Hi
I've just registered on these fine forums and thought I'd better pop in here and say hello! My name is Adrian, I'm 43 and from Leeds, West Yorkshire. I'm predominantly a (dare I say it here!) Spectrum user (having a collection of about 15 of the various models) and also have a Sam Coupe, but wanted to try an Amstrad machine for the first time to compare architectures. I'll be getting my first ever Amstrad (a 6128) later this week and am looking forward to the adventure of learning a new Z80 based system.
Can anyone recommend a game or two (either ported or exclusive to Amstrad) that really shows off the extra features of the Amstrad over the Spectrum.
Many thanks.
Hi Adrian,
welcome in our forum.
The best "Speccy Port" IMHO is "Renegade" by Imagine.
http://www.cpc-power.com/index.php?page=detail&num=146 (http://www.cpc-power.com/index.php?page=detail&num=146)
Well it's not really a port, but the game also exist on speccys.
Another good game to compare is "Death Wish III" (Which looks almost identically to the CPC version on the Commodork C64)
http://www.cpc-power.com/index.php?page=detail&num=690 (http://www.cpc-power.com/index.php?page=detail&num=690)
Hello dear Speccy user.
The main features a CPC has over a speccy are the graphic videomodes.
Video modes - CPCWiki (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Video_modes)
You should compare Chase HQ and Robocop, perhaps also Batman the Movie, as they are quite obviously the Speccy games in Mode0.
But in those cases we have nice Amstrad Games, just slightly slower.
Many Speccy ports on the Amstrad where poorly done because too straighly ported without considering the Amstrad has a fuckhugier "VRAM" to handle.
Another main problem was concerning the graphics.
While almost being the same pixel ratio and screen resolution, a Mode1 on the Amstrad is completely different to the Speccy unique attributed mode..
The AY (soundchip) on the Amstrad isq slower than on the Speccy128 too...often the sounds were also too straughtly ported so had more basses and slower pace on the CPC, which wasn't always bad.
Some games actually almost run as if Speccy was emulated on the CPC.
Exemples are R-Type or Last Ninja 2 (and many many others...).
You can check the differences betwen the classic R-Type speccy port and the modern R-Type128K to see the gap between CPC and Speccy.
I also strongly recommand the speccy port page on the CPCwiki :
Speccy Port - CPCWiki (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Speccy_Port)
Also I want to congratulate you for having a CPC6128... this is clearly the best CPC available alongside a 6128PLUS.
The CPC really needs those 128K RAM and disk drive to perform well, if you want to code on it.
Why are Astro Marine Corps and Satan mentioned in the "Attribute based Sprites and Animation" section of that wiki page???
Thanks for the welcomes!
@Devilmarkus - I'll be sure to compare both Renegade and Death Wish III to their Spectrum equivalents to see the difference.
@MacDeath - thanks for all the info. I'll have a good read of the video mode and Spectrum ports pages. R-Type was one of my favourite shooters back in the 80's on the Spectrum so it'll be fun to compare the two versions.
Can you recommend a good assembler package so that I can get some code up and running on the actual hardware. At the moment I'm using the built-in assembler in WinAPE and slowly learning my way around the workings of CRTC and gate array.
Thanks.
About assemblers:
You could check Maxam here: http://www.cpc-power.com/index.php?page=detail&num=4685 (http://www.cpc-power.com/index.php?page=detail&num=4685)
Also my emulator "JavaCPC Desktop" has an integrated assembler, which iis based on Maxam-Syntax. (WinApe's integrated assembler will be the better choice here, as mine doesn't support macros)
The french CPC-Scene is often coding their stuff with DAMS ★ AMSTRAD CPC ★ APPLICATIONS ★ ASSEMBLEUR & COMPILATEURS ★ (http://cpcrulez.fr/applications_coding.htm) or ★ AMSTRAD CPC ★ APPLICATIONS ★ PROGRAMMATION AMSTRAD CPC ★ (http://cpcrulez.fr/applications_coding-DAMS_CA.htm)
QuoteWhy are Astro Marine Corps and Satan mentioned in the "Attribute based Sprites and Animation" section of that wiki page???
because they are character based engines as on Spectrum (for AMC, I don't know concerning Satan).
Astro Marine Corps (AMC) (ZX Spectrum 128K) (Dinamic/Creepsoft) (1989) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5jC9u5uDI#)
[Amstrad Cpc] AMC Longplay part 1/3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFX1MF9UxL4#)
such sort of engine was somewhat popular in character attribute computers because it was fast and "colourfull" as no clashes occured, but lack the smoothness of masked sprites with smooth movement.
Of course the word "atribute based" should be replaced by "character based" for the CPC and "Character attributes based" for the Spectrum..
Can't always be exactly right, he ?
Satan...
Satan (ZX Spectrum) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQVR2f1LC4c#)
Satan (Part 1)(1/2) - Amstrad CPC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PylWVPJ2hHs#)
not exactly the same sort of engine... (i didn't did the research enough I guess).
the sprite layer is masked, but still moved by "full characters"...
yet smoother scrolling than AMC.
You can compare with Black Tiger I guess...
on this page there is a video but I don't know how to put it here (not youtube)
http://gamesdbase.com/game/sinclair-zx-spectrum/black-tiger.aspx (http://gamesdbase.com/game/sinclair-zx-spectrum/black-tiger.aspx)
this is the only ZX speccy vid of Black Tiger I found ATM.
Black Tiger per Amstrad CPC by Ataru'75 [044] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICL7vKX3fGg#)
A good example is perhaps Thexder on NEC PC88/IBM Tandy/CGA PC and so on...
Thexder (Original game) - Level 16 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXxM2aIuWzM#)
AMC is character based, but it also manages to put music, fx, parallax scrolling and lots of sprites on screen while in game. And Satan has some of the finest mode 0 graphics that you can see on the Amstrad. Just putting both games on that list without saying anything about their qualities is unfair.
QuoteJust putting both games on that list without saying anything about their qualities is unfair.
it wasn't a list for shit-tier speccy ports lol*...
it was just a small list with one specific technical specification.
Character based engines have a lot of qualities.
They only lack a few in "smoothness" so are often bitched by C64 fans*.
To be fair I also saw some "Anti Amstrad trolls" telling the new R-Type version wasn't as good as the MSX1 cartridge R-Type version which is "so smooth".
Obvious shit-tier troll is obviously shit tier shitposting*.
MSX R-Type have no smooth scrolling at all, many sprites are character based, a few character clashes occur too, it's just that a very few sprites are in Hardware sprites (R9 and Forces mostly)... they "move smoothly" but still they fire at the character grid (most projectiles and collisions are character based).
*Sorry for the dirty bad words... English not being my native tongue it doesn't bother me.
@McKlein : I edited the page. I hope is is better/clearer now.
@cmonkey:
Please don't be put off by MacDeath's rantings. He is very passionate about the wrong doings. e.g. the amount of games ported direct from the spectrum which don't take more advantage of the amstrad's modes and colours.
You are welcome here to the forums ad I hope you enjoy your exploration of the Amstrad.
(I mainly have Amstrad's at home, but I also own a +3. I have also coded a game on the Spectrum. So you don't need to be pure CPC to be welcome here).
In terms of the actual hardware:
In the past I used Maxam. You can run it from disk. ROM is preferable because it will help you with your development, but you need a ROM board for that. The syntax of the Maxam assembler is the same as the WinAPE assembler. The maxam assembler came first.
With my own demos/games, I like to program them on the pc, using pasmo and my own tools then testing on an emulator. I always transfer them over to the cpc for testing, because that can highlight some issues.
Others prefer to work exclusively on the cpc itself. I see that as a preference thing - it doesn't matter if the end result is what you wanted and it works on real hardware.
If your hitting the crtc directly and playing with hardware tricks, testing on a real cpc is a must, and if possible on various cpc configurations (different crtc types)..
There are code examples on the forum, and feel free to ask if there are things you want to know, people will help.
Quote from: cmonkey on 11:38, 24 September 12
Can anyone recommend a game or two (either ported or exclusive to Amstrad) that really shows off the extra features of the Amstrad over the Spectrum.
Prehistorik 2
Chase HQ
Gryzor
Renegade
Mission Genocide
Edge Grinder
Orion Prime
A mixture of games with great graphics, great sound, nice smooth scrolling. Give you an idea what is possible.
Let's not forget Xyphoe's Phantasy ;D
Thanks for all the comments guys!
@Devilmarkus - I'll definitely be checking Maxam out
@arnoldemu - Don't worry, I'm not put off by MacDeath's rantings! I fully understand why Amstrad owners could potentially feel bitterness towards the dev teams of that time that did a 'quick n dirty' port of a Spectrum game to hardware which was much more capable. I presume a ROM board is some kind of external peripheral that plugs into the expansion slot on the CPC and allows you to plug in external ROMs. Are they hard to come by these days?
My assembler of choice when doing Spectrum work is zasm. It's probably not the best Z80 assembler out there but I'm so used to it now and it serves me well. I have used pasmo in the past but always ended up going back to zasm.
Just a quick question - are there any CPC games that use IM2? If so then could you name or or two for me, preferably platformers as I'm wanting to do a quick comparison of an IM2 Spectrum platformer to a CPC one.
I'll be sure to check out a few of the games that you've recommended to see what is possible on the CPC.
Thanks
Quote from: cmonkey on 21:51, 24 September 12@arnoldemu - Don't worry, I'm not put off by MacDeath's rantings!
Just wait till MacDeath posts after drinking a few beers, you'll get to love him ;D
What's IM2, by the way?
Interrupt mode 2
Hi! And welcome! :)
About ROM boards: Check out the MegaFlash in the Wiki
About Games: Take a look at R-Type (the new version ;-))
Quote from: cmonkey on 11:38, 24 September 12
Can anyone recommend a game or two (either ported or exclusive to Amstrad) that really shows off the extra features of the Amstrad over the Spectrum.
I would like to recommend Tornado Low Level (TLL), Sorcery, Alien 8, Knight Lore and Head over Heels, Donkey Kong, Arkanoid, X-out and Doomsday Blues/Eden Blues as well as many of the other mentioned games earlier in this thread. Try the Batman Forever demo too.
Devilmarkus: Why "Death Wish 3"? Do that game have any qualities except blockyness? Seriously though, I have never enjoyed that game or felt that it uses the cpc good.
Simple: It looks better on the CPC (Will not say, it looks really cool, but better than the speccy version)
But where do you see CPC advantages in TLL? :D
For me the GFX look very simple...
Thats always the opinion of each player.
It's not simple to match everybody's likes.
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 23:02, 24 September 12
Simple: It looks better on the CPC (Will not say, it looks really cool, but better than the speccy version)
But where do you see CPC advantages in TLL? :D
For me the GFX look very simple...
Thats always the opinion of each player.
It's not simple to match everybody's likes.
TLL has extremely fast and smooth scrolling with high framerate, especially when flying full speed diagonally. I cant imagine the Spectrumversion is near the smoothness and speed of the CPC version
Probably... I never tried any version of TLL... I played it once on a CPC, found it boring, and did not grab it again.
But, as I already wrote: Thats a very personal opinion, other players find it booooombastic :)
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 23:51, 24 September 12
Probably... I never tried any version of TLL... I played it once on a CPC, found it boring, and did not grab it again.
But, as I already wrote: Thats a very personal opinion, other players find it booooombastic :)
I agree, and it depends on when one played the game too, one get a nostalgic feeling for some games and some games suit some players better than other.
Concerning some Rombox, it could depend if Bryce is about to do a new batch soon or not I guess.
Who else still produce some cards ? Isn't prodatron active again ?
CPCpart do have a CPcbooster+...
CPC Parts : Parts for your Amstrad (http://www.cpcparts.net/)
But it is not really a Rombox.
Quote from: cmonkey on 21:58, 24 September 12
Interrupt mode 2
There are a couple, but it is rather pointless on the CPC since IM 2 is actually slower than IM 1 (and takes 257 bytes to map the vector address) and we have RAM available at #0038 so long as the firmware is disabled.
Quote from: cmonkey on 21:58, 24 September 12
Interrupt mode 2
very few.
Pang (cart) uses it.
Not sure of others. No need because im 1 is easy to use and you can turn off the roms easily to give full 64k useable.
Hello mate,
Welcome to the world of the CPC and to our community, really glad to have you here!
Dear lord, another "best of" thread... :D We should really make up our minds and make a sticky at some point, shouldn't we? Maybe I should open a thread and vote on -not the best, but the most representative games someone could check out when starting with the CPC?
Anyway, back to the thread, when talking about R-Type, do try the NEW and IMPROVED!!! R-Type 128K (R-Type CPC 128K (http://www.rtype.fr/)).
Surprised how come nobody mentioned the Batman Forever demo (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Batman_Forever). Not a game, for sure, but I'm betting everyone will enjoy it :)
[Edit] Ah -oops, ivarf did mention it!
As usual the discussion veered away... :D
Is there a list of best games on the wiki that we could point them to?
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.
Does CPC-Power have some kind of voting system and a top 10?
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...
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv6vaJcrR9s#ws)
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErkvcp9x0w#)
AMSTRAD TOP 20 GAMES (Part 2 of 2) by XYPHOE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj-bYRyDdJ0#)
Xyphoe channel, a good classicos.
Amstrad CPC Top Ten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rouMzJsi5M8#)
Ukmarkh channel has a lot of videos too.
amstrad games top 20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEa8WZvve30#)
tazong video.
Top 15 Amstrad! 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODOG5nAOHAM#)
Top 15 Amstrad! 2/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE2-f1DwyeI#)
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.
QuoteNo, 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.
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.
(http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu1/1701.png) (http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu1/1701.png)
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...
(http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu4/1066.png) (http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu4/1066.png)
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.
(http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showscreen.cgi?screen=screens/in-game/h/HeadOverHeels.gif) (http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showscreen.cgi?screen=screens/in-game/h/HeadOverHeels.gif)
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 (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Isometric_3D)
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.
(http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu1/2093.png) (http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu1/2093.png)
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.
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 ;-)
Quote from: TFM/FS on 19:51, 25 September 12
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 ;-)
:laugh: this supporting 64k machines debate will never end :laugh:
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 ;) :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
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...
Quote from: TFM/FS on 19:51, 25 September 12
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...
Quote from: robcfg on 09:03, 26 September 12
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".
Quote from: robcfg on 09:03, 26 September 12
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.
Quote from: arnoldemu on 09:56, 26 September 12if 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).
Quote from: arnoldemu on 08:29, 26 September 12
:laugh: this supporting 64k machines debate will never end :laugh:
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 ;) :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
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] ;)
Quote from: arnoldemu on 09:56, 26 September 12
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! :laugh: Nobody ever argued that way!
32K are enough :P
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 01:27, 27 September 12
32K are enough :P
Sure... And 16K too, if you put programs and data in ROM.
Quote from: TFM/FS on 20:35, 26 September 12
You create a straw man here! :laugh: 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.
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.
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. ;D
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. :D
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8ei0F1Xg1I#)
Final Fight?! ZX Spectrum 128k © 1991 US Gold (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bksFXZL7JQ#)
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 :
(http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu2/832.png) (http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu2/832.png)
(http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu1/404.png) (http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu1/404.png)
128K :
(http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu4/832.png) (http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu4/832.png)
(http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu1/751.png) (http://www.cpc-power.com/images/ecran_jeu1/751.png)
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...
* >:(
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.
QuoteA bad programmer makes a 512K game that you'll never load a second time.
perhaps just to watch the fancy intro ?
Quote from: Bryce on 12:37, 27 September 12
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.
Exactly :)
Bryce.
Yet, a RAM/ROM box with real time clock and mouse and IDE HDD is what we need... for like...25euros ?
;D
Quote from: MacDeath on 06:25, 28 September 12
Yet, a RAM/ROM box with real time clock and mouse and IDE HDD is what we need... for like...25euros ?
;D
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.
Unfortunately the Z80 doesn't offer all the signals you'd need for a RAM/ROM expansion, so it would be a Z80 mounted device, with quite a few other connections needed around the board. A bit messy I'm afraid.
@MacDeath: Dream on! :D
Bryce.
Quote from: Bryce on 08:38, 28 September 12
Unfortunately the Z80 doesn't offer all the signals you'd need for a RAM/ROM expansion
Sure. :D
Quote from: TotO on 07:34, 28 September 12
... But, an internal 256K RAM / 256K ROM / CF board socketed under the Z80 will be amazing... Looking for 99,99€ max. in mind.
You may kick my ass now to the moon.... Yarek updated one of my 6128 to 4 MB RAM, 2.5 MB Flash-ROM and the IDE8255 hard-disc controller (ALL internal!) for 75 Euros :o
Wow, I go away for a few days and when I return this thread has ballooned into a real behemoth!! Thanks very much for all your input and comments, I'm going to need more time than I've got to wade through all the youtube videos and what not!
I picked up my 6128 on Wednesday night. Haven't had a lot of time to spend with it yet. I slipped a new drive belt in yesterday as I had a couple of spares laying around from my Spectrum +3's. I loaded Starstrike II and had a play for 10 minutes. Seemed pretty nice, I haven't played the equivalent game on the Spectrum so I've not got a reference point.
Then I loaded up my all time favourite Spectrum game, Chuckie Egg 2 and was a little disappointed to be honest. It's blatantly obvious that it's exactly the same as the Spectrum version (although it's difficult to know whether the Spectrum version came first and the CPC version followed or vice versa or whether they were both developed at the same time in tandem, my thought would be that they were developed in tandem). But the CPC version definitely lacked the colour of the Spectrum version. With it running in mode 1 it's limited to 4 colours on screen at any one time but the Spectrum version quite often used 7 or 8 colours on screen at any one time. So, whilst the CPC version obviously didn't suffer with the (albeit limited) colour clashing of the Spectrum version it didn't look as colourful to me. I also did some timing based comparisons against the same game running on a real Spectrum that was sat next to the 6128 and the Spectrum game was definitely running slightly faster than the CPC version.
So from what I can gather, if you're prepared to sacrifice resolution you can have lots of colour but if you want at least the same resolution as the Spectrum then you're limited to 4 colours. I can imagine that the lower resolution would be initially hard on the eyes after 30 years of 256x192.
I'm sorry if I come across as being a bit negative here, that's not the intention. I'm merely trying to compare the CPC to the Spectrum that I'm used to. Maybe if I throw any comparisons out of the window then things will seem different. That's why I think it's important that I play a few 'CPC only' games so that I simply can't compare to the Spectrum. I've only had time to try those two games. Hopefully I'll get a bit more time over the coming week to try a few more in the massive haul that came with the CPC.
Everybody here probably hates me a little right now so I'll go away and do a bit more experimenting today!
Thanks again for all the input, it's much appreciated.
I didn't even know that chuckie egg 2 existed, so I searched on youtube and found this:
Chuckie Egg 2 - Cross Platform Shitty Games. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pavzb733Yv4#)
It seems that every other platform but the speccy got a lazy port.
As much as I love CE2 I'll be the first to admit that the 16-bit ports of it were absolutely dreadful! The collision detection was so bad that it made the game unplayable. Thankfully the 8-bit original on Spectrum/C64/CPC wasn't blighted with such terrible gameplay.
I guess the reason the game is my favourite all time game is that when I first got it as a 16 year old kid it was soooo huge of an adventure. 120 rooms! I wasn't aware of any other game at that time that had so many rooms to explore. I never thought I'd see all of them but eventually I did and nowadays I know my way around them blindfolded! I loved the idea of being able to pick things up and carry them around to other rooms and drop them and how the adventure unfolded as you got deeper and deeper into exploring it. I remember the exhilarating feeling that came from delivering my first ever completed egg! I liked the idea of being able to save your progress at any time and then resume from that same point later on. Happy days indeed!
To me there has never been another platformer like it and, although I keep searching, I doubt I'll ever find another game which holds my attention as much as that game still does to this day. Most people hated it because it was in such a different vein to the original CE but I much preferred it over the original. People are all individual, that's what makes the human race so great, it wouldn't be good if everybody all liked the same thing.
Quote from: cmonkey on 12:49, 30 September 12I guess the reason the game is my favourite all time game is that when I first got it as a 16 year old kid it was soooo huge of an adventure. 120 rooms! I wasn't aware of any other game at that time that had so many rooms to explore.
I got the same feeling with Batman and Head over Heels. Those games were like entering another world ;D
@cmonkey:
ce2 is poor.
however chuckie egg on cpc is a nice version, comparable to bbc micro version.
So it's not all bad news ;)
So now you have an understanding why we get a bit angry about lazy conversions to the cpc ;)
Chuckie Egg could have better graphics on the CPC, but at least it's blazing fast.
Ohhh welcome to the world of Speccy ports, mate! A world where a machine with superior graphical capabilities has worse results than the source machine! Noone will get mad at you for bashing them, in fact there have been numerous discussions about this. You can read more about the phenomenon here: Speccy Port - CPCWiki (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Speccy_Port)