Speccy vs CPC - battle of the Ages

[Gryzor]

Is this about SU and AA supposed to be an argument? By then people were desperate to have such titles on their machines and they'd give it a high score no matter what... Amstrad has much better racers at any rate; and if you really think that Lotus is an example of "baby smooth" animation on the Spectrum, then I rest my case...

[ukmarkh]

Is this about SU and AA supposed to be an argument? By then people were desperate to have such titles on their machines and they'd give it a high score no matter what... Amstrad has much better racers at any rate; and if you really think that Lotus is an example of "baby smooth" animation on the Spectrum, then I rest my case...

The games not bad, you must have a dodgy emulator or crappy PC 

[Gryzor]

Quad-core Phenom @ 64 bit, and emus running at a silky smooth 50fps - waaay higher than the games. Sorry.

[Executioner]

This is more like it, how come you're not technically convinced the SID chip isn't better?

Technically, it's better. More voices, more output levels etc, but, every tune sounds like a synthesiser playing guitar. Then again, the AY almost always sounds the same too.

[ukmarkh]

Technically, it's better. More voices, more output levels etc, but, every tune sounds like a synthesiser playing guitar. Then again, the AY almost always sounds the same too.

I've always thought the CPC music in IK+ and a few other games was actually better on the CPC

Also, Turbo Outrun on the C64 has a rap song at the begining on the C64 version, how come the CPC never had anything similar in any of its games???

[arnoldemu]

I've always thought the CPC music in IK+ and a few other games was actually better on the CPC

Also, Turbo Outrun on the C64 has a rap song at the begining on the C64 version, how come the CPC never had anything similar in any of its games???

Ok, the CPC can do the same or at least give a very good approximation.

But to do it on the CPC is different than on the c64.

In terms of coding, doing these things on the c64 may have been easier compared to the Amstrad, but they are still possible on cpc.
Even SID like tunes are possible on the CPC. Yes I am talking about CPC here compared to CPC+. These sid sounds are still possible on CPC, just not as easy.

The problem is that on the CPC it can be more complex and take more time to develop the routines to do this.

Remember that when it comes to games, there are lots of deadlines and in addition it also depends on if the programmer liked the platform.
A lot of old games were made by one man or made by small teams. Some of these didn't have enough knowledge, or maybe didn't have the time to learn the knowledge, to push the cpc.

In addition the cpc market was smaller than the other markets, also add that converting from the spectrum was much easier (3 days to convert the game)... this explains why often cpc games were not always as good.

But then look at the games where the programmers knew what they were doing, or actually cared.
Savage, Chase HQ, Gryzor (a small list because there are more).

These are all good games, where the programmer/team cared and produced a really nice game.

So it is not necessarily this machine is better than this machine, it is more that on the CPC, some people didn't take as much time to polish the cpc version.

Take bubble bobble, I think the main code for doing sprites etc was re-used in lots of games, the same code as used in Ghosts and Goblins. If they "got it right" the first time, Bubble Bobble and Ghosts and Goblins could have been far more colourful and a much nicer game.
I also think they could have put more into Ghost and Goblins (intros etc).. but they didn't want to because it wasn't really that important to them.

I think they just coded it and just left it. Their boss probably said "just make it work for the cpc, don't spend too much time" and they did it, got paid, and went home happy.

But now, look at some CPC demos, they show that with knowledge and time you can create very nice things on the cpc, and you CAN give the c64 and spectrum a run.

[ukmarkh]

   

Ok, the CPC can do the same or at least give a very good approximation.

But to do it on the CPC is different than on the c64.

In terms of coding, doing these things on the c64 may have been easier compared to the Amstrad, but they are still possible on cpc.
Even SID like tunes are possible on the CPC. Yes I am talking about CPC here compared to CPC+. These sid sounds are still possible on CPC, just not as easy.

Cool... could these SID like tunes be included into a mainstream CPC game, or are we talking for demo purposes because of memory restrictions?

The problem is that on the CPC it can be more complex and take more time to develop the routines to do this.

Would it use more memory than doing it on the C64???

Remember that when it comes to games, there are lots of deadlines and in addition it also depends on if the programmer liked the platform.
A lot of old games were made by one man or made by small teams. Some of these didn't have enough knowledge, or maybe didn't have the time to learn the knowledge, to push the cpc.

I think on the whole, and from what I've read previous, it was pretty much down to development time.

In addition the cpc market was smaller than the other markets, also add that converting from the spectrum was much easier (3 days to convert the game)... this explains why often cpc games were not always as good.

I'm not sure about three days, but I know a guy that did similar in around 3 weeks. They still have to do lots of testing.

But then look at the games where the programmers knew what they were doing, or actually cared.
Savage, Chase HQ, Gryzor (a small list because there are more).

These are all good games, where the programmer/team cared and produced a really nice game.

I'll never dispute that, some quality games on the CPC... and because of the CPC's limitations; these remarkable achievements should be celebrated.

So it is not necessarily this machine is better than this machine, it is more that on the CPC, some people didn't take as much time to polish the cpc version.

I'd like to think as you do, but the math's just don't add up... Steve Pickford actually talks about his experience of programming on the CPC, to program 'Zub' on the CPC, he had to leave of lot of the characters animations out, just fit the game into 64k.

Take bubble bobble, I think the main code for doing sprites etc was re-used in lots of games, the same code as used in Ghosts and Goblins. If they "got it right" the first time, Bubble Bobble and Ghosts and Goblins could have been far more colourful and a much nicer game.
I also think they could have put more into Ghost and Goblins (intros etc).. but they didn't want to because it wasn't really that important to them.

The programmer worked out that the only way to get CPC to handle full screen scrolling plus sprites was to use a 16 colour screen mode (4 bits per pixel), but only use 4 colours each (2 bits) for background and sprites, in order to avoid having to do any masking of sprites. The result was a very ugly game as the number of colours was so massively restricted, even though it ran fairly fast.

But now, look at some CPC demos, they show that with knowledge and time you can create very nice things on the cpc, and you CAN give the c64 and spectrum a run.

I'm not sure about demo's, the stuff you can do in them isn't necessarily possible in a game.   

[arnoldemu]

     
Cool... could these SID like tunes be included into a mainstream CPC game, or are we talking for demo purposes because of memory restrictions?

demos more because of the timing and cpu use, not so much memory.

Part of the discussion here is which computer is better?
I think you are also saying that the games are better on Spectrum than CPC? and then saying that is down to the computer itself.

I am saying that the cpc can do some of these things that the other machines do.. can it do them in a game.. depends on the game and how much each of these effects takes cpu wise.

 
Would it use more memory than doing it on the C64???

not really, but more cpu time.

I think on the whole, and from what I've read previous, it was pretty much down to development time.

 
I'm not sure about three days, but I know a guy that did similar in around 3 weeks. They still have to do lots of testing.

I was told, from a reliable source, that a cpc game could be converted in 3 days. The guy who told me said that they would work solidly, and this was possible because they were young and didn't have commitments.
As far as testing was concerned, he never mentioned this.

I'd like to think as you do, but the math's just don't add up... Steve Pickford actually talks about his experience of programming on the CPC, to program 'Zub' on the CPC, he had to leave of lot of the characters animations out, just fit the game into 64k.

I agree with you here, but things are more possible now because of better compressors. So it may be possible to fit more in now because we have better ways of squeezing stuff in.
Or alternatively, this extra stuff could have been loaded for 128k version. I know lots of 128k versions existed for speccy, so why not cpc too?

Some parts could be loaded seperately (intro bits possibly).

 

The programmer worked out that the only way to get CPC to handle full screen scrolling plus sprites was to use a 16 colour screen mode (4 bits per pixel), but only use 4 colours each (2 bits) for background and sprites, in order to avoid having to do any masking of sprites. The result was a very ugly game as the number of colours was so massively restricted, even though it ran fairly fast.

 
I'm not sure about demo's, the stuff you can do in them isn't necessarily possible in a game.

I am not completely in agreement with you here.
True it is one way to achieve faster sprites and scrolling, but it is still possible to have full-colour sprites and nice scrolling. Other games demonstrate this.
But have you noticed that some games, by particular developers, (software creations), just used the same engine over and over. I know it makes sense econimically and time wise, but in terms of games there are some where they could have used a different engine and used full colour sprites.
Look at LED storm etc for example. not a lot going on, so they could have easily made this more colourful but they couldn't be bothered. I believe Ghosts and Goblins could have been better on cpc.

[Gryzor]

We *did* get the original Outrun soundtrack, albeit on audio cassette

[ukmarkh]

         

demos more because of the timing and cpu use, not so much memory.

I thought as much, real shame.

Part of the discussion here is which computer is better?

Gaming is what I mostly used my CPC for, I didn't actually own a Speccy until recently, and I'm gob smacked at how much faster, more detailed the majority of games on the Speccy are. 

I think you are also saying that the games are better on Spectrum than CPC? and then saying that is down to the computer itself.

For years I always thought the CPC was miles more powerful, until I dug a bit deeper... now I'm not sure what to think.

I am saying that the cpc can do some of these things that the other machines do.. can it do them in a game.. depends on the game and how much each of these effects takes cpu wise.
not really, but more cpu time.

I agree fully with this comment, and when looking at a certain style of game, the likes of Head over Heals and Wec-le-mans these games deliver.

I was told, from a reliable source, that a cpc game could be converted in 3 days. The guy who told me said that they would work solidly, and this was possible because they were young and didn't have commitments. As far as testing was concerned, he never mentioned this.

I wasn't suggesting it isn't possible, but surely this can't be good for their health. 

I agree with you here, but things are more possible now because of better compressors. So it may be possible to fit more in now because we have better ways of squeezing stuff in.
Or alternatively, this extra stuff could have been loaded for 128k version. I know lots of 128k versions existed for speccy, so why not cpc too?

Isn't the compression stuff, and other newer techniques the same for the Speccy?

I am not completely in agreement with you here. True it is one way to achieve faster sprites and scrolling, but it is still possible to have full-colour sprites and nice scrolling. Other games demonstrate this.

That's true, Robocop and Batman being good examples. Although surely not with a full screen on a 64k system?

But have you noticed that some games, by particular developers, (software creations), just used the same engine over and over. I know it makes sense econimically and time wise, but in terms of games there are some where they could have used a different engine and used full colour sprites. Look at LED storm etc for example. not a lot going on, so they could have easily made this more colourful but they couldn't be bothered. I believe Ghosts and Goblins could have been better on cpc.

I can think of a few where this has happened, Hi-tec would use the same engine for a lot of their games, and Ocean also. LED Storm is the vertical car racer style shoot-em-up, great scroll once you hit top speed, but the timing is all over the shop, and I reckon they used a shed load of memory just getting it to move the way it did... very similar to the technique Paul Shirley used known as Rotovision, although he wasn't the first to use it.   

[Sykobee (Briggsy)]

But on the CPC 464, (64k - 16k screen = 48k) the same as the Speccy, then there is the issue that the sprites take up more memory to draw than the equivelent on the Speccy... All the in-game graphics take up twice the RAM because 2 bits were required for every pixel, rather than 1 bit on the Spectrum. This doubled the size of all the graphics, using a similar amount of free RAM, and an Amstrad version of a Spectrum game seems to always require drastic cuts to fit into RAM. This perception that the two machines were more or less the same, doesn't hold true when you do the maths, so when people state the Amstrad was slightly better, at the moment, unless I'm missing something - this statement simply doesn't stack up.

Well the Spectrum has a 7KB screen, so therefore has 41KB of RAM, compared to the 48KB the CPC has, going by your logic. In addition shrinking the CPC screen size to that of the Spectrum frees up another 4KB, so it is 41KB vs 52KB. In addition Spectrum games often had to include a mask graphic alongside the definition, so the graphical memory requirement was just as high, whereas the CPC would use a specific ink as transparent.

However in terms of CPU work, the Spectrum had far less to do to update a screen, which for a 4MHz Z80 was a major aspect of why Spectrum games ran smoother if they had a lot of on-screen action (e.g., scrolling). Single-screen CPC games did compare very well however.

Using off the shelf components certainly saved in the design stages of the CPC, but omitting hardware scrolling and/or hardware sprites and/or tiled graphics modes certainly had a negative effect on the games side of things. Better and more colours was good however, the Spectrum suffered here from a limited primary colour selection, the C64 from a muddy selection.

[Gryzor]

Using off the shelf components certainly saved in the design stages of the CPC, but omitting hardware scrolling and/or hardware sprites and/or tiled graphics modes certainly had a negative effect on the games side of things. Better and more colours was good however, the Spectrum suffered here from a limited primary colour selection, the C64 from a muddy selection.

Did the Speccy have hardware sprites?? I think it was just a conscious decision - more colours and graphical capabilities versus increase speed. Both manufacturers made their decision...

[Sykobee (Briggsy)]

Did the Speccy have hardware sprites?? I think it was just a conscious decision - more colours and graphical capabilities versus increase speed. Both manufacturers made their decision...

No, it just had a 6KB bitmapped screen and a 1KB attribute map on top of it all. That was a comparison with the C64 which had character mapped modes and sprites (and an attribute map for the character mapped modes). The C64 was a really well designed computer with colour palette and hi-res fail.

[Executioner]

The C64 was a really well designed computer with colour palette and hi-res fail.

Except some idiot decided they should run the CPU at 1MHz! Good job it had the SID and some hardware for scrolling and sprites, 'cause it wouldn't have been much without it.

[ukmarkh]

Except some idiot decided they should run the CPU at 1MHz! Good job it had the SID and some hardware for scrolling and sprites, 'cause it wouldn't have been much without it.

In the main, you'd never know the CPU was running at 1mhz, Turrican, Turrican 2, Mayhem in Monsterland, Turbo outrun, Power Drift and Flimbo's quest are simply brilliant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 1mhz CPU only ever reach boiling point when doing pseudo style 3D games. For me games like Driller, or any freescape games on the C64 are like watching a slide show.

[Sykobee (Briggsy)]

Except some idiot decided they should run the CPU at 1MHz! Good job it had the SID and some hardware for scrolling and sprites, 'cause it wouldn't have been much without it.

It was a more efficient CPU in many ways, but yes, 1MHz in 1982 was quite poor when they could have had 2MHz, as used by other computers that used the same chip family. It does demonstrate how powerful even a little bit of custom hardware can be, when utilised well, even if the CPU is poor. The SNES is another example.
The CPC was an 8-bit equivalent of the Atari ST, the C64 was an Amiga 500. This comparison falls apart in many many places, so don't analyse it too deeply!

[Executioner]

Ok, I just compared Lotus on Speccy 128 and CPC. Although the CPC version looks like a speccy conversion (not a good use of the resolution chosen), it runs a bit smoother here. NOT smooth, but smoother compared to the Spectrum version. And, sound...

Interesting post. I've actually heard people in the past say a similar thing about Revs on the C64 vs Revs on the BBC. The fact is the frame rate is much higher on the BBC. It combines a 2MHz 6502 with an 8K screen mode, and only draws a small portion of the display. The C64 version has roughly the same screen memory usage, but the processor is half the speed. It does have a few optimisations in the maths routines though.

[ukmarkh]

Ok, I just compared Lotus on Speccy 128 and CPC. Although the CPC version looks like a speccy conversion (not a good use of the resolution chosen), it runs a bit smoother here. NOT smooth, but smoother compared to the Spectrum version. And, sound...

Can someone else please confirm this, as on real hardware I'm finding the spectrum version superior in smoothness, speed and controls. The CPC version seems to miss frames, has a choppy chug like frame rate, and the controls are delayed compared to the speccy version?

[Longshot]

I have no idea what you're talking about  very broken English. The comments seem a bit random.

None so deaf as those that won't hear.
(have you understood this ?  )
I think you can understand that english is not the native language for some people here...I'm not expecting from you a french speaking level as bad as my poor english

[Gryzor]

I took a look at YouTube and on a video I saw it runs much smoother, which makes me wonder why and how.

But, in any case, we're still talking about a game that has been superseded in terms of quality by other racers on the Amstrad, so I really don't see th point in this... Lotus still looks and plays like a Speccy port on the CPC which means => awful.

[ukmarkh]

Lotus still looks and plays like a Speccy port on the CPC which means => awful.

In the one hand you say Lotus looks and plays like a Speccy port, and that = awful, but that doesn't make any sense and is contradictory, as you've said in the past that you love R-Type, and that is a blatant Speccy port if ever I've seen one? Please explain, my head hurts now?   

[Xyphoe]

Oh man, not this argument/discussion again! Mark it seems like you've 'ported' (*cough*!) this argument over from the Retro Gamer forums! Listen, whatever people say on there isn't necessarily gospel truth, even coming from knowledgeable people like CMR and Emperor Fossil etc. Actually I wish Jason (TMR) would come and post on here and give his views, that would be nice... but whilst he does have a great deal of knowledge about the CPCs architecture and programming techniques you have to remember hes predominantly a C64 coder (and a very good one at that) and more acustomed to routines and working with that machine than the CPC. Its a bit like saying a PHP programmer will be great at Perl because they share a lot of structural similarities, yet looking at it from the other angle they're completely different languages! Plus also 90% of people on there immediately favour the Speccy/C64 blindly. ALL the machines are limited in one way or another, its knowing the tricks and the ways to optimise and get the most out of them. You can't judge the CPC in terms of it being 'less powerful' purely on the basis of the vast majority of games that were released as its well lamented the CPC was nearly always the last in line.

The discussion about 'who is more powerful' is completely pointless. There's too many variables involved to reach any kind of conclusion, and where one machine has strength in one area it suffers in another. I think that's already been made clear earlier.

It's funny, I was having a very similar arguement with a friend over cars recently - was his or mine 'more powerful'? Both are from 1990 with 16v DOHC 1.8Li engines - mines a Mazda 323F his is a Toyato MR2. So the argument rumbles... my Mazda's 0-60 is clocked around 6.8secs, his Toyato 7.2secs, yet my BHP is 131 but his is 155... the torque at 4800RPM is apparently 160 for mine, 155 for his (figures could be wrong here) ... but then my top speed is 130MPH yet his 140MPH roughly... yikes! Who wins? Whats better on a straight line, or handling on bends? Who cares if you have a higher top speed when the national speed limit is 70? And then, like here the argument progresses/digresses onto 'what looks better'! Of course I reckon mine looks better but then I'm sure many would argue his does, but then I prefer my chunkier more interesting and original design  So argument deviates over time and by the end its resulted in 'whats better' from the original 'what's more powerful'. If we put it to a vote on a car general forum, I believe far more people owned an MR2 than a 323F and we probably know who the winner would be. Put it to the Club323 forums and the tiny minority would be for the MR2, with 323 owners chirping up with further reasons/arguments that ous is a far more reliable car and far more mods both cosmetically and under the bonnet can be done as another argument/reason why. That's probably subjective though. Anyway I'm rambling but you can draw many parralels between bits of the above with 'faster CPU', 'more memory,' 'hardware sprites', 'operating systems', 'pallettes', etc!!

So here, questions are not just about games, but about the serious side of things like business applications etc ... remember the CPC was designed and geared more so than the other 8bit machines to this side of things. I did all my school and then later college work on my 6128! I don't know *anyone* at school/college that used their Speccy/C64 for this. But you say that on the Retro Gamer forums and they'll rather unpolitely inform you that 'this is Retro GAMER ... I couldn't give a flying one if it can draw nice graphs and has an awesome CPM' etc. Its all in the eye of the beholder and the hands of the user with what application they want it for.

Ask me 10 years ago when I hadn't played many Speccy games and even less C64 games and I would have immediately proclaimed something like 'Speccys 4 colours and colour clash = AWFUL .... C64's pallette? VOMIT INDUCING... ALL SHIT COMPARED TO THE AMSTRAD!!'. Now with the benefit of emulaters and YouTube I love all 3 machines and what they achieved, hell it was only yesterday I fired up Repton and Action Force 2 on the Speccy and was loving it!

But you want smooth multidirection scrolling on the Amstrad? Fire up Shinobi, Prehistorik 2, Batman The Movie, Trantor, etc! Just because not many games had it doesn't mean its not as powerful. Even Shinobi which is ancient managed smooth/fast 4 way scrolling with a full screen, plenty of sprites and even MUSIC!

I couldn't give a chuff if something on the Amstrads running at 25fps compared to the speccys 27.5fps the difference is extremely negligable and probably not even noticable. Maybe Chase HQ on the Speccy does run very very slightly faster... jeez I'll damned if I can even notice it, in fact I'm not convinced it even does! Then you compare graphics and we have a hands down winner for the CPC. And you know with the C64's muddy brown/washed up pallete if I'm being harsh, they'll often come back with CPC graphics are chunky and blocky!

...but then I prefer nice colourful chunky graphics and sprites (as long as its not detrimental for being able to determine what's happening on the screen), because thats what I grew up with and grew to love. I can't grow to love colour clash and muddy browns now, but I'm not going to make sweeping statements now either.

Conclusion? There isn't one for which is more powerful or better. Just that, I'll always prefer the Amstrad over the 2 machines.


ps Here's one sweeping statement tho for ya! The '6128 Plus' wipes the floor with 'em, even the DMA sound (see Prehistorik 2 title music for reference) kicks the SID chip between the balls 

pps Lotus Esprit sucked and is highly overrated IMHO, that tiny window and playing area? I wouldn't even put the game in my top 10 racing games by a long shot....

[Grim]

I don't really care about the 8bits battle, but you should hear the C64 demo "Vicious Sid" (there's some MP3 recordings in the comments if you can't run it on a real breadbox). I wouldn't say that the Plus DMA sound kicks the SID that much :)


ps: sorry, his car looks better imo =)

[ukmarkh]

         

Oh man, not this argument/discussion again! Mark it seems like you've 'ported' (*cough*!) this argument over from the Retro Gamer forums! Listen, whatever people say on there isn't necessarily gospel truth, even coming from knowledgeable people like CMR and Emperor Fossil etc. Actually I wish Jason (TMR) would come and post on here and give his views, that would be nice... but whilst he does have a great deal of knowledge about the CPCs architecture and programming techniques you have to remember hes predominantly a C64 coder (and a very good one at that) and more acustomed to routines and working with that machine than the CPC. Its a bit like saying a PHP programmer will be great at Perl because they share a lot of structural similarities, yet looking at it from the other angle they're completely different languages! Plus also 90% of people on there immediately favour the Speccy/C64 blindly. ALL the machines are limited in one way or another, its knowing the tricks and the ways to optimise and get the most out of them. You can't judge the CPC in terms of it being 'less powerful' purely on the basis of the vast majority of games that were released as its well lamented the CPC was nearly always the last in line.

You didn't need to post here or get involved... and I'm not sure if you're in some way insinuating that I'm just here to recite posts and comments from RetroGamer, in order to cause some sort of trouble. I don't appreciate how you've aimed the 'how to suck eggs story' at me, using your car as an analogy. I have my own mind, just as everyone else on here, and naturally along with having a brain people form opinions about certain things. I also think that TMR is a long time admirer of the CPC, by all means he loves the C64 to bits, but that doesn't mean his opinion is any less valid or untruthful. He comes across as an experienced and level headed sort of guy, maybe on par with executioner in some respects. How you can say you can't compare a machines technical ability by looking and comparing its back catalogue of game software searches me... games are what make and sell a machine, they push the hardware to its boundaries, hardware is nothing without the sum of its software, and this is what all tech comparisons should be based on. If Amstrad didn't intend the CPC as a games computer, why on earth did they fall over themselves to release Amsoft, and package the machine with ten free games? As for favouring one machine over another, well I'm certainly guilty of that, It's Amstrad CPC 6128 all the way for me, and always will be... but that doesn't mean my investigation or opinions should be distorted or corrupt in regards to the other machines. I'm sorry, but you've just come across as very patronising. 

The discussion about 'who is more powerful' is completely pointless. There's too many variables involved to reach any kind of conclusion, and where one machine has strength in one area it suffers in another. I think that's already been made clear earlier.

I personally like talking about this age old topic, I find the 8-bit computer really fascinating, and when people start talking technical about such things, I'm in my element. And no! I don't really wanna stop talking about such things either. It's a technical forum, I'd like to improve my knowledge of the CPC, and other 8-bit and 16-bit computers, no matter how subjective you believe a topic of conversion to be.

So here, questions are not just about games, but about the serious side of things like business applications etc ...

I've no idea about that, Everyone I knew that owned an Amstrad only played games on it, including myself... my brother used a PCW for his homework. From a quick search on the tinternet, and looking at the popular apps of the time, i.e. Mini Office II and a few more that escape me... all pretty much saw a commercial release on the C64 and Speccy. 

Ask me 10 years ago when I hadn't played many Speccy games and even less C64 games and I would have immediately proclaimed something like 'Speccys 4 colours and colour clash = AWFUL .... C64's pallette? VOMIT INDUCING... ALL SHIT COMPARED TO THE AMSTRAD!!'. Now with the benefit of emulaters and YouTube I love all 3 machines and what they achieved, hell it was only yesterday I fired up Repton and Action Force 2 on the Speccy and was loving it!

Good on you, and it's the same with me... but some of the closed minded comments on here, are unbelievable and unfounded towards the C64 and Speccy.

But you want smooth multidirection scrolling on the Amstrad? Fire up Shinobi, Prehistorik 2, Batman The Movie, Trantor, etc! Just because not many games had it doesn't mean its not as powerful. Even Shinobi which is ancient managed smooth/fast 4 way scrolling with a full screen, plenty of sprites and even MUSIC!

I'd hardly call the scrolling in those games smooth, acceptable yes... but did Shinobi feature music in the 64K version?

I couldn't give a chuff if something on the Amstrads running at 25fps compared to the speccys 27.5fps the difference is extremely negligable and probably not even noticable. Maybe Chase HQ on the Speccy does run very very slightly faster... jeez I'll damned if I can even notice it, in fact I'm not convinced it even does! Then you compare graphics and we have a hands down winner for the CPC. And you know with the C64's muddy brown/washed up pallete if I'm being harsh, they'll often come back with CPC graphics are chunky and blocky!

25fps? The average according to tests I've ran, are around 12fps. You can use any video capture software out there to see this for yourself. Not many games ran at 25fps.

ps Here's one sweeping statement tho for ya! The '6128 Plus' wipes the floor with 'em, even the DMA sound (see Prehistorik 2 title music for reference) kicks the SID chip between the balls 

The Plus machine is a different matter altogether... it has a bunch of problems we can leave for another day.

pps Lotus Esprit sucked and is highly overrated IMHO, that tiny window and playing area? I wouldn't even put the game in my top 10 racing games by a long shot....

I'd disagree... as did Amstrad Action back in the day.   

[Sykobee (Briggsy)]

Okay, time for the other argument: The CPC came with a monitor, and thus you didn't have to get off the 'pooter at 6pm for Dad to watch the six o'clock news.
12fps > 0fps. :p