Page 44 of 75

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:18 pm
by markopoloman
I liked Formula 1 simulator on the 64 - and have to admit never ever playing a C16 game :oops:


In what way do the graphics work out better on the C16?? :shock: The 64 version has a F1 car racing on a fairly important thing called a track. The 16 version has you racing in a field with some fence posts dotted around :x

I will have a go on the 16 version - but I cannot believe that this game minus the music minus a track could be better :?: :?: :wink:

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:51 am
by SirClive
I think it is better whn you compare it to other C16 games and take into account the limitations of the machine.

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:41 am
markopoloman wrote:In what way do the graphics work out better on the C16?? :shock:
Did I say that the C16 version had better graphics? ........................ NO!

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:20 pm
by markopoloman
QUOTE: The graphics are probably the best of all the versions (except the C64 - they are on a par with the C64 version). The sound, however, is slightly disappointing but not to bad.

So, the graphics are the best on c16 but are equal to the c64 :? - you are correct - you didn't say the C16 had the best graphics :roll:

Having had a go on the C16 and C64 versions earlier I can honestly say that although the 16 version is a good attempt at re-creating the 64 version, the limitations of the machine hinder it substantially. The graphics are only similar to the 64 version when you look at the car! Sense of speed id good - but it is down to fence posts moving quickly!

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:01 am
by GarryG
Attack of the Mutant Camels


The Atari has got the edge on the backdrop for this one, with a good use of the multi colour and DLI (display-Listi-Interupt) programming being used. The limitations of the Atari colour system are hidden, and the multicolored shading is used to good effect here.
The C64s single colour background isn't too bad as to be off-putting but isn’t exceptionally good ether. The C64 could do better.

Background Graphics: ATARI 1, C64 0

As for the character graphics, the Atari wins the ‘blocky camel of the year’ award, although the C64 was a very close second. Both machines have very noticeably block camel graphics, and both versions zip along at a good speed. It has to be said that the C64 ‘camel’ looks and moves a bit odd; the ‘camel’ seems more camel like in the Atari version
The C64 ship has the edge on brighter colours, and it does stand out a bit more than the Atari ship. The Atari ship has the good ‘build-up’ effect though, and is still very visible on screen. The flash effect on the camel looked very amateurish on the C64 version, the Atari has a good colour rotation ‘flash’ when the camel is hit.

Character Graphics: ATARI 1, C64 0

What on earth happened with the C64 sound? Sound is normally this machines strong point, but these spot effects sounded very week. The ATARI sound pumps along at a decent rate and sounds a lot more substantial than the C64s efforts. Not the result I expected from sound atoll!

Sound: ATARI 1, C64 0

The playability is normally the thing that ether makes or breaks a game for me, but I can honestly say I enjoyed playing both these games but the Atari version had the edge on graphics and speed.
Ok, I just had to give the C64 a point for something... and it is playable.

Playability: ATARI 1, C64 1

So my scoring system comes out as: [/b]ATARI 4/4, C64 1/4[/b]

This sounds like C64 bashing, but I’m honestly not. I went into this comparison remembering these games as more or less even. But on replaying them, they just aren’t. The Atari version looks and sounds better.

Pictures really don’t do this game justice, you have to see and hear it moving to get an idea of the playability.
Click on the pictures above to see a YouTube video of each game.

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:23 pm
by Celebaglar
GarryG wrote:It has to be said that the C64 ‘camel’ looks and moves a bit odd;
That's obviously because it's really two blokes in a camel suit. I thought everyone knew that. :)

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:27 pm
by LeeT
Minter always seemed to get more out of the 8-bit Atari than the C64.

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:32 pm
by tssk
LeeT wrote:Minter always seemed to get more out of the 8-bit Atari than the C64.
I don't know. The Atari screenshot reminds me a lot of the Camels level in Batalyx.

Looks like Minter put it to rights later.

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:36 am
by GarryG
The camel movement in the Atari version is a lot more animal like. The C64 one really does walk like two men in a camel suite!

I've just had another quick look at Revenge II, another game I had on the Atari but I never had the original C64 version, it has to be said that this version is a lot better, and there is a much less pronounced difference than in the first game.

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:06 am
by CraigGrannell
tssk wrote:I don't know. The Atari screenshot reminds me a lot of the Camels level in Batalyx.
Image Image

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:21 pm
by Scapegoat
The C64 and Atari one were a few years apart and it is a lot better (and, I think, tougher too) on the Atari, but Minters skills had improved over that time too.

Must admit, I had fond memories of that game when I first bought it. Must have played it for hours that day.

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:21 am
by E-Type
How many colours did the Atari have?

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:45 pm
by ivarf

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:59 am
by E-Type
So that Camel screenshot with all the browns and greys was a 256 colour pseudo-mode? I was surprised to see that as the few screenshots of the 8-bit Atari only had very few colours (say, 4).

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:24 am
by Emperor Fossil
I don't think it's a pseudo colour mode (as in using interlace or what have you). I think it's done with the Atari's DLI thingummy stuff. The end result is (I think) something like what you might know as raster bars on the c64 or copper bars on the Amiga -- bands of horizontal colour. Which makes it a cool effect, but limited in application.