09 May 2024, 11:23 | #221 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Eksjö / Sweden
Posts: 5,658
|
Only addressing the kinda weird thread title.
All home computers were great for the games industry. The proof is all of the small companies that burst onto the scene, some of which flowered into multi-platform release studios (e.g. Cinemaware, Graftgold, Electronic Arts, Hewson, Gremlin Graphics, Konami to name a few). The 8-bits were limited enough to give everyman an affordable home console - except these were computers(!!) and nobody had to get a suit, haircut, and employment to make games. The result was a staggering 30,000+ games for the C64 alone (and counting), but also useful utility programs, used for office and industry applications. The home computer games were as valuable as console games and their IP closely guarded. Some were licensed to both coin-op and consoles from home computers, which tells you how influential they were. Examples: Choplifter, Boulder Dash, Tetris, etc. Not only that, but on home computers you had things unavailable on consoles: memory, file storage, and keyboard. This opened up entire new genres that would never make the narrow-minded, action-games-only coin-ops and consoles which mostly only had shooters, fighters, racers, and platformers. Absolutely no room for fantastical space games, sims and strategy games of every type imaginable, or games with actual story/campaign. Everything was watered down severely on consoles to fit the "play for a few minutes" mode inherited by consoles to imitate coin-ops. Computers also had proper multiplayer games in a big way, and linked multiplayer before consoles. If not for the C64 and home computers like it, the old way of thinking about games perpetuated by consoles might have been the only thing we knew, and we'd be unable to fathom how games could work differently. I'm very thankful that the corporations with their limited systems and minds didn't completely win, and that the modern non-console and even some console games today inherited some of the visions of those pioneering devs on home computers: all kinds of perspectives, modes, and tempos of play, not just frantic action games; ambitious worlds instead of perpetuating the "levels" and the "boards"; innovative game ideas where you manage lemmings, a band of troops, a city or a realm, and role-play actual characters instead of the blank-faced sprites with inane dialog and zero depth of console RPGs. Most of this is thanks to a free market emerging; creativity and expression explodes and creators and consumers alike find an outlet for their passions. On consoles today, licensing and 'stores still put a choke leash on devs so that you have to be influential to release anything that isn't more of the same with updated graphics. |
09 May 2024, 15:00 | #222 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,437
|
So, on a whim, I googled Amstrad CPC tape loading times, because I was really curious about all these claims of the Amstrad tape loaders being so super fast. Turns out there's a guy on YouTube that did a bunch of side-by-side C64 and Amstrad CPC464 tape loading tests in real time that show exactly how long it takes both systems to load.
I didn't look at all 121 games he compared, but I did check out a bunch. You can find the playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...XDgE_ZPzr7zQP4 and judge for yourself. Since I have not watched all of them, just a bunch at random (plus one specific game), it is possible that what I've seen was not entirely representative of the whole playlist. However, what I saw roughly follows this pattern: most of the games I saw loaded (significantly) faster on the C64 than the Amstrad CPC. A few games were effectively a tie and a small percentage had the CPC winning. Now, CPC games were indeed usually larger than C64 games. However, I think that this is not all that relevant. What is relevant is how long you end up waiting for the game to load. So even if the CPC ultimately loads more bytes/second (which, considering the results doesn't seem all that likely), it actually doesn't matter - the games still often take longer to load on the CPC. And that is what was being compared. The game I do want to point out is "Elite", as this was pointed out in this thread. Here's Elite loading on both systems side by side: [ Show youtube player ] The CPC takes nearly 11 minutes, the C64 was done in 8.5. The point I'm making here is not that the C64 was super fast at loading from tape, by the way. The point is that most of the claims around loading times presented in this thread are way off what actually happened. I have no clue where people got the idea that Elite took 90 seconds to load on the C64, or how they claim tape games normally took around 90 seconds to load on the CPC, but as we can see this is just not correct. Every single example I've found online (not just this playlist) shows that both systems took quite a long time to load from tape. The CPC tape loading time data I could find isn't showing any evidence at all of the CPC loading faster either in terms of bytes/second or in terms of actual loading times. Similarly, when it comes to maximum speeds of C64 tapes, the evidence does not suggest that C64 turbo loaders were inherently slower than Amstrad CPC ones. The issue was and is one of reliability. Neither games for the C64 nor Amstrad used such fast loading on commercial releases precisely because using very high baud rates was unreliable for duplication. Last edited by roondar; 09 May 2024 at 23:51. Reason: shortened it and changed the lay-out a bit |
10 May 2024, 00:27 | #223 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: Eastbourne
Posts: 1,089
|
Interesting analysis there roondar. I'm assuming these examples are all loading to the first gamepay point in each case, and all the games are either multiload on both systems, or on neither? A fair few C64 games (e.g. Turbo Outrun) have multiple loading sections with non-interactive sections, before you get to loading the actual game.
Looks like fans of the respective machines are prone to exaggerating the difference, but in these cases the C64 generally loads quicker than the Amstrad when comparing tapes. Presumably emulation is a reliable comparison? Not sure which can load 1Kb of data faster - on the one hand, C64 games more often have loading music, which will take up more data? However, CPC Last Ninja 2 takes roughly 3/4 as long to load as the C64 version, when it's a Spectrum 48K port, which feels indicative of similar 'raw speed', but with Amstrad games often larger than C64 ones? However, by definition this comparison only includes games released for both systems, and I'm guessing that the slowest loading C64 games may be: a) the earliest C64 games (often released before the Amstrad existed) and b) American C64 games designed around disks, with a cassette version as an afterthought Both the above are less likely to have an Amstrad version to compare to. Also, it's clear that Amstrad disks are much faster than C64 disks, despite a 1541 costing as much as an entire CPC6128 including screen. With the C64 having more great disk-only games than the Amstrad, that has to be considered a disadvantage of the C64. As for Photon's point (and CCCP said something similar earlier), yes - any successful home computer was better for the industry than almost any console, or the contemporary PCs. Home computers encouraged more innovative game designs, though there certainly WERE original games developed first for the consoles too. More crucially, home computers allowed people to start development from home, on a relatively cheap system with little specialist software, as a hobby borne of enthusiasm (especially on systems with a good supplied BASIC, perhaps?). Lots of great 8-bit games were developed by one man (on boy, often) in his bedroom, and even in the 16-bit era you got the odd game where most of the work was done by one person, often without a publisher being attached at that point (Worms sticks out as a rare late example). Eventually PCs would become friendlier and more affordable, and academia learned to offer computer games development courses, but I'm not sure that had happened once the Amiga died out in the mid-90s, let alone when the 8-bits were active. The question was more - did the C64 have as much benefit as the Atari 8-bits, or Spectrum, or BBC? I still have some misgivings, and do wonder what would have happened had the C64 not existed, or had launched later, and some or all of those 12.5m+ sales had gone to other machines instead - but overall I think it may well have done. Last edited by Megalomaniac; 10 May 2024 at 01:28. |
10 May 2024, 05:28 | #224 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Ur, Atlantis
Posts: 2,067
|
Quote:
As for software, I guess a few games might've not been made (eg Turrican), if individual devs didn't buy C64. But bigger companies such as Lucasfilm, Microprose or SSI wouldn't close down, they would just implement their ideas on other platforms. |
|
10 May 2024, 08:28 | #225 |
HOL/FTP busy bee
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 32,001
|
Which is not specific to the C64. I still have no idea why the C64 would be any different or special. Just to be clear: not talking about your statement, just the thread in general
|
10 May 2024, 08:38 | #226 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Ur, Atlantis
Posts: 2,067
|
Quote:
It'd be tempting to say maybe Sinclair machines could be a bit different, what with being really cheap, but I'm sure somebody would step in, in case Sir Clive had only wanted to make space bikes or some such. Nature abhorrs a vaccum, they say, so it's a bit like iPhones and subsequent cheap handsets for the masses. |
|
10 May 2024, 08:42 | #227 | |
HOL/FTP busy bee
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 32,001
|
Quote:
Anyway, maybe we should just hand Megalomaniac a puppet and ask where the C64 hurt him |
|
10 May 2024, 10:22 | #228 | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2023
Location: Norwich
Posts: 434
|
Quote:
Turbo loaders are just too hard to compare without doing deep analysis, although the point that the user experience matters more is a valid one. I'd put money on the loading speed of Elite being roughly equivalent, but the CPC loading screen (which is essentially unnecessary loading time) is ~16K of data where the C64 on is probably nearer 1K. Assuming everything else is equal, that extra 15K or so is probably where the difference lies. I'd say that's in line with the general notion that tape loading speeds were more likely capped by publishers being more concerned by returns due to poor reliability than theoretical peak speeds. Anecdotally, I'd have said that Amstrad owners were more likely to have disks than the other two machines, at least in the UK. Aside from sheer cost, it's hard to quantify that in any real capacity though. Amstrad Action and Commodore Format both offered tape-to-disk conversions for cover software, so presumably there was some demand on both platforms. Tape emulation on Amstrad is rare, with a lot of copies being conversions back from disk images rather than genuine samples (and those disk images themselves are often cracks). It seems less common on the C64 too, but I'm not sure if that's the US influence (where having a 1541 was considered essential). |
|
10 May 2024, 10:54 | #229 | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2023
Location: Norwich
Posts: 434
|
Quote:
What I can't really understand from the original question is how the C64 (or any other system) could really be bad for the industry? I mean, maybe you could make the argument about the NES where restrictive licensing rules might have slowed innovation, maybe. But any random computer, even if all it's games were just derivative shovelware (which I wouldn't say of the C64!), doesn't really have a net negative effect on the industry as far as I can see. |
|
10 May 2024, 11:18 | #230 | |||||||||||
CaptainM68K-SPS France
|
Quote:
You can have Ikari Warriors loading "faster" on the C64 and the same game loading very slow on the CPC due to the normal blocks loading used. There are no fixed rules on that matter. Quote:
Quote:
I have preserved 2200+ commercial tapes on the Amstrad CPC. There are 2 things to notice : there are a tons lot more tape games on the C64 than on the CPC, so just on this matter you will find more games loading faster on the C64. However, on the games that have turbo loaders on the CPC, it loads faster than the games on the C64. Most speedlock games and gremlin loader 2/3 loads faster than their C64 counterparts, if you consider the fact that CPC games are bigger (more data to load) than the c64 games. On the CPC, we have encryption that doubles the size of the blocks to load, this doesn't exists on the C64 (always small blocks and small size). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it like this ? Simply because the average speed is 845 bauds. This is due to the copy protection, which requires a slow loading (it has a defect, which has been corrected in the bleepload v2 scheme. It needs a sound level at 15% in order to load without breaking). If Elite had used 1800 bauds blocks, the time to load would have been Less than 4 minutes ! Bleepload scheme comes from the BBC computer btw. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Bad Cat Amstrad CPC tape 4000 bauds tapes were also duplicated industrially by Ablex or Protoscan. The hardware used to duplicate tapes were much much better than the regular CPC tape deck or even the C64 tape deck (and faster as well !). The reliability problem came on schemes that were too complicated to replicate. We have tons of exemple of these even in the Amiga software stories ! |
|||||||||||
10 May 2024, 12:07 | #231 | |
HOL/FTP busy bee
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 32,001
|
Quote:
Still I don't think that you would miss much innovation in computer games if you wouldn't have that many cheap machines back then. Elite was programmed by two university students. The Lords of Midnight was coded by a school teacher. |
|
10 May 2024, 15:08 | #232 | |||||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,437
|
Before my replies: I am only really interested in the aspect of loading tapes, not disks. I have no issue in accepting that the CPC normally loaded from disk faster than the C64. I'm pretty sure the differences are being exagerated as usual, but the slower nature of the IEC bus of the C64 is well documented and I don't see an issue in accepting that even using fastloaders you'll likely fall short of the normal speed of the drive mechanism.
Also, this post was way too long so I cut down quite a bit of my reply (and hence also the posts I replied to). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As a side-note, here's a neat video of the 'world record' speed for data transfer using a standard C64 with a standard datasette: [ Show youtube player ] (This shows a loading rate of ~13000 bits/second or ~1625 bytes/second). Quote:
Quote:
If you have video evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly take a look. Quote:
Common commercial C64 tape loaders run between 2000 and 3000 baud. There's a few that are slower and a few that are faster. Notably on the 'faster' side there are some commercial games that actually use the standard 'Turbo Tape' format, they reach around 475 bytes/sec or 3800 baud. Magazine covertapes also often (though not always) used this, or similarly fast formats. A notable exception on the 'slower' side is Cyberload, which was slower than most and usually harder to copy/more finicky when loading (I presume this was the point), it ran at around 200-220 bytes/sec or a maximum of 1760 baud. In many cases the duplication machinery was the issue, not the tape drive. As an example, Paul Hughes of Freeload fame had an earlier loader he offered to Ocean that ran at 4000 baud, but the duplication machines couldn't deal with it, so he lowered it to 3000 baud, which they could handle. Similarly, budget re-releases often used a slower turbo tape loader because of duplication issues using cheaper duplication machines. Quote:
Other sources put Bad Cat at 3500 baud (CPC wiki). 3500 baud is still in range of what some commercial C64 games used as I pointed out above. Last edited by roondar; 10 May 2024 at 16:29. |
|||||||
10 May 2024, 18:43 | #233 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scunthorpe/United Kingdom
Posts: 2,097
|
Quote:
The Spectrum gained a foothold due to the higher price of the 64. Had that not happened I'm pretty much convinced that gaming would have benefitted and we might have hit certain milestones a little sooner. Wonder how the story of Sir Clive would have played out... |
|
10 May 2024, 18:44 | #234 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: May 2023
Location: Norwich
Posts: 434
|
Quote:
Quote:
[ Show youtube player ] No I'd expect most commercial loaders, especially from the later years when games started filling RAM, to be similar. They'd all pretty much be capped by what Ablex could duplicate reliably. |
||
10 May 2024, 20:19 | #235 | |||||||||
CaptainM68K-SPS France
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What i say about C64 tape loading speed is correct. You mismatch probably the speed between real hardware and emulator(s). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From 1990 and after, U.S.Gold used Digital Master Tapes, and they went very high quality recordings. For example, Shadow Dancer Amstrad CPC version uses the hexagon encrypted blocks, those were recorded at 96khz mono ! The precision in term of baud was very high. And bad luck for Paul Hughes, Bad Cat from Rainbow Arts has been recorded at 4000 bauds, in 1987 ! The Amstrad CPC has no reliability to read tapes recorded at 4000 bauds. Ablex was ocean duplicator company, i guess their hardware was not able of that. Quote:
Speedlock maxes at 2000 bauds (Speedlock v4). Speedlock v6 is limited to 1650 bauds, Speedlock v2 is either 1800 or 2000 on some games. Quote:
|
|||||||||
10 May 2024, 20:28 | #236 |
Missile Command Champion
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Germany
Age: 52
Posts: 12,460
|
You guys are masochists. I borrowed a C64 datasette for testing in 1987, just out of curiosity. Had a good laugh about handling/speed and used my 1541 again. Are people still using real tapes/digital tapes in 2024?
Nowadays i prefer EasyFlash converted games. Fast as real cartridge games, works for multi-part games too. This is by far the most comfortable way. |
10 May 2024, 23:00 | #237 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: Eastbourne
Posts: 1,089
|
There's a definite charm to using the original hardware, the feel of opening the tape case and inserting it, pressing play, even the loading noises (though that's very 'you had to be there' thing). Remember that in the UK a majority of people only had cassettes with their 8-bits. If we're comparing loading times on two different systems though, we need to be using tapes - in an ideal world they'd be original tapes, but it takes time and money to collect them, and of course each load is taking you one day closer to the hardware failing.
Quote:
In any case, you'll be flabbergasted to hear that I don't agree. The C64 couldn't do everything, and it certainly couldn't do everything easily. I wonder if its relatively poor BASIC compared to the Spectrum and especially the BBC might have been a barrier to entry for new would-be programmers too? I don't know that some of the big isometric and other 3D games of the early 80s, many of them international successes which launched long-lasting careers, would have happened if the C64 had been the only successful system? Though of course, likewise, without the C64 we may not have had Maniac Mansion (which definitely spawned an entire genre by itself) or perhaps Creatures or Wizball? Maybe having multiple 8-bit systems with different strengths and weaknesses was a good thing? Another angle might be to look at a company like Graftgold - a collaboration of primarily Andy Braybrook - a C64 guy who's mostly done 2D action games (Paradroid, Uridium, Gribbly's) and Steve Turner- a Spectrum guy who'd mostly done 3D games (the Seiddab series, Quazatron) and adventures (Avalon and Dragontorc) (plus the endearingly quirky Ranarama). On the Amiga ,we got Fire & Ice and Rainbow Islands from the former, and Realms and Simulcra (plus Super Off Road Racer, slightly out-of-genre for him but really good) from the latter - plus they collaborated a few times. Would we have got all those games if either C64 or Spectrum hadn't existed? Last edited by Megalomaniac; 10 May 2024 at 23:11. |
|
10 May 2024, 23:11 | #238 | ||||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,437
|
Quote:
I provided public sources that people can check and judge for themselves. You've provided "trust me" and "buy a CPC", which are not convincing arguments. Quote:
As for my CPC knowledge, I simply look at publicly available information. I have exactly zero reasons to not trust what is found online on places like YouTube and the CPC Wiki. The sources I've shown are not biased against the CPC and they're not doing any weird stuff, they just show it as it is (indeed, the video playlist I linked doesn't even skip the "FOUND <x>" prompt on the C64 by pressing the Commodore key, making it wait a few seconds longer than it has to). Which, interestingly, is consistently rather different from how you claim it to be. Quote:
Also: C64 emulators actually play back tapes at the same speed as the original tapes. Everyone who has actually, you know, used those emulators to play back .tap files knows this. It's also super easy to test that I'm correct about this, so I have no clue why you even try to bring it up as an argument. Quote:
"All Freeload titles load in 14 parts (excluding the initial boot load that pulls in the loader) at roughly ~3000 baud (which is x10 faster than the original Commodore routines)" - http://www.pauliehughes.com/freeload.htm Note: Freeload is but one example, there are plenty more commercial tape loaders on the C64 that exceed 2000 baud. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by roondar; 11 May 2024 at 01:12. |
||||||
10 May 2024, 23:31 | #239 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scunthorpe/United Kingdom
Posts: 2,097
|
Quote:
However... Quote:
Cos I ain't And yeah I think that had they spent a few dollars on contracting MS to update the BASIC for the hardware they would have had a reasonable shot at eating the other 8bits' lunches if we're talking about garnering bedroom coders. As it was, the cost of entry in terms of both £s and shenanigans getting the BASIC to do anything were just enough to allow the Spectrum to rule for a short while. |
||
10 May 2024, 23:34 | #240 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scunthorpe/United Kingdom
Posts: 2,097
|
My Spectrum emulator has the fastest tape acceleration there is - bar none - but my ZX Omni and my ZX Spectrum Next both load tapes (real and digital) in real time.
You can't beat that sound, and there's something about playing those games after waiting a few minutes that makes them... just more fun, I guess. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bad/Meh Amiga ports of good computer/console/arcade games that might need a Remake | saimon69 | Retrogaming General Discussion | 62 | 13 August 2021 01:01 |
Good WHDload games, bad written slaves? | rkauer | support.Games | 10 | 06 May 2008 20:49 |
The Bad-games-with-good-covers tread. | MazinKaesar | Retrogaming General Discussion | 8 | 14 March 2008 17:48 |
can anyone recommend some good C64 games? | Matfink | Retrogaming General Discussion | 20 | 15 November 2003 20:29 |
Good games, bad games, good music, bad music, ETC! | Shatterhand | Retrogaming General Discussion | 20 | 27 August 2002 21:31 |
|
|