Amstrad CPC and potential? In what? As far as I understand that computer was brought very late to the market and its graphical capabilies are very very confusing to me. The reason being most games run at suspiciously cut down screen size and are very very blocky (Renegade on Amstrad - WTF?!). I've never seen a single game on CPC that would be both HIRES and colourfull and would use the whole potential screen area...
I see no reason to like CPC. I would rather buy C-64 next to the Spectrum. Or, perhaps, back in the days, Atari ST would be a nice working environment for a reasonable price.
The CPC came a little bit later but wasn't so late to market that nobody had a chance to use its potential. It was launched in 1984 less than a couple of years after the Spectrum and the C64 and as early as 1985 there were some very good games (e.g. Sorcery, Knight Lore) that made excellent use of its capabilities. So it's not as if developers didn't really have much of a chance to get to grips with it and there's little excuse - other than perhaps lack of time - for the large number of lame ports it continued to get into the 1990s.
The graphical capabilities are fairly simple to explain. There are three modes 0 (16 colour with low pixel density "blocky" graphics typically 160x200 pixels), 1 (4 colour with medium pixel density, typically 320x200 although often 256x192 especially for ports of Spectrum games), and 2 (2 colours with high pixel density, typically 640x200 used mostly for business apps.) As such, the colourful games tend to be blocky, and the detailed ones can be somewhat lacking in colour, although there is no colour clash in any mode; even mode 1 games can have multicoloured sprites as can be seen in games like Head Over Heels and Gunfright. There are also a number of tricks you can use to change the palette mid-screen, perform a "hardware" scroll both vertically and horizontally with little CPU overhead, and overscan into any of the borders.
If you want an example a game that uses high resolution graphics and a decent number of colours, I'd suggest WEC Le Mans:
Perhaps it's not as riotously colourful as you could possibly have got from the CPC, but it looks a heck of a lot better to my eyes than the Spectrum version.
When I was a kid, I thought that almost all the games were better on the Spectrum than on the C64.
Some examples are Bruce Lee, Arkanoid, Bubble Bobble, Rainbow Island, Enduro Racer, Out Run, Space Harriers, Commando, Bomb Jack...
I also preferred the Speccy's Ghosts 'n' Goblins, although I loved the C64's music on that game. GnG had better graphic and very long levels if compared to the C64's version.
The only game I really loved on the C64 was WONDER BOY and I remember that I truly disliked the Spectrum version...
I should try to play it again... I loved that game, but I think it would be still disappointing...
Amstrad CPC and potential? In what? As far as I understand that computer was brought very late to the market and its graphical capabilies are very very confusing to me. The reason being most games run at suspiciously cut down screen size and are very very blocky (Renegade on Amstrad - WTF?!). I've never seen a single game on CPC that would be both HIRES and colourfull and would use the whole potential screen area...
I see no reason to like CPC. I would rather buy C-64 next to the Spectrum. Or, perhaps, back in the days, Atari ST would be a nice working environment for a reasonable price.
1984 doesn't look too late for me, I mean... WTF?
The graphical capabilities aren't that confusing. The CRTC is pretty powerful and configurable and you can make it do wonders, but you have to fit in memory. By standard, the 16000 bytes corresponding to the screen file can be configured in three ways: 160x200x16, 320x200x4 or 640x200x2. If you do the math, all those modes take exactly 16000 bytes: the first one uses 4 bits per pixel, the second one 2 and the last one just 1.
So hi-res and many colours just isn't possible, at least by standard. Most games have a small playing area 'cause they were direct ports from the speccy to save money (you can use the same code on both computers if you keep the same sizes, just change the I/O routines). Some of them didn't even attempt to do proper full-colour, 1 colour per pixel graphics. a 240x160 playing area is quite good in speccy but looks tiny on the CPC 'cause of the bigger resolution.
Configuring the CRTC you can perform overscan and use hardware scrolling. Sadly, most developers went the easy way. The CPC can easily be the most powerful of the handful of computers which were commercially successful 8 bits computer, on par with the MSX2.
The only game I really loved on the C64 was WONDER BOY and I remember that I truly disliked the Spectrum version...
I should try to play it again... I loved that game, but I think it would be still disappointing...
Come to think of it, the Spectrum version of Wonder Boy isn't that bad, especially if you play it on a 128K machine - no multi-load, plus sound effects and the tune from the coin-op as well.
The blocky graphics and washed-out colors of the C64 version (and in general of the C64) are something I never managed to get used to despite appreciating several other games on that machine.
Come to think of it, the Spectrum version of Wonder Boy isn't that bad, especially if you play it on a 128K machine - no multi-load, plus sound effects and the tune from the coin-op as well.
The blocky graphics and washed-out colors of the C64 version (and in general of the C64) are something I never managed to get used to despite appreciating several other games on that machine.
Alessandro... probably you got the point!!
I always had a 48k, so I never tried the 128k. I remember the Speccy version's graphic was good but I was annoyed by the lack of sound effects.
I never had a 128k... but I just bought a +2 from Ebay and it's on the way now. When I'll get it... well, Wonder Boy will be the first game I will try... then I will tell you my impressions. In any case, I'm excited by your post and I can't wait to try it... perhaps I'll give it a look on the emulator... :-D THANX!!!
Perhaps it's not as riotously colourful as you could possibly have got from the CPC, but it looks a heck of a lot better to my eyes than the Spectrum version.
That's nice, runs at a fair rate too and looks smooth.
Alessandro... probably you got the point!!
I always had a 48k, so I never tried the 128k. I remember the Speccy version's graphic was good but I was annoyed by the lack of sound effects.
I never had a 128k... but I just bought a +2 from Ebay and it's on the way now. When I'll get it... well, Wonder Boy will be the first game I will try... then I will tell you my impressions. In any case, I'm excited by your post and I can't wait to try it... perhaps I'll give it a look on the emulator... :-D THANX!!!
Funny you should mention that. When I moved my first faltering steps into the fascinating world of Spectrum emulation, 13 years ago, one of the first choices I made was to try the 128K versions of games as much as possible, just to know what I had been missing for all those years (besides, of course, all of the games I simply did not play at all). I now own several 128K machines (a gray +2 is among them, by the way) and can experience "the real thing" :)
I'm the regular contributor of the Spectrum retrogaming section, besides writing a few coin-op and PC retro-reviews as well (my look at System Shock 2 has been published just today). I also wrote some special insight reviews about Spectrum coin-op conversions and films/books/comics tie-ins, as well as a global review of the new releases of each year in January, starting from 2009. You are one of the very few people here who can understand Italian ;) therefore I hope you will find that interesting.
The CPC came a little bit later but wasn't so late to market that nobody had a chance to use its potential. It was launched in 1984 less than a couple of years after the Spectrum and the C64 and as early as 1985 there were some very good games (e.g. Sorcery, Knight Lore) that made excellent use of its capabilities. So it's not as if developers didn't really have much of a chance to get to grips with it and there's little excuse - other than perhaps lack of time - for the large number of lame ports it continued to get into the 1990s.
The graphical capabilities are fairly simple to explain. There are three modes 0 (16 colour with low pixel density "blocky" graphics typically 160x200 pixels), 1 (4 colour with medium pixel density, typically 320x200 although often 256x192 especially for ports of Spectrum games), and 2 (2 colours with high pixel density, typically 640x200 used mostly for business apps.) As such, the colourful games tend to be blocky, and the detailed ones can be somewhat lacking in colour, although there is no colour clash in any mode; even mode 1 games can have multicoloured sprites as can be seen in games like Head Over Heels and Gunfright. There are also a number of tricks you can use to change the palette mid-screen, perform a "hardware" scroll both vertically and horizontally with little CPU overhead, and overscan into any of the borders.
If you want an example a game that uses high resolution graphics and a decent number of colours, I'd suggest WEC Le Mans:
Perhaps it's not as riotously colourful as you could possibly have got from the CPC, but it looks a heck of a lot better to my eyes than the Spectrum version.
I really enjoyed the Speccy version but once I played the CPC version at a mates house, I found it hard to go back to the Speccy version.
I prefer Bruce Lee on Speccy as the colour scheme when you get under ground on the C64 version is dreadful,i have also played the BBC model B and CPC versions and the C64 has the most suggish controls of all four versions.
I prefer Bruce Lee on Speccy as the colour scheme when you get under ground on the C64 version is dreadful,i have also played the BBC model B and CPC versions and the C64 has the most suggish controls of all four versions.
I prefer it because even if Green Yamo isn't actually Green on the Speccy version who cares the collision works properly, and the game is smooth.
The Commode version is a blocky slow awful clunky mess, and I don't care what a C64 fanboy says about Bruce Lee being better on there loaf of bread storage device they are 155% wrong. Commode Bruce Lee is awful!
the Spectrum had fanstastic games, and IS a British cultural icon.
But there is no denying that the C64 was, in many ways, a superior machine.
It always saddened me that after the 48k spectrum, Sinclair didn't ride on the wave of popularity and bring out a 128k/256k machine with a better graphics mode: something along the lines of the NES; whilst keeping backwards compatibility. I really think it would have been a success and given Sinclair the chance to keep competing as the 80s advanced.
the Spectrum had fanstastic games, and IS a British cultural icon.
But there is no denying that the C64 was, in many ways, a superior machine.
Sure, but for a machine launched later at over twice the price that should hardly be surprising. What's impressive about the Spectrum was that it was able to compete at all.
It always saddened me that after the 48k spectrum, Sinclair didn't ride on the wave of popularity and bring out a 128k/256k machine with a better graphics mode: something along the lines of the NES; whilst keeping backwards compatibility. I really think it would have been a success and given Sinclair the chance to keep competing as the 80s advanced.
Sinclair attempted to cater to that (at least the 128K RAM and the better graphics mode) with the QL, which also boasted a whole pile of other extra features including a vastly improved BASIC and a multi-tasking OS. Sure, it wasn't compatible with the Spectrum but that wasn't really such an issue as the Spectrum couldn't run ZX80/81 software either. The problem is that just offering more RAM and prettier graphics aren't exactly ends in themselves.
So far as the NES goes, it's a bit of a one-trick pony. It's really good at scrolling platformers, as that's what the graphics capabilities are primarily geared towards, but doesn't really offer anything remarkable in other genres and it's downright hamstrung when it comes to isometric and vector graphics.
In creating a machine that's a hybrid between it and the Spectrum what you'd likely end up with is something very much like the C64. Well, either that or the Sega Master System if you leant more towards the games machine side of things.
I disagree: Longer games, better music, uniload, aditional graphics...
:)
To me, the best Spectrum games are 128k games.
Longer games doesnt always mean better.
Better music than beeper is not a big success, SID is still far superior, especially with those great C64 musicians led by Rob Hubbard.
Additional graphics?
Higher resolution?
More colours?
Hardware sprites?
No color clash, maybe?
Which 128k games utilised this?
Check out Creatures 2 or Mayhem in Monsterland which pushed C64 to this limits.
The quality is almost the same with Mega Drive games in this genre.
Programming masterpiece, impossible to acheived on Specy.
To me, best Spectrum games are 16/48K ones with good old beeper, creates a stronger nostalgia than any C64. :)
So far as the NES goes, it's a bit of a one-trick pony. It's really good at scrolling platformers, as that's what the graphics capabilities are primarily geared towards, but doesn't really offer anything remarkable in other genres and it's downright hamstrung when it comes to isometric and vector graphics.
.
:-o
The NES is home to some of the greatest genre-defining video games ever.
Gradius
Lifeforce
Blades Of Steel
Double Dragon 2
Castlevania 3
PunchOut
SMB
Final Fantasy
Legend Of Zelda
As far as isometric games are concerned, sure it didn't have any but it could do them - Solstice (which ran faster and looked better than anything the speccy could do), RC Pro Am. Elite ran pretty good on the NES too.
However, these games were not a big market for console gamers.
Hardly a one-trick pony. And when you look a the arcade conversions, and compare them to the home computer versions, they are just wonderful. It blew me away when I first got hold of one.
I had (and have) a 48k, so I am familiar with the beeper...and to play by the rubber keyboard. And I love it.
There is no C64 game that interested me more than the good old Spectrum versions. So far, I prefer the 48k to the 128k, but I've played the 128 only by emulators.
I wanna try the real thing. I've got a +2 and soon I'll get the RGB cable to play with it. After that, I will tell you more.
I agree with who says that the C64 was superior in hardware. But... how to say? It simply don't have the same charme of the Spectrum.
I loved Bubble Bobble on my Spectrum. With the simple beeper sound. I felt it better than any other version and a friend of mine who had an Atari ST loved to play with me on the Speccy.
Same with Arkanoid: the Spectrum version don't have the background of the 16bit versions (although Revenge of Doh had an impressive graphic, in my opinion) but it was much more better than the C64 version.
Commando? Much more better on the Speccy than on the C64. And the music on the 128k was not so bad, I think.
I think the Spectrum had at least 3 important characteristics:
1. a unexplainable charm
2. an amazing low price and awesome games
3. a nice BASIC (I think the Sinlair Basic is much more better than the CBM BASIC V2.0).
Personally, I loved the Sinclair design and i think the Spectrum is still very elegant and nice. Both the 16/48 and the 128k. The Amstrad versions are quite ugly, in my opinion.
And it had a special appeal... even the colour clash... well, yes... I love the high resolution graphic of the Spectrum and even its colour clash. It have its special charm in some way.
And yes, even the beeper! I love it.
I know that the SID is far superior even if compared to the AY, but -as I said- the Spectrum had a special, unexplainable appeal.
Moreover, it was far more cheaper than the C64.
And it was much more easy and fun to learn to program in BASIC with it.
When I was a kid, I remember that my friends with the Commodore 64 were all so amazed that my computer could get datas from a normal tape recorder and that it had an internal speaker, not to mention to its "gummy" keyboard.
C64 was superior in hardware, I think. But the limits of the Spectrum forced the programmers to find so many different solutions to bring out the best from the little Sinclair machine... and I think that this is the most important point. So many people all around the world still remember and love that little black computer.
It will always have a special place in my heart.
Longer games doesnt always mean better.
Better music than beeper is not a big success, SID is still far superior, especially with those great C64 musicians led by Rob Hubbard.
Additional graphics?
Higher resolution?
More colours?
Hardware sprites?
No color clash, maybe?
Which 128k games utilised this?
Check out Creatures 2 or Mayhem in Monsterland which pushed C64 to this limits.
The quality is almost the same with Mega Drive games in this genre.
Programming masterpiece, impossible to acheived on Specy.
It is such a shame, and a missed opportunity. The Sinclair brand was very strong in 1983/1984. Sadly, after about 1984ish the C64 did open a very strong lead with the quality of it's AAA titles. People liked the Sinclair machines. I'm convinced an upgrade with better graphics would have sold. Instead Sinclair, then Amstrad, continued to put out improvements that didn't really satisfy. A new keyboard? meh, I was playing games, I didn't really care about that. If I did, I could have bought a real keyboard for it.
The NES is home to some of the greatest genre-defining video games ever.
Did I ever say it wasn't?
Rather, it's just that the hardware has only a very limited set of tricks over the Spectrum's. They're essentially sprites, hardware scrolling and a tile-mapped background layer. That's all really handy for scrolling platformers, but not really much else.
In all the other cases I think you're mistaking good programming for hardware capabilities. There's nothing really about the other games you mentioned that couldn't have been done on the Spectrum, obvious issues like colour clash aside, and in a lot of cases they were.
you heretic will die soon. burned at stake. dismembered. disemboweled.
hanged. electrocuted.
and other lovely things.
fancy a cup of tea?
you evil git .. TEA!!.. TEA!!! yuk.. herbal or green is ok, but not normal stuff.
coffee, 2 sugars / sweetner.. and a splosh of milk (so it looks like mud )
c64 having simons basic and a bad basic made it made you wanna learn ASM more .. BBC micro basic was prolly the best perhaps , some others on that list I'm sure :)
I can see the merits and bad points of various machines though.
Rather, it's just that the hardware has only a very limited set of tricks over the Spectrum's. They're essentially sprites, hardware scrolling and a tile-mapped background layer. That's all really handy for scrolling platformers, but not really much else.
said it was a one trick pony - and I showed it had fighting games, RPGs, platormers, shooters, sports sims, strategy games. All of which were far in advance of anyhting on the Speccy. To disagree with this is to deny the nose on your face
There's nothing really about the other games you mentioned that couldn't have been done on the Spectrum, obvious issues like colour clash aside, and in a lot of cases they were.
I think you need to look at games on the NES that were also on the Spectrum and play them. The difference is night and day.
The games I listed could - and often were in some shape or form - be done on the spectrum. But they were far inferior. Some just couldn't be done. (Final Fantasy games, Zelda games, Metroid).
I'm totally sure and I think you should re-read my post as you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand me. It's not like Elite isn't possible on the Spectrum, is it?
Anyway, I've never said that vector graphics aren't possible on the NES. Indeed I've been aware of the port of Elite to it for twenty years. Rather, it's that - without a raster display - it's incredibly difficult to create such games to it as they've got to be translated into tile-maps on the fly. As such, we really shouldn't underestimate the programming achievement in porting Elite to the NES, even if it's essentially more or less the same as any other 8-bit version.
Anyway, for the third time, I'll point out that except for games where hardware sprites, scrolling and tile maps are a boon - and I'm willing to take examples here that aren't scrolling platformers if anyone's got any - the NES doesn't really have anything much to offer over the Spectrum in terms of graphical capabilities.
said it was a one trick pony - and I showed it had fighting games, RPGs, platormers, shooters, sports sims, strategy games. All of which were far in advance of anyhting on the Speccy. To disagree with this is to deny the nose on your face
You misunderstand me. I'm saying its graphics hardware is a one-trick pony. Well, maybe three tricks if you count the sprites, scrolling and tile-maps separately but it's a particularly useful combination for the scrolling platformers. Otherwise, the machine has no real advantages over the Spectrum in that area, and a rather big disadvantage in that it doesn't have a raster display.
And yes, I'd disagree that the NES has better games in those other genres, most especially strategy games where I'd think that the Spectrum has a very strong hand, what with all Julian Gollop and R.T. Smith's efforts. Still, that's just a matter of opinion, and I'm open to any suggestions as to what might make the NES hardware superior for those kinds of games.
I think you need to look at games on the NES that were also on the Spectrum and play them. The difference is night and day.
Again, that's mostly down to programming. A lot of ports to the Spectrums are terrible and you'd be a poor judge of the Spectrum's capabilities if you went solely by them. Rather, I'd think the best way to judge would be to consider best of genre games on both sides as they're more likely to exploit the capabilities of the two machines to the full. On that score, I'd think you'd have to agree that the Spectrum holds up a lot better.
For the flip side of the argument, you could try playing Knight Lore on the NES.
The games I listed could - and often were in some shape or form - be done on the spectrum. But they were far inferior. Some just couldn't be done. (Final Fantasy games, Zelda games, Metroid).
I can see Metroid couldn't be done well, as it's a scrolling platformer (although Antiriad does a pretty good job without the scrolling) but what technical reasons would you give for the other two? We might not have got those precise games on the Spectrum, but we did get some very accomplished RPGs and action adventures.
Comments
I see no reason to like CPC. I would rather buy C-64 next to the Spectrum. Or, perhaps, back in the days, Atari ST would be a nice working environment for a reasonable price.
The graphical capabilities are fairly simple to explain. There are three modes 0 (16 colour with low pixel density "blocky" graphics typically 160x200 pixels), 1 (4 colour with medium pixel density, typically 320x200 although often 256x192 especially for ports of Spectrum games), and 2 (2 colours with high pixel density, typically 640x200 used mostly for business apps.) As such, the colourful games tend to be blocky, and the detailed ones can be somewhat lacking in colour, although there is no colour clash in any mode; even mode 1 games can have multicoloured sprites as can be seen in games like Head Over Heels and Gunfright. There are also a number of tricks you can use to change the palette mid-screen, perform a "hardware" scroll both vertically and horizontally with little CPU overhead, and overscan into any of the borders.
If you want an example a game that uses high resolution graphics and a decent number of colours, I'd suggest WEC Le Mans:
Perhaps it's not as riotously colourful as you could possibly have got from the CPC, but it looks a heck of a lot better to my eyes than the Spectrum version.
Some examples are Bruce Lee, Arkanoid, Bubble Bobble, Rainbow Island, Enduro Racer, Out Run, Space Harriers, Commando, Bomb Jack...
I also preferred the Speccy's Ghosts 'n' Goblins, although I loved the C64's music on that game. GnG had better graphic and very long levels if compared to the C64's version.
The only game I really loved on the C64 was WONDER BOY and I remember that I truly disliked the Spectrum version...
I should try to play it again... I loved that game, but I think it would be still disappointing...
1984 doesn't look too late for me, I mean... WTF?
The graphical capabilities aren't that confusing. The CRTC is pretty powerful and configurable and you can make it do wonders, but you have to fit in memory. By standard, the 16000 bytes corresponding to the screen file can be configured in three ways: 160x200x16, 320x200x4 or 640x200x2. If you do the math, all those modes take exactly 16000 bytes: the first one uses 4 bits per pixel, the second one 2 and the last one just 1.
So hi-res and many colours just isn't possible, at least by standard. Most games have a small playing area 'cause they were direct ports from the speccy to save money (you can use the same code on both computers if you keep the same sizes, just change the I/O routines). Some of them didn't even attempt to do proper full-colour, 1 colour per pixel graphics. a 240x160 playing area is quite good in speccy but looks tiny on the CPC 'cause of the bigger resolution.
Configuring the CRTC you can perform overscan and use hardware scrolling. Sadly, most developers went the easy way. The CPC can easily be the most powerful of the handful of computers which were commercially successful 8 bits computer, on par with the MSX2.
The blocky graphics and washed-out colors of the C64 version (and in general of the C64) are something I never managed to get used to despite appreciating several other games on that machine.
Alessandro... probably you got the point!!
I always had a 48k, so I never tried the 128k. I remember the Speccy version's graphic was good but I was annoyed by the lack of sound effects.
I never had a 128k... but I just bought a +2 from Ebay and it's on the way now. When I'll get it... well, Wonder Boy will be the first game I will try... then I will tell you my impressions. In any case, I'm excited by your post and I can't wait to try it... perhaps I'll give it a look on the emulator... :-D
THANX!!!
That's nice, runs at a fair rate too and looks smooth.
By the way, did you ever take a look at www.gamesark.it ?
I'm the regular contributor of the Spectrum retrogaming section, besides writing a few coin-op and PC retro-reviews as well (my look at System Shock 2 has been published just today). I also wrote some special insight reviews about Spectrum coin-op conversions and films/books/comics tie-ins, as well as a global review of the new releases of each year in January, starting from 2009. You are one of the very few people here who can understand Italian ;) therefore I hope you will find that interesting.
I really enjoyed the Speccy version but once I played the CPC version at a mates house, I found it hard to go back to the Speccy version.
I prefer it because even if Green Yamo isn't actually Green on the Speccy version who cares the collision works properly, and the game is smooth.
The Commode version is a blocky slow awful clunky mess, and I don't care what a C64 fanboy says about Bruce Lee being better on there loaf of bread storage device they are 155% wrong. Commode Bruce Lee is awful!
what about the atari 8 bit version of bruce lee ? ;)
the jumping "underground" in bruce lee IS supposed to be sluggish..look when he jump's he's supposed to glide
also IRC the candle things are on different levels etc.
But there is no denying that the C64 was, in many ways, a superior machine.
It always saddened me that after the 48k spectrum, Sinclair didn't ride on the wave of popularity and bring out a 128k/256k machine with a better graphics mode: something along the lines of the NES; whilst keeping backwards compatibility. I really think it would have been a success and given Sinclair the chance to keep competing as the 80s advanced.
1 word....
wizball
and another...
armalyte
(c64 version is even better than the amiga one! )
Sure, but for a machine launched later at over twice the price that should hardly be surprising. What's impressive about the Spectrum was that it was able to compete at all.
Sinclair attempted to cater to that (at least the 128K RAM and the better graphics mode) with the QL, which also boasted a whole pile of other extra features including a vastly improved BASIC and a multi-tasking OS. Sure, it wasn't compatible with the Spectrum but that wasn't really such an issue as the Spectrum couldn't run ZX80/81 software either. The problem is that just offering more RAM and prettier graphics aren't exactly ends in themselves.
So far as the NES goes, it's a bit of a one-trick pony. It's really good at scrolling platformers, as that's what the graphics capabilities are primarily geared towards, but doesn't really offer anything remarkable in other genres and it's downright hamstrung when it comes to isometric and vector graphics.
In creating a machine that's a hybrid between it and the Spectrum what you'd likely end up with is something very much like the C64. Well, either that or the Sega Master System if you leant more towards the games machine side of things.
you heretic will die soon. burned at stake. dismembered. disemboweled.
hanged. electrocuted.
and other lovely things.
fancy a cup of tea?
I'd pretty much agree with this. Unfortunately the 128K spectrums didn't really add much value.
I disagree: Longer games, better music, uniload, aditional graphics...
:)
To me, the best Spectrum games are 128k games.
Longer games doesnt always mean better.
Better music than beeper is not a big success, SID is still far superior, especially with those great C64 musicians led by Rob Hubbard.
Additional graphics?
Higher resolution?
More colours?
Hardware sprites?
No color clash, maybe?
Which 128k games utilised this?
Check out Creatures 2 or Mayhem in Monsterland which pushed C64 to this limits.
The quality is almost the same with Mega Drive games in this genre.
Programming masterpiece, impossible to acheived on Specy.
To me, best Spectrum games are 16/48K ones with good old beeper, creates a stronger nostalgia than any C64. :)
http://zx-pk.ru/
:-o
The NES is home to some of the greatest genre-defining video games ever.
Gradius
Lifeforce
Blades Of Steel
Double Dragon 2
Castlevania 3
PunchOut
SMB
Final Fantasy
Legend Of Zelda
As far as isometric games are concerned, sure it didn't have any but it could do them - Solstice (which ran faster and looked better than anything the speccy could do), RC Pro Am. Elite ran pretty good on the NES too.
However, these games were not a big market for console gamers.
Hardly a one-trick pony. And when you look a the arcade conversions, and compare them to the home computer versions, they are just wonderful. It blew me away when I first got hold of one.
There is no C64 game that interested me more than the good old Spectrum versions. So far, I prefer the 48k to the 128k, but I've played the 128 only by emulators.
I wanna try the real thing. I've got a +2 and soon I'll get the RGB cable to play with it. After that, I will tell you more.
I agree with who says that the C64 was superior in hardware. But... how to say? It simply don't have the same charme of the Spectrum.
I loved Bubble Bobble on my Spectrum. With the simple beeper sound. I felt it better than any other version and a friend of mine who had an Atari ST loved to play with me on the Speccy.
Same with Arkanoid: the Spectrum version don't have the background of the 16bit versions (although Revenge of Doh had an impressive graphic, in my opinion) but it was much more better than the C64 version.
Commando? Much more better on the Speccy than on the C64. And the music on the 128k was not so bad, I think.
I think the Spectrum had at least 3 important characteristics:
1. a unexplainable charm
2. an amazing low price and awesome games
3. a nice BASIC (I think the Sinlair Basic is much more better than the CBM BASIC V2.0).
Personally, I loved the Sinclair design and i think the Spectrum is still very elegant and nice. Both the 16/48 and the 128k. The Amstrad versions are quite ugly, in my opinion.
And it had a special appeal... even the colour clash... well, yes... I love the high resolution graphic of the Spectrum and even its colour clash. It have its special charm in some way.
And yes, even the beeper! I love it.
I know that the SID is far superior even if compared to the AY, but -as I said- the Spectrum had a special, unexplainable appeal.
Moreover, it was far more cheaper than the C64.
And it was much more easy and fun to learn to program in BASIC with it.
When I was a kid, I remember that my friends with the Commodore 64 were all so amazed that my computer could get datas from a normal tape recorder and that it had an internal speaker, not to mention to its "gummy" keyboard.
C64 was superior in hardware, I think. But the limits of the Spectrum forced the programmers to find so many different solutions to bring out the best from the little Sinclair machine... and I think that this is the most important point. So many people all around the world still remember and love that little black computer.
It will always have a special place in my heart.
It is such a shame, and a missed opportunity. The Sinclair brand was very strong in 1983/1984. Sadly, after about 1984ish the C64 did open a very strong lead with the quality of it's AAA titles. People liked the Sinclair machines. I'm convinced an upgrade with better graphics would have sold. Instead Sinclair, then Amstrad, continued to put out improvements that didn't really satisfy. A new keyboard? meh, I was playing games, I didn't really care about that. If I did, I could have bought a real keyboard for it.
Did I ever say it wasn't?
Rather, it's just that the hardware has only a very limited set of tricks over the Spectrum's. They're essentially sprites, hardware scrolling and a tile-mapped background layer. That's all really handy for scrolling platformers, but not really much else.
In all the other cases I think you're mistaking good programming for hardware capabilities. There's nothing really about the other games you mentioned that couldn't have been done on the Spectrum, obvious issues like colour clash aside, and in a lot of cases they were.
you evil git .. TEA!!.. TEA!!! yuk.. herbal or green is ok, but not normal stuff.
coffee, 2 sugars / sweetner.. and a splosh of milk (so it looks like mud )
c64 having simons basic and a bad basic made it made you wanna learn ASM more .. BBC micro basic was prolly the best perhaps , some others on that list I'm sure :)
I can see the merits and bad points of various machines though.
Are you sure? ;)
http://zx-pk.ru/
I think you need to look at games on the NES that were also on the Spectrum and play them. The difference is night and day.
The games I listed could - and often were in some shape or form - be done on the spectrum. But they were far inferior. Some just couldn't be done. (Final Fantasy games, Zelda games, Metroid).
I'm totally sure and I think you should re-read my post as you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand me. It's not like Elite isn't possible on the Spectrum, is it?
Anyway, I've never said that vector graphics aren't possible on the NES. Indeed I've been aware of the port of Elite to it for twenty years. Rather, it's that - without a raster display - it's incredibly difficult to create such games to it as they've got to be translated into tile-maps on the fly. As such, we really shouldn't underestimate the programming achievement in porting Elite to the NES, even if it's essentially more or less the same as any other 8-bit version.
Anyway, for the third time, I'll point out that except for games where hardware sprites, scrolling and tile maps are a boon - and I'm willing to take examples here that aren't scrolling platformers if anyone's got any - the NES doesn't really have anything much to offer over the Spectrum in terms of graphical capabilities.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying its graphics hardware is a one-trick pony. Well, maybe three tricks if you count the sprites, scrolling and tile-maps separately but it's a particularly useful combination for the scrolling platformers. Otherwise, the machine has no real advantages over the Spectrum in that area, and a rather big disadvantage in that it doesn't have a raster display.
And yes, I'd disagree that the NES has better games in those other genres, most especially strategy games where I'd think that the Spectrum has a very strong hand, what with all Julian Gollop and R.T. Smith's efforts. Still, that's just a matter of opinion, and I'm open to any suggestions as to what might make the NES hardware superior for those kinds of games.
Again, that's mostly down to programming. A lot of ports to the Spectrums are terrible and you'd be a poor judge of the Spectrum's capabilities if you went solely by them. Rather, I'd think the best way to judge would be to consider best of genre games on both sides as they're more likely to exploit the capabilities of the two machines to the full. On that score, I'd think you'd have to agree that the Spectrum holds up a lot better.
For the flip side of the argument, you could try playing Knight Lore on the NES.
I can see Metroid couldn't be done well, as it's a scrolling platformer (although Antiriad does a pretty good job without the scrolling) but what technical reasons would you give for the other two? We might not have got those precise games on the Spectrum, but we did get some very accomplished RPGs and action adventures.