Atari vs C64 // was: 8-Bit Computer Poll

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

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

Locked

Best 8-Bit

ZX Spectrum
109
41%
Commodore 64
121
46%
Amstrad CPC 464
25
10%
BBC Micro
8
3%
 
Total votes: 263

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Tue May 08, 2007 6:05 am

Opa-Opa wrote:
darthy wrote:sorry but looking at the screenshots the spectrum version looks the worst by a mile.

the c64 version looks far better

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This statment so funny my sides are hurting but it still is painfull to see that people are judging games on how they look..

It's like judging which flavor of Ice-cream is better tasting because of the colour...
be it funny or not, the debate is about which was a better machine. clearly nicer AND faster graphics means a superior hardware. Playability does only measure the capabilities of the given programmer.

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Tue May 08, 2007 6:08 am

Sega2006 wrote:But on comparison you have to take into affect that Sinclair didnt strive for Graphics
thats a clear minus point for the speccy :lol: if the debate is about which was the better computer why should I neglect the fact that the speccy had crap gfx?

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Tue May 08, 2007 6:17 am

paranoid marvin wrote:The Speccy had some of the smoothest animation of sprites of the 8bits .

oh holy mother of god.... :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

the c64 can animate and move BIG sprites using its hardware, no color clashes, no cpu power needed for it, 50fps straight. To do animation / movement/ colors you just set up 7-8 registers and they there are.


maybe take a look of here for who had THE smoothest and nicest animations:
http://www.abc64.de/index.html

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

Post by TMR » Tue May 08, 2007 6:17 am

oswald wrote:Playability does only measure the capabilities of the given programmer.
In fact, it's far harder to quantify because it's incredibly relative; what i think is a good and playable game doesn't match with what anyone else finds to be playable, for example i have a soft spot for Chronos on the Speccy that most people wouldn't share, my all-time favourite game is Io on the C64 and i can't get on with Jet Set Willy on anything. So if we remove the impossible to judge part from the equation, the C64 has more going for it "out of the box" for game programmers than the other machines in the poll except for overall number of colours and the CPC wins that.

'Lo Oswald, by the way. =-)

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Tue May 08, 2007 6:22 am

Matt_B wrote:The basic trick to multicolour rendering on the Spectrum is changing the attributes between scanlines. Then, the next time the ULA reads them for the following line, you'll get different colours. Because it's so timing critical, it's really hard to get it working inside an action game where code will take different amounts of time to execute depending on the exact state of things.

It's pretty easy to get good results with static screens though and this is used in a lot of games. I even managed to work a 25 byte routine into my 1K minigame Deathrider that puts coloured stripes across the title logo whilst it's waiting for a game to start.

Spin does support multicolour rendering, but I belive it's turned off by default as few games use it and it's rather processor intesive.
that shows how bad the ULA was designed, it would be possible to read the colors only once for each char row, and then buffer them - like the c64 gfx chip does :lol:

gury
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 4:45 am
Contact:

Post by gury » Tue May 08, 2007 6:26 am

TMR wrote: In fact, it's far harder to quantify because it's incredibly relative; what i think is a good and playable game doesn't match with what anyone else finds to be playable, for example i have a soft spot for Chronos on the Speccy that most people wouldn't share, my all-time favourite game is Io on the C64 and i can't get on with Jet Set Willy on anything. So if we remove the impossible to judge part from the equation, the C64 has more going for it "out of the box" for game programmers than the other machines in the poll except for overall number of colours and the CPC wins that.

'Lo Oswald, by the way. =-)
From Atari computer side, there is huge number of playable games. I played a lot International Karate, Ninja, Chop Suey, Rainbow Walker (great color graphics where you walk on rainbow), Drop Zone, Draconus, Zaxxon and other countless great titles.
You are welcome to visit http://gury.atari8.info/

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Tue May 08, 2007 6:47 am

gury wrote: From Atari computer side, there is huge number of playable games. I played a lot International Karate, Ninja, Chop Suey, Rainbow Walker (great color graphics where you walk on rainbow), Drop Zone, Draconus, Zaxxon and other countless great titles.
the number of games on c64 makes your "huge" statement riciculous. googling and browsing the web I'd say there's like 400 games max for the atari. the c64 had thousands which makes it the better machine.... :lol:

oh HI TMR 8)

User avatar
Matt_B
Posts: 5529
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:30 am
Location: 5 minutes from the beach, 30 seconds from the pub

Post by Matt_B » Tue May 08, 2007 6:49 am

oswald wrote:that shows how bad the ULA was designed, it would be possible to read the colors only once for each char row, and then buffer them - like the c64 gfx chip does :lol:
I suspect the VIC-II does it that way because it has to. It's already a very hot chip running at 8MHz. Double that and you'd be able to see the glow from over the horizon. :lol:

The simpler graphics hardware of the other machines can be clocked a lot faster (14MHz on the Spectrum and 16MHz for the Amstrad CPC and BBC) which allows the former to do the double fetch giving multicolour rendering and the latter two to get twice the pixel density for their high resolution graphics modes.

User avatar
neuromancer
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:04 pm
Location: /dev/null
Contact:

Post by neuromancer » Tue May 08, 2007 6:50 am

andrew_rollings wrote:
neuromancer wrote:
Arjun wrote:ZX Spin is one of the most accurate speccy emulators for windows out there. Period.
Seems there's a bit of contention on this one - can Spin accurately emulate those Uridium effects?
Yes, and then some.
Is it better than Spectaculator? I'm happy to switch allegiance if it is...

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Tue May 08, 2007 6:58 am

Matt_B wrote:
oswald wrote:that shows how bad the ULA was designed, it would be possible to read the colors only once for each char row, and then buffer them - like the c64 gfx chip does :lol:
I suspect the VIC-II does it that way because it has to. It's already a very hot chip running at 8MHz. Double that and you'd be able to see the glow from over the horizon. :lol:

The simpler graphics hardware of the other machines can be clocked a lot faster (14MHz on the Spectrum and 16MHz for the Amstrad CPC and BBC) which allows the former to do the double fetch giving multicolour rendering and the latter two to get twice the pixel density for their high resolution graphics modes.
those high resolution modes cannot be use for a playfield since they are slow and has like 2 colors == > unusable. I'm glad the vic chip has the best of all compared to any other 8bit gfx chips :)

gury
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 4:45 am
Contact:

Post by gury » Tue May 08, 2007 7:04 am

oswald wrote: those high resolution modes cannot be use for a playfield since they are slow and has like 2 colors == > unusable. I'm glad the vic chip has the best of all compared to any other 8bit gfx chips :)
No, there are some more 8-bits which outperform the computers listed here. Besides Atari 8-bit :) there is Enterprise 64/128, MSX2 and some other Japanese computers, but made only in native country and Russia.
You are welcome to visit http://gury.atari8.info/

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Tue May 08, 2007 7:05 am

gury wrote:
oswald wrote: those high resolution modes cannot be use for a playfield since they are slow and has like 2 colors == > unusable. I'm glad the vic chip has the best of all compared to any other 8bit gfx chips :)
No, there some more 8-bits which outperform the computers listed here. Besides Atari 8-bit :) there is Enterprise 64/128, MSX2 and some other Japanese computers, but made only in native country and Russia.
yeah, the c64 is in the guinnes world book as the best selling machine ever probably because the Atari 8-bit was better. Get real man.

gury
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 4:45 am
Contact:

Post by gury » Tue May 08, 2007 7:06 am

oswald wrote:
gury wrote:
oswald wrote: those high resolution modes cannot be use for a playfield since they are slow and has like 2 colors == > unusable. I'm glad the vic chip has the best of all compared to any other 8bit gfx chips :)
No, there some more 8-bits which outperform the computers listed here. Besides Atari 8-bit :) there is Enterprise 64/128, MSX2 and some other Japanese computers, but made only in native country and Russia.
yeah, the c64 is in the guinnes world book as the best selling machine ever probably because the Atari 8-bit was better. Get real man.
They are similar in features. Atari marketing made it less sold, focusing on selling Atari ST and Jaguar.
You are welcome to visit http://gury.atari8.info/

User avatar
neuromancer
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:04 pm
Location: /dev/null
Contact:

Post by neuromancer » Tue May 08, 2007 7:24 am

gury wrote:
TMR wrote: In fact, it's far harder to quantify because it's incredibly relative; what i think is a good and playable game doesn't match with what anyone else finds to be playable, for example i have a soft spot for Chronos on the Speccy that most people wouldn't share, my all-time favourite game is Io on the C64 and i can't get on with Jet Set Willy on anything. So if we remove the impossible to judge part from the equation, the C64 has more going for it "out of the box" for game programmers than the other machines in the poll except for overall number of colours and the CPC wins that.

'Lo Oswald, by the way. =-)
From Atari computer side, there is huge number of playable games. I played a lot International Karate, Ninja, Chop Suey, Rainbow Walker (great color graphics where you walk on rainbow), Drop Zone, Draconus, Zaxxon and other countless great titles.
I'll shove in a vote for nice (fast) vector-based Mercenary

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Tue May 08, 2007 7:27 am

gury wrote:
oswald wrote:
gury wrote: No, there some more 8-bits which outperform the computers listed here. Besides Atari 8-bit :) there is Enterprise 64/128, MSX2 and some other Japanese computers, but made only in native country and Russia.
yeah, the c64 is in the guinnes world book as the best selling machine ever probably because the Atari 8-bit was better. Get real man.
They are similar in features. Atari marketing made it less sold, focusing on selling Atari ST and Jaguar.
yeah same thing happened at commdore, commodore marketing made c64 less sold, focusing on selling Amigas.

still the c64 kixx atari ass :) because ppl bought c64s and not atari 8 bits.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests