8 I've spent 1Hour using G2F (DLIs, PMs,...) and get this:

 

 

And to see how difficult it is I have a year or more learning A8 and constant question to you guys that can learn as much as possible so that my Screen and my Ideas can work in the Game and be usefull if someone want to convert the LN Series into A8.

 

And to prove also the A8 difficult IMHO, just see:

1.)- Only PFs.:

2.)- Only PMs.:

 

You can say now that It will be better this or that Green, this or that... but no way, other Colour and/or other Luminance and all the Image will get all the colours messed.

 

 

Yes, you can even get a good (more and sometimes better choosing) colours... but it's hours of what just takes minutes on C64.

 

 

 

Greetings.

José Pereira.