Amstrad CPC, much better than I thought it would be!

[SquawkBox]

What about giving Prehistorik II for the CPC+ ago then, R-N ?
A lot more to enjoy than pretty graphics, assuredly!

[Retro-Nerd]

Some CPC+ games looks nice, e.g. Navy seals. But why in hell has Switchblade still no hardware scrolling?

edit: Ah, all versions lacks scrolling. Well, it's a boring game anyway compared to part II.

[tomcat666]

Truth be told, the only good CPC games were ZX Spectrum ports with added 3 colours. Stuff like Knight Lore, Head over Heels, etc. those were basically the same as zx spectrum versions but had some more colour.
There are a few OK games on the CPC otherwise, especially the ones that came really late in its life, but honestly, most of them were crap compared to C64 counterparts. I cannot think of any really good CPC game (that wasn't a ZX port) but can think of hundreds great C64 games.
The Palette has 27 colours but so many of those look alike - there are so many pinks, violets and blue hues VERY close together that it just mostly hurts your eyes. It completely lacks natural colours and greys. They say C64 has mostly brown and grey shades while it actually has 2 browns and 3 greys and those 3 greys are what made most of the games what they are... people normally use 2 of those for all sprites and have 1 more distinct color on each sprite with backgrounds having all the rest, which was enough to get great looking games. Smooth scrolling and sprites (together with some nifty VIC2 tricks) were the reason why we get really great games on the C64.

People saying that CPC was better than C64 in ANY aspect are either totally blind, colour blind or blind with nostalgia

[S0ulA55a551n]

Originally Posted by tomcat666

Truth be told, the only good CPC games were ZX Spectrum ports with added 3 colours. Stuff like Knight Lore, Head over Heels, etc. those were basically the same as zx spectrum versions but had some more colour.
There are a few OK games on the CPC otherwise, especially the ones that came really late in its life, but honestly, most of them were crap compared to C64 counterparts. I cannot think of any really good CPC game (that wasn't a ZX port) but can think of hundreds great C64 games.
The Palette has 27 colours but so many of those look alike - there are so many pinks, violets and blue hues VERY close together that it just mostly hurts your eyes. It completely lacks natural colours and greys. They say C64 has mostly brown and grey shades while it actually has 2 browns and 3 greys and those 3 greys are what made most of the games what they are... people normally use 2 of those for all sprites and have 1 more distinct color on each sprite with backgrounds having all the rest, which was enough to get great looking games. Smooth scrolling and sprites (together with some nifty VIC2 tricks) were the reason why we get really great games on the C64.

People saying that CPC was better than C64 in ANY aspect are either totally blind, colour blind or blind with nostalgia

If you are looking at it from a gaming point of view there are only few games probably that were better on the cpc , obviously not taking the plus into account. However computers are not just for
Gaming and then the cpc had a lot of strengths over the c64

[SquawkBox]

I consider the C64 to be nothing more than the venerable ancestor of the Amiga 1000.
A machine to experiment mostly, but never on earth aimed at producing anything worthwhile (OK, may be not to that extend ).
The shape of better things to come from Commodore, a glimpse into the future,
historically important but a forgettable attempt at the same time...

Thing is, I never regretted my choice of the CPC6128 back in the early 80s.
If there's one thing I should regret, it's to have missed the impressive ColecoVision
(that jaw dropping Smurf game...) system, and be stuck with the Atari VCS2600.

A friend tried recently to bring the subject about how innovative was the MSX, but frankly I couldn't bring myself to buy / trade this old gear we used to gather around again, MSX, Master System and so on... Whereas a CPC bearing a few modifications remains tempting for many people even today. The weird and somehow artificial palette brings a touch of fantasy, not for everyone for sure but I do like it.

[Shatterhand]

MSX trumps all over them.
[ Show youtube player ]

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

Well, Denis is a pure CPC fanboy. So, nothing new here to read. But i like his passion for weak CPC pro arguments and his "graphics are the most important aspect" nonsense.

Well, Retro-Nerd is a pure C64 fanboy. So nothing new here to read. But i like his passion for weak C64 pro argument and his "hard scroll are the most important aspect" nonsense.

As you can see, it also works the other way around !

[Retro-Nerd]

Ts. You haven't read my comments carefully but i read yours for sure. Anyway. It's more teasing because you get edgy so easily when it comes to your favorite *ermh* computer.

[tomcat666]

Originally Posted by Shatterhand

MSX trumps all over them.
[ Show youtube player ]

That is MSX2 that your video shows, the old MSX trumps over nothing much though.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

Just played it. Jesus, what a piece of shit. Typical Silmarils crap. Nice looking graphics but 0 gameplay. Jerky scrolling, way too slow jump mechanics, dull enemy formations and annoying CPC bleebs and blobs as music.

The music is actually rather advanced for 8-bit AY music.

[hansel75]

For every smooth moving CPC game, there are 20 C64 games that move just as smooth if not better, making the game more playable.
The CPC and Spectrum were ok for flick screen adventure games, but throw a scrolling arcade style game at them and they really struggled.

And considering that a lot of games were arcade ports or clones in the 80's, then the C64 with it's custom hardware scrolling and sprites was the reason it kicked so much ass.
And the Sid chip was just the icing on the cake
This is also why the C64 outlasted the competition for many years as well due to the superior hardware and games, and was the worlds No.1 selling computer at the time.

Another typical comparison-
CPC- [ Show youtube player ]
C64- [ Show youtube player ]

[idrougge]

The CPC can do hardware scrolling — in a way. It just wasn't used in many games because it's more difficult than on the C64 and most games were done in a hurry.
Here's a modern example: [ Show youtube player ]

[hansel75]

Originally Posted by idrougge

The CPC can do hardware scrolling — in a way. It just wasn't used in many games because it's more difficult than on the C64 and most games were done in a hurry.
Here's a modern example: [ Show youtube player ]

Is this the fabled hardware scrolling method that 99.9% of CPC games did not use and required some monitor trick?
There also seems to be a lots of 'what if' scenarios and excuses being said about why most CPC games are jerky.

But at the end of the day it's the games that we were given that can only be judged.
And a lot of games on the C64 were also programmed in a hurry, but the results were still usually better then the competition, because there was hardware support to make things easier on the C64.

The CPC and Spectrum had there place and i respect that, but they had flaws that the C64 didn't have.

Your modern day Edge Grinder example looks nice, but we already had this kind of quality back in the 80's-
[ Show youtube player ]

[tomcat666]

Originally Posted by idrougge

The CPC can do hardware scrolling — in a way. It just wasn't used in many games because it's more difficult than on the C64 and most games were done in a hurry.
Here's a modern example: [ Show youtube player ]

";; The effect relies on the reaction of the monitor to the horizontal sync from
;; the CRTC so it is only guaranteed to work properly on a real Amstrad CPC
;; with an Amstrad monitor."

I know a lot of people that use non-Amstrad monitors on their CPC's (myself included), so this scrolling doesn't work for me and those people. Useless...

[Baboon]

Originally Posted by hansel75

And which game would that be?



So true!

I also did not like the garish colours on the CPC, and virtually all scrolling games were jerky!
Even this Xyphoes Fantasy that people are praising, while looking good it has jerky sprites and scrolling and looks sluggish compared to most C64 games.
Also the way the main character moves, he looks like a retard!.

Compare this- [ Show youtube player ] on CPC, With this- [ Show youtube player ] or [ Show youtube player ] on C64.
The C64 is as smooth as butter while still looking great, the CPC is not smooth at all in this game!

Mayhem in monster land looks incredible!!

[Retro-Nerd]

Originally Posted by Baboon

Mayhem in monster land looks incredible!!

It's technically impressive. The gameplay is actually boring as hell. For a modern C64 platformer sample. This game is polished in every way.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgO...vyc8dKQ/videos

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by tomcat666

";; The effect relies on the reaction of the monitor to the horizontal sync from
;; the CRTC so it is only guaranteed to work properly on a real Amstrad CPC
;; with an Amstrad monitor."

I know a lot of people that use non-Amstrad monitors on their CPC's (myself included), so this scrolling doesn't work for me and those people. Useless...

It's a complete myth. I use no amstrad monitor, and there is no scrolling problem at all.

The CPC can do hardware scrolling, it's just that the developers were spending too much time on the ZX and c64 versions.....

the CRTC's problems are mostly a demo's problem rather than commercial video games problem.

My 464,464+,6128 use the retroshack scart cable, producing an awesome combination.

i use my CPCs on a huge Philips 16/9 HD TV, and the display is fabulous.

When i connect on it my oldish C64 breadbin (even fully recapped, and entirely restored) + the lumafix, it's really.... ahhemmm..... very unbalanced depending on the games.

For instance, when i play Deliverance Stormlord 2 on C64, the graphics rendering is better with nicer colors on my CPC, than on my C64.
and the 50 fps scrolling on it doesn't save the whole thing.

Same for Robocop, graphically it's 20 times better than what i get for the very same game on my c64 (and its bugs on the later levels.... ).

Teenage Mutant hero turtles the coin-op, same thing. The C64 version is fast but has crap graphics, while the CPC version is slower but playable with awesome graphics coming from the 16 bits version but really better

shadow Dancer too, the c64 version is an horror in box, while the CPC version is giving the c64 a run for its money. It has a smooth scrolling, parallax, big sprites, great colors, and it's based on the 16 bits machines graphics.

Shinobi is also another candidate. I have the game on c64, it doesn't go anywhere near as the CPC version, which is more colored, has better graphics, and icing on the cake, digitized voices than even the c64 is not able !

Chase HQ is also a game where the c64 version, is..... how to say ?
_Rubbish_ when the CPC version has great graphics, animation, digitized voices ?

and i can go on and on.

[Retro-Nerd]

You mention only shitty games, mostly lousy arcade ports. They are bad on all 8bit systems.

shadow Dancer too, the c64 version is an horror in box, while the CPC version is giving the c64 a run for its money. It has a smooth scrolling, parallax, big sprites, great colors, and it's based on the 16 bits machines graphics.

WTF?! The CPC version runs in a tiny postage stamp display (extrem big border to save peformance) and with 7-10 Frames. Jerky as hell. Seriously Denis, you make yourself a fool. And i don't know why.

Shinobi is also another candidate. I have the game on c64, it doesn't go anywhere near as the CPC version, which is more colored, has better graphics, and icing on the cake, digitized voices than even the c64 is not able !

Another game in a tiny display with big black borders. Runs maybe in 10-12 frames.

Chase HQ is also a game where the c64 version, is..... how to say ?
_Rubbish_ when the CPC version has great graphics, animation, digitized voices ?

Could be the winner for the tiniest display of all CPC games. The tiny diplay includes a big status screen too. So the actual resolution is what for the game action? Ridiculous! But the C64 version is of course crap too, probabably converted from the Spectrum. Only the Sega Saturn port is a good one.

What you do is comparing bad arcade ports with bad arcade ports. You should compare more non-arcade/exclusive games. Some that weren't rushed for the cheap money.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

You mention only shitty games, mostly lousy arcade ports. They are bad on all 8bit systems.

certainly not. Those games sold very well on Amstrad CPC and are sought after by collectors.

They are mostly rubbish on the C64. Don't blame the coders for that.

From the start, the amiga and ST use a color scheme like the one used on the CPC, not like the one on c64.

This makes a huge difference. Look : at the beginning of the CPC life, we had ports from the C64. The graphics were as horrible as the originals on the C64.

I can talk about it, i have dumped more than 1000 commercial tapes on the amstrad CPC, and seen the carnage.

Once the coders in game companies understood that the CPC could have better games if they started conversions with Amiga or ST assets, things changed completely.

We passed from shitty games coming from the C64 or even ZX spectrum, (yes because some of them thought that it was funny to make C64 or ZX emulated routines transcoded directly for the z80 processor, just to make the computer slower than it was really!) to great 16 color games.

An example : if the guys at probe choosed the C64 assets of turrican (I or II it doesn't matter), the CPC version would have been really shitty.

Instead, Darren White (the CPC coder), got access to the Amiga Turrican assets, allowing him to make an awesome port of turrican I on CPC.

The size of the screen is completely secondary, the maps have exactly the same sizes as the Amiga version, and since it's the best version around, it's a clever choice.

Same for Turrican 2, Rob Holhmann from enigma variation worked out from the ST assets of Turrican II.

I did the maps of the CPC version, and for fuck sake, it's the same as the 16 bits version, which is superior to the original c64 release.

There are many examples, where even a legend like David Perry of Aladdin's fame just did wonders on the CPC. All 16 colors, hard scroll and so on.

WTF?! The CPC version runs in a tiny postage stamp display (extrem big border to save peformance) and with 7-10 Frames. Jerky as hell. Seriously Denis, you make yourself a fool. And i don't know why.

"Size doesn't matter" Retro, do i need to point it to you ?

Shadow Dancer is more playable than many ST games or even C64 games to me.

I own a C64 since quite a long time now, and while it's easy to recognize that the SID chip is great, lookin at the games using the best musics is a pain for the eyes color wise.

Like many people we hated the c64 color schemes, making the computer fails big time in our country.

The Amiga was welcome much much more welcomed here because it has the awesome colors you can find on the CPC and the not the color scheme of the c64 which was a repulsive to just a million of people here

Another game in a tiny display with big black borders. Runs maybe in 10-12 frames.

I don't care a game use 10 or 12 frames per sec (we're talking about 8 bits machine, and it doesn't count really).

It's way more a problem to me on the Atari ST or the Amiga to have such a low frame rate.

Could be the winner for the tiniest display of all CPC games. The tiny diplay includes a big status screen too. So the actual resolution is what for the game action? Ridiculous! But the C64 version is of course crap too, probabably converted from the Spectrum. Only the Sega Saturn port is a good one.

Just take your fair share Retro, Chase HQ on CPC is a great game, Ocean sold tons of those on the Amstrad CPC in UK, France, Spain.

Mind you, the C64 market share was 25% in UK ? It was 0% in France in 1990, when the Amstrad CPC was 60% of market share here!

What you do is comparing bad arcade ports with bad arcade ports. You should compare more non-arcade/exclusive games. Some that weren't rushed for the cheap money.

The games i'm talking about were successes in hypermarkets and are sought for by people.

You're a bit too blind due to the c64 don'tcha ?

[Retro-Nerd]

I'm shocked that you really believe what you're writing here. If you haven't got access to a cheap machine to play games the CPC was maybe an alternative for your French guys at that time.

But honestly, they were arcades too in France. So you could compare these games with the lousy ports. Why in hell would anybody want to collect these garbage, they are unplayable and better in nostalgia. The CPC has a few good games which are playable but surely nothing you mentioned here the last few days.

For action games: As i said before. Smooth scrolling (at least running stable in 25 fps) and good responsive controls. These are the basics and the CPC couldn't handle it for action games. It was never build for action games. Also the CPC never had anything with similiar quality like Mansion Mansion, Last Ninja II, Bard's Tale II+III, Ultima, Wizball, Hawkeye, Armalyte, IO, Epyx Games Serie, Project Firestorm, Neuromancer etc. The Turrican ports are laughable at best (Julian Eggebrecht was more than dissapointed).

Like many people we hated the c64 color schemes, making the computer fails big time in our country.

Nonense. Probably too expensive for the French market. And the C64 doesn't fit with the SECAM norm on French TVs. So you needed surely some kind of converter that worsens the signal even more.

The Amiga was welcome much much more welcomed here because it has the awesome colors you can find on the CPC

I was welcome because it had technically good games after they've stopped porting the 1:1 crap from the ST. It has nothing to do with colors.