Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl

[Audiophile]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.

I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

[PeteD]

You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered.

It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases.

Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities.

 

Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible.

The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done.

For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think.

I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot.

 

I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.

 

If we take a look at this game.

 

You can do quite amazing things with A8 too.

 

I would like to see that, on a C64.

 

I hate to tell you but the C64 could do that easily with maybe a couple of concessions to palette BUT with better quality sprites.

 

Once again you're starting on the C64 can't do this and that and A8 is better which you said wasn't how you felt and you'd stopped saying it. I think you really must be nothing more than a troll.

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.

I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

 

Because of this...

 

(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html

 

The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.

Edited May 1, 2010 by DimensionX

[DimensionX]

You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered.

It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases.

Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities.

 

Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible.

The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done.

For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think.

I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot.

 

I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.

 

If we take a look at this game.

 

You can do quite amazing things with A8 too.

 

I would like to see that, on a C64.

 

I hate to tell you but the C64 could do that easily with maybe a couple of concessions to palette BUT with better quality sprites.

 

Once again you're starting on the C64 can't do this and that and A8 is better which you said wasn't how you felt and you'd stopped saying it. I think you really must be nothing more than a troll.

 

 

Pete

 

Then, show me something?

 

Says much more then just words...don't you think?

 

A good YT link?

Edited May 1, 2010 by DimensionX

[PeteD]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

Pretty sure they're the same. XL and pre-XL that is.

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

Pretty sure they're the same. XL and pre-XL that is.

 

Pete

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__2003116

[PeteD]

You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered.

It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases.

Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities.

 

Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible.

The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done.

For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think.

I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot.

 

I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.

 

If we take a look at this game.

 

You can do quite amazing things with A8 too.

 

I would like to see that, on a C64.

 

I hate to tell you but the C64 could do that easily with maybe a couple of concessions to palette BUT with better quality sprites.

 

Once again you're starting on the C64 can't do this and that and A8 is better which you said wasn't how you felt and you'd stopped saying it. I think you really must be nothing more than a troll.

 

 

Pete

 

Then, show me something?

 

Says much more then just words...

 

A good YT link?

 

Take a look at games like Mayhem in Monsterland for lots of colour (better to download and play on emulator, YT doesn't do it justice), Hawkeye for more complex parallax scrolling. I'll dig through some other stuff later.

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered.

It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases.

Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities.

 

Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible.

The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done.

For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think.

I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot.

 

I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.

 

If we take a look at this game.

 

You can do quite amazing things with A8 too.

 

I would like to see that, on a C64.

 

I hate to tell you but the C64 could do that easily with maybe a couple of concessions to palette BUT with better quality sprites.

 

Once again you're starting on the C64 can't do this and that and A8 is better which you said wasn't how you felt and you'd stopped saying it. I think you really must be nothing more than a troll.

 

 

Pete

 

Then, show me something?

 

Says much more then just words...

 

A good YT link?

 

Take a look at games like Mayhem in Monsterland for lots of colour (better to download and play on emulator, YT doesn't do it justice), Hawkeye for more complex parallax scrolling. I'll dig through some other stuff later.

 

 

Pete

 

It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.

 

Now you see the differences between the machines.

 

The games are nothing you even could call for similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...

Edited May 1, 2010 by DimensionX

[PeteD]

 

Because of this...

 

(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html

 

The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.

 

There are variations in the build of quite a few models, the actual ANTIC colours are the same.

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

 

Because of this...

 

(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html

 

The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.

 

There are variations in the build of quite a few models, the actual ANTIC colours are the same.

 

 

Pete

 

That was NOT the problem, if you read the article.

[PeteD]

 

 

It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.

 

Now you see the differences between the machines.

 

The games are nothing you even could similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...

 

As I've said, you CAN do Crownland on the C64, you've just picked a nice looking A8 game that has no C64 version. (and also a pretty poor looking YT vid which I asked you NOT to do) Then you ignore all the points in the C64's favour like more colours per line, better quality sprites and bring the argument back to your single point of bigger palette, which for about the 1000000th time nobody is arguing with.

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

 

 

That was NOT the problem, if you read the article.

 

So there was some colour "bleed" that even from your own quote "they've never been particularly bothered with.." but the colours from the chip are still the same.

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

 

 

That was NOT the problem, if you read the article.

 

So there was some colour "bleed" that even from your own quote "they've never been particularly bothered with.." but the colours from the chip are still the same.

 

 

Pete

 

After the rewiring they got better colours, more like the old Atari 800 model.

[Audiophile]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.

I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

 

Because of this...

 

(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html

 

The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.

 

Hmmmm this is hard for me, because I never played with the old 800. But I also never had colourproblems on the xl machine. You're saying the games look better on the old 800 than on the xl????? I cannot believe that, as PeteD say Antic is Antic, so I see no problem for the xl.

 

BUT WHY OWH WHY would Atari put a machine on the market, which is less than the machine before, WHILE they have to compete with the newer machines like those from Commodore. I think this is impossible. As company you better put a machine on the market which is at LEAST the same as the old one but with enhanced features no matter at what area.

[DimensionX]

 

 

It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.

 

Now you see the differences between the machines.

 

The games are nothing you even could similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...

 

As I've said, you CAN do Crownland on the C64, you've just picked a nice looking A8 game that has no C64 version. (and also a pretty poor looking YT vid which I asked you NOT to do) Then you ignore all the points in the C64's favour like more colours per line, better quality sprites and bring the argument back to your single point of bigger palette, which for about the 1000000th time nobody is arguing with.

 

 

Pete

 

I don't agree. Because A8 have a different display that C64 never can emulate, even if we see the same game, they will look different.

[TMR]

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip?

 

The Amstrad CPC Plus (not CPC, CPC Plus) has the same resolution as the Atari 8-bit, a 4,096 colour palette, larger hardware sprites and more colours per scanline. Yes, it can look the same as the Atari 8-bit plus it can do far more.

 

If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use.

 

Well, assuming that you've just got the names wrong here and are actually looking at the right machines in the first place... under emulation you're not seeing the same colours as the real machines so are not able to make that comparison.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

The Commodore machines with high resolution bitmapped screens have exactly the same way of displaying graphics as the Spectrum even down to the attribute system, the only variation is the specific colours and even if they don't get it exactly right the Commodore 264 series can get bloody close.

[PeteD]

 

 

That was NOT the problem, if you read the article.

 

So there was some colour "bleed" that even from your own quote "they've never been particularly bothered with.." but the colours from the chip are still the same.

 

 

Pete

 

After the rewiring they got better colours, more like the old Atari 800 model.

 

Fair enough they got a better quality "display", the point I was making was the actual palette is/was the same across all 8bit models.

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

 

 

It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.

 

Now you see the differences between the machines.

 

The games are nothing you even could similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...

 

As I've said, you CAN do Crownland on the C64, you've just picked a nice looking A8 game that has no C64 version. (and also a pretty poor looking YT vid which I asked you NOT to do) Then you ignore all the points in the C64's favour like more colours per line, better quality sprites and bring the argument back to your single point of bigger palette, which for about the 1000000th time nobody is arguing with.

 

 

Pete

 

I don't agree. Because A8 have a different display that C64 never can emulate, even if we see the same game, they will look different.

 

So quantify that "different display" for me, then I'll know what you mean. The only difference in display (ignoring things like colours per line etc for now) is the palette available and probably differences in the resultant image on what it's displayed on and via what mechanism (tv with RF or monitor RGB etc).

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.

I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

 

Because of this...

 

(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html

 

The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.

 

Hmmmm this is hard for me, because I never played with the old 800. But I also never had colourproblems on the xl machine. You're saying the games look better on the old 800 than on the xl????? I cannot believe that, as PeteD say Antic is Antic, so I see no problem for the xl.

 

BUT WHY OWH WHY would Atari put a machine on the market, which is less than the machine before, WHILE they have to compete with the newer machines like those from Commodore. I think this is impossible. As company you better put a machine on the market which is at LEAST the same as the old one but with enhanced features no matter at what area.

 

Because old Atari 800 was to expensive to make. They had to come up with a cheaper model to be able to compet with Commodore. Else gamers would by the cheaper computer. The old models was VERY expensive to buy. The price for the orginal Atari 800 in Sweden was almost was about 650 euro.

[DimensionX]

 

 

It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.

 

Now you see the differences between the machines.

 

The games are nothing you even could similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...

 

As I've said, you CAN do Crownland on the C64, you've just picked a nice looking A8 game that has no C64 version. (and also a pretty poor looking YT vid which I asked you NOT to do) Then you ignore all the points in the C64's favour like more colours per line, better quality sprites and bring the argument back to your single point of bigger palette, which for about the 1000000th time nobody is arguing with.

 

 

Pete

 

I don't agree. Because A8 have a different display that C64 never can emulate, even if we see the same game, they will look different.

 

So quantify that "different display" for me, then I'll know what you mean. The only difference in display (ignoring things like colours per line etc for now) is the palette available and probably differences in the resultant image on what it's displayed on and via what mechanism (tv with RF or monitor RGB etc).

 

 

Pete

 

Display it's all about hardware. A certain computer will always have a certain type of display depending on it's hardware. All computers differs in display.

[TMR]

Now you see the differences between the machines.

 

Yes, the C64 game has twice the horizontal resolution for the scrolling and sprite movement, uses a mixture of high resolution and multicolour graphics, scrolls at a faster speed and moves a significantly larger play area - and those differences are just for a start.

 

The games are nothing you even could call for similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...

 

Mayhem In Monsterland is using a couple of colour mixing tricks, one of which relies on the way colours of a similar luminance will "merge" to produce other colours (similar but not quite the same to how APAC works on the Atari 8-bit). These mixed colours are not visible in emulator screenshots or YouTube videos because the palettes used are not totally accurate, so unless you're actually running it on a real C64 you're simply not seeing what would actually be displayed.

[DimensionX]

 

 

That was NOT the problem, if you read the article.

 

So there was some colour "bleed" that even from your own quote "they've never been particularly bothered with.." but the colours from the chip are still the same.

 

 

Pete

 

After the rewiring they got better colours, more like the old Atari 800 model.

 

Fair enough they got a better quality "display", the point I was making was the actual palette is/was the same across all 8bit models.

 

 

Pete

 

Now we're talking the same thing Pete. The wiring was a bit better in the old model.

[Audiophile]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.

I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

 

Because of this...

 

(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html

 

The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.

 

Hmmmm this is hard for me, because I never played with the old 800. But I also never had colourproblems on the xl machine. You're saying the games look better on the old 800 than on the xl????? I cannot believe that, as PeteD say Antic is Antic, so I see no problem for the xl.

 

BUT WHY OWH WHY would Atari put a machine on the market, which is less than the machine before, WHILE they have to compete with the newer machines like those from Commodore. I think this is impossible. As company you better put a machine on the market which is at LEAST the same as the old one but with enhanced features no matter at what area.

 

Because old Atari 800 was to expensive to make. They had to come up with a cheaper model to be able to compet with Commodore. Else gamers would by the cheaper computer. The old models was VERY expensive to buy. The price for the orginal Atari 800 in Sweden was almost was about 650 euro.

 

Well I never had problems with my 600 and 800xl and I never have seen strange things on screen so hmmmmm.

[DimensionX]

Now you see the differences between the machines.

 

Yes, the C64 game has twice the horizontal resolution for the scrolling and sprite movement, uses a mixture of high resolution and multicolour graphics, scrolls at a faster speed and moves a significantly larger play area - and those differences are just for a start.

 

The games are nothing you even could call for similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...

 

Mayhem In Monsterland is using a couple of colour mixing tricks, one of which relies on the way colours of a similar luminance will "merge" to produce other colours (similar but not quite the same to how APAC works on the Atari 8-bit). These mixed colours are not visible in emulator screenshots or YouTube videos because the palettes used are not totally accurate, so unless you're actually running it on a real C64 you're simply not seeing what would actually be displayed.

 

At least we agree of one thing. These two games looks very different. I personally prefer Crownland by far for it's almost glasslike colours. So much cleaner.

 

And that's the reason that i like Atari, for it's colours.

Edited May 1, 2010 by DimensionX

[TMR]

Display it's all about hardware. A certain computer will always have a certain type of display depending on it's hardware. All computers differs in display.

 

So your definition of "Atari graphics" is basically something that only a finite number of Atari 8-bits can display... and none of the emulator screenshots you've posted represent them. Bit dim of you to keep posting all of those images then, wasn't it.