Newbie saying hello!

[arnoldemu]

Is there a list of best games on the wiki that we could point them to?

[Gryzor]

What you're mentioning is a Fabled Item, only exists within a theoretical universe as far as I can see. But maybe, just maybe, we should begin one. Seriously. With categories, probably.

[McKlain]

Does CPC-Power have some kind of voting system and a top 10?

[Gryzor]

No, I think, but the thing would be to build a nice list of various types of games, explaining why this or that title deserves to be played by a newcomer...

[MacDeath]

Youtube may be your friend, there are a few video with top5, top 10 and top20 perhaps...
While being the opinion of one guy, you always have some classics in there.




Starglider was nice too, nice pseudo 3D shooter.



LES JEUX AMSTRAD PARTIE 1
furaxxe70200 channel has like 10 videos with many Amstrad games.
That's in french though.


Also :

AMSTRAD TOP 20 GAMES (Part 1 of 2) by XYPHOE

AMSTRAD TOP 20 GAMES (Part 2 of 2) by XYPHOE
Xyphoe channel, a good classicos.



Amstrad CPC Top Ten
Ukmarkh channel has a lot of videos too.



amstrad games top 20
tazong video.



Top 15 Amstrad! 1/2

Top 15 Amstrad! 2/2
Fondecai channel.




if some games are in multiple tops, they are probably part of the real best of... many were cited already.


Sorry I most probably forgot some Spanish youtube channels.

No, I think, but the thing would be to build a nice list of various types of games, explaining why this or that title deserves to be played by a newcomer...

A nice sticky or even Wikipage could be used to display all those "best of videos and give links to youtube channels with heavy Amstrad content...


I mean Ukmarkh and Xyphoes are amongst the most well known to us, but there are other... be it in French, Spanich or English, perhaps even Greek or german.


Couldn't hurt to get all those on a sticky with link and the "topX/best of" compilations directly posted in the CPcwikiforum or CPCwiki page.

[MacDeath]

sorry for the double post but last post was full of videos...


Back to CPC/ZX differences.


The main difference is the Amstrad being able to feature colours with no attribute clashes.


take a game like prohibition.





While Mode1 is far from being the most colourfull, some games could use that to get the Retro feeling "black and white and Red" in a "Roman Noir" effect.
the attribute free nature is clearly nice in that you can make better use of fine ditherings, freely mix black and grey and red and white.
Also the visor/targeter/mousepointer can be of one highlighted colour and don't suffer from clashes.


I guess it was one of the main Speccy problem, when you had to deal with some "Mouse-like pointer".


MSX and C64 had Hardsprite so could overlay a pointer in a colourclash-less manner, Speccy couldn't.


Amstrad Could despite having less colour on screen.




This was also precious with 3D isometric games...

Speccy (and C64 too actually) having square character attributes, to have those games in isometric (all diagonal lines) was a problem if you want colours... Many of those games were quite monocolour.


Here the CPC manage well having only 4 colours and you clearly see the gain in playability.



Sadly as many of those isometric Games were badly speccy ported, Amstrad could hardly use this "feature" to its advantage.




Code speaking...
Amstrad Mode1 is 2bit per pixels (bpp)...
Speccy in monocolour is 1bit per pixel (bpp)


Every thing is easily twice heavier on CPC...
But when you deal with "masked" graphics (transparancy used) the speccy often had to add a 1bpp mask so the whole piece of processed graphic is actually 2bpp...


Isometric games like Head Over Heels (or Heroquest) often had to even use masked tiles for the background.


CPC could use a different technique to have the mask : you sacrifice 1 colour that is used as a mask... so you have 3 coloured masked stuffs.
Look at head over heels, the masked elements on the picture only use black & white and green, Red is used for the mask, but the final background layer being unmasked, it can use the Red (floor and backwalls).

Sadly it was badly used in Heroquest.


Perhaps the 3D isometric page from the Wiki can be interesting too :
Isometric 3D - CPCWiki
As Isometric was quite popular during the Speccy era... lots of speccy ports were isometric... I included a lot of explanations on this wikipage.




A very simple way to upgrade Speccy games while porting them straightly is to simply get a monocolour speccy game, but then have the mask system switched into a more Amstrad friendly one.


So the sprites can be of other colours with no colour clashes...
Typical example ?
Strider.


the raging part is that many games weren't even using this method... see Black Tiger or PacMania per example...
But still waasted a lot of CPU to put rasters and to recode 1bpp graphics into 2bpp graphics while displaying...


Such was the bargain of the time, they needed to gain on the RAM so got the graphics stored in 1bpp (spectrum Datas) but wasted CPU.
This explains a lot why so many speccy ports are so slow on the Amstrad.
It was due mostly to the 464 configuration limit.


64K RAM only, and tape loading was so slow that you couldn't "refresh" the game content easily/fast.
While the speccy48 had only 48K but only 8-9K max used for the VRAM... the CPC had 64K but 16K used for the VRAM and native graphics wheigting twice.


A good speccy game from the late 80's could really have a lot of graphic content... so for the Amstrad port they always prefered to go for the RAM optimisation instead of CPU optimisation... Better to have a game that can run slowly than a game that cannot even be stored entirely in the RAM.


But hey, most of those ports were done by a lone coder with no support from a Graphic artist at all and a teribly short deadline... so He had no time to redo the graphics.


If only the low spec CPC had 80K instead of only 64K, it could really have changed a lot or things.

[TFM]

Yeah, but still people support 64 KB only poor 464-tape-crap systems. I started with a 6128, and always suffered under them. For me: 128 KB is the absolute minimum ;-)

[arnoldemu]

Yeah, but still people support 64 KB only poor 464-tape-crap systems. I started with a 6128, and always suffered under them. For me: 128 KB is the absolute minimum ;-)

this supporting 64k machines debate will never end 

hey i'll make a really simple game and it would really work on 64k... but I'll just write it for 128k and stop 64k people from enjoying it  

[robcfg]

It's a bit like "I cannot play Battlefield III because I still have a 3DFx VooDoo 2 card on my computer"...


I mean, sure, you can still make nice games with 64kb, but that's a serious limitation. I had (and still have) a CPC 464 back in the time and it gave me many hours of joy. But being realistic, the 6128 is more practical, can use disks, and has more memory...

[TotO]

Yeah, but still people support 64 KB only poor 464-tape-crap systems. I started with a 6128, and always suffered under them. For me: 128 KB is the absolute minimum ;-)

I agree because in 1985, floppies was the future and tapes the past.

In 1985, some micro-computers comes with 512K of memory and 720K floppies in standard... The 6128 was a shame when released (only 128K and 360K floppies), so don't speak about the 70s design of the 464... It was a first try, no more.

Today, I don't want to ear about 464 for new programs limitation.
Let nostalgic people replay tapes on their vintage computer... But, AMSTRAD Today is for me 128K and floppy at less.
That allow to make more ambicious projects, because 128K is more than twice the memory...

If we know that was so easy to plug a 3"1/2 external drive 20 years ago...

[arnoldemu]

It's a bit like "I cannot play Battlefield III because I still have a 3DFx VooDoo 2 card on my computer"...

No it's not.

That comparison is more "I can't play Pang because I have a CPC".

I mean, sure, you can still make nice games with 64kb, but that's a serious limitation. I had (and still have) a CPC 464 back in the time and it gave me many hours of joy. But being realistic, the 6128 is more practical, can use disks, and has more memory...

I am not saying to limit the game. I am saying if the game can fit into 64k (e.g. like a puzzle game), then make sure the 64k cpcs can run it.

Don't make it 128k unnecessary.

If the design requires 128k because of so much extra data, then make it 128k.
Or if the design needs disc drive, then make it for disc drive.

But if the design is a small game and you say "can only be used on 128k" and it has many KB of wasted unused space because of lazyness, then that is bad. that is my real argument.

[TotO]

if the design is a small game and you say "can only be used on 128k" and it has many KB of wasted unused space because of lazyness, then that is bad. that is my real argument.

Sure. If the program may fit in 64K, it's a shame to waste memory and not support 64K computers. So, if the design need a disc drive, it can run on them too (664 or 464+DDI).

[TFM]

this supporting 64k machines debate will never end 

hey i'll make a really simple game and it would really work on 64k... but I'll just write it for 128k and stop 64k people from enjoying it

First, this is not a debate, and I don't want start one. I made my point here and that's it.

Second, at the moment I'm working on a game which will also run on a plain CPC464/tape, because the software house want's it that way too. However, with all that biting 6128-hating comments I did read during the last year I seriously think about dropping the 464 version and make it 128 KB only! And your comment feed the dark wolf    You better should feed the bright wolf[nb]We all have two wolfes in our heart, a good one and an evil one. Which one wins, will depend on which one we feed[/nb]

[TFM]

But if the design is a small game and you say "can only be used on 128k" and it has many KB of wasted unused space because of lazyness, then that is bad. that is my real argument.

You create a straw man here!    Nobody ever argued that way!

[Devilmarkus]

32K are enough

[TotO]

32K are enough

Sure... And 16K too, if you put programs and data in ROM.

[arnoldemu]

You create a straw man here!    Nobody ever argued that way!

so what is the argument we have here?

Always make 128k only games?

This is my argument: I am happy for both 64k and 128k games. I like to see a game that is compatible with 64k systems (so this includes a disc only game) only because more people can enjoy it. Games which have extras for 128k are great too. 128K Games are ok too. But I don't like to see a game that needs 128k because it has been programmed badly. What do I want to see for 128k games? More gfx, bigger levels, more frames of animation. Something *extra*. If the game is badly made and could fit into 64k, then it's not a real 128k game. It's a 64k game with lots of unused potential. My choice is to make 64k and 128k games. Others can choose to make 128k. Lets accept that, and not keep saying "it would be better with 128k". That may not always be true. I may not always make games for 128k, because it takes more time and resources to use it to it's full potential.

Instead of arguing, let's just make games.

[TotO]

Depending the game ambitions.
If you want double buffer, some maps with various tiles, animated sprites, SFx and music (at less 1 per level), and short loadings you can't reach that on 64K.

[MacDeath]

Many computers from the early 80's (late 70's) had only 16k... so it must be enough to do what they are supposed to do... learn Basic programation I guess.

But then came the Atari ST with its 720K diskDrive and 512K (then 1024K) RAM... a 464 is clearly outgunned.

Even Amstrad's Spectrum were all 128K.

Hell even the Thomson's MO6 and TO8 did it almost right concerning the RAM and network.  
Yet the original TO7 from 1982 was like 16K RAM only...


A little puzzle game can do it with 64K I guess, wasn't it the case with Color Lines ? Extra RAM can be used to have single loading and more music to listen too...

But more ambitious Arcade hits clearly shouldn't limit themselves to 64K.
Double buffering can be usefull after all.
Also to use more than 256x192 sized screen...


a good aspect with extra RAM so less need to cut n the screensize... some 128x256 sized screen (mode0, as in Arkanoid) would not need to use vertical scrolling perhaps, while a speccy sized game would get both vertical and horizontal scrolling to manage the smaller screen.
See Strider... each time you jump it has to scroll vertically because the screen is too small vertically... while a 256x256 sized screen (doable on CPC) would certainly trigger the dual axis scrolling a lot less.


Look at Final fight...

Final Fight (1/7) - Amstrad CPC

Final Fight?! ZX Spectrum 128k © 1991 US Gold
yep, the vertical scrolling is mostly due to the fact the screen is smaller vertically than arcade.
But it is actually something that clearly get the engine heavier... While not a big deal for the Speccy, it is a big deal for the Amstrad, as such limitation is designed to compensate for speccy's flaws (unique video mode in 256x192 only) but is ported on CPC as it is.


Also compare the few games in both versions... ESWAT cyber police or Double Dragon 64 or 128...


64K :




128K :




still the automatic graphic port as for Double dragon1, 2 and Eswat and a few others... but this is another debate*
Sadly the 64k version had a proper graphic artist, somewhat...

* (why CPC had no proper Graphic artist in most games ?)


Back to topic.
Those so many lazy speccy ports teached us that aiming at "64K only" seriously limits the CPU optimisation during the run of the code.

Still would be easier if someone was still producing a cheap version of those "turn your 464 into 6128" extension cards... you know, the ones with +64K and the extra ROM, perhaps even a FDC ?

Also I guess the same sort of debate must animate the Spectrum community, between essential questions such as :
=Original Sinclair Range or Amstrad models ?
=Zx81 or Amstrad Speccy+3 ?
=Russian clones with Extra stuffs ?
=why bothering with an AY and 128K while a beeper and 48K is enough ?
=Why don't you like colourclashes you CPC users ?
=Haha, poor of you, your so called CPC is just a humble lame speccy clone !*
=This Batman demo is lame, it features no colour clashes it is unwatchable !

and so on...


*

[Bryce]

You're kind of ignoring the prices of the machines at the time:

ZX81 (1K 1981): 70GBP (only 50 if you were willing to solder the thing together yourself)
CPC464 (64K 1984): 299GBP
Atari ST (512K 1985): 799GBP

Yes, the CPC could have had 64 Sprites, 4GB of RAM, 4 Gazillion colours, DMA, Stereo AY with midi, etc, etc... Then it would have cost a lot more and none of us would probably have ever owned one.

Much like any computer system, or mobile phone today the more you pay, the more you get.

Regarding what you can do with the RAM available. There's no such thing as "The right amount of RAM", there's only talented programmers and not-so talented programmers. A good programmer can make a great game in 64K that you'll play till your fingers bleed. A bad programmer makes a 512K game that you'll never load a second time.

Bryce.

[MacDeath]

A bad programmer makes a 512K game that you'll never load a second time.

perhaps just to watch the fancy intro ?

[TFM]

Regarding what you can do with the RAM available. There's no such thing as "The right amount of RAM", there's only talented programmers and not-so talented programmers. A good programmer can make a great game in 64K that you'll play till your fingers bleed. A bad programmer makes a 512K game that you'll never load a second time.

Bryce.

As a good producer of hardware can create a powerful computer with everything needed for very cheap, and a less talented one wastes enourmous amouts of cash for hardware, which at the end ist just slow and sluggish.

[Bryce]

Exactly

Bryce.

[MacDeath]

Yet, a RAM/ROM box with real time clock and mouse and IDE HDD is what we need... for like...25euros ?

[TotO]

Yet, a RAM/ROM box with real time clock and mouse and IDE HDD is what we need... for like...25euros ?

Remove RTC (useless) and the mouse (already possible through the joyport).
But, an internal 256K RAM / 256K ROM / CF board socketed under the Z80 will be amazing... Looking for 99,99€ max. in mind.