Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl

[TMR]

Greetings, I never heard much about the atari 8bit machines back in the day; I was curious to know what the best examples of r-type/gradius-esque side-scrolling shooters were on the machine - can't find many.

Is there anything like armalyte on it ?

 

No, there isn't really - there were a few discussions a couple of weeks back about the possibility of getting something running from it's graphics but i don't think anybody had a working sprite engine that can even manage half of what the C64 version is doing at the same framerate. There are some good horizontally scrolling shooters out there such as Zybex (probably my personal favourite, although the C64 version is far more colourful and detailed), Lowca, Kult or Humanoid but there's nothing handling the sprite counts of the busier C64 games.

 

I'm sure that you will find something that's similar to gradius and armalyte.

 

Only in the very loose sense it'll be a horizontally scrolling shoot 'em up.

[DimensionX]

Greetings, I never heard much about the atari 8bit machines back in the day; I was curious to know what the best examples of r-type/gradius-esque side-scrolling shooters were on the machine - can't find many.

Is there anything like armalyte on it ?

 

No, there isn't really - there were a few discussions a couple of weeks back about the possibility of getting something running from it's graphics but i don't think anybody had a working sprite engine that can even manage half of what the C64 version is doing at the same framerate. There are some good horizontally scrolling shooters out there such as Zybex (probably my personal favourite, although the C64 version is far more colourful and detailed), Lowca, Kult or Humanoid but there's nothing handling the sprite counts of the busier C64 games.

 

I'm sure that you will find something that's similar to gradius and armalyte.

 

Only in the very loose sense it'll be a horizontally scrolling shoot 'em up.

 

Perhaps you missunderstand what i'm trying to say?

 

Atari has a palette of 256 different colours, but you can't use all of them at the same time, unless you perform some clever programming.

 

But that's not the point.

 

The point is to be able to choose from a big palette of colours, which C64 can't.

 

What i basically mean is that Atari has a much bigger palette to choose colours from. Not that Atari all the time uses 128 or 256 different colours at once on screen. In C64 games you'll see the same colours all the time because lack of a big palette to choose any other colours from. If we watch 30 different games on Atari, you will se much difference in coloursetting, even if Atari just use 4 different colours for that particular game. On C64 it's the same colours all the time from game to game. You will recognize the typical green colour that C64 produces in game after game after game. That don't happend on Atari because of a much bigger palette to choose from. And because Atari has so much more colours to choose from, you can create fine hues of colours which is impossible on the C64. And that's why the Atari games looks so much better.

 

The explanation for that Atari games in many cases looks more clear is because the creator can choose just the right colour to fit from a big palette of colours. Something impossible on C64.

 

No, i don't hate C64 at all, i use VICE to play C64 games all the time, i just want to show why Atari was the best 8bit computer in graphics.

 

I even bought a Vic 20 in 1983.

Edited April 23, 2010 by DimensionX

[TMR]

Perhaps you missunderstand what i'm trying to say?

 

Atari has a palette of 256 different colours

 

Oh for crying out loud... it has 128 colours for the graphics modes being discussed because that's what CTIA Atari 8-bits kick out and the GTIA machines retain that presumably for compatibility. If we're talking about misunderstandings, that's your starting point.

 

but you can't use all of them at the same time, unless you perform some clever programming.

 

Yes, thanks for repeating what i've already told you... s'just a shame you didn't say that when you talked about a "256 colour mode used in many games for Atari" previously.

 

On C64 it's the same colours all the time from game to game. You will recognize the typical green colour that C64 produces in game after game after game. That don't happend on Atari because of a much bigger palette to choose from.

 

Except of course they did repeat colours a lot on the A8 because many games use similar luminances to get bias relief and other related graphical styles. There are limits as to which colours can be used for hardware sprites as well if they're pairing off to generate multicolour objects, so sometimes the "clear colours" you've been wibbling on about were chosen more because when their values are ORed together they produce a desired third colour, not because they're somehow the "right" colours to use.

 

And as i've already said repeatedly that argument is utter bunk anyway because it's not just about the palette - for many people, a well drawn graphic in a fixed sixteen colours will still look better than a badly drawn one with a 128 colour palette to choose from and that's because it's subjective; trying to justify it with rubbish like the "clear colours" thing doesn't hold any water at all, if we're going around inventing ridiculous terms like that i'll just call the entire C64 palette "sparkly" and say that trumps "clear".

 

No, i don't hate C64 at all, i use VICE to play C64 games all the time

 

i never said that you hate the C64, so stop trying to put words into my mouth.

[DimensionX]

Perhaps you missunderstand what i'm trying to say?

 

Atari has a palette of 256 different colours

 

Oh for crying out loud... it has 128 colours for the graphics modes being discussed because that's what CTIA Atari 8-bits kick out and the GTIA machines retain that presumably for compatibility. If we're talking about misunderstandings, that's your starting point.

 

but you can't use all of them at the same time, unless you perform some clever programming.

 

Yes, thanks for repeating what i've already told you... s'just a shame you didn't say that when you talked about a "256 colour mode used in many games for Atari" previously.

 

On C64 it's the same colours all the time from game to game. You will recognize the typical green colour that C64 produces in game after game after game. That don't happend on Atari because of a much bigger palette to choose from.

 

Except of course they did repeat colours a lot on the A8 because many games use similar luminances to get bias relief and other related graphical styles. There are limits as to which colours can be used for hardware sprites as well if they're pairing off to generate multicolour objects, so sometimes the "clear colours" you've been wibbling on about were chosen more because when their values are ORed together they produce a desired third colour, not because they're somehow the "right" colours to use.

 

And as i've already said repeatedly that argument is utter bunk anyway because it's not just about the palette - for many people, a well drawn graphic in a fixed sixteen colours will still look better than a badly drawn one with a 128 colour palette to choose from and that's because it's subjective; trying to justify it with rubbish like the "clear colours" thing doesn't hold any water at all, if we're going around inventing ridiculous terms like that i'll just call the entire C64 palette "sparkly" and say that trumps "clear".

 

No, i don't hate C64 at all, i use VICE to play C64 games all the time

 

i never said that you hate the C64, so stop trying to put words into my mouth.

 

You're still missing the point.

 

The point is that the programmer can choose exactly what colours to use from a big palette of colours. Something that is impossible on C64 where you only have 16 colours to work with. You can't choose that special red nuance you want to put on that dark red cube. You have to use one of that available 16 colours. And there isn't more then one red nuance left to choose from. On Atari you can choose among many nuances of red to find just the right one that you want. Even if you only use 12 colours for your game.

 

Old Computers.com wrote

 

COLORS. 16 (each color can have 8 luminances) = 128 colors maximum in the lowest graphic mode (requiring display list interruption to have them simultaneously) and up to 256 colors in some specific modes for machines having the GTIA chip instead of the CTIA

 

Perhaps you should change the info on Wiki?

 

PNG, 321x362px, 5 KB (0 MB)

 

C64 in PAL version didn't even had 1 Mhz CPU frequency.

 

PNG, 340x360px, 5 KB (0 MB)

 

Of the screenshots i posted, can you find some bad drawing in the Atari version of the game?

 

No? Neither can i.

 

And i didn't say that you called me a C64 hater, i only wanted to make clear that i'm not. I trying to be honest instead. C64 was a good computer in many ways, but i can't match the graphics on the Atari 800. If it could, i would be the first one to say so and agree with you.

 

I don't say that every Atari 800 game looks much better then it's C64 counterpart, then i would be lying. What i say is that Atari is capable of producing graphical effects in the games that is beyond what C64 can handle. C64 can't produce multicolorspreads with it's 16 colours for exempel. C64 can't use alternate fine nuances of red, green or any other colour. Atari can do all that. Therefore Atari is the better machine in the graphics department.

Edited April 23, 2010 by DimensionX

[TMR]

On Atari you can choose among many nuances of red to find just the right one that you want. Even if you only use 12 colours for your game.

 

Read what i said again; some of the "clearer colours" you're talking about are chosen not because the graphics designer or programmer felt they best suited the job but because their particular bit patterns were required to get another colour elsewhere. The way colour is selected on the Atari 8-bit isn't as flexible as you appear to believe, it looks great on paper but actually trying to design something with it is a different matter - it's just as challenging as the C64 in that respect, often more so.

 

Old Computers.com wrote

 

COLORS. 16 (each color can have 8 luminances) = 128 colors maximum in the lowest graphic mode (requiring display list interruption to have them simultaneously) and up to 256 colors in some specific modes for machines having the GTIA chip instead of the CTIA

 

Perhaps you should change the info on Wiki?

 

And perhaps you should just have taken my bloody word for it and saved us a load of time.

 

That paragraph isn't accurate either by the way, the "lowest graphic mode" would be the 80x192 or 80x96 res and they're the ones that can access all 256 colours, it's the higher resolution modes, 160x* and 320x* that are present in both CTIA and GTIA machines, that only have access to 128.

 

C64 in PAL version didn't even had 1 Mhz CPU frequency.

 

Yes i know. Your point being...?

 

Of the screenshots i posted, can you find some bad drawing in the Atari version of the game?

 

No? Neither can i.

 

Actually i can, some of the graphics you've posted are rather poor on both machines and most of them i wouldn't personally use as examples.

 

I don't say that every Atari 800 game looks much better then it's C64 counterpart, then i would be lying. What i say is that Atari is capable of producing graphical effects in the games that is beyond what C64 can handle. C64 can't produce multicolorspreads with it's 16 colours for exempel. C64 can't use alternate fine nuances of red, green or any other colour. Atari can do all that. Therefore Atari is the better machine in the graphics department.

 

The Atari 8-bit can't produce an attribute-based 320x200 pixel display or mix high resolution and multicolour characters on a cell-by-cell basis. It can't render eight sprites over that display at high resolution or even eight sprites on a scanline with three colours each. It can't move sprites or scroll horizontally in half colour clock steps. Those are just as valid arguments in the C64's favour and all these points and indeed more need to be considered when discussing the graphical abilities of both machines. Simples.

[ceti331]

really does remind me of an 8bit amiga. the rasterbars, & limited sprites that usually end up being player sprite only

 

I'd be really curious to see community homebrew attempts at an r-type clone, or even just proof of concept like the '800xl turrican engine' visible on youtube

 

zybex was interesting.. was it making the compromise of software sprites only moving on byte boundaries?

 

 

could the 800xl smooth scroll/doublebuffer a 160x192x2bpp Bitmap, or would you use character map modes

[ceti331]

No, i don't hate C64 at all, i use VICE to play C64 games all the time, i just want to show why Atari was the best 8bit computer in graphics.

 

i have to admit from an unbiased perspective (i had a bbc micro) the c64 looks like the better machine overall due to superior sprites.

 

It'll take an r-type clone or demo to convince me otherwise

 

Nonetheless the machine interests me a lot.. does look like it had more trickery available. Its place in history & home computer evolution is very interesting.

I see what you mean about it being able to produce more varied visuals, as such it would appear to have been the most interesting programmers/creators machine at the time

Edited April 23, 2010 by ceti331

[DimensionX]

I will give you something to look at, and think about.

 

IF C64 was as good as Atari 800?

 

Why, didn't any of the games looked like this?

 

You tell me.

 

Let me guess. It can't be done with only 16 colours?

 

PNG, 684x9564px, 434 KB (0.42 MB)

 

Atari 800 was the true "rainbow machine" with it's clear colours that C64 never could produce. We saw them even in the early games from 1982. Atari 800 was the 8bit Amiga in many ways.

[Atarigmr]

There we go again...

[+wood_jl]

Is the longstanding Atari vs. C64 thread locked? If not, this debate should be moved over there so the same arguments aren't repeated.

 

I think the Atari palette and C64 sprites were discussed at length over there.

 

Better yet, why is it that nobody for Atari wants to argue over at Format Wars?

 

There's an entire contingency of Commodore users foaming at the mouth for new prey. The link was provided a few posts up and it's as easy to log in there as it is here.

 

 

edit: Not to mention, the Atari version of Gauntlet shouldn't be included in the Atari side of the arguement. Not only is the C64 title screen better than the Atari screen, the entire game is.

Edited April 23, 2010 by wood_jl

[ceti331]

Atari 800 was the true "rainbow machine" with it's clear colours that C64 never could produce. We saw them even in the early games from 1982.

 

Given the choice between the colours & sprites, i'd definitely choose the sprites.

Those screenshots are mostly gimicky titlescreens; rasterbars can't replace real sprite/character colour choices for actual object detail.

the C64 is clearly superior for *games*. a8 for 'tinkering with graphics'

 

Atari 800 was the 8bit Amiga in many ways.

agree, but mainly similar in that the hardware sprites were only usefull for player character

regardless, c64=8bit winner, amiga=16bit winner.

 

wow. i'm being drawn into an argument about 2 machines i never owned! These debates will never wear thin.

interestingly i think I would have been very content if i owned an atari 8bit machine at the time.

Edited April 23, 2010 by ceti331

[DimensionX]

Atari 800 was the true "rainbow machine" with it's clear colours that C64 never could produce. We saw them even in the early games from 1982.

 

Given the choice between the colours & sprites, i'd definitely choose the sprites.

Those screenshots are mostly gimicky titlescreens; rasterbars can't replace real sprite/character colour choices for actual object detail.

the C64 is clearly superior for *games*. a8 for 'tinkering with graphics'

 

Atari 800 was the 8bit Amiga in many ways.

agree, but mainly similar in that the hardware sprites were only usefull for player character

regardless, c64=8bit winner, amiga=16bit winner.

 

wow. i'm being drawn into an argument about 2 machines i never owned! These debates will never wear thin.

interestingly i think I would have been very content if i owned an atari 8bit machine at the time.

 

We are still just talking 16 colours, like ZX Spectrum (with bright mode). The colours is still the same game after game, and it shows. The ST had a limit of 16 on screen colours too, but a palette of 512 to choose from. And to be honest i don't really think that the 64 version have better sprites. Then it depends on how much work the programmer has put in to make a good version of the game for that particular computer.

 

When we compare computers, have a look at this.

 

PNG, 592x1290px, 127 KB (0.12 MB)

 

C64 to the left, ZX Spectrum to the right.

 

ZX Spectrum actually looks better sometimes because of a higher resolution. Check out Pac Mania for exemple.

 

ZX Spectrums limited hardware (including colour clash) made the games sometimes look a bit better, funny enough.

Edited April 23, 2010 by DimensionX

[TMR]

really does remind me of an 8bit amiga. the rasterbars, & limited sprites that usually end up being player sprite only

 

I'd be really curious to see community homebrew attempts at an r-type clone, or even just proof of concept like the '800xl turrican engine' visible on youtube

 

At the moment there isn't one that i'm aware of, at least not horizontal. i've got

of an engine abusing the hardware sprites but it can only handle about six objects and will break if more than two end up on the same scanline.

 

zybex was interesting.. was it making the compromise of software sprites only moving on byte boundaries?

 

Nope, each byte represents four multicolour pixels so byte boundaries would skip that distance each time.

 

could the 800xl smooth scroll/doublebuffer a 160x192x2bpp Bitmap, or would you use character map modes

 

It can quite happily scroll 160x192x2bpp without the need for double buffering - the LMS commands in the display list can repoint the start of screen memory with a few restrictions so coarse scrolling is just a matter of changing that value to make it move. LMS commands can only look at 4K blocks of memory though, so a full bitmap will need to be handled as two half screen blocks of memory with an LMS command each. The only limitation with the smooth scrolling is that it can only move colour clocks, so it steps multicolour pixels rather than high res ones.

 

Me personally, i've been trying to do things with the character-based modes because there's an extra playfield colour available and the 4K limit on LMS commands don't apply.

[TMR]

I will give you something to look at, and think about.

 

IF C64 was as good as Atari 800?

 

Why, didn't any of the games looked like this?

 

If i could be bothered to play this game yet again, i could happily produce twice as many C64 games where the A8 couldn't display the graphics for at least one reason. So again you're not proving a single thing.

[DimensionX]

There we go again...

 

Because it's fun to compare old computers.

 

Nothing else.

 

I hope that you don't think that we take this seriously? I like all the old computers and plays all of them via emulator, from ZX81 to BBC, ZX Spectrum, C64 or Atari 800. (i emulate Amiga and Atari ST too).

 

Long live both C64 and Atari 800.

 

It's just fun to compare.

[DimensionX]

I will give you something to look at, and think about.

 

IF C64 was as good as Atari 800?

 

Why, didn't any of the games looked like this?

 

If i could be bothered to play this game yet again, i could happily produce twice as many C64 games where the A8 couldn't display the graphics for at least one reason. So again you're not proving a single thing.

 

I don't have to prove a thing.

 

Because it shows when you take a look at the screens.

 

No hard feelings and thanks for an interesting discussion. TMR.

 

So, you're a programmer?

 

I'm a muscision and retrofreak.

Edited April 23, 2010 by DimensionX

[TMR]

If i could be bothered to play this game yet again, i could happily produce twice as many C64 games where the A8 couldn't display the graphics for at least one reason. So again you're not proving a single thing.

 

I don't have to prove a thing.

 

Because it shows when you take a look at the screens.

 

Again, i wouldn't have chosen more than five or six of those screens to show off the Atari 8-bit under any circumstances and some of them are nowhere near as good looking as their C64 equivalents (Blinky's Scary School, Gauntlet or Draconus immediately spring to mind) whilst a few are truly hideous - i was wrong in one respect, because you've proved that you should probably get your eyes tested...!

 

So, you're a programmer?

 

It wasn't obvious from how i've been talking about programming in a programming sub forum you mean...?!

 

Well yes, i'm a programmer and graphics artist and have written games for the C64, C16/Plus/4, VIC 20, Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit and so forth as well as providing support and graphics for various projects - right now i'm working on a couple of things, one of which is an A8 shoot 'em up and another a Spectrum game (before now i've only done graphics for it) but since i'm teaching myself Z80 on the fly for that one it's only being aimed at the CSSCGC and isn't a serious game... my first Atari 8-bit game (mine as in design, code and graphics) was Reaxion, which was released five years ago and looks like this...

 

 

...my last C64 game (released at the end of 2009) looks like this...

 

 

...and that's impossible to do on the Atari 8-bit for no less than three different reasons (four if you include the colour effect on the titles page). Oh, and i'm also the homebrew reviewer for Retro Gamer magazine.

[GroovyBee]

...and that's impossible to do on the Atari 8-bit...

Ahem! But not impossible on the Atari 7800 .

[ceti331]

Because it shows when you take a look at the screens.

 

i'll agree some of the titlescreens / set peices are prettier.

for actual moving gameplay, the C64's sprite system is the clear winner.

 

The colours is still the same game after game

 

IMO, doesn't matter. Object detail in both cases appears to be ramps of 3 shades.

Sure the C64 can look a bit muddy where its approximating with greys/browns, but the overall effect appears better due to the colour choice per sprite & background cell, producing more scope for object detail & variety.

 

I guess you could always piss around with the color/brightness settings on the telly to tint it

 

 

In the 16bit days I thought the bitmap brothers games were the best - for me they beat the psygnosis dual-playfield amiga-only titles (Gods > SOTB, Xenon > Menace, etc etc)

 

The BB games all used very similar palettes, but it worked well.. lots of detail in the objects, much more interesting than other games with more varied palettes.

(obviously 32color titles were my favourite)

Yes the A8 & amiga were VERY similar in this respect.

[ceti331]

Well yes, i'm a programmer and graphics artist and have written games for the C64, C16/Plus/4, VIC 20, Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit and so forth as well as providing support and graphics for various projects - right now i'm working on a couple of things, one of which is an A8 shoot 'em up

 

5 colors?

is that 2bpp tiles, 4 colors across most of the screen, with 1 bit selecting an alternate color for some of the tiles?

was it 1byte per tile (7bits tile index, with the upper bit selecting the alternate color) or what

Edited April 23, 2010 by ceti331

[TMR]

5 colors?

is that 2bpp tiles, 4 colors across most of the screen, with 1 bit selecting an alternate color for some of the tiles?

was it 1byte per tile (7bits tile index, with the upper bit selecting the alternate color) or what

 

It's the latter, one byte per character with 7 bits selecting the actual definition (so only 128 characters in a font compared to 256 on the C64) and the top bit selects one of two playfield colours for the %11 bit pair. It has it's pluses and minuses, the DMA fetch for each character line is... [ahem] aggresive.

[TMR]

...and that's impossible to do on the Atari 8-bit...

Ahem! But not impossible on the Atari 7800 .

 

And did you see me even consider claiming otherwise...? No, because i value my life too much! =-)

[DimensionX]

If i could be bothered to play this game yet again, i could happily produce twice as many C64 games where the A8 couldn't display the graphics for at least one reason. So again you're not proving a single thing.

 

I don't have to prove a thing.

 

Because it shows when you take a look at the screens.

 

Again, i wouldn't have chosen more than five or six of those screens to show off the Atari 8-bit under any circumstances and some of them are nowhere near as good looking as their C64 equivalents (Blinky's Scary School, Gauntlet or Draconus immediately spring to mind) whilst a few are truly hideous - i was wrong in one respect, because you've proved that you should probably get your eyes tested...!

 

So, you're a programmer?

 

It wasn't obvious from how i've been talking about programming in a programming sub forum you mean...?!

 

Well yes, i'm a programmer and graphics artist and have written games for the C64, C16/Plus/4, VIC 20, Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit and so forth as well as providing support and graphics for various projects - right now i'm working on a couple of things, one of which is an A8 shoot 'em up and another a Spectrum game (before now i've only done graphics for it) but since i'm teaching myself Z80 on the fly for that one it's only being aimed at the CSSCGC and isn't a serious game... my first Atari 8-bit game (mine as in design, code and graphics) was Reaxion, which was released five years ago and looks like this...

 

 

...my last C64 game (released at the end of 2009) looks like this...

 

 

...and that's impossible to do on the Atari 8-bit for no less than three different reasons (four if you include the colour effect on the titles page). Oh, and i'm also the homebrew reviewer for Retro Gamer magazine.

 

I'm speaking of "colours" and the quality of them. The games looked like that on Atari already 1982 because of the hardware. When C64 had a single colour Atari used the rainbow effekt used in sooo many games. Check out the game "Dimension X" for Atari 800 via AtariWin800 to see what i mean. Impossible to do such thing on C64.

 

I thrust you when you say it's impossible to do that on an Atari. But the Atari games looked stunning already at 1983.

 

Here's my blog, i write some reviews too.

 

Unfortanly it's in swedish but i plan to write in english too.

http://gamlaspel.wordpress.com/

 

Nice games. I whish you good luck with your game creation.

 

This is Atari...

 

Edited April 23, 2010 by DimensionX

[ceti331]

5 colors?

is that 2bpp tiles, 4 colors across most of the screen, with 1 bit selecting an alternate color for some of the tiles?

was it 1byte per tile (7bits tile index, with the upper bit selecting the alternate color) or what

 

It's the latter, one byte per character with 7 bits selecting the actual definition (so only 128 characters in a font compared to 256 on the C64) and the top bit selects one of two playfield colours for the %11 bit pair. It has it's pluses and minuses, the DMA fetch for each character line is... [ahem] aggresive.

 

so the C64 clearly has a lot more data per screen, and used very intelligently. More character/sprite map attribute data is infinitely preferable to raster effects.

Hence the better graphics.

 

I'm guessing A8 games mess around re-pointing the character definitions alot? must be alot of options for trickery there.

Edited April 23, 2010 by ceti331

[GroovyBee]

No, because i value my life too much! =-)

I really don't know what you are referring to . I'm a pussy cat, me.