I'm drooling over your anticipated Amstrad feature...

Want to air your opinions on the latest issue of Retro Gamer? Step inside...

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

chinnyhill10
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 am

Re:

Post by chinnyhill10 » Mon May 15, 2006 11:55 am

TMR wrote:
chinnyhill10 wrote:In many ways it's easier to make a standout C64 version of a game as it has to be coded from scratch and won't have to "compete" against another system with a simaler spec.
Actually, that's why Chase HQ was rank on the C64; from what i understand the code was ported from the Speccy/CPC versions and the only concession made for the CPU being half the speed at the breadbin end was replacing the player's vehicle with hardware sprites! And don't get me started on Hard Drivin'...
But surely porting Z80 code to 6502 is almost as much work as just starting again from scratch with the 6502 code, using the Z80 code as reference.

IIRC Head Over Heels was ported to the C64 via line by line recoding from the Z80 source. That coder did a far better job though.

Hard Driven was quite impressive at the time on the Z80 based machines if slow. I can't imagine what a C64 version would be like. I've always tried to avoid that kind of game on the C64 unless one falls in my lap (like some of the Freescape games did).

Still have a big box of C64 games waiting to be played.

User avatar
stigodump
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:58 pm

Re:

Post by stigodump » Mon May 15, 2006 12:12 pm

Opa-Opa wrote:OK, so....
Head over Heals = Spectrum
Wizzball = CBM 64
CPC = ...?

What game was the CPC version the best..?
Opa-Opa wrote:As a gamer if the CPC did have a great version of "so and so" that made all the others look crap I want to play it, I just have never really come across any game that was far better on the CPC in the same way that Wizzball or Buggy Boy were far better on the CBM (for example..)
Ignorant posts like this really, really make me mad. You obviously have never played a CPC yet you see fit to say the Speccy version of Head Over Heals is better. You've never played Chase HQ obviously. You've never played any Freescape game. You've obviously never played any of Raphael Cecco's games and you've also never played Gryzor. EASILY the best version.

Oh and it's my personal opinion but CBM Wizball isn't THAT much better than the CPC version believe it or not. :roll:

User avatar
TMR
Posts: 5756
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:56 am
Location: Leeds, U.K.
Contact:

Re:

Post by TMR » Mon May 15, 2006 12:13 pm

chinnyhill10 wrote:But surely porting Z80 code to 6502 is almost as much work as just starting again from scratch with the 6502 code, using the Z80 code as reference.
Just as much work, but less creative ability; converting games was, at the time, more about writing a new game that pretended as closely as possible to be the original and that part was already done if the code were line for line ported, so anyone with just a reasonable knowledge of Z80 and 6502 could handle the job rather than requiring one of the more creative coders who knew the target platform well and would use it's facilities more thoroughly.
chinnyhill10 wrote:IIRC Head Over Heels was ported to the C64 via line by line recoding from the Z80 source. That coder did a far better job though.
Thing is, it could probably have been done better if some reworking for the C64 had happened...

chinnyhill10
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 am

Re:

Post by chinnyhill10 » Mon May 15, 2006 12:28 pm

TMR wrote: Thing is, it could probably have been done better if some reworking for the C64 had happened...
Actually, my memory re Head Over Heels may be cheating. I know one version was ported line by line from the Z80 code (including some bugs) but I now get the nagging feeling it might have been the 68000 version and not the 6502.

Can anyone clarify?

chinnyhill10
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 am

Re:

Post by chinnyhill10 » Mon May 15, 2006 12:45 pm

stigodump wrote: Oh and it's my personal opinion but CBM Wizball isn't THAT much better than the CPC version believe it or not. :roll:
The C64 seems to have a sprinkling of "magic fairy dust" that just sets it apart. If you have both versions, you'd opt for the C64 version. Just like Buggy Boy. The CPC version is perfectly servicable but the C64 version has the edge.

Gotta be honest though, I never thought Wizball was that great in anycase.

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 4304
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re:

Post by Opa-Opa » Mon May 15, 2006 1:06 pm

stigodump wrote: Ignorant posts like this really, really make me mad. You obviously have never played a CPC yet you see fit to say the Speccy version of Head Over Heals is better. You've never played Chase HQ obviously. You've never played any Freescape game. You've obviously never played any of Raphael Cecco's games and you've also never played Gryzor. EASILY the best version.

Oh and it's my personal opinion but CBM Wizball isn't THAT much better than the CPC version believe it or not. :roll:
LOL :lol: Allright calm down, I have owned a CPC and I found it to be no-where near as good as a Speccy or a CBM 64. Granted I got rid of it about 2 weeks after I bought it though because I had no games on it that made me think it was worth keeping.
Both Commodore and Sinclair made machines that were innovative, before these two companys came along all we had were TV pong and Atari 2600 machines. Amstrad saw a market and thought "let's have a slice of that pie", knocked up a cheap home machine that offered nothing new what-so-ever and tried to take our money...
As I said before I am looking foward to reading about this machine, and hopefully learning something from the article....

Why do CPC owners get so worked up because their machine of choice puts them in the minority..? It's not my fault my parents made the right choice :) now chill out before you have an aneurysm.

User avatar
GetDexter
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 8:21 am
Location: Marsport
Contact:

Post by GetDexter » Mon May 15, 2006 1:14 pm

And did anyone play Sorcery on the Speccy? A load of dingo's kidneys.
The Amstrad version however was a completely different ball game - bright, colourful, playable and I think the first game (I think it came out about six months after the Amstrad was released) to really give an inkling of the power contained within this new computer.

Why did the Amstrad succeed when so many others (The Enterprise, Msx, Oric Atmos, Electron) failed ? I honestly don't think it was simply a case of the marketing expertise of Amstrad - a large factor of it's success surely has to be down to the fact it was a genuinely powerful 8-bit computer.

Oh, while I'm here, a few other games that only really come alive on the Amstrad -

Batman (the 3d Jon Ritman & Bernie Drummond version - PROGRAMMED on an Amstrad)
Head Over Heels (ditto)
Sabre Wulf (adds that extra colour and polish that the Spectrum version lacks)
Yie Ar Kung Fu - Faster and more colour ful than the other versions.
Purple Saturn Day - The graphics, dude, the graphics...
The Pawn
Guild Of Theives
Jinxter
- The built in disk drive and extra memory of the 6128 encouraged companies like Magnetic Scrolls to release their adventures on the Amstrad and I don't think Spectrum or Commodore users were given the same priority.
Paradroid - Now I'm just asking for trouble... :wink:
As requested by the Tw@t himself - his account was Hijacked and has had a change of password.

Sorry Dexter!

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Mon May 15, 2006 1:47 pm

As mentioned above, Amstrad games just didn't seem to have that special 'magic' that made their version playing above any

I can't believe that anyone would prefer to play Wizball on the Amstrad rather than the C64.With the odd exception,the games that Amstrad bettered it's 8 bit counterparts with weren't the greatest

What I'm saying is that the Amstrad didn't have that 'killer app' that made it's machine worth buying.The Speccy had Ultimate , the C64 had US Gold/Epyx/Access , the Amstrad had..Amsoft

You got to take digs at your machine with a pinch of salt..we're just repeating arguments we had at school at the time.
The only thing C64 and Speccy owners could agree on
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
stigodump
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:58 pm

Post by stigodump » Mon May 15, 2006 1:49 pm

Image

Ahh, that's better. Headache gone.

It gets on my nerves when people dismiss a machine as having inferior games when I know that not only does it have games that are equal to either the Speccy or C64 versions, but it also has better versions of games on those machines. Just as the Speccy has some games that's better and C64 has games that are better so does the CPC have games better than the C64 and Speccy versions.

It seems that people are keen to rubbish the CPC even though they never really played it. Anyone who has played any of the games I mentioned on the machine would know they are brilliant versions.

It also seems to be the one thing that unifies the masses. Everyone seems to get in a heated debate over whether the Speccy or the C64 is best. The argument is usually settled by both camps agreeing to disagree but agreeing that the CPC is censored. Which leaves CPC fans having to fight their cause against both sets of fans.

User avatar
stigodump
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:58 pm

Post by stigodump » Mon May 15, 2006 2:00 pm

Just because the C64 and Speccy fans say the CPC is censored doesn't necessarily make it so. It just shows how biased and ignorant they are.

chinnyhill10
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 am

Re:

Post by chinnyhill10 » Mon May 15, 2006 2:07 pm

Opa-Opa wrote: Both Commodore and Sinclair made machines that were innovative, before these two companys came along all we had were TV pong and Atari 2600 machines. Amstrad saw a market and thought "let's have a slice of that pie", knocked up a cheap home machine that offered nothing new what-so-ever and tried to take our money...
Of course Amstrad wanted a piece of the pie. They knew they could do better but it was a very risky venture. They were not a huge company by any means and other 8 bits were falling by the wayside all the time.

Amstrad did innovate. They saw demand for a home computer as opposed to a games machine which was what the C64 and Speccy had been reduced to. A computer that could be used by Dad to write letters and also could be used to play games. Amstrad also saw that the tangle of leads and the fact that the Speccy and C64 needed to use the family TV also put people off. Where they innovated was by offering a complete package.

They also had a belief in what would work in a market where more machines were failing than suceeding.

They innovated by designing the CRTC, without which the CPC would have been a glorified Spectrum. They also used their knowledge of manufacturing in the Far East to get the chips and computers manufactured and more importantly with a reputation of being very reliable (at the time Spectrums were being made in the Timex factory in Scotland, with high failure rates). Take a look at a Spectrum circuitboard before and after Amstrad took over to see Amstrads approach. Custom intergrated chips instead of a mess of components.

And today do we sit at PC's with dedicated monitors and proper keyboards, or do we used rubber keys on the family TV set? Sir Clive was a brillient brillient man, and he innovated, but he seriously wanted the Spectrum to be an all round computer but one that you'd plug into the family TV. I have Tasword on my Speccy, and it does your head in to use it on a TV. And that's the thing, innovators aren't always in touch with reality. Just like how he couldn't see that the C5 was a daft idea. The difference is that Amstrad knew what would work, and what wouldn't.

The key thing about the CPC is that forcing users to buy a monitor pushed the serious side of the machine as well. It was a stepping stone between the 8 bits and the PC era. It also pushed the CPC a notch above the Speccy and C64 which were seen as cheaper and not as serious.

If you look at the Amstrad PC, Amstrad didn't invent the PC, but they were the people who helped put a PC on everyones desk in this country. That was seeing a gap in the market as well.
Opa-Opa wrote: As I said before I am looking foward to reading about this machine, and hopefully learning something from the article....
Yes. And then perhaps you will not be making sweeping untrue statements on the messageboard.

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Mon May 15, 2006 2:13 pm

This is one of the reasons why so many machines nowadays are 'grey' and I don't mean the colour

Games machines used to have such distinctive features,from the Woody 2600 to the bread-bin C64 to the rubber key Spectrum

As soon as the Speccy got put in a +2 case,it lost it's character

I'd love to see a PC designed by Sir Clive
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

chinnyhill10
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 am

Re:

Post by chinnyhill10 » Mon May 15, 2006 2:21 pm

paranoid marvin wrote:As mentioned above, Amstrad games just didn't seem to have that special 'magic' that made their version playing above any

I can't believe that anyone would prefer to play Wizball on the Amstrad rather than the C64.With the odd exception,the games that Amstrad bettered it's 8 bit counterparts with weren't the greatest

What I'm saying is that the Amstrad didn't have that 'killer app' that made it's machine worth buying.The Speccy had Ultimate , the C64 had US Gold/Epyx/Access , the Amstrad had..Amsoft

You got to take digs at your machine with a pinch of salt..we're just repeating arguments we had at school at the time.
The only thing C64 and Speccy owners could agree on
Ultimate? Actually most of the Ultimate games that are avaliable on the CPC play the same if not better than the Speccy versions. A splash more colour and better sound.

As for the Amsoft comment, that's just lazy. For a start people forget that Amsoft (amongst much dross) published Sorcery Plus. Amsofts stated aim was to just ensure that the CPC had enough software, and quality didn't matter one jot. The exception was the "Amsoft Gold" range which the likes of Sorcery Plus came out under.

If we're going to throw names around, why not mention the French software houses? Titus, Infogrammes etc? Perhaps because many of their games didn't make it as far as the Spectrum and C64 or when they did they were poorly converted here in the UK? Titus the Fox, Prehistorik 2, BAT? The CPC recieved a cracking version of North and South which was only later converted to the other 8 bits. Since the CPC was the market leader in France, it was actively developed on, and popular games would be converted in the UK for the C64 and Spectrum (as the market for both machines basically did not exist in France).

However all 3 machines are very capable and have some great games avaliable for them. As I say, I own hundreds of games for all 3 major 8 bit formats (as well as a few BBC games :D ) and I'll defend each format to the death. However saying the CPC had no decent games and making blanket statements is as stupid as people who used to write of the Speccy because of it's graphics.

User avatar
stigodump
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:58 pm

Re:

Post by stigodump » Mon May 15, 2006 2:23 pm

paranoid marvin wrote:This is one of the reasons why so many machines nowadays are 'grey' and I don't mean the colour

Games machines used to have such distinctive features,from the Woody 2600 to the bread-bin C64 to the rubber key Spectrum

As soon as the Speccy got put in a +2 case,it lost it's character

I'd love to see a PC designed by Sir Clive
So would I.

I'm desperate to use a rubber unresponsive keyboard.
Why oh why don't computers have those now? I can't stand pressing a key and it working perfectly every time with little pressure. How dare Amstrad burden the Spectrum with a responsive keyboard.

chinnyhill10
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 am

Re:

Post by chinnyhill10 » Mon May 15, 2006 2:24 pm

paranoid marvin wrote:This is one of the reasons why so many machines nowadays are 'grey' and I don't mean the colour

Games machines used to have such distinctive features,from the Woody 2600 to the bread-bin C64 to the rubber key Spectrum

As soon as the Speccy got put in a +2 case,it lost it's character

I'd love to see a PC designed by Sir Clive
Actually, I still think the +3 is one of the sexiest looking machines of all time. In my old office I kept one of mine as an office talking point on the shelf.

The grey +2 doesn't look as good, but I suspect that was a rush job. IIRC the black +2a looks abit better.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest