View Single Post
Old 07 March 2016, 18:59   #293
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 41
Posts: 7,564
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Originally Posted by jayminer View Post
This is one of the silliest threads I have ever read. Still I can't keep away from reading it, and now also commenting in it :/
Hi Jay

As a C64 owner who has also [ Show youtube player ] I am obviously a bit biased, but I think it's silly to say that Turrican II on the Amstrad even can compare to the C64-version.
The game pleasure is here. The CPC coder used the amiga assets

The real problem on the CPC versions of turrican is the small screen size.

But technically, think about it : the graphics take more space in RAM than the c64 version, next, it's based on the spectrum code, modified to support 16 colors (both turrican I and II).

For all these, there was no other solution than reduce the screen size. With proper programming, a larger screen can be possible, and this with 128k.

The real weakness of the CPC is the amount of ram available considering the big size of the graphics in mode 0 16 colors. 64k is too low.

Power aside, the CPC is almost a 16 bits computer graphically wise, with an 8 bit processor. This is quite a brake when you think about it.

Sure it has more vibrant graphics and I can understand that some people might prefer that, but personally I don't think it looks very good with some odd colorchoices (the green and yellow)
It's not odd color choices. Since the CPC port is made from the amiga version, and some of the colors are made of grey tones, and the CPC having only 1 grey, you have to replace these colors by others.

You get however a point about the "not well choosen" colors palette on some CPC games (they used on some games really shitty color palettes converters that i would never wanted to have even for free).

- but that's the ony thing I can see that someone could argue is better on the CPC.
The CPC has been, independently of its very own weaknesses, completely underused by most game companies.

like said previously, the CPC was a machine were many times the development time allowed was between 1 week and 3 months.

Even on C64, no one at that time could have forked out a game in such a limited period of time.

How many CPC games were basically c64 and Spectrum emulators/ports, with native routines transcoded line by line, unoptimized, and with the mandatory obligation of convertion also on the fly the c64 asset they stored in the CPC version ?

You see what i mean ? As a coder, i'm sure you'll perfectly understand that emulating another computer behaviour is making the concerned machine going down a crawl for nothing.

Like you read it above, Barbarian from Palace is in this case. When you search the graphics of the barbarian, you can't find them in CPC graphic format in the CPC RAM. Those are in c64 format converted by the CPC on the fly ingame. The result is known : it makes the game lagging and slowing down uselessly.

So when people come and say that a CPC game is bad because the CPC is bad, or weak, they should think that the coders were much c64 and speccy lovers that they gave us a lot of the time crap GFX and code emulation from a foreign computer working totally differently.

An example on Amiga : Super wonderboy in monsterland. The amiga is considerably slowed down because it has to convert on the fly the Atari ST assets stored on the Amiga disk version.

Is the amiga bad ? No, certainly not. It's a problem based between the chair and the computer keyboard.

Turrican II was a C64-game, the Amiga-version is a port (even if it was released before the C64-version ) and Manfred Trenz really put the C64 to it's knees with that game.
To me X-out is really a game pushing really bad the c64, further than the Turrican series. Turrican has really nothing exceptional technically speaking to me. It's addictive side, is coming from all the artworks, and game design of the levels, making it a great game to play.

This explains why it's so much love on every computers.

You can notice the engine not quite keeping up when too much is happening on the screen, but it anyway manages to keep up with 50 fps updates for everything allmost all of the time.
The scrolling aspect i don't like in the turrican series on c64 is the way the scrolling is doing a sort of "push forward" when you jump up right.

Turrican II is a technical marvel on the C64. The CPC version which doesn't even use softsprites but moves everything after the 8x8 tile-grid looks like a really bad port in comparison and it looks horrible in my eyes.
Turrican II is the biggest game ever made on an 8 bits machine, and the biggest CPC game.

The game source code on CPC is 4000kb and the game is 715kb crunched on two 178kb floppy sides.

Turrican II use 32x32 tile blocks and scroll 8 pixels per 8 pixels. It's a pleasure to discover all the gigantic maps. I did them all with maptapper and they are the same size as the amiga version.

All the animations, sprites enemies, maps were retained in the CPC version.
I have not noted a single kind of sprites missing. You can have many sprites on screen, it never slows down.

And the best is that the speed sequence of the shootem up part is also there, it's going very fast for a CPC and it's quite a feat for a commercial game considering all the shits we had to live with.

That doesn't mean I don't think the CPC is cool hardware and the batman demo for the CPC really shows what the machine can do. The R-Type-port is very cool aswell.
Yes, the main CPC quality is that it's a very cool machine.

The batman demo explains that the CPC was only used at 6% of its real potential during his commercial life. Today, it still has some hidden parts, when you see the games or demo made during these last years.

The CPC reserve all its flavours to the best coders, the others just stay at the door
dlfrsilver is offline  
Page generated in 0.04109 seconds with 10 queries