Commodore 64 games ported to the Apple II?

[+FujiSkunk]

The scrolling routines tend to be pretty specific to job and if they can handle a certain amount of data going through each refresh that means they were designed for that amount of data regardless of how much time it takes; lowering the detail level of the existing graphics won't make that code any quicker (even with the source code to reassemble the game around the new data) because it still has to chunk the same amount of bytes around the screen.

 

Not if the graphics were designed such that not as many bytes had to be shuffled. Compare the C-64 and Apple II versions of Moon Patrol.

[carlsson]

And didn't MULE for the C64 support 4 players? I KNOW the NES version did, if you had the adapter.

Yes, it does. You can use two joysticks that the four players share for their individual turns, and the in the auction phase two of the players bang on the keyboard. If I recall correctly, the 800XL offers a similar solution, possibly that it also supports paddles for the auction phase which would give one on the joystick, two on the paddles and the last player on keyboard. Since the Apple ][ has analog joysticks that to a large part would be similar to paddles after all, I suppose an Apple version of M.U.L.E. could rely on one joystick, two "paddles" and one on the keyboard, if it is is hard to read multiple keys being pressed down at the same time. That is assuming there is a such thing as "paddles" for the Apple ][, or if the two pots always were connected together into an analog joystick.

[TMR]

Not if the graphics were designed such that not as many bytes had to be shuffled. Compare the C-64 and Apple II versions of Moon Patrol.

We were talking about generic routines and your suggestion that they'd be overloaded by the level of detail; even if you pulled the graphics out of Paperboy and redrew all the houses using lines it would still scroll at that speed because the routine still has to deal with the gaps and doesn't have enough memory for the pre-shifts needed to move more smoothly. Rewriting it so that everything lacks texture or much in the range of colour is of course possible but if you'd get something at the far end which would pass as a conversion of Paperboy is questionable and possibly still have issues with refresh speed. And if you're going to rework it that drastically, redesign the game for top down graphics and go for an Up 'N' Down approach, it'll doubtless get a kicking in reviews and from purists for taking liberties with the design but at least the game stands a chance of being playable...

[Serguei2]

Doesn't Apple 2 have 128k? Almost all Sierra games need 128k on Apple 2 to run.

[+FujiSkunk]

We were talking about generic routines and your suggestion that they'd be overloaded by the level of detail;

Of course simpler graphics alone wouldn't have helped if the same scrolling routine were used. I'm suggesting that more specialized routines combined with simpler graphics might have been the better way to go. Trying not to cram in so much audio on a system that was never designed to play sound and animate graphics at the same time also probably would have helped.

 

 

Rewriting it so that everything lacks texture or much in the range of colour is of course possible but if you'd get something at the far end which would pass as a conversion of Paperboy is questionable and possibly still have issues with refresh speed. And if you're going to rework it that drastically, redesign the game for top down graphics and go for an Up 'N' Down approach, it'll doubtless get a kicking in reviews and from purists for taking liberties with the design but at least the game stands a chance of being playable...

Eh, I'm willing to say the best approach would have been not to port Paperboy to the Apple II at all. But other ideas could have been tried, even beyond a better combination of graphic complexity and scrolling engine. Maybe no scrolling, and just refresh the screen one house at a time. That worked (sort of) for the Apple II port of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

[TMR]

Of course simpler graphics alone wouldn't have helped if the same scrolling routine were used.

You were talking previously about plugging C64 graphics into engines that "weren't meant for stuff with that much detail", i've just been pointing out that the engine will be the same regardless of detail level...

 

I'm suggesting that more specialized routines combined with simpler graphics might have been the better way to go.

[scratches head] It's not really that simple though... even with specialised code and pared down graphics it's still going to struggle because i doubt it'd free enough space (specialised code usually takes more RAM rather than less) for the pre-shifts required for smooth diagonal scrolling. You might get a noticeable speed boost from doing it but the actual motion won't get any smoother, it'll just step down and left X pixels a bit quicker.

 

 

 

Trying not to cram in so much audio on a system that was never designed to play sound and animate graphics at the same time also probably would have helped.

The simple solution for sound is to add the words "requires Mockingboard" to the box. =-)

 

(And i've been having so much fun with the Mockingboard over the last week or so... i finally got some of my tests to play roughly in tune a few hours ago!)

 

But other ideas could have been tried, even beyond a better combination of graphic complexity and scrolling engine.

In theory possibly, but in practice this is a conversion we're talking about and there won't have been the budget there to try the options.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TMR

[Charlie_]

Doesn't Apple 2 have 128k? Almost all Sierra games need 128k on Apple 2 to run.

I recently played through the Apple ii version of King's Quest on my IIgs and leaving the system speed at fast really benefits the game play.

 

It was more fun than playing the crawling paced actual IIgs version.

[Osgeld]

Doesn't Apple 2 have 128k? Almost all Sierra games need 128k on Apple 2 to run.

 

II's being expandable means you can find them anywhere from 4k to 2meg depending on model and cards. that being said most systems that can do high or double high res graphics have 128k (64 on board and another 64 on the 80 collumn card)

[Keatah]

Most II units for sale have already been expanded (on board) to 16, 32, or 48k bytes. Mainly 48k.

Most II+ units came with 48k standard. Upgrading them to 64k was a common 2nd upgrade, with the 1st being a set of disk drives.

 

All //e units come with 64k onboard. And it was cheap and typical to upgrade them to 128k/80column.

 

Ramworks cards from AE could, IIRC, take the //e to 6 MEGS. Not 2megs.

 

Apple II's and II+ units did not need 128k to do hi-res graphics. An amazing minimum of 16k was required. In fact A2-FS1 flight simulator worked with 16k, in hi-res!

[Serguei2]

It's seen paperboy was released on apple 2 series as well.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi8pv8Pqjbg