I noticed in another thread someone mentioned about having a thread about worst Amstrad games , and there was a call for, one that showed up C64 crappy games . So here is a thread that although is negative , I put it up as a method for defence against the Fanboys .
Another reason was I spotted a you tube vid that showed 'Carrier Command' for the C64 , a game which I was personally really impressed at how much they managed to fit on the Amstrad and Spectrum, although the Amstrad Port is very good , they were a little lazy in not altering some things from the Speccy version . But overall it is superb IMO ( Anyone played this on real hardware and utilised the Mouse facility? Does it work?)
Anyway the C64 version :picard: I laughed my head of when I saw it , the programmers decided to ditch the 3D elements of the game and made it a 2D version so only the strategy part remains similar , the rest is awful the scrolling on it is worse than what you'd get on a bad Amstrad game and it is not even a taxing part of the game. I really don't know why they bothered, you have to check it out if you want a laugh .
Mod delete the thread if you think its gonna upset people
Honestly what's the point? None of you are 13 year old school kids. Can't people just grow up, accept that each machine has its strong and weak points, and embrace the best of all worlds?
I agree with EgoTrip.
I started with a cpc, this gave me a flavor of basic and how computer works.
Then moved to the amiga where I saw what creativity means.
Nowdays I own many micros that have their strong/weak points.
I love my cpc very much but to disagree with a C64 fanboy about r-type or any other smooth scrolling game is just a lie to me and everyone.
Although a 5% of my judge will always go to cpc due nostalgia, everybody thinks that his child is better in his own eyes.. isn't it? ;D
All systems, classic or new, have bad games. I personally prefer to celebrate the good things, not the bad things of other systems.
I agree with @EgoTrip (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=337) on this. What is the point? "defence against the Fanboys"? No offence, but sounds to me like you're talking about yourself.
No problem I hear your point of view , and take it on board .You are obviously quite passionate about it.
Quote from: reidrac on 20:08, 19 January 16
All systems, classic or new, have bad games. I personally prefer to celebrate the good things, not the bad things of other systems.
I agree with @EgoTrip (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=337) on this. What is the point? "defence against the Fanboys"? No offence, but sounds to me like you're talking about yourself.
What does that mean? I am a fanboy of what system?
And you have got to be joking to say I'm a fan boy.lol, you obviously haven't got a clue to my feelings on matters. For a start C64 is my personal favourite computer of all time , and I have a massive respect and love of Spectrum , you will struggle to find any negative post toward these machines. I have a love for the Amstrad cos it was the computer I was given as a kid . And I totally recognise it's limitations and my interest in it stems strongly from nostalgia. I was interested to find out what rare games showed Amstrad excelling in relation to C64 or Spectrum. And I find it useful for when I am chatting with C64 or Speccy lovers for banter tbh. I care that some people are sensitive to these things so put a note. I have always recognised how great these other computers were and my respect for them and previous supporting post's toward them and their owners. Legitimises how I feel toward making a topic as such.
Anyway point is taken .
If you take these things so seriously then you're gonna be offended. So I guess it depends on your mindset . The topic is as a pub conversation would go .As I envisage anyhow .
I favor CPC but I also enjoy mocking our platform's crappy titles as much as I envy C64's and Speccy's better games.
Come on guys we're all like hundred years old :)
It is always funnier to talk about bad games rather than good games! except if you are the author :laugh:
Regarding the differences among 8 bit computers, I am probably too old to discuss that anymore, particularly if we talk about old venerable systems, full of limitations. However, when i was a teenager we actually had quite a lot of fun with console wars (you know, Megadrive vs SNES). Everybody knows that Megadrive rocks and the SNES was saved only by a bunch of good RPGs! ;D
That is a good point from your perspective,valid important point for sure , and bothers me the most as you have drawn it to my attention. I'm sure there are lots of cases where dodgy work deadlines can bring about the worst games , and not a fault of the programmer directly. And no one likes to have there work ripped to pieces , if things were beyond your control .
I'd say the these were amongst the worse of the C64:
Dizzy Panic
Final Fight
Repton 3
Hard Drivin
Dizzy
Last Ninja 3
Dick Tracey
Street Fighter 2
Cauldron 2
ChaseHQ
To be honest, most Dizzy games didn't fare well on the C64. Aside from the godawful border images they used to cover up the fact that Dizzy games had small play areas on the Commodore, the controls aren't always that responsive. If you want to play Dizzy, do it on another system; preferably the CPC because the Speccy versions have Dizzy himself blend into the background.
My view: I have no problem with talking about and comparing the same game (or similar game formats) on different systems. But, these threads often spin off into machine X is better than machine Y.
Games can be bad for so many reasons.
Now if you are a programmer and have worked out how a particular game engine works, and have found out why it is so bad, or have found out how to improve it, that would be worth reading about :D
Mark
It maybe would be better if the thread name was more neutral, like CPC games that impress/paint CPC in more positive light/are better than it's counterparts. I am not a fan of the whole witty "my 8bit is superior" comments, even if sometimes it's just done for the laughs (I hope).
I am interested for a honest comparison though, I like technical comparisons especially, either individual games or the machines. I do honestly believe that the Z80 is better for 3d math, but comparing the machines the C64 is superior for 2d smooth scrolling and much easier to program. But that's just my opinion.
Anyway, probably the best 8 bit machines are the MSX 2... :D
The 8-bit wars are over anyway, after David Campbell recently posted this cracker on the Facebook Amstrad CPC page (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1067943249915297&set=gm.10153394468337058&type=3&permPage=1). So, as we can see from that link, Batman plays Amstrad. The CPC wins. :P
Well, after seeing the picture, I must admit that you are completely right.
Quote from: ukmarkh on 02:06, 20 January 16
I'd say the these were amongst the worse of the C64:
Dizzy Panic
Final Fight
Repton 3
Hard Drivin
Dizzy
Last Ninja 3
Dick Tracey
Street Fighter 2
Cauldron 2
ChaseHQ
A reasonable list I'd say, although definitely incomplete without Robocop 2. The Amstrad version is admittedly Plus only, but even the Speccy version is a reasonable platformer. The C64 version is a complete WTF though, probably the most un-Robocop game imaginable.
The great thing about the modern age I that we can all easily play the "best" versions, whether via emulation or on the real thing. A golden age for sure!
Oh please, don't be silly!
The best 8 bit computer is the Amstrad PCW.
My PCW in particular.
Subject is closed.
Have you lot lost your minds, the Amstrad CPC is the best 8bit home computer ever made! Let's have none of this defeatist talk, and no more of this MSX 2 love ;) If any machine rivalled the CPC, it would have to be the Atari 800XL or C64, the others weren't even in the same ball park.
Well, the 800XL was my first computer before my CPC, and still continues to amaze to this day...
Soooo yeah, every platform has good games that take the hardware to the limits, fun games and the rest of them.
So enjoy the good shit and don't care the computer it's running on ;-)
In my opinion Atari XL/XE have only one good thing...
G2F it's new graphic mode, created few years ago, in resolution like MODE 0 on CPC with 30 to 50 colors from palette 256.
G2F (http://g2f.atari8.info/gallery/index.html) Especial pictures made by Piesiu.
I'm sooo jealous.
We all need to be honest-the best games for the classic computers were made for the c64, even the latest releases. But nowadays its all retro (cpc,atari,msx,speccy,...) and I personally love them all. The "schoolyard fight from the 80s" which system has the stunners, is definatly history
I still think that back in the days, the best games were MSX 2 games. They had Snatcher!! Jesus Christ, Snatcher :o
Dinorast - You should be ashamed to say such opinion, especially here. ;)
Nothing is end, war is on. ;)
In my opinion much better look games was on NES and Sega Master. No lazy sprites, no clash colors, no wide pixels, and more colors than 16 at once. And no wait for loading. Only sound was equal nasty. :D
...and commodore had the sexiest magazine covers [emoji6]
Sure were the consoles nes and master system better that day, my point of view in this topic is only about the classic computer range. Like already written, you find for every system pearls, but the most ones are to be found on the c64. Dont get me wrong, I love my cpc and its games and thanks to the fabulous gx4000 flashcard I play them quite often
Quote from: Dinorast on 20:22, 20 January 16
...and commodore had the sexiest magazine covers (http://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji6.png)
Sure! Look at those two hot men in the bed!
[attachimg=1]
Yes, Thomas Anders and Dieter Bohlen from the german trash band Modern Talking were writing their songs in bed on the c64 on this cover [emoji6]
Quote from: Dinorast on 19:55, 20 January 16
We all need to be honest-the best games for the classic computers were made for the c64, even the latest releases. But nowadays its all retro (cpc,atari,msx,speccy,...) and I personally love them all. The "schoolyard fight from the 80s" which system has the stunners, is definatly history
That's the typical ignorance and snoppyness of the classical c64 user - like back the day on the school yard. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Dinorast on 20:22, 20 January 16...and commodore had the sexiest magazine covers
Really?!?!? That kind of ugly "Bohnenstangen" which look like they just escaped from some concentration camp. No ass, no chest! Pfui Teufel! And btw. how poor is it to need some bitches on magazines to sell them?
CPC never needed such crap. :P
C'mon ... that was Italy in the 80s-seems the "Bohnenstangen" were pretty fashion back in the good old times...do you prefer the german cover ? [emoji6]
Hey, just never liked that "Sex Sells" idea for computers. :-\
Never liked NES style graphics , much prefered Master System. But out of those I would rather have had C64. Atari 800 I do think was a brilliant computer , but It was from the 70's so naturally was not going to keep up with C64 . But considering its age it fairs very well . Atari 800 games rarely are look or play better than C64 in my opinion. MSX I think was a fantastic computer too ,flawed only by scrolling and a little by the ordinary AY chip. MSX2 I have not much knowledge on , but can see it has excelled in most area's.
Well, you could compare the versions of this relatively new game. 8)
C64
CPC (the recording looks a bit weird though)
rb
Atari XL/XE is one of my favourite systems too. From a hardware perspective it had many advantages over the CPC - Analogue inputs on the Joystick port, a fully decoded cartridge port, etc. From a software perspective, it had Jeff Minter! Who unfortunately never wrote any CPC stuff, despite having started on a Spectrum and having close links to DK'Tronics. :(
Bryce.
What a nice thread for outing the hidden breadbin and Speccy fanboys.. :P
Quote from: rexbeng on 10:52, 21 January 16
Well, you could compare the versions of this relatively new game. 8)
We-ell you
could but the bloke who wrote the C64 version hangs around here... =-)
Quote from: Bryce on 10:54, 21 January 16From a software perspective, it had Jeff Minter! Who unfortunately never wrote any CPC stuff, despite having started on a Spectrum and having close links to DK'Tronics. :(
Well, if by "started on a Spectrum" you mean "started on a Commodore PET" then yeah... =-)
Quote from: TMR on 16:29, 21 January 16
Well, if by "started on a Spectrum" you mean "started on a Commodore PET" then yeah... =-)
He never released any PET games. His first commercial game was for the Spectrum.
Bryce.
Jeff had one release for the Amstrad , although only a Colour/patterns kaleidescope .
Quote from: Bryce on 16:32, 21 January 16
He never released any PET games. His first commercial game was for the Spectrum.
You didn't say his first
commercial game previously but where he
started, two different things entirely. But according to Minter himself, his first commercial release was
Centipede for the ZX81, so which Spectrum game were you thinking of?
Quote from: TMR on 16:19, 21 January 16
We-ell you could but the bloke who wrote the C64 version hangs around here... =-)
Well, obviously both versions are great! The color schemes are different of course. c64 is always brownish, and CPC is always blueish. Both look great. Sounds are different, but both good. Of course I like the CPC version a little bit more because I grew up with CPC and suffered a lot from c64 people back the day. But based on logic I would say both versions are of the same quality and share #1 position. :)
The 800XL is a nice system too, back the day I like its users (relaxed guys usually) and the 256 colors. From a hardware perspective it's of course not as cool as the CPC (thinking about expansion possibilities and expansions upholding standards). :)
Eventually I don't understand the problems between CPC and Speccy, both share the Z80. And there's no doubt the CPC can do more, and therefore is was more expensive. Both had their market. :)
Quote from: TFM on 18:11, 21 January 16The 800XL is a nice system too, back the day I like its users (relaxed guys usually) and the 256 colors.
We-ell
strictly speaking 128 colours for most practical purposes since only the 4:1 ratio modes support the full 256 and there are rules applied. i managed to build a scrolling game that used the 16 shades of one hue mode though. =-)
Quote from: TMR on 17:52, 21 January 16
You didn't say his first commercial game previously but where he started, two different things entirely. But according to Minter himself, his first commercial release was Centipede for the ZX81, so which Spectrum game were you thinking of?
Well allow me to get my razor blade so that we can split hairs together :D
I was thinking of Centipede for the ZX81 (I tend to mix up Sinclair and Spectrum regularly). :)
Bryce.
Quote from: TMR on 18:45, 21 January 16
We-ell strictly speaking 128 colours for most practical purposes since only the 4:1 ratio modes support the full 256 and there are rules applied. i managed to build a scrolling game that used the 16 shades of one hue mode though. =-)
Do you have a video link?
Quote from: Bryce on 19:16, 21 January 16(I tend to mix up Sinclair and Spectrum regularly). :) Bryce.
There's a difference? :blank:
Quote from: TMR on 16:19, 21 January 16
We-ell you could but the bloke who wrote the C64 version hangs around here... =-)
Yes, yes, you are also allowed to compare! ^_^
rb
Quote from: rexbeng on 10:52, 21 January 16
Well, you could compare the versions of this relatively new game. 8)
C64
CPC (the recording looks a bit weird though)
rb
Was that game made to utilize what the c64s hardware can do best?
Absolutely! These shades of brown and grey are fantastic!
The CPC version is clearly better: it's SUPER Edge Grinder and even the video lasts longer...
so ideally the CPCs visuals with the C64s sound?
Quote from: ivarf on 22:16, 21 January 16
Was that game made to utilize what the c64s hardware can do best?
Of course! But the CPC did at least as well! :) Maybe our c64 friends would like to make a c64 version of my Cyber Chicken, I would provide what they need. But I don't think they would dare it to try. 8) :)
Quote from: dcdrac on 23:03, 21 January 16so ideally the CPCs visuals with the C64s sound?
No. Why? I prefer the CPC sound, but the c64 sound is as nice too. Just different. If I need to choose: Then gimme AY! :)
Quote from: Bryce on 19:16, 21 January 16
Well allow me to get my razor blade so that we can split hairs together :D
Oh sorry, i didn't know that being accurate was only optional...
Quote from: TFM on 19:32, 21 January 16
Do you have a video link?
Yup. It uses a character-based 80 by 192 pixel mode and the hardware sprits are expanded to match the pixel ratio. The mode doesn't work on early Atari 8-bits with a CTIA rather than a GTIA or some late models of XE due to a manufacturing fault in the hardware (i haven't replicated this despite trying to find a 65XE with the issue for testing).
Quote from: ivarf on 22:16, 21 January 16
Was that game made to utilize what the c64s hardware can do best?
I believe it was slightly crippled to be at least feasible on an Atari 800XL, though TMR can probably say for certain. I did consider a GX4000 version at one point, but the numbers just work ever so slightly against what the hardware can do best....
Quote from: ivarf on 22:16, 21 January 16Was that game made to utilize what the c64s hardware can do best?
Not really no, it's just a simple budget-style shoot 'em up; the original code was even put together in a machine code monitor rather than an assembler, then converted and optimised later! That said, it scrolls at 50FPS and also only takes under 32K when executing, compressing to just shy of 16K.
The idea behind
Edge Grinder was to produce a fairly generic shooter on the C64 and then "challenge" other coders to port it to their system of choice to see how they'd do it and what changes were made along the way; that's why there are only eight sprites, one level and the processor is essentially sat idle for the majority of the time.
Quote from: andycadley on 00:22, 22 January 16
I believe it was slightly crippled to be at least feasible on an Atari 800XL, though TMR can probably say for certain.
i kept the number of enemy sprites on a scanline down to i think it was five at the behest of the Atari coders considering a port since they had a technique in mind that'd work if there weren't too many co-existing, but the overall "plan" was to just keep it simple to invite would-be porters.
Quote from: TMR on 00:54, 22 January 16
Not really no, it's just a simple budget-style shoot 'em up; the original code was even put together in a machine code monitor rather than an assembler, then converted and optimised later! That said, it scrolls at 50FPS and also only takes under 32K when executing, compressing to just shy of 16K.
The idea behind Edge Grinder was to produce a fairly generic shooter on the C64 and then "challenge" other coders to port it to their system of choice to see how they'd do it and what changes were made along the way; that's why there are only eight sprites, one level and the processor is essentially sat idle for the majority of the time.
i kept the number of enemy sprites on a scanline down to i think it was five at the behest of the Atari coders considering a port since they had a technique in mind that'd work if there weren't too many co-existing, but the overall "plan" was to just keep it simple to invite would-be porters.
Super Edge Grinder is a fantastic game on the CPC as scrolling scooter. Not many scrolling games are this smooth. In hindsight I wonder if it this kind of quality we should have expected back in the day if the coders knew the hardware and put in some effort, or is this game just exceptional on the CPC?
Well, there were good coders back in the day for sure, but now, we have knowledge and time.
I think the problem is the whole 'industry' thing. Having 2 weeks to port, say... R-Type, wouldn't allow for something as the R-Type remake.
Quote from: robcfg on 14:03, 27 January 16
Well, there were good coders back in the day for sure, but now, we have knowledge and time.
... and new technology. Agreed.
We can create / edit our source code and resources, compile and test it in the same machine in few seconds, thanks to emulators, cross-compilers, powerfull machines, big hard drives, multi-tasking, etc.
Doing the same in "our beloved machine" is a pain.
Amen to that, brother!
Quote from: FloppySoftware on 14:55, 27 January 16
... and new technology. Agreed.
We can create / edit our source code and resources, compile and test it in the same machine in few seconds, thanks to emulators, cross-compilers, powerfull machines, big hard drives, multi-tasking, etc.
Doing the same in "our beloved machine" is a pain.
I can tell you, for sure, that it would have been completely impossible to develop Doomsday in the same way if I was not using the PC (and Dani Photoshop). In my case, compiling would take ages and editing a source that is almost 300KB would be pretty much impossible with a standard 6128 :-X .
Quote from: FloppySoftware on 14:55, 27 January 16
We can create / edit our source code and resources, compile and test it in the same machine in few seconds, thanks to emulators, cross-compilers, powerfull machines, big hard drives, multi-tasking, etc.
Doing the same in "our beloved machine" is a pain.
No, that's all the fun! :P :laugh: ;) :)
Quote from: ||C|-|E|| on 17:44, 27 January 16
... In my case, compiling would take ages and editing a source that is almost 300KB would be pretty much impossible with a standard 6128 :-X .
I do that with Prowort (=German Protext for CP/M) and 444 KB RAM disc. No problem! 8)
Humm... a few days, someone was asking me about te (my small text editor). He told me that the compilation time with MESCC was around half an hour in his machine. ???
I do the same in a couple of seconds in my PC and a CP/M emulator. :)
Quote from: FloppySoftware on 14:55, 27 January 16
... and new technology. Agreed.
We can create / edit our source code and resources, compile and test it in the same machine in few seconds, thanks to emulators, cross-compilers, powerfull machines, big hard drives, multi-tasking, etc.
Doing the same in "our beloved machine" is a pain.
I was doing stuff like this at school in 1991, sure my engineering school in Norway wasn't the earliest of the adopters of this technology.
Quote from: FloppySoftware on 18:08, 27 January 16
Humm... a few days, someone was asking me about te (my small text editor). He told me that the compilation time with MESCC was around half an hour in his machine. ???
I do the same in a couple of seconds in my PC and a CP/M emulator. :)
Well, then MESCC is really bad in compiling. Compare MAXAM and the new French assembler. For about 150 KB Z80 source MAXAM need about 10 minutes, and the French assembler does it in a small amount of seconds. It's all doable. ;)
BTW: This was one of the main reasons for me to develop FutureOS - to have software which is that efficient, that new hardware is not needed. And I still stick to that. Using a CPC instead of an emulator is my true choice and I wouldn't like to have in any other way. :)
Quote from: ivarf on 18:33, 27 January 16
I was doing stuff like this at school in 1991, sure my engineering school in Norway wasn't the earliest of the adopters of this technology.
I was talking about home computers.
In 1991, I was trying to compile Small-C (the father of MESCC) and after an hour of compilation and various ruunnnn-jasps-rouurrrns noises from the 3" floppy disk drive, the result was a syntax error found in the original source code.
As in my PCW I had only ED and RPED as text editors (not very suitable for the task), I left CP/M and booted LocoScript.
I inserted the source code in a empty LocoScript document, corrected the wrong character (yes, it was only one!), and saved the result as an ascii file.
Then, I left LocoScript and booted CP/M again.
I ran the compiler over the new source code, and after an hour of compilation and lot of graaaaoupp-jijijiriririrs-knowptrs noises, I had the result as an assembler source code file.
I ran the assembler (the good old Z80ASMUK from the CP/M UK Users Group), and after another hour of grrriinnds-jioopsstr-jijoustprr noises from the floppy disk drive, I had a hex file as a result.
Then, I ran the HEXCOM tool, and after twenty minutes of so of more graouuuurrr-jojopupmer-joush noises, I had AT LAST an executable COM file.
I was lucky, because my 180 Kb humble floppy disk was able to hold all the data.
I leave the details of debugging for another time. ;)
Quote from: TFM on 18:58, 27 January 16
Well, then MESCC is really bad in compiling. Compare MAXAM and the new French assembler. For about 150 KB Z80 source MAXAM need about 10 minutes, and the French assembler does it in a small amount of seconds. It's all doable. ;)
BTW: This was one of the main reasons for me to develop FutureOS - to have software which is that efficient, that new hardware is not needed. And I still stick to that. Using a CPC instead of an emulator is my true choice and I wouldn't like to have in any other way. :)
MESCC is a compiler, not an assembler. ::)
Full compilation from a C source file, to an executable COM file for CP/M, involves three steps:
- Compilation with MESCC.
- Assembling with ZSM.
- Loading with HEXCOM.
BTW: My humble PCW has not enough space in its (missing) hard drive to let me compile anything bigger in size than... 48 Kb? ;)
Quote from: FloppySoftware on 19:11, 27 January 16
MESCC is a compiler, not an assembler. ::)
I know, therefore I wrote 'compiling' and not 'assembling'. ::)
Also, even if I don't like C, there is a Small C for FutureOS, which does even more than the few steps you indicated. In addition there are optimization steps f.e. However, it's way more quick! ;D
BTW: HEXCOM.COM does not load, it converts from Intel HEX format to an executable application ending with .COM. ::)
:) :) :)
Quote from: TFM on 19:37, 27 January 16
I know, therefore I wrote 'compiling' and not 'assembling'. ::)
Also, even if I don't like C, there is a Small C for FutureOS, which does even more than the few steps you indicated. In addition there are optimization steps f.e. However, it's way more quick! ;D
BTW: HEXCOM.COM does not load, it converts from Intel HEX format to an executable application ending with .COM. ::)
:) :) :)
Well, I said that because you were comparing a compiler against two assemblers! ;)
Oh yes, I forgot to mention optimization step, in charge of ccopt. :)
And, well, in the CP/M world the first hex to com converter was... LOAD. Nice name, it'sn it? ;)
Anyway, I am happy if you are happy with Small-C for FutureOS. :)
MESCC is Small-C too. ;)
But half an hour? That really needs some optimization for compiling. :)
A few more CPC wins
Chuckie Egg -
Jet Set Willy -
Guardian 2 -
Chase HQ -