best Chuck Rock version?

s2325 · 03 November 2007, 11:04

1. Sega Mega CD (Amiga graphics & sounds + CD audio tracks), 2. Amiga, 3. Super Nintendo (lot of colours) 4. Sega Megadrive (similar to Amiga version), 5. Gameboy (mono, but good playability), 6. Sega Master System (vertically stretched graphics) 7. Sega GameGear (vertically stretched graphics) Someone know something about C64 and/or Atari ST version?

Retro-Nerd · 03 November 2007, 11:36

The Atari ST sound sucks, as always. Surpringly a decent scrolling, but maybe in 25 FPS. There is an ugly Motion Blur effekt by using STeem.

The C-64 version has some nice graphics, but it's only a mediocre port.

oneshotdead · 03 November 2007, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

The Atari ST sound sucks, as always.

Woeful, even by ST standards.

Coagulus · 03 November 2007, 12:58

I played the Archimedes version a lot at a friends place, that was good!

wanderer · 03 November 2007, 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2325

1. Sega Mega CD (Amiga graphics & sounds + CD audio tracks), 2. Amiga, 3. Super Nintendo (lot of colours) 4. Sega Megadrive (similar to Amiga version), 5. Gameboy (mono, but good playability), 6. Sega Master System (vertically stretched graphics) 7. Sega GameGear (vertically stretched graphics) Someone know something about C64 and/or Atari ST version?

Hey, why not replace the Sega Mega CD version with the Amiga CD32 one then?

edit: Chuck Rock II CD32 definitively has nice CD tracks, I'm not sure about the first one though.

s2325 · 03 November 2007, 13:14

I never played CD32 version.

Retro-Nerd · 03 November 2007, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2325

I never played CD32 version.

Not worth unless you have a real CD32, it's a straight disk port.

Charlie · 03 November 2007, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coagulus

I played the Archimedes version a lot at a friends place, that was good!

Hey! Someone else who's actually used an Acorn computer.

I actually prefer it to the Amiga version.

( Animation is a bit smoother judging by my CD32 )

I must say all the ports to this platform were top-notch.
( Mostly done by Krisalis )

Retro-Nerd · 03 November 2007, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie

I must say all the ports to this platform were top-notch.
( Mostly done by Krysilis )

I don't have an Archimedes, but Arculator works fine. Yep, the Krisalis ports are awesome and of course there is Paradroid2000.

s2325 · 04 November 2007, 18:37

Today I played Atari ST version of Chuck Rock:

- big slowdowns
- less colours
- no music band on title screen
- no audio in intro
- no music in game
- no pooping dinosaur
+ still good playability

Charlie · 04 November 2007, 18:44

I never got why the ST versions of so many games weren't that great.

Yes, ST scrolling wasn't so hot ( but not insurmountable ). Yes, the Amiga was a more capable platform...
...but most of these games should be well within the ST's capabilities.

Galahad/FLT · 04 November 2007, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie

I never got why the ST versions of so many games weren't that great.

Yes, ST scrolling wasn't so hot ( but not insurmountable ). Yes, the Amiga was a more capable platform...
...but most of these games should be well within the ST's capabilities.

The ST (not the STe) didn't have hardware scrolling, therefore the processor had to move all that stuff around the screen, hence why the games looked worse. And to further add to its ills, in some cases, less colours were used to try and speed things up.

To be fair to the ST, there were some capable coders on the ST, but as with all things, creating your own game from scratch is easier than having to do conversion work, because with conversion work, you can't just decide to change aspects of the game without them affecting the look and feel, whereas if you have a colour limitation in an original game, then no worries, you work around or incorporate that into your game, because you don't have an arcade machine/Amiga to have to copy.

Retro-Nerd · 04 November 2007, 19:15

But why they released the ST without hardware scrolling and this shitty sound chip? Only to save money? Check the Atari XL, what an amazing 8bit machine.

s2325 · 04 November 2007, 19:20

Yes, Atari XE/XL have some good platform games, like Fred: [ Show youtube player ] or Conan: [ Show youtube player ]

Galahad/FLT · 04 November 2007, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

But why they released the ST without hardware scrolling and this shitty sound chip? Only to save money? Check the Atari XL, what an amazing 8bit machine.

Because the Amiga was originally Ataris machine until Commodore bought out Lorraine/Hi Toro.

Atari knew they had to have a 16 bit machine, but didn't have the luxury of development time, so the ST was built with parts off the shelf and released.

Retro-Nerd · 04 November 2007, 19:53

But Jack Tramiel released the ST before the Amiga, iirc. What a stupid decision, with this hardware specs.

He dreamed of a new PC (true 80 characters representation, 640x400) and failed. The only pro argument for this machine was the implented MIDI interface.

oneshotdead · 05 November 2007, 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

But why they released the ST without hardware scrolling and this shitty sound chip? Only to save money?

ST project was originally called "RBP", it stands for "Rock Bottom Price."

If Tramiel got the CPU he really wanted, scrolling would be even choppier.

Shrug, ST wasn't thought of as shitty gaming platform, not back in the day, not until Amiga stopped getting ports.

blade002 · 05 November 2007, 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneshotdead

Shrug, ST wasn't thought of as shitty gaming platform, not back in the day, not until Amiga stopped getting ports.

Yeah this is very true. In 1990 i came VERY close to buying an ST because it really was considered a capable machine, ( plus after walking around the City in the 80's as a teenager i would see a number of ST's on display with still images that made my jaw drop ), but then just in about the same month i was set to buy one, a friend of mine bought an Amiga 500, and then after seeing that i was floored. So it was Amiga all the way

s2325 · 13 November 2007, 23:19

C64 version [ Show youtube player ] has better sounds than Atari ST version

Retro-Nerd · 13 November 2007, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2325

C64 version [ Show youtube player ] has better sounds than Atari ST version

This was normal. The C-64 SID chip is much better than the ST YM-2149.

03 November 2007, 11:04	#1
s2325 Zone Friend Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gargore Age: 43 Posts: 17,789	best Chuck Rock version? 1. Sega Mega CD (Amiga graphics & sounds + CD audio tracks), 2. Amiga, 3. Super Nintendo (lot of colours) 4. Sega Megadrive (similar to Amiga version), 5. Gameboy (mono, but good playability), 6. Sega Master System (vertically stretched graphics) 7. Sega GameGear (vertically stretched graphics) Someone know something about C64 and/or Atari ST version?

04 November 2007, 19:20	#14
s2325 Zone Friend Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gargore Age: 43 Posts: 17,789	Yes, Atari XE/XL have some good platform games, like Fred: [ Show youtube player ] or Conan: [ Show youtube player ] Last edited by s2325; 04 November 2007 at 19:26.

04 November 2007, 19:53	#16
Retro-Nerd Missile Command Champion Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Germany Age: 52 Posts: 12,453	But Jack Tramiel released the ST before the Amiga, iirc. What a stupid decision, with this hardware specs. He dreamed of a new PC (true 80 characters representation, 640x400) and failed. The only pro argument for this machine was the implented MIDI interface. Last edited by Retro-Nerd; 04 November 2007 at 20:05.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[Request] Chuck Rock 2	blindfold	project.Sprites	73	20 April 2018 01:45
Do Wonderdog and Chuck Rock II use the same engine?	lilalurl	HOL contributions	10	02 March 2016 22:42
Chuck Rock CD32	retrogamer	Games images which need to be WHDified	10	25 January 2014 23:20
Flashtro version of Chuck Rock II	Belgarath	support.Games	4	02 April 2008 23:12
Ripping-chuck Rock	gifgit	project.Sprites	35	11 April 2005 10:03

03 November 2007, 11:36	#2
Retro-Nerd Missile Command Champion Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Germany Age: 52 Posts: 12,453	The Atari ST sound sucks, as always. Surpringly a decent scrolling, but maybe in 25 FPS. There is an ugly Motion Blur effekt by using STeem. The C-64 version has some nice graphics, but it's only a mediocre port.

03 November 2007, 12:58	#4
Coagulus Gets there in the end... Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Wales Posts: 865	I played the Archimedes version a lot at a friends place, that was good!

03 November 2007, 13:14	#6
s2325 Zone Friend Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gargore Age: 43 Posts: 17,789	I never played CD32 version.

04 November 2007, 18:37	#10
s2325 Zone Friend Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gargore Age: 43 Posts: 17,789	Today I played Atari ST version of Chuck Rock: - big slowdowns - less colours - no music band on title screen - no audio in intro - no music in game - no pooping dinosaur + still good playability

04 November 2007, 18:44	#11
Charlie . . Mouse . . Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nowhere Age: 55 Posts: 1,792	I never got why the ST versions of so many games weren't that great. Yes, ST scrolling wasn't so hot ( but not insurmountable ). Yes, the Amiga was a more capable platform... ...but most of these games should be well within the ST's capabilities.

04 November 2007, 19:15	#13
Retro-Nerd Missile Command Champion Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Germany Age: 52 Posts: 12,453	But why they released the ST without hardware scrolling and this shitty sound chip? Only to save money? Check the Atari XL, what an amazing 8bit machine.

13 November 2007, 23:19	#19
s2325 Zone Friend Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gargore Age: 43 Posts: 17,789	C64 version [ Show youtube player ] has better sounds than Atari ST version

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)