APPLE IIe. Ugly. Damn ugly.

[Fred the Fop]

Us retrogamers love old games. Crusty and chunky. pixelated and grainy. But damn fine gameplay. And they look nice too, not blurry, jerky or eye candy-ish like the games of today.

Apple IIe had wonderful games, of course. I'd play those games all day as a kid. But man, they were ass ugly. Worst colour palette (besides IBM CGA abomination), worst resolution and really often, just plain abhorrent graphics.
Case in point: Shown here is Scary Football.
Good title.

That's not football.

What are all those vertical lines on the pitch?

A football pitch doesn't look like that.

This looks kind of like Pong on acid.

[adolescent]

In general, I think the Apple II games look better on the monochrome (green) screen. At least that's how we had them at school. Try playing Karateka in shades of green and you'll see what I mean. Beautiful!

[Fred the Fop]

Jim, it's supposed to be american football. Looks more like american crayons melted in a microwave.
Adolescent, I agree, actually, that there are a few pretty games. karateka is an absolute classic. it moves fluidly and has nice graphics. but that's just one. Here's King's Bounty. Inferior to the Sega Genesis, Amiga and even MS-DOS version resolutionwise, but colourful as the others.
Why is it that so few apple IIe games had 16 or more colours??

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by Fred the Duck

Why is it that so few apple IIe games had 16 or more colours??

Prior to the introduction of the IIe with it's capability to display what they called "double hi-res" graphics, the II series had only an 8 color palette in hi-res, and a 16 color palette in lo-res (which was too blocky for most games). Out of those 8 colors, there were 2 different blacks, and 2 different whites, along with green, violet, orange and blue. Any games that needed more colors in hi-res used dithering to create the effect. With double hi-res, you had more colors available (I think), but it took a while for game developers to create many titles that used double hi-res, because they couldn't be run on any of the older II series machines. In a nutshell, that's why.

[Unknown_K]

Some of the IIgs games were nice, but yea why develope for the higher end II's when you can make 1 game for the whole apple II series and make more money (just like there are very few C128 games games).

The apple II did have some great WW2 SSI games, graphics didnt matter much there at all since its a tactical/strategy type wargame.

[Peanutuk]

Originally Posted by Fred the Duck

But man, they were ass ugly.

I've seen some quite nice asses in my time.

[jmmijo]

Oh yeah, good ol SSI, very fond memories there

As for the Apple II series, I never really got into them due to the fact that cost of the machines was to much, I liked my Vic 20/Pet/64 so much more...

One game however would have made me purchase an Apple IIe if I hadn't procrastenated for so long and that was Ultima I

[Unknown_K]

Nothing can touch the early atari 400/800 or the C64 that came after for gaming, Apple II was a game machine because nothing else was around at the time for competition (PET/Vic20 included)

[T_hairy_bootson]

Apple IIe was the first computer I ever used, we had 2 at my school with colour monitors.

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by Unknown_K

Nothing can touch the early atari 400/800 or the C64 that came after for gaming, Apple II was a game machine because nothing else was around at the time for competition (PET/Vic20 included)

As long as you're making a point of including the PET/Vic20, you might also point out that the original IBM PC, and "ugly ass" CGA graphics weren't around yet either. When the original Apple II and the later II+ (my first computer) started to develop healthy sales numbers in the US, there simply were no realistic alternatives to an Apple here, at least not if you were concerned about being able to find software for it. Once Apple showed that there was a viable market for home PC's, companies such as Commodore, Atari and IBM jumped in to grab their share of the market. To do so, they developed machines that improved on the Apple II's capabilities, naturally.

The II series was still a pretty decent game machine for the time, and it did have a few advantages over some of the others that came later. The one that most comes to my mind is a 2 button joystick, which the Atari and C64 did not have. My favorite game on the Apple II was Lode Runner, and with the 2 button joystick, it was possible to dig a hole behind you even as you were running from a pursuer. Conversions for other machines required you to stop and face in the direction you wanted to dig in, which could easily get you killed.

[jmmijo]

Originally Posted by Chuckles

....The II series was still a pretty decent game machine for the time, and it did have a few advantages over some of the others that came later. The one that most comes to my mind is a 2 button joystick, which the Atari and C64 did not have. My favorite game on the Apple II was Lode Runner, and with the 2 button joystick, it was possible to dig a hole behind you even as you were running from a pursuer. Conversions for other machines required you to stop and face in the direction you wanted to dig in, which could easily get you killed.

Ah, but it forced you to be more dexterous, it made the C64 version much more challenging and hence I feel a much better adaptation of Lode Runner

[Chuckles]

True I suppose, but I'd never have had the patience to deal with that added level of difficulty long enough to allow me to finish all 150 levels. The level design and gameplay was challenging enough with 2 buttons, particularly given that the game had no save game options. It was an addictive game to play though, and making it through that 150th level took a major effort.

[jmmijo]

@Chuckles, do you remember if the Apple version of Lode Runner had the ability to create level/map disks or not ?!? I seem to recall that the C64 version had this ability and it took a very long time to format and create one of these disks

[Unknown_K]

Originally Posted by Chuckles

As long as you're making a point of including the PET/Vic20, you might also point out that the original IBM PC, and "ugly ass" CGA graphics weren't around yet either. When the original Apple II and the later II+ (my first computer) started to develop healthy sales numbers in the US, there simply were no realistic alternatives to an Apple here, at least not if you were concerned about being able to find software for it. Once Apple showed that there was a viable market for home PC's, companies such as Commodore, Atari and IBM jumped in to grab their share of the market. To do so, they developed machines that improved on the Apple II's capabilities, naturally.

The II series was still a pretty decent game machine for the time, and it did have a few advantages over some of the others that came later. The one that most comes to my mind is a 2 button joystick, which the Atari and C64 did not have. My favorite game on the Apple II was Lode Runner, and with the 2 button joystick, it was possible to dig a hole behind you even as you were running from a pursuer. Conversions for other machines required you to stop and face in the direction you wanted to dig in, which could easily get you killed.

The only advantage I could think of was the fact that some games were developed for the II first, or only for the II at the time.

Each system had decent games for it, thats the reason I have a IIgs in my collection.

The PC had ugly ass graphics and sound until the PC Jr/Tandy 1000 came along in the 80's. Sixteen color CGA was nice, and tandy sound was not too bad.

[jmmijo]

K, you meant 16-color EGA as CGA was only 4 colors

And I too thought that when Tandy released their propreitary Tanday Color Graphics, I thought it was really good when Sierra took advantage of it

[Unknown_K]

Originally Posted by jmmijo

K, you meant 16-color EGA as CGA was only 4 colors

And I too thought that when Tandy released their propreitary Tanday Color Graphics, I thought it was really good when Sierra took advantage of it

PCJr/Tandy was a version of CGA with 16 full colors being one of the major differences. LSL looks real nice on my Tandy 1000HX, compared to the graphics even on a VGA equipped 386.

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by jmmijo

@Chuckles, do you remember if the Apple version of Lode Runner had the ability to create level/map disks or not ?!? I seem to recall that the C64 version had this ability and it took a very long time to format and create one of these disks

I'm pretty sure that the original Apple version of Lode Runner did not have a level editor, but I believe that there was one included with the sequel (Championship Lode Runner). I never actually tried to use it though, so I don't know how long it took to format and create a disk for it. I might just have to dig out my disk for that and give it a try to find out.

[jmmijo]

Originally Posted by Chuckles

I'm pretty sure that the original Apple version of Lode Runner did not have a level editor, but I believe that there was one included with the sequel (Championship Lode Runner). I never actually tried to use it though, so I don't know how long it took to format and create a disk for it. I might just have to dig out my disk for that and give it a try to find out.

You could be right about it being Championship Lode Runner, my memory is starting to fade on most of the C64/128 stuff now

@K, hmm, I do not recall the 16-color CGA adapters at all, I only remember the 4 color CGA adapters. I remember thinking to myself that monochrome Amber or Green looked so much better then that horrendous 4-color montrosity

[MacTO]

Originally Posted by jmmijo

I remember thinking to myself that monochrome Amber or Green looked so much better then that horrendous 4-color montrosity

But CGA looks great, with a greyscale monitor. I ran into a couple of those monitors, and must say that they did wonders for CGA games. The games probably looked the way the colour blind IBM engineers expected them too.