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

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

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

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 » Thu May 17, 2007 1:28 pm

seeing the joy when ppl get a c64 for present is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fh3A0Lt ... ed&search=

:wink: :lol: :shock: :D :twisted:

User avatar
Matt_B
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:30 am
Location: 5 minutes from the beach, 30 seconds from the pub

Post by Matt_B » Thu May 17, 2007 1:56 pm

oswald wrote:speccy was only big in the UK. I am actually ammazed it was a winner platform there. In hungary it was vice versa, c64 was the normal, and speccy was the poor man's computer. but that was later in time.
Yep, the Spectrum was always the cheaper option. However, it was a lot cheaper up until about 1985 when Commodore had managed to cut the price of the C64 down to a level where it was no longer considered an expensive option. The same logic applies to why the VIC-20 and ZX-81 outsold the Atari 800 in the very early 80s; they were miles behind technically, but they were a heck of a lot cheaper and price is always going to be a big factor.

To be honest, all 8-bits were "poor man's" computers by the end of 1985. All the major 16-bit players had machines on the market by that year which were now the ones to get if you could afford them. It might have taken a few more years for the 16-bit games market to kick into gear, but the writing was certainly on the wall.

Atari Frog
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 5:57 am

Post by Atari Frog » Thu May 17, 2007 3:20 pm

oswald wrote:what I mean is that atari with keeping the docs in the shelf killed the 8bit line.
Support could've been better but they didn't "keep the docs in the shelf". That's a far-fetched theory.
I mean more games in a wider timeline than 82-84. Anyway take a look at lemon64.com according to it the c64 had about 500 games till the end of 83. What were the best games on atari till the end of 83 ? We can decide who had better games pretty fast.
Well, more than 2,200 games had appeared on the Atari by the end of 1983...
now thats irony? compare the population of the USA to the UK, and see how my argument is true about which is a bigger market.
Only a blind man would neglect the importance of the European market. You certainly wouldn't have had Mayhem in Monsterland or companies like Thalamus if it weren't for the strong UK and German presence. You should know better, you're the C64 guy after all...
that implies the classes will go for un-userfriendly machines without educational potential.. doesnt seem to be right.
What do you mean exactly? That's the way it went. Management decisions and unclear strategy were major causes of Atari's semi-failure (along with a somewhat inadequate pricing policy, I'm not denying that).
I think it was easyer to work on ataris than on trs80s...
That's not the point, you need to understand the context before making generic comments of this kind...

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com

User avatar
smila
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:08 pm

Post by smila » Thu May 17, 2007 5:25 pm

oswald wrote:seeing the joy when ppl get a c64 for present is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fh3A0Lt ... ed&search=

:wink: :lol: :shock: :D :twisted:
lol - thats ace
**********************
god created the sid chip so hubbard could make music

User avatar
Mayhem
Posts: 4739
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:05 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Mayhem » Thu May 17, 2007 6:02 pm

Atari Frog wrote:Well, more than 2,200 games had appeared on the Atari by the end of 1983...
Considering it had been out for over 4 years compared to the C64's less than 18 months by that time, I'm not surprised the Atari had four times as many games really ;)

And European programmers were only just starting to get to grip with the C64 hardware... most of the best known programmers didn't start on the machine until 84 or later. The only really early UK guy on the C64 I can think of was Jeff Minter, and that's only cos HES gave him a US machine to convert some of his Vic20 titles across.

Speaking of the Vic20, its price was a major factor in its reaching the magical 1 million selling mark before the Atari, even though it had been out only a fraction of the time. Its power was far better value for money compared to the Atari at that time. The same principal in part propelled the C64 to become the biggest selling and greatest home computer of all time.

Biased, moi? A bit. Could the Atari handle some of the later C64 titles such as Mayhem in Monsterland? Maybe. Who knows. It would take skilled people to make it possible on any front.
Lie with passion and be forever damned...

Image

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

Post by TMR » Thu May 17, 2007 7:17 pm

Atari Frog wrote:
oswald wrote:what I mean is that atari with keeping the docs in the shelf killed the 8bit line.
Support could've been better but they didn't "keep the docs in the shelf". That's a far-fetched theory.
If what Steven Levy says in Hackers is the case, most of the docs for the A8 were incredibly limited and it took third party coders like John Harris a long time and a disassembler to figure out how Atari's software seemed to be breaking the rules they were being told. Certainly, the docs i got with my 800XL weren't even a patch on the C64 manual and that's generally considered to be weak.

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

Post by TMR » Thu May 17, 2007 7:23 pm

Mayhem wrote:Biased, moi? A bit. Could the Atari handle some of the later C64 titles such as Mayhem in Monsterland? Maybe. Who knows. It would take skilled people to make it possible on any front.
i can give you a straight "no" now, unless a lot of concessions were made; the mixed hi-res and multicolour graphics on the same scanline, the size of most of the objects, the sheer amount of colour a scanline... not possible to recreate even when holding still, let alone hacking along at 8 hi-res pixels a frame.

To be honest, a pixel perfect conversion from the C64 of Impossible Mission wouldn't be possible.

User avatar
Allas
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 11:11 pm

Post by Allas » Thu May 17, 2007 9:23 pm

TMR wrote:
Mayhem wrote:Biased, moi? A bit. Could the Atari handle some of the later C64 titles such as Mayhem in Monsterland? Maybe. Who knows. It would take skilled people to make it possible on any front.
i can give you a straight "no" now, unless a lot of concessions were made; the mixed hi-res and multicolour graphics on the same scanline, the size of most of the objects, the sheer amount of colour a scanline... not possible to recreate even when holding still, let alone hacking along at 8 hi-res pixels a frame.

To be honest, a pixel perfect conversion from the C64 of Impossible Mission wouldn't be possible.
is it necessary a perfect pixel conversion?

Look for example at Hero c64 and Atari versions. C64 is 320x200.... but what is the better version?
Is necessary a redesign according to the new hardware, even it could change drastically, but results could be good.
---------
Allas

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

Post by oswald » Fri May 18, 2007 1:48 am

Allas wrote:
TMR wrote:
Mayhem wrote:Biased, moi? A bit. Could the Atari handle some of the later C64 titles such as Mayhem in Monsterland? Maybe. Who knows. It would take skilled people to make it possible on any front.
i can give you a straight "no" now, unless a lot of concessions were made; the mixed hi-res and multicolour graphics on the same scanline, the size of most of the objects, the sheer amount of colour a scanline... not possible to recreate even when holding still, let alone hacking along at 8 hi-res pixels a frame.

To be honest, a pixel perfect conversion from the C64 of Impossible Mission wouldn't be possible.
is it necessary a perfect pixel conversion?

Look for example at Hero c64 and Atari versions. C64 is 320x200.... but what is the better version?
Is necessary a redesign according to the new hardware, even it could change drastically, but results could be good.
really who cares about crap games comparison? I mean hero is a classic, but uses like 20% of c64s resources. Who gives a monkey censored if atari version was better? What does that proove? That atari can do better than a c64 using 20%of its HW? The early 90s c64 games were also made on the amiga, and while on the c64 they are considered the best, on amiga they are considered WEAK. check grand prix circuit comments on lemon64.com and lemonamiga.com for proof. The same goes to hero on atari, and hero on c64. on atari it may be the paramount of gaming, on c64 its an early lame classic.

User avatar
Emperor Fossil
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Already rockin the Christmas cap, WOOOOH!

Post by Emperor Fossil » Fri May 18, 2007 2:41 am

...and when you look at more recent games, like say, something from 1990, you end up with this kind of comparison:

Image VS Image

or things like this from 1987/88...

Image VS Image

Atari 8-bit on the left, c64 on the right.

I realise these are a couple of pretty extreme examples (although the top game looks OK for an A8 game), but given everything that's been said about the A8's colour capabilities, why do such colour deprived games end up on the platform? Are the devs just not trying, or is it not that easy to create colourful games on the A8? Most of the colourful ones seem to rely on the old horizontal colour bars and/or some kind of super chunky low-res mode that isn't really much good for games.

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

Post by oswald » Fri May 18, 2007 2:57 am

in the case of nebulus it looks like lazy developer. I bet that the game was ported over from c64, the gfx is byte by byte the same as on c64 except using a hires 2 color mode on atari, and software sprites... not atari's fault. it could have been atleast 4 (or 8?) colors.

on the top 2 pics, I think atari uses doubled scanlines... looks awfull. thats about memory saving flexible screen modes... again the 256 colors look totally useless when the level gfx can only use 4 of them at once..

Atari Frog
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 5:57 am

Post by Atari Frog » Fri May 18, 2007 3:56 am

oswald wrote:The same goes to hero on atari, and hero on c64. on atari it may be the paramount of gaming, on c64 its an early lame classic.
You're playing your weak and lame game again. Everybody on the Atari knows the program is unspectacular on a technical level.

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com

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

Post by oswald » Fri May 18, 2007 4:04 am

Atari Frog wrote:
oswald wrote:The same goes to hero on atari, and hero on c64. on atari it may be the paramount of gaming, on c64 its an early lame classic.
You're playing your weak and lame game again. Everybody on the Atari knows the program is unspectacular on a technical level.

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com
so should we compare games that are unspectacular technically, or should we compare the best of the platforms? what is the sense in comparing games which does not push the HW anywhere near to its limits? this is yours and speccy fans weak and lame game. like I couldnt pick a bunch of bad amiga games which are better on the c64. pathethic.

Atari Frog
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 5:57 am

Post by Atari Frog » Fri May 18, 2007 4:11 am

oswald wrote:on the top 2 pics, I think atari uses doubled scanlines... looks awfull. thats about memory saving flexible screen modes... again the 256 colors look totally useless when the level gfx can only use 4 of them at once..
There's a general consensus most Zeppelin ports could've been done better than the usual four color jobs. The programs play really well and are good games but there was no real competition at the time to push the platform's limits. Give the Atari the C64 market share and you'll see the difference.

You're ALWAYS judging things the rigid way, even though people are telling you a certain context has to be considered first and are providing examples of what can really be done with some work...

I'm not even arguing which is the better machine, I already gave you my opinion.

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com

Atari Frog
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 5:57 am

Post by Atari Frog » Fri May 18, 2007 4:29 am

oswald wrote:so should we compare games that are unspectacular technically, or should we compare the best of the platforms? what is the sense in comparing games which does not push the HW anywhere near to its limits? this is yours and speccy fans weak and lame game. like I couldnt pick a bunch of bad amiga games which are better on the c64. pathethic.
Not only is your "on atari it may be the paramount of gaming" phrase ridiculous but it also illustrates your sad superiority complex. If you actually knew how to READ (in context if possible), you would've noted that I said the C64 was better earlier on. I even cited Mayhem in Monsterland and Thalamus for you! Look who's pathetic now...

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests