Crappy C64 screen resolution

[saimo]

Originally Posted by lmimmfn

While i dont agree with the thread title as its unnecessarily negative towards the C64,

It is not the thread title: it's the whole thread that's littered with silly C64 bashing based on false information/myths. And even after plenty of information has been provided to debunk them, no acknowledgement was given and the trolling continued.

Congrats on your game BTW, looks excellent.

Thanks!
(Trivia: the game has been in the making for about 8 years; the main reason why it's taking so long is that I returned to developing stuff for classic Amiga.)

[Zak]

Is it a wrong perception that there weren't many games on Amiga like "Leisure Suit Larry" who used a pseudo 160x200 resolution? (160 double pixels on a 320 resolution.) So if we say that high resolution wasn't a prerequisit in 80's and I also heard people complaining that there weren't enough games around 1986/87, why weren't there more inexpensive C64 ports done in pseudo 160x200? I mean for the companies possessing the source codes of the C64 versions this shouldn't have been much of a problem and the versions would sell quite well, just like "Larry".

[Megalomaniac]

Originally Posted by saimo

Could you elaborate on that, please? How anyone could think of the ZX Spectrum looking at those games is beyond me: colorful pastel graphics, sprites, scrolling, etc... where's the "Spectrum-style" there?

It was intended as a compliment on the game, and not as an insult against the C64. I suppose I was thinking of the fact that there are lots of colours but relatively few in each area, and the general size of the often-monochromatic individual objects. Note 'feels' rather than 'looks'.

Anyway, I suppose part of why I rarely champion the C64 specifically is because so many other people do. Globally it outsold all the other 8-bit computers combined, and the sheer fact that it and the Amiga are both Commodore means that a lot of us had it before. I think I instinctively support the underdog, perhaps to a fault. I don't know if others see it the same. Whether my comments on the system and its games (which I often individually do praise) extends into "silly C64 bashing based on false information" let alone "trolling" is for others to decide. Sorry if it ever comes across as such.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by saimo

It is not the thread title: it's the whole thread that's littered with silly C64 bashing based on false information/myths. And even after plenty of information has been provided to debunk them, no acknowledgement was given and the trolling continued.

Sorry, but that's just your projection and not at all what has really happened in this thread. Which is why you were unable to show examples of the alleged "trolling/bashing" when I asked about them earlier and instead reverted to searching the web for examples, which is rather silly but does explain a lot about your attitude.

Secondly, your tribal hat, which you very much are wearing, clouds your vision and the ability to read things in proper context. You find offence when there is none intended and you've been unnecessarily combative throughout the whole thread.

It's pretty sad when it happens (especially when coming from an undeniably talented and knowledgeable individual), because it totally blocks the possibility of any normal discussion on the subject. But that's what you get when brand devotion takes over reason. It's the same in every over hobby, unfortunately.

[saimo]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

It was intended as a compliment on the game, and not as an insult against the C64.

I didn't take it as an insult (neither I wrote anything in that direction).

I suppose I was thinking of the fact that there are lots of colours but relatively few in each area, and the general size of the often-monochromatic individual objects. Note 'feels' rather than 'looks'.

You're free to get any impression you want, but that's really stretching it

Anyway, I suppose part of why I rarely champion the C64 specifically is because so many other people do. Globally it outsold all the other 8-bit computers combined, and the sheer fact that it and the Amiga are both Commodore means that a lot of us had it before. I think I instinctively support the underdog, perhaps to a fault. I don't know if others see it the same. Whether my comments on the system and its games (which I often individually do praise) extends into "silly C64 bashing based on false information" let alone "trolling" is for others to decide. Sorry if it ever comes across as such.

Your posts tend to be long (I don't mean it in a negative sense) and reasoned, so, even if I don't agree with everything, I don't doubt your good faith.

Anyone's free to champion whatever they want. As I wrote, all I wanted to do here was to debunk the misinformation. That's been done (by me and others), but I still have to read an admission by who spread the misinformation (it's happening quite the opposite).

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by Zak

Is it a wrong perception that there weren't many games on Amiga like "Leisure Suit Larry" who used a pseudo 160x200 resolution? (160 double pixels on a 320 resolution.) So if we say that high resolution wasn't a prerequisit in 80's and I also heard people complaining that there weren't enough games around 1986/87, why weren't there more inexpensive C64 ports done in pseudo 160x200? I mean for the companies possessing the source codes of the C64 versions this shouldn't have been much of a problem and the versions would sell quite well, just like "Larry".

Not too many games used that mode, like maybe 50 -- PCJr/Tandy half-width. Mostly it was Sierra AGI games. The original reason they used it was to make it run on a stock PCjr which at the time was considered to be the future of home computing in the US (it flopped due to being way too expensive). The base model PCjr couldn't do 320x200 in 16 colors -- you had to add another bank of RAM to enable it.

[saimo]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Sorry, but that's just your projection and not at all what has really happened in this thread. Which is why you were unable to show examples of the alleged "trolling/bashing" when I asked about them earlier and instead reverted to searching the web for examples, which is rather silly but does explain a lot about your attitude.

Secondly, your tribal hat, which you very much are wearing, clouds your vision and the ability to read things in proper context. You find offence when there is none intended and you've been unnecessarily combative throughout the whole thread.

It's pretty sad when it happens (especially when coming from an undeniably talented and knowledgeable individual), because it totally blocks the possibility of any normal discussion on the subject. But that's what you get when brand devotion takes over reason. It's the same in every over hobby, unfortunately.

I was tempted to not answer. But I can't accept that who doesn't know what I wrote (nobody is obliged to) is led to believe by you post that I'm speaking out of a tribal attitude (which is something I despise at all levels, as I explained in my post 196) that, moreover, would impair my understanding. So I'll let the facts speak.

Facts:
* Zak, in the OP and in several following posts, stated that no C64 game uses hires;
* also, he stated that the widepixels looks horrible;
* also, he asked to agree with him that the widepixels look horrible;
* I (and others) proved that hires games have been and are being made (providing examples and suggestions on where to look for more);
* I (and others) replied that no C64 owner (and often even non-C64 owners) had a problem with the widepixels (and discussed various reasons why);
* when, after multiple replies regarding the previous point were given (i.e. there wasn't anything left to discuss), it was asked "Is it not fair to also recognise that some C64 [...] games suffer in some people's eyes for the visuals being relatively blocky", I said that it wasn't because (as a reknown fact) the criticism in that regard "comes from Spectrum owners who feel the need of proving the superiority of their machine"; you replied (full quote) "I'd also very much like to see specific examples of such complaints, if you don't mind?"; I provided you with a perfect example; you ignored it for pages and pages and now you, bypassing the example altogether, say that I failed to provide an example and that it was silly of me to look for one on the web (where else should I have looked for?!?);
* I also provided technical information to prove that the C64 resolution is just fine, that graphically the C64 can do all that the ZX Spectrum can do (bar the flashing) and lots more.
* I participated to the sub-discussions relative to sprites technical features and to isometric games (again providing information and examples).
* Zak never admitted that his statement that hires is not used in games is false;
* Zak refused to accept that others are perfectly fine with the widepixels and kept and keeps on trying (in indirect ways) to get others to admit that the widepixels look bad.

Regarding my supposedly tribal attitude, here are a couple of quite telling quotes by me from this thread.

My post 173 shows that I did't deem it a good thing that the discussion was slipping into a platforms war:

Originally Posted by saimo

General warning #1: the discussion focus shifted from screen resolution to the good (?) old machine X is better than machine Y.

General warning #2: don't mistake what games do with what machines can do. Does the Amiga suck because the Tiertex ports suck? Using games as examples is OK when they use the hardware adequately or, even better, when they push the hardware limits, but games that don't are not a testimony of hardware weakness. Judging hardware requires first of all a proper technical evaluation; then games can be used as supportive examples.

Back to the OP: the C64 resolution is just fine, as it's 320x200 in the 3 hires modes, which allow to display all the 16 colors each in its own way; that compares quite well (to put it mildly) with machines of the same class and definitely doesn't deserve the "crappy" adjective. The games that use hires graphics are a minority, but, so what?

My post 196 talks expressely about tribal attitudes:

Originally Posted by saimo

Side note: I'm no blind fan of anything, I shiver when I hear national anthems (including and especially the one of the country I was born in) and I despair when I see people voting just based on their "side" or beat/kill one other for a f*ing football game and so on...

Finally, Zak tried multiple times to make it look like I'm obsessed by the thread title. However...

My first reply to him did not contain any reference to thread title, was friendly and provided appropriate information:

Originally Posted by saimo

Except that it did happen: the C64 games library is vast and includes plenty of hires games (although they are the minority)

It's good or bad depending on the artist's skills.

That said, here's my contribution to satisfy your craving for hires:

[ Show youtube player ]

(Feel free to try it out yourself: https://retream.itch.io/quod-init-exit-iio)

This is what I wrote the first time I addressed the thread title:

Originally Posted by saimo

Especially when threads are titled like this one ("Crappy C64 screen resolution")

I jokingly pointed out that the thread title was inflammatory, without getting mad - which demonstrates that I gave it no importance per se.

In his post 223, Zak brought up the thread title again, answering to (and fully quoting) a post of mine where I hadn't touched on it at all and where I just provided some examples, given that he was asking for more (and apparently didn't do much effort to find them himself):

Originally Posted by Zak

Now that's more what I would call "plenty" examples and not the very few examples I got to read before. You are extremely nitpicking about me saying there were no high resolution games on C64, where what I wanted to say was "almost" no hires games. Jeez, you have to watch every single word in this forum and you're not willing to get the point of a question, it's more like inquisition tribunal than a discussion. Also people take a few little words very personally, I seem to have stabbed into a bee's hive.

Wouldn't one agree that the vast majority of C64 games was produced in low res? Or was it mor like 50:50 and I'm so utterly wrong in my perception? I have the feeling that the use of low reolution on C64 was more like "we always did it that way" tradition thing, not that it actually does look worse from what I've seen from the examples. I see it the way that this hires feature was neglected, that's why I was asking. I don't see the hires games as obvious downgrade. But when you're saying that the distribution between hires and lores games is like 50:50 then my perception was just wrong and it wasn't neglected at all. That's something I can't tell by searching websites and what I simply would need other users experiences for what I thought this forum was for.

I'm sorry about the spice in the thread title and first post, I'm somewhat more used to soccer forums, where it's a bit more normal to tease a little. But you obviously can't tease about C64. It's blasphemy. How dare I?

Also, in that post, he wrote "when you're saying that the distribution between hires and lores games is like 50:50", i.e. he put a false statement in my mouth, as my very first reply to him proves: "The games that use hires graphics are a minority". So, I replied to him with post 226, ignoring the thread tile (bait) again:

Originally Posted by saimo

You're being dishonest.
In the OP you wrote "so why didn't it [usage of hires in games] happen?" (brackets mine). In a following post you wrote: "But wasn't this the same on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum and yet they always used the high resolution screen mode and the C64 never did?". In another post you wrote: "I wonder why this screen mode on C64 was never used for games. Like never ever, not even for puzzle games or text adventures".
It's not me nitpicking, it's you talking bull*it and then trying to make it look like you meant something else after your bull*it got debunked.
Also, I never wrote that the hires games are 50%, but, instead, I explicitly wrote (multiple times, even, starting from my very first reply, directly to you) that hires games are a minority. Please don't try again to put words in my mouth.

Now you know that hires was and is used, a few reasons why multicolor was used more and, as a bonus, some technical details about the native capabilities of the C64: are you satisfied? Do you acknowledge that your premises are wrong and subjective, and the information that has been provided in reply?

In post #278, Zak accuses me of freaking about the word "crappy", quoting a general and placid observation I made to reply a modrobert's totally inoffensive remark ("The positive feel from watching your game outweighed all the bickering in this thread, thanks"):

Originally Posted by Zak

You only freak out about the word "crappy" which is totally unsettling for you and you can't get over it. I explained that this was just clickbait. The rest was rather harmless. It's interesting in this forum that a single word will put the forum totally off, like I used the word "c****h" before, without any intention at all, and then the other thread was going totally wild. I think that this has to do with the personality of retro computer users. If you read through different soccer forums and their wording, you would possibly be totally triggered and press charges with the police.

I ignored such attack and, instead I reported it, as I was tired of the troll attitude.

For completeness, the already mentioned post 196 is the only other post where I address the thread title - and I do it without any obsession and only to reply to, with objective information, Megalomaniac, who had brought up the subject again:

Originally Posted by saimo

You're indirectly saying that C64 fans should have "at least partially conceded the point" (that the C64 resolution is crappy): well, the fact is that the C64 resolution is not crappy at all (higher than the ZX Spectrum's and the NES', and on par with the Amstrad CPC, except for its 640x200 2 color mode), so there's nothing to concede. Plus, the OP affirms that hires was never used by C64 games, which is just plain false - nothing to concede there, too. Busting those myths is no fanaticism.
It is fanaticism not to acknowlege that openly or to reply with the usual "yes, but [subjective/groundless/laughable counterpoint]".

As the above shows, I've been honest and direct, provided objective information and dealt with some unfair accusations. I kindly ask you to refrain from stating again that I'm being driven and blinded by a tribal attitude.
If you're looking for a tribal attitude in this thread, it's elsewhere - and the above shows (partly) where.

[Zak]

You just have personal problems