The memories with these computers. One of my friends had the C-64, while I and a few others had the Atari 800s. Both systems had their strong points and weak points. The C64 was newer hardware and had awesome sound/music abilities, while the Atari had a lot of custom chips and different graphics modes (that could be combined with some skilled programming). More often that not we were just happy that we got to play most of these games on the home computer of our choice (and back then some games would bring both the C-64 version and the Atari version in one purchase).
I owned an Atari 800xl and two 1050 disk drives. I also owned the C64 and two 1541 drives. The Atari was simply better better better. The commands simply made sense (unlike the C64 messed up commands like load "game",8,1 and to copy files/disks one really had to type in some funky stuff. The Atari was not only well polished - and the 1050 drives were rock solid - you couldn't break them hardly . A person that sold Commodores in England said people were always bringing in their 1541 drives to have them realigned! The Atari was much faster - the c64 with the Epyx fast load cartridge was still slower than the Atari's load/run time. The Atari being released, a couple years previously I think, the Atari really held it's ground. And the Atari also had a faster processor - clocked at nearly twice that of the C64 - this really showed when comparing games like Prince of Persia and karate games like Karateka - the c64 was just slower and it really took away from the game play. The atari's (I/O) was a precurso of modern day. The Atari's quality was similar to the Apple 2. I always regretted selling my Atari 800xl system and buying the C64 system. ~ Michael
OTOH you could program 2 of the Commodore 1541 disk drive to do blind disk to disk copy and it'll keep going even after you shut C64 off. Disk drives had its own CPU and RAM and could be programmed to run independently of the host computer.
@@FloppyDeepDiveI’d be interested in knowing how much memory was used in the making of the games you are comparing as it’s always been my contention that the more memory available to game programmers, the better the games can turn out. That’s why a tiny game such as the original Atari 2600 vcs Pac-man can’t compare to say the 8k home brew version of the same game. I would suspect the same or similar situation exists for these comparisons. Also, when the game was produced as there’s always a learning curve in developing for consoles/computers to take full advantage of its capabilities.
Have several 1541 (one of them having been used a lot over the last 40 years) and never had to re-align them, ever. The cassette player (C2N), yes - you had to fiddle with the Phillips screwdriver all the time to align the azimuth. But the disk drive was (and is) a totally different kettle of fish, at least in my experience.
@@Fan-lq6uvSure. Defender of the Crown, arguably one of C64's top ten games ever, is a joy to play on floppy thanks to its use of seamless load/pipelining on the 1541. Very cool!
Had a C64 growing up in the 80s. Was THE machine at the time. But looking at the Atari 800 many years later, I can see technically, the Atari 800 was in some ways better than the C64. It had a faster version of the same CPU, almost twice as fast, and it shows in 3D games for the system. Also, the Atari 8bit was designed by none other than Jay Miner, the "Father" of the Amiga so I think the Atari 800 had a lot of technical capability.
Good video. I never played these games on either system but I did play Rescue on Fractalus and Koronis Rift on both systems. I'm a C64 guy but I have to admit that those games were better on the Atari 800XL
Loved Rescue on Fractlus. I always felt this game was way ahead of its time. No other game came close to making you feel like you are flying a spaceship for a long time after it came out.
Just come across this, and as the developer of both the C64 and Atari versions of Chuckie egg, I can say that the control system is exactly the same, the reason you're having trouble is when you run past a ladder you should be holding your joystick in the diagonal if you want to go up or down, you don't need to position yourself exactly below the ladder, also when jumping you can catch a ladder as you pass it by holding the joystick up, this may be slightly easier if you use the keys to play rather than a joystick. One other thing I notice on the Atari version is the green hue that everything has, the platforms should be brown and the ducklings should be yellow, not sure why they are all coming out greenish on your video, but overall I'm glad you enjoyed playing them both, the Atari version is my favourite too
Well, this is a first, and how cool it is to hear from the game developer! Thank you for your insight. Did you create any other games for the Atari and C64? Did Miner 2049er inspire Chuckie Egg? Thanks for Watching and welcome to the channel.
@@FloppyDeepDiveI think Nigel Alderton coded Chuckie Egg originally on the ZX Spectrum and so Sean is the guy who converted it to those platforms. I suspect you’d need to ask Nigel if he happens to comment here. ZX Spectrum classic Manic Miner was inspired by Miner 2049 as the programmer Matthew Smith said he had played 2049 before coding Manic.
@@FloppyDeepDiveI also coded road runner for c64 along with chuckie egg 2 and gumshoe, unfortunately no more Atari games as the companies I worked for didn’t really seem interested in the Atari
6:22 there's a later/better Atari 800 choplifter for the XE line's release with real (non-artifact) color. There were several 'redo' games in that line, the mario bros. is especially impressive.
Yes, there was a second version of Choplifter that was released on the Atari XE, the 7800 console, and on the first Sega console, that I think was based on an arcade version of the game. It had more colors, and faster/smoother action.
@@FloppyDeepDive They did give the XL a smaller form factor especially than the 800, better keyboard, and it came standard with 64k RAM instead of the lower variable standards of the 400 and 800, which the latter topped out at 48k. The hardware was often much more capable than the resources of the software programmers, in an era where many companies were trying to crank out a lot of titles in short time.
Choplifter and Castle Wolfenstein both feature graphics converted almost directly from the Apple-II - it's particularly noticeable on the C64 helicopter. Championship Loderunner featured many levels created by players of the original Loderunner that were sent into Broderbund. Congo Bongo did have two different versions on the C64 - the disk version and the cartridge version. Chuckie Egg - the seed piles give you points, but if you leave them the birds will pause to eat them, which can make things easier for you to dodge past.
Aftrr my Sinclair ZX81, I bought an Atari 400 and later the 800XL. I've not heard of these games, except Centipede, Choplifter and Castle Wolfenstein (although I didn't play C.W). They certainly aren't the best examples on either platform. I don't recall Centipede being that bad, it was a very fast, smooth game. The 800XL was a slight refresh of the original 800, which came out in 1979, 3 years before the C64, and was probably the most advanced home computer at that time. Jay Miner designed several of the Atari's custom chips... and went on to design another system, which Commodore bought... and became the Amiga.
In the UK, I only had the Commodore 64 so can't really compare between the two, but a cousin had the Atari XE in the mid to late 80's. I remember playing Ghostbusters on it once. It was comparable to the C64 version. Most 8-bit computers were fairly evenly matched and what really made the difference, wasn't the colours or sound, but the game play. There are som Spectrum games that look AWFUL but play AMAZING, simply because the gameplay wins you over. It's a bit like old movies vs new movies. Many older movies had crappy effects but great scripts, whereas today most movies have pathetic scripts but impressive CGI effects. I'll always take a great story over a great CGI scene. I'll always take Spielberg's plastic shark Jaws over the CGI monster in the Meg....
Two differences overlooked between systems. The Commodore runs at a flat 1MZ, but the Atari systems all ran at 1.79Mhz nearly 80% faster. That meant that software that were in need of calculations, ran faster on an Atari. The load time for games from disk, was typically twice as long for commodore vs Atari All Atari systems autobooted where only the 128 was capable of autoboot
I have finally figured out precisely why your C64 captures have NTSC color fringing artifacts. Normally, these would only appear on PAL C64s or very early NTSC C64 (which had a flaw in the VIC-II chip). But in your case, it seems to purely be an artifact of the video capture or encoding. At 13:03 you can see the green/purple artifacts switch between green < - > purple. This indicates that the real video output is correctly switching chroma phase 60 times per second, but that the capture/encoding to 30fps is very slightly out of sync, so it switches whether it's encoding the even or odd frames. Either way, I think the best way to capture NTSC C64 is with S-Video. Here in North America, it was most common to use the C64 with an S-Video monitor (1702 most common by far), rather than composite/RF output to a TV set. So there really wasn't an issue of NTSC chroma artifacts anyway, even if Commodore went out of their way to visually eliminate those artifacts on composite output anyway (this was more of a benefit for the original VIC chip - used on the earlier VIC-20).
Thanks, Isaac, I'm always looking for ways to improve the video. Let me look into that to eliminate it. I do use S video out to the capture card, so let me look at my Capture Card settings. You have a good eye and good advice my friend!
I had a Atari 400 and then the 800xl. Back then the C64 was the far better computer, only because it was impossible to get software for the Atari, even via the mail most of the time.
The C64 had a better software library that is true, but was it a better computer? I doubt it. I own a C64 and 130XE, so I'm not biased. The Atari had a faster CPU, more colours, a better BASIC etc. Sure the C64 had a great soundchip, but had only 3 sound channels while the pokey had 4. I love the C64 don't get me wrong, but if you want a system to tinker with back in the day, the Atari was a better choice.
Rushed, lazy games for both platforms, a far cry from their actual capabilities. Both could do much much better. In the case of Atari there is an enhanced version of Choplifter (Choplifter!1988) with multi-color sprites and a superior 5200 Centipede version with more colors(same hardware).
I am still puzzled by the 5200 port of Centipede. It seems to have six pixel wide mushrooms, rather than 4 or 8 pixel wide. But the really crazy thing is the silky smooth motion of the Centipede. I don't think it can be pure sprites, because there can be more than 8 segments on a scanline. And the way they overlap with mushrooms, I don't think it can be tile graphics either. And the amount of rendering for such smooth motion seems to rule out pure bitmap rendering...
@@IsaacKuo The speed of the CPU and "co processor"(Antic) allow the small Atari to move software sprites really smooth. I also don't know the exact technique but there is a modern "snake'' game called Nibbly where a similar technique is used for larger SW sprites.
@@IsaacKuo I thought I know all the Atari 800 graphics "tricks" until recently when I saw a game released from Poland that had multi-colored sprites on the same graphic 'line". They were using a trick that was NEEDED to program games on the Atari 2600. It was called Ray Tracing, although I haven't looked into in detail yet. So it is possible the centipede could be sprites. If I had my Atari here I could play the game and I can usually figure out if it was bitmapped or sprites.
thats funny because in 1984 i had to return my Atari 800xl twice to Toys R Us because both systems were dead out of the box..thankfully the 3rd unit i got worked
Caverns of Khafka is another game by Robert T. Bonifacio that was ported to the C64 by Paul Norman. The other that comes to mind is Aztec Challenge. In both cases you can't compare the games because they are almost totally different and only share the name across systems.
Good comparison, I had both and slightly preferred the Atari 800XL, but it was close. I noticed the whites on Choplifter and Lode Runner on the Atari are somewhat pink, you might want to turn down or turn off your artifacting if you are using the Altira emulator for those games.
Great showdown some of my all time favorites. I agree 100% with your picks. It really is too bad Commodore couldn't put the same color palette as the Plus 4 or the Atari 8 bits into the VIC-II chip as that would have been something to see. It is amazing what skilled coders pulled off with the 64s limited palette.
Right! Like, remember seeing the opening of Summer Games and how amazing they made the colors there. The coders could pull off some amazing stuff; Epyx games really come to mind for me.
The Palette CTIA 128 Colors on the Very Early Atari 800 / 400 1979/80 was less they increased the Palette to GTIA 256 colors in 1981 why Atari wasn't showing off its graphic capability on the 8 bit line , ill never know just I not so sure but I think the Commodore 64 was able to have More Sprites on the screen then the Atari 800/XL besides the Atari sprites was only one color and the C64 had 2 colors yeah very amazing what the programmers and demo hackers can do doing tricks as placing 4 colors per pixel block for the C64 C128 and C16/plus4
Atari experiences for me are often associated with the 2600 so it's always interesting to watch your comparisons such as with the 800XL. I lean towards the C64 too and I'm of the opinion that experiences for most games are better on it than the Atari; however, there were certainly some titles on this video that the Atari did a bit better. Many classics here - I think Centipede may have been the first trackball game for me too! Timeless!
I was thinking about the trackball. Didn't Atari have an X and O football game in the late 70s that used a trackball? I love having trackball at home to play with still with Centipede, but I want my fire button to be on my right instead of my left; it messed me up. Lol As always, thanks for watching, my friend! Have a good weekend!
@@FloppyDeepDive That is true about the X and O football game - and that goes back even further :) That's a pretty awesome trackball setup you have at home and Centipede would be a blast! Yeah, I hear you with the buttons but we adapt lol have a great weekend buddy!
I had an Atari 800 before I got a Commodore 64. But my first computer was a VIC 20. I had already decided to get a Commodore 64, but my high school math teacher got an IBM PC and gave me his Atari 800. Quite a gift at the time really, He was impressed with a couple fractal programs I written for the Apple II at school. He was surprised a Commodore VIC 20, stock, didn't have bitmap graphics, it needed more memory for it. Also BASIC 2.0 doesn't have commands for doing graphics. But, what interested me more than graphics, was sound. The Commodore 64 can play real notes, as in the correct pitch, which allows for me to jam along with it on the guitar.
I love movies like this. It is amazing to dive into these old games again, and see how the systems compare. I love most systems from the 80's era, although I am mainly an Atari 8bit person myself. When I see those old titles on the 800xl I need to say, that obviously those old coders did not get along very well with the capabilities of the machine. If you look what today's coders achieve, you will be amazed (I think of ports of Space Harrier, Prince of Persia, Stunt car Racer) and amazing new creations. It is a fact though that these old titles do not always get the best out of the machine. Sometimes that is due to atari's policy of backward compatibility with the older systems (like the 48K Atari 800) ... Atari always wanted to release titles that would run on these older systems too, that actually did limit in some way the quality... they do not take advantage of more memory for instance, and that is one of the reasons newer titles from the Atari 8bit renaissance that happened in Eastern Europe (mainly in Poland and Hungary) in the early 90's are so much better in quality. They were coded for the 64K and 128K machines. Some people in the scene have a hard time seeing videos where there so beloved system is not demonstrated as the obvious winner. I do not care at all. I love all that stuff from the 80's (even playing Frogger on an old 16K ZX81 is a lot of fun!) ... The titles that are compared usually show more about the abilities of the coder (And the time and money they wanted to invest in a game) than the strength of the actual platform/machine. And even then... who cares? It is all about having fun and being amazed about these fabulous machines. If you need suggestions for games to try out for your 800XL, please let me know. And to finish this post: thank you so much for creating this content. It is wonderful to see, and hear your enthusiasm. I can totally relate to that, so you have brightened up my day. Greetings from the Netherlands, Marius.
'C'hampionship Lode Runner...I see what you did there! Of course you can put Lode Runner under 'L' too, and I won't complain. It deserves to be reviewed at least twice...in fact, you could have included it under 'B' as well for Bröderbund Championship Lode Runner. Such a good game! Lode Runner on the XL uses Graphics Mode 15 (at least that's the name in BASIC) where the resolution is 160x192 with 4 colours. As a result it has a distinctly 'striped' look when it gets stretched to 320x192 for fullscreen. This gives the C64 a much cleaner graphics appearance (and all 16 colours), but gameplay is absolutely not affected, and I'll play Lode Runner on any system that's handy. (this is another one that shines on the 4A, under the name 'TI-Runner' (and/or "Star-Runner') And NO, I'm not telling you how to get the bottom guys. Centipede is great on both systems (as well as the TI-99/4A - Centipede and Shamus are my two favourite Atarisoft titles on that machine). Millipede on the XL is something truly special though, so I look forward to 'M'. Since you asked where we hail from, I live in Toronto, Canada, but I hail from the french province of Québec. As such, I must tell you that the word "C'est" ('it is') is pronounced closer to "Say" so it's "Say la vie" (That's Life). "Sess la vie" hurt my ears. 😉😜 I'll forgive since I assume you don't get a lot of french spoken down in Texas, and Louisiana is a bit of a drive. Another excellent 8-bit comparison video Monsieur Deep Dive!
Glad you caught that with Lode Runner! Including it under multiple letters would certainly be justifiable with how iconic it is. Interesting details on the graphics for the XL version-I agree, the C64 does tend to have that cleaner appearance, but I'll play it on any system I can get my hands on! Centipede and Millipede are classics, and I’m with you on the TI-99/4A love for those. It’s great to see how well those games still hold up across various platforms. Thanks for the language tip! I’ll have to work on my pronunciation of “C’est la vie”-good to know. And yes, down here in Texas, French isn’t as common, but I’m glad I’ve got viewers like you to keep me sharp! Thanks again for the detailed comments, and I’m excited for what’s next in the lineup!
Hi! Love these videos, Roanoke VA USA here! I was a c64 owner, but love all retro computers. Like others, I also noticed the Castle Wolfenstein artifact color as well, which is odd for the c64. Certainly the artifact color likely came from video capture, rather than from the c64 itself. The Atari version looks closer to the original Apple II version. C64 version graphics were definitely more colorful and a departure from all other versions. The C64 version of Wolfenstien was a bit of a buggy mess though. It was too easy to run into corrupt rooms and horrendous load times. Still, fantastic game, by the late great Silas Warner, developed in Baltimore, MD.
Thanks, Sean! It probably was the capture card, I've upgraded since. It was a fantastic game and just a blast to play, even today! Thanks for Watching!
I always love how people throw the commodore 64 at the Atari 800 as if they were both made at the sametime. the commodore had years to better themselves in both graphics and sound. while the Atari 8 bits were made around the sametime as the TRS-80s and the Apples. The Computer you should be comparing the Atari's with is the Vic -20 , released around the sametime, which Atari, graphically, wiped the damn floor with. And by the way, I could come up with atleast 20 games that the Atari's did better than the commodore 64. doesnt mean the Ataris better, meant the programmers doin the games understood the hardware. and with machine language you could make an Atari sound almost as good as a c64. using interrupts and sound chip timing. by the way, Star Raiders on the Atari was voted, for I think 5 years at least, as the most advanced game in all the computer magazines back in the day. C64 has yet to make a game better than that. So next time, put the Atari up against the computers it went up against at the time of its release. The Apple , the TRS-80 ,the Tandy, and the Vic 20. the Atari will win everytime. Comparing the Atari 800 against the C64, is like comparing the C64 against the NES. which the C64 would lose . the NES being released in japan around the sametime as the C64 in the US. Oh and some more info, the Amiga , which the idea for , started at Atari, was basically an upgraded Atari 800, which was suppose to be released around the sametime as the C64, but Warner and Tramiel when he took over , kept milkin the 8bits for as long as they could. and for those that say, the Vic and C64 out sold the Atari's, sure they did, they were low priced , and cheaply made. I watched two C64 fry out after lightning hit outside of the store i was in, so did the Apples, The Atari 400 and 800 there, just booted back up, because they were made like tanks. and shielded in a giant case of aluminum. which cost money. Oh and I'm not blaming the maker of this video, for what it was, it was good, even though as stated there are better version for the atari's, now that programmers know them better. I just wanted to put the age difference of both machines, into perspective, so its understood where the C64s advantage comes from.
When was the Atari 800XL Released? 1983. As stated I do this comparisons like I was a kid in the 80’s and at my house I had a C64 and my friend had an Atari 800XL. What I would of seen at that time on my C64 and what he would have seen playing the exact same games. I know programmers are lazy but this is what would of been played no matter what I would do differently. I show the truth, like it or not. Oh I also did C64 vs NES videos. Lol. Thanks for Watching!
@@FloppyDeepDive the Atari 800 XL was a lazy release, and was done because the FCC finally allowed smaller shielding for radio interference, and so Atari's could be sold cheaper . As I stated, what became the Amiga was suppose to be the new Atari . to be released around the sametime as the C64. And yet the Atari XL still held its own against the new comer. and many other computers. to suggest, just because they both had the same games at the sametime makes it a fair fight is ludicrous at best. The C64 took what was best of the Atari and improved apon it, i know I programmed both of them. The Atari had way easier to program scrolling . the C64 better sprites. With the Atari's you just poked two scroll registers, and about 24 memory pointers to scroll a screen, the C64 has to scroll 8 bits, then shift the whole screen memory, . in text mode, thats 1024 bytes. like the NES does. which is painful to do. plus the C64 has a color table in 16 color text mode that also has to be scrolled, another 1024 bytes. the only Computer at the time the Atari's first came out that could compete with it was the Ti99. and its scrolling is jerky as hell. and the Vic-20, with its small screen , and lack of sprites , was overpowered by the Ataris and TI-99. Look I'm not sayin the C64 sux, it doesnt, I'm actually programmin a game on it now with CBM Studio. I'm just sayin, pitting the C64 against the Atari, and acting like they were both made at the sametime is like sayin a VW bug can go up against a jeep in hill climbin, yes they can both do it, but the Jeep is made for that. the VW is just good at bein a dune buggy, not a four wheeler. nuff said
I have to say that I always have been an Atari nerd, with my Atari XE System computer bought back in 1991! I've never tried Commodore computers before, but now I'm learning how to use VICE emulator with Commodore 64 machine. Yeah, Commodore 64 has a lot of wonderful features, but I cannot get used to the BASIC editor, that it's no DOS as a separate program or the non-repeating keys when hold a key on the keyboard. But, its advantages are the amount of sprites, colors on the screen at-the-same-time, the sound chip with all those sound effects, the possibility of changing character sets with some key combinations... and, of course, the F1-F6 keys and the colour keys. I think we need a combination of the best features from ALL computers from that time. MSX, ZX Spectrum, Atari, Commodore, Amstrad, etc., all of them have many wonderful capabilities that deserve to be in one final complete 8-16 bits computer. Another thing I can say is that most of the times we measure success of a computer related to their library of GAMES!! But many computers have a lot of interesting characteristics 'per se', just by the hardware they have or how the monitor/operating system is built, and deserve to be taken in account just as every other popular computer.
For the last three, I actually played Cest La Vie and Caverns of Eriban on c64. Caverns of Eriban had the melody of Holst's The Planets, Mercury. There's a few versions with different speed of music floating around, I believe in an attempt to speed correct the music for NTSC. My understanding is Eriban was a budget title from Firebird in the UK. On NTSC, it has minor graphical glitching on the bottom third of the screen when descending or ascending, due to apparent timing differences on NTSC vs PAL on C64. These glitches are not displayed on a PAL C64. Unlike the music, no one ever fixed it on NTSC, I guess because it did not break the game.
We had all sorts of glitches back in the 80s. Of course, back then, I didn't know it was because it was PAL. I just thought someone messed it up when they cracked it. Lol 😆
You dig away at the left column of bricks, to give you an escape gap. Then you climb the ladder, grab the box, and escape out the escape gap. Repeat on the right side for the other box.
I just saw this video and was going to post a hint rather than just giving away the solution. Anyway, another way to do it is to free the guards by digging away the column, then lure them into crossing to the other side and get them to drop off when they're over the gold boxes. They will often pick them up on the way down. Then you dig out the column, trap them in holes and grab the boxes that they drop.
Funny you mentioned "2 player mode" for Castle Wolfenstein. I assume this was your experience growing up--and not many others. I think I might have done the same with my older brother--but we definitely did this with Commando.
I had Atari 800XL, but I had also access to C64. When it comes to games, these 2 actually cannot be compared. First few years it was comparable, many games were ported on both C64 and Atari, but later (cca from 1985) the compamies that produced games have abandoned Atari. Therefore C64 had much more games, especially those, that were produced later and were much better than the early ones. For example Last Ninja series, Eye of the Beholder, Turrican series, Prince of Persia, Defender of the Crown, Ultima series, Elite, Elvira series, Dizzy series, Another World, Bard's Tale series, Lemmings and many many others. In years 1987-1995 most games mostly originally produced for 16-bit systems were ported only on C64 and Sinclair Spectrum. I think the main reason was graphics on Atari. Altrough Atari had 256 color pallete and many graphics modes, it was missing good natural game graphics modes. C64 was much better when you needed to use more colors on single screen without using special effects like interruptions. Also Sprites in C64 were much better for games. And finally sound possibilities were also better on C64. So out of 10 I would give C64 9 points and Atari800 4 points. Atari was on other hand better for Basic programming - incl. support for graphics and sound. And later Atari was also better for demos - with using all graphics modes and interruptions it was really colorfull.
It sounds like you had quite the experience with both the Atari 800XL and the Commodore 64! Your breakdown of how the gaming landscape shifted around 1985 really captures the turning point for both systems. The sheer number of late-era C64 games, particularly classics like The Last Ninja, Turrican, Ultima, and Prince of Persia, really solidified its dominance in the market. It’s interesting how the C64 excelled in graphics and sound, with its superior sprites and the SID chip making a huge difference in game development, while the Atari 800XL was left behind by many developers in the later years. You also bring up a great point about Atari’s strengths in other areas, particularly BASIC programming and demos, where its variety of graphic modes and ability to push the hardware for non-gaming purposes really shone through. Your score comparison of 9 for the C64 and 4 for the Atari 800XL makes sense from a gaming perspective, but it’s great to hear you still appreciated what the Atari could offer in other areas, especially for demos and coding enthusiasts!
Re. the Atari version of Centipede I played two versions of this, way back when. I agree, I didn't like the port for the 8-bit. The motion was too blocky. That was the main thing. There was also a 5200 version that was a bootleg port to the 8-bit (not too hard, since the platforms were almost identical), and it was better. The animation was smooth, like the arcade version, and I think it was more like the C-64 version, in terms of color. Re. Cosmic Tunnels This is reminding me of another game that had a similar scene, where the guy gets out of a ship, goes around on an alien planet, and picks up things, while dodging bad guys, but I can't remember the name of it. I remember it having a different scene, where your ship tries to fight/fly through some bad guys in space, but it's just a side view. Once you get through the gauntlet, you land on a planet, etc. Once you've gathered your things, you take off, and go back through the gauntlet (IIRC), then go to the next level, where the action repeats.
I love these comparison videos. I grew up playing MS DOS games myself and interested to know if any Commodore 64 games were also on DOS. If so, I'd love to see a video comparing them. Loving the content. Oh and seeing as you asked, I'm from Wales in the UK.
Ahh MS-DOS……you are jumping ahead, and they eventually win, leading to what we have today. Very humble and modular beginnings though with MS-DOS , CGA,EGA,ATI, adlib, soundblaster,Roland..etc. Before we get there, you have the dominance of Amiga and Atari ST
That visual tearing on the Atari version of Cosmic Tunnels would clinch it for me, in favour of the Commodore, assuming that's not just a fault of video capture. I'm from Perth, Western Australia.
You might use an Atari 800 to play those same games-which look and play exactly the same on it as on the 800XL-and then you could put “1979” under the Atari 800 and “1982” below the C64, the way you placed “1982” and “1985” under the C64 and NES - to add context (and consistency). It shows with _Centipede,_ that Atarisoft took great pride in their work, not only doing a great job for their own computers* but also for whatever system to which they ported their games, unlike what Coleco had done with the console versions for which they made ports. It’s also very evident with the way Atarisoft made such a great port for the C64 that they were very familiar with the Commodore’s graphics and sound chips, which makes sense, considering that the same engineers who made the Atari graphics and sound chips in ‘79 (a first in computing, to take load off the CPU) went on to make the sound and graphics chips for the C64 - basically making them the second gen Atari chips. They’re what set the Atari and C64 apart from other home computers of the time-including Apple and IBM/clones-and why the (academic) deep and lengthy arguments Atari and Commodore fans have are never matched by Apple IIe or IBM PC “fans,” per se - and not just because _Karateka_ and _King’s Quest_ were their best games... Thanks for the video, but do think about that branding in the early ‘80s wasn’t nearly so advanced or prevalent as it is, today. I’m sure there were a fair number of people who picked their computers and argued for them for no other reason than that they had them, but it seemed most of us not only knew what the specs were but what they meant and how they made computers different from one another. For instance, my next computer was an Amiga, which I bought for what it could do. I wasn’t looking to build a DAW, because a) I wasn’t a composer, and b) they didn’t exist, yet, until Cubase came out for the STs, which still have a cult MIDI composer following. I was more into “multimedia art,” which didn’t have a name, until the ‘90s, but we knew we were doing _something,_ much like pre- and early DAW users did... * Speaking of the Atari 8-bits and Centipede, you’re really missing out if you don’t use an Atari Trak-Ball controller with it (or _Missile Command,_ _Crystal Castles,_ or _Marble Madness,_ etc). Because I had one, I know for sure that those worked the way trackballs are supposed to work, on Ataris-making the experience of those games ten times better than without-by changing the switch from joystick (direction but not velocity) to trackball. Third parties made trackballs for Commodore, but my best friend from my yoot-with whom I argued about my Atari 800 (and later 800XL, until I realized I liked my 800 better (in part because of the five-pin (chroma) monitor out, as opposed to the 4-pin monitor port on my XL) versus his Commodore 64, for years, and learned a lot from it-but he had no trackball. So, I dunno if Atarisoft made their C64 ports work with trackballs, or not. If there were a standard, Atari woulda used it, I think - and speaking of thinking, I have no idea why I never just took my trackball to his house, to check... 🤦♂️
Wow! Great write-up. I enjoyed the read, and you have valid points. I have a trackball for my Atari, and I didn't know it worked on the 800XL. I will give it a try today, then on the C64. Thanks for Watching!
Loved the video - staunch Commodore guy, too. Curious about that show/film at 0:15 ("Great sound chip, the Commodore") Would you plz let me know? 😊 Thx in advance!
I have both systems. I need to hook up my Atari Again. Same as you. c64 is my nostalgia, got atari a few years ago. Bonus I found a atari tape drive for $4 at a thrift store. I think they though it was just an old cassette player :)
Just a point about Wolfenstein (and any others in "hi-res" mode) on the Atari. The colors are incorrect in the video. It is meant to be played through an NTSC monitor and the graphics, due to artifacting, will not looks so plain, wifh lots of yellow and blue
I totally get what you mean! Castle Wolfenstein was a real eye-opener for me too. The gameplay and stealth mechanics were ahead of their time, but going back to it now really shows how primitive it feels compared to modern standards. Still, there's something oddly charming about sneaking around those blocky Nazis and scavenging for items. It definitely takes you back to the early days of gaming!
Some key points you keep missing. When was the game produced for each system? And what memory factor was it released. 16k cartridge or a full disk? There are many variables that make up what equals a better game. You did a good job regardless but maybe have a deeper understanding that not all things are equal in regards to these comparisons. Subbed!
In early 1983 I had a C-64. It became very popular in America, along with the Apple //e. The Atari 8 bit computers in my region didn't seem nearly as popular. Maybe out west near CA where Atari was from? I assumed naturally that the C-64 was the better game machine generally speaking. I was wrong! I did get an Atari 1200XL on closeout, but I never had a disk drive, and there was far less software available for it in my area. Nor did I know many people with an Atari 8 bit, although the Atari 800 was the very first computer I used at a friend's house in 1980. In more modern times, I was able to check out the Atari 8 bit software library through emulation and I use a 19" arcade CRT monitor for an authentic picture. Comparing the two systems now, I generally prefer the Atari 8 bit platform. The games are often more colorful, and I was much more impressed with the sound than I expected up against the SID chip, which I assumed was always superior. The C-64 colors in the games just look dull next to the Atari 8 bit games for a lot of them. The game library was much larger and better than I expected. I'd say to do another review, but find the better Atari 8 bit games to review. Here's a couple I can suggest. The Atari Blast home brew. It's fantastic! I probably my favorite game for the system. You'll need 1 meg to play it. If you don't have that, consider the excellent Atari 8 bit emulator. Another title is Defender, the great arcade game. Far better than the other version. Donkey Kong was a very good port too and includes all the levels unlike the other ports. Jumpman is always fun, and more colorful than the C-64 version. There are so many good games for the system. It's worth exploring them. Here's another little known fact I didn't pick up on back in the early 80s. The C-64 runs at 1 mhz. The Atari 8 bit series runs at almost 2 mhz!
As a Canadian, I learned a bit of French in grade school. "C'est" is pronounced "ceh". It's a contraction of "ca est" which means "that is" or "that's". In French, the last letter of many words is not pronounced.
In Australia back in the early 80s the Atari 2600 was the King. Ironically, Commodore made most of the cartridge chips for Atari. Both the C64 and the Atari 400/800 also used the 6502 processor, so there was a lot of cross over. Interestingly games which started on the Atari system were later ported to the C64 and were often better. I think the systems were different, and depending on the game one usually had it over the other. Either way, both were certainly better than a TRS80! :)
Yep, Atari 2600 was the king here in the US too, in the late 70s and early 80s. I had it and then Intellivision for the sports games but the C64 took it all to another level.
I started watching this video, not realizing that I'd seen it months ago. Anyway, I thought of a couple more things I wanted to say. The Centipede machine you're playing with the trackball would drive me nuts for how slowly the shooter/gun moves in relation to the ball. I see a trackball as essentially a mouse. If the mouse speed in Windows is set too low and it feels like the pointer is lagging behind the mouse movements, it drives me crazy. I have the mouse set so that it feels like 1:1 movement. That's the way I'd want a trackball game to be, but it seems like most arcade games were set for 2:1 movement, where the onscreen character only moves half as far as you roll the ball. I was a big Lode Runner fan, and had finished all the levels on the C64, albeit by giving myself extra lives and jumping to whatever level I left off on, via the built-in cheat keys. This wasn't as much of a cheat as you might first think, since every level still has to be beaten with a single life. If you die, the level starts over. In Championship Lode Runner, they removed the cheats, and gave you a limited save.system where every time you reloaded a game, it subtracted one life from your save, until the save itself was deleted. You could get around this by making a copy of the (pirated) disk, but that was a pain in the butt. Not only that, but I found a bug. I forget what level it was, but on one level, you start out on a wall of ladders and have to move IMMEDIATELY to avoid the guards. If you get to this level by beating the previous level, it works fine. If you load a save on this level, the timing is off by a fraction of a second and the guards always catch you. I tried loading the CLR disk as a data disk for the original game, but the levels were all messed up. I used the original game's editor to make some test levels, saved them to a data disk, and then looked at how they were saved on disk (the raw sectors). Turns out that each two-digit hex number stood for two onscreen characters. Then I looked at the CLR levels on the disk and compared them to what was shown on screen. It used the exact same system, they just changed the values for each part. So I wrote a small program that would read each level from disk, convert the values to those used by the original game, and then write it back to disk, converting a copy of the game disk into a data disk that could be used with the original. I was working my way through the levels when I got my Amiga and the C64 gradually fell into dis-use. I've been meaning to see if I can find my conversion program and transfer it over to be preserved, but I never seem to have the time or ambition to do it.
lol everybody always immediately jumps to "great sound chip" for C64 but the reality is the innovative use of Color RAM and the humungous sprites inside the VIC-II are just as cutting edge for this 1981 custom chip as the advanced features of the SID. For the type of games I liked back then the 800 or 800XL is the only other computer I would have been happy with before I got my A1000 in 1987 etc and after getting a VCS in 1980
I bought the "tan tank" 800 for one reason: STAR RAIDERS . I KNOW the 800 was a more powerful graphics machine than the 64 BUT I knew that the 64 was more of a users PC . It seemed to be more for people that wanted to actually learn to program .
C64 ruled. Their conversions/versions were almost always better. Sound chip was superior, graphics better, controls superior/easier and made use of keyboard. Other tech comparable machines were just lacking. Sprites/objects looked incomplete or pixelated and colors were boring on the competition. If you had friends that owned the different systems (apple iie vs. c64 vs. atari 800xl etc.), they would always compare and fight over which was better, and the commodore ones had more fun and definitely won. Evident in the games stores too. Goto Gamesngadgets/Electronic boutique, ToysRus video game section, etc. and that Commodore section was large and crowded. Sections for the other systems…meh
The ONLY reason that there were more C64 is because at the time the C64 came out, the Atari 800 was a very well made with special shielding and a professional keyboard and it cost a lot more to make as compared the C64 which sold for less than half the cost of the Atari 800. It wasn’t until Atari brought out the 800XL that cost about what the C64 did over a 18 months later. The C64 had that much a lead. The Atari sold a ton of Atari 800 XL. I bought the Atari 800 XL because it was flat out the better computer. It had better graphics and Antic chip and the Sid chip where both great . The keyboard on the thick C64 was terrible to type on because you had to put a book under your wrists or end up with hand cramps. The speed of the processor in the Atari was much faster and load times on your disk drives loaded at a snails pace compared to the much superior Atari computer. The C64 was more a game console than a computer.
Pros of the Atari 8-bits: Better built; better (but still not awesome) BASIC; faster (but still not awesome) disk drives; more colours; faster CPU; better keyboard; and more cartridge games. Pros of the Commodore 64: Better sprites, better sound; cheaper hardware; better and much more games. Both machines have games that are better than the other platform. But without a doubt, the C64 wins the shootout. You just can’t beat it’s seemingly endless selection of excellent games.
I recently picked up a working Atari 800 and an 800XL. Like you I was a major Commodore fan boi back in the day. The problem I now have is I have only two game cartridges. Im aware of products like Backbit and the Ultimate II for the C64. Is there something similar for the Atari 800's?
@@FloppyDeepDive Ah, OK. This game is a bit complicated to get running on the 800XL since it was never officially released and it was intended to be published on cartridge, iirc. I don't know about your 800XL setup... just discovered your channel... but sadly you need more than 64k for this game to load. Commando is an excellent game on the Atari. The only thing that's better on the C64 is the iconic SID tune.
Welcome to the channel! I see you have one too. I will check it out. Yep that was the exact issue I was having with Commando. As for Crystal Castles it was an unfortunate oversight. Thanks for watching!
@@FloppyDeepDive I hope you find something interesting on my channel 🙂 I use original hardware exclusively and record the video off a CRT screen, which may not be suitable for everyone.
Great overviews/retrospectives, thanks! C64 for Centipede, sadly. Atari's should have been better. Wolfenstein rules, though some keystrokes don't work in emulation. The A8 version feels like a port of the Apple II. Choplifter looked better on A8, best on the 7800, even if it controlled just as badly LOL. I always felt Lode Runner was more soothing in purple... Congo Bongo also has a better brown border, green just looks distracting Chucky Egg and Cosmic Tunnel look interesting! Quite a few games that look new - thanks!
Thanks for the detailed breakdown! Centipede on the C64 was indeed stronger, though it would have been nice to see more from Atari there. Wolfenstein is always fun, but I know what you mean about the A8 version feeling like an Apple II port. I also agree that Choplifter looked great on the A8, even though the controls could have used some work! Congo Bongo's color choices are an interesting point-I'll have to keep that in mind next time. Glad to hear Chucky Egg and Cosmic Tunnel caught your eye! Thanks again for watching!
The C64 Congo Bongo that you showed was the cartridge version, and I think it might be missing levels. There is also a disk version that has all four levels and much nicer graphics. They also did this with both Zaxxon and Super Zaxxon. The cartridge version of Zaxxon looks a little more like the arcade version, but plays worse. The disk version plays great, but the graphics deviate somewhat the arcade. They're not bad, just different.
@@FloppyDeepDive I was a prolific pirate back in the 80s. :) I called pretty much every local C64 BBS I could find, made lots of connections, used my Super Snapshot cartridge to crack simple manual-based protection on a couple games and snapshotted a bunch of others. I used to rent games from a company called Rent-A-Disk, snapshot them, then upload them to the BBSs. Mostly stuff that was already available, but which didn't work correctly on NTSC machines, like Buggy Boy/Speed Buggy and Wizball. My piracy continued on the Amiga, although I never cracked anything on that system. I did manually draw usable substitutes for the codewheels that came with various games, in Deluxe Paint though, and I once typed in the entire manual, plus four pages of copy protection codes for the game Archipelagos. :)
The Atari XL/XE version of Centipede is terrible compared to the Atari 5200 version. Same hardware, but they managed to completely remake it to be the closest to the arcade version of all the 8-bit systems. Atari 8-bit wins that round hands down, but it has to be the 5200 version. There's a conversion of the 5200 version for XL/XE up on Atarimania.
Nice, enjoyed Arizona went I visited there. Appreciate your long-time support. As for Choplifter it's all about how long you hold down the fire button would turn you and quick pushes would fire your gun.
I agree with your picks for the better version of each of these. I never played the OG Wolfenstein, but watching your game play makes me want to check it out. Centipede on the 800XL looks really bad. My favorite home version from the 80s is still the Atari 2600 version. The sounds and speed of the game are closer to that of the arcade than the C64 or Atari 800 version, IMHO. The graphics on the 2600 aren't necessarily as good, but good graphics don't always mean you've got a better game. I live near San Diego, and it's 90 degrees (as of 1:46pm) here today. What part of Texas are you in? I can't recall if you've ever mentioned this.
UK here, I Grew up with Commodore pets at school, VIC20 then C64 at home, never knew anyone with a 400 or 800 Atari. Looking at UA-cam videos the Atari can look better on some games and others the C64 looks better. I tended to buy games just for the music which the 64 is famous for. I used to be a fan boy but I can appreciate other systems now and am impressed with some later Amstrads. But back in the day the best machine was the machine you had.
The Atari 8bit simply had superior sound & graphics (256 colors vs 16, and 4 voice sound vs 3.) In a stunning twist of fate, the inventor of the Atari chipset, "Jeff Minter", went on to create the chipset for the Commodore Amiga (he offered it to Atari first, but Warner was looking to get OUT of the computer business, not deeper in), and the former owner/founder of Commodore bought Atari from Warner and released the Atari ST (whose tan color and single-piece unit resembled a C64), with fewer colors and voices than the Amiga. Crazy. The better success of the Amiga over the ST "vindicates" those who always said the Atari 8bits were better than the C64.
Hi There well that was really interesting comparing the formats of Commodore and Atari it all depends on how much effort and detail the programmers / designers / graphic artists had put in the same Game seeing I have both the Commodore 64 and the Atari 800 and 400 with 48k ( non XL ) I can related .. The Sprite was the factor both computers had sprites just Atari had only one Color for a sprite where Commodore had 2 the Atari sound chip POKEY was all Square for a waveform where The SID Chip had triangle, sawtooth, pulse, noise for waveforms. really surprised about Caverns of Khafka it looked like two completely different games ohh another thing was The Atari Game play was a bit faster and smoother ..
Hello Sparky! Thanks for watching. Glad you found the video interesting. Thanks for the great comment, can tell you know your stuff! Hope you subbed and welcome to the community!
Yes this is more a game and software comparison. POKEY is not true square wave but more of a hybrid sawtooth/square if you pause in a waveform playback.
@@FloppyDeepDive sorry for the late reply the graphics wise the Atari has a better Color Palette since 1981 i think not the 79-80 years its early production but Commodore can do the same with more color then it was designed with the thanks of Hacker programmers from the mid late 80 cracker demo scene and the game companies from the mid to late 80s to early 90s learned from those Cracker Groups of those tricks making a two color pixel to 4 color pixel that is just one example trick ..
Hi I'm ftom Australia and think C64 kind of ruled the turf here. Actually not to sound silly but after the 2600 Atari didn't really make a scene here until the 500 ST
Are you emulating? That Centipede on the Atari doesn't look right, the 8 bit line up across the 400 800 5200 centipede is very well known to almost arcade perfect.... Not sure what you have on your screen there
@FloppyDeepDive I've tried a couple, but compared to other system emulators the A8 (and ST) ones stink... I maintain my own hardware in replacing capacitors, cleaning potentiometer, verifying power supply voltage and even putting heatsinks on the chips to prolong them. Shame Atari ditched the sockets for the XE as many units sold with poor quality RAM...
I generally prefer the Atari for most games. Castle Wolfenstein was not as good of a port on the Atari, as it maintains the bad colors from the original Apple II version. You can compare them on MobyGames.
I was about to say the same thing. Many early Atari games are ports from Apple games, so they just reused the code for the Atari version ignoring the things that could have been added to make the Atari game more presentable. They didn't use the multi graphics mode features, the redefinable character sets and most importantly, they didn't use sprites (player/missile graphics). That was just the way things were at the time.
Atari has been and always will be my preferred preference. But as Chat GPT says, "Ultimately, whether one is better than the other comes down to personal preferences and intended use. If you were primarily interested in gaming and affordability, the Commodore 64 might have been a better choice. If you were more interested in graphics capabilities or specific software applications available on Atari computers, then an Atari model might have been preferred. It's worth noting that both Atari and Commodore computers played important roles in the early home computing era and have their unique strengths and charm."
Whaaaaat? Letter “C” and you didn’t compare Crystal Castles? 😜 Great video, as usual from you, Tom. 👍 BTW, I agree with your decision about games, it’s a fair judgement. 🙂
On No! How did I miss Crystal Castles?!? When I did my research to find the games on both systems, I completely missed it! Dang it, it would have definitely made the video. Well, I still have the Apple II vs. C64 to catch it. I hope you're doing well.
@@FloppyDeepDive Yep, you MUST publish a video, maybe “the many faces of…” Crystal Castles 😉. I’m ok thank you, just a little busy with work and other “real life” things.
The Atari centipede was out on cartridge several years before C64 on the much lower spec Atari 400 than the C64 . The next game zx-80 looking probably ported game is why it's so bad . Had this argument for decade with mate , back in the day .
Very strange choice??? C64 vs 800XL. Both supercomputer. Great games for these computers. I play both, but when I want to change something I use Amiga, ZX Spectrim, MSX, Amstrad. RERTO integrates people, never segregates better or worse.
Just watching the Atari vs C64 on Centipede shows why, when comparing 2 systems, I don't use games as benchmarks. Who ever wrote the Atari port did use all the power of the Atari. You're trying to show which system is su, perior by comparing a C64 version that uses most of the features of the C64 to a poorly crippled version on the Atari, That doesn't prove a thing! The Atari came out 3 years BEFORE the C64. Originally the 400 was to come with 4K and the 800 with 8K but when release day was coming up the prices of ram came down to the point where they released the 400 with 8K and the 800 with 16K (I bought my 400 in 1979 and it had 16K in it. I had to call Atari with a problem and the tech asked me to issue a PRINT FRE(0) command and tell him what it said. When I told him it showed over 13K free, he actually sound mad and ordered me to return it to Atari and they would send me a new 400 with 8K. I politely turned him down). He said the public wasn't suppose to have a 16K 400 and wanted to know where I bought it. It was from a SEARS that decided not to sell computers and dumped their demo model (that's why it had 16K) plus a cassette drive, joysticks and a track ball). The bad thing was programmers had to write DOWN to the 400 with 8K level hence ports often were not as good as they could have been. Do you want to see some of the Atari 8-b8t graphics power, watch the Atari Robot Demo on Facebook. The C64 could do that!
It sounds like you have a deep knowledge of the Atari systems and a strong appreciation for how hardware limitations and development decisions affected game performance. You make a great point about comparing games on these systems, especially when programmers didn’t always take full advantage of the Atari’s capabilities. The story about getting a 400 with 16K from SEARS is pretty incredible-those unique hardware quirks and upgrades really shaped individual experiences. I’ll definitely check out that Atari 8-bit graphics power video. Thanks for sharing your insights!
Interesting. I think the 800 version of Centipede looks better... the C64 version looks lower resolution to me. I had an original IBM PC when I was a kid, and that's what I gamed on (and it was amazing that they could get voices to come out of that shitty speaker on Wolfenstein, I must say), so I have no bias either way. On most of these games I think the colors were better on the C64, but the characters generally looked more detailed on the Atari.
Thanks for sharing! It is interesting what they did with Wolfenstein. Just fantastic and enhanced the whole game with those voices yelling at you. Thanks for watching!
Heya Tom great video again 🙂. I'm from the UK. C64 walks it for me on all games. Never been a fan of the Atari machine. Only Dropzone is anygood on the Atari. As for Chuckie Egg, the best and only version is the Spectrum version. All others are awful.
I live in Poland and in 1988 I had an Atari 65XE and an XC12 tape recorder, and in 1990 I had an Amiga 500🕹🕹🎮🎮 At the end of the 1980s, earnings in dollars were very low, around 20-30 dollars a month, so when we couldn't afford a disk drive, we made a Turbo system for Atari and I had one already installed in my tape recorder and the games loaded 10 times faster than normal - Turbo Blizzard - ua-cam.com/video/bmeYo_9A19s/v-deo.html In Poland, Atari games and hardware improvements for this computer are still being created ua-cam.com/video/zRGpT-Kjxs8/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/PfonLBztBMc/v-deo.html The sound in C 64 was better than in Atari, but the number of available colors is already greater on Atari - Greetings from Poland🕹🕹👍👍
The C64 Centipede definitely wins. The Atari version seems to be a lazy port or the programmer wasn't very experienced. The C64 Castle Wolfenstein wins for me due to the better colour. The Atari programmer may have been lazy or inexperienced. The C64 Choplifter wins for me. The Atari version changes the palette at the ground level and everything turns green when they are below that scanline. I agree Lode Runner is a tie. The Atari version uses artifacting. The VIC-20 version is still my favourite version. I agree the Atari Congo Bongo wins for the controls. Chuckie Egg is a tie. I prefer the non-3D look though. The original ZX Spectrum version didn't have the Atari's 3D look The controls are the same on the ZX Spectrum and BBC Micro versions and is unforgiving. I've no experience with Cosmic Tunnels. They both look and sound fine to me. The Atari version of Caverns of Khafka is an easy win because the C64 version is so terrible. This reminds me of Pitstop II on the C64 which is so good while the Atari version is so terrible it's not even the same game. No idea about those last three games. Final scores: C64: 5, Atari: 4, VIC-20: 1 (1 point for each win or tie)
LOL, great reply! Love you threw the VIC-20 in! I can't argue with any of that! The Cosmic Tunnels was all new to me, too; not sure how I missed that one back in the day!
@@FloppyDeepDive The custom chips it uses were designed way back in 1977 at Atari by Jay Miner for the 800 machine, Jay a few years later put together and led the Amiga team.
After watching this video, i had to check the specs of Atari 800XL. Was surprised that it had faster CPU 1.79 {pal 77} MHz, more colors {256} and actually less resolution which would also make it a bit faster. And then it had 3 custom co-processors! All this can only lead to conclusion that Atari 800XL platform had no really capable game programmers... It is likely they all went to code for C64 {same destiny actually also the C128 had with the difference that programmers didn't went away! It's more true they just stayed with 64 }
It’s pretty surprising when you dig into the Atari 800XL’s specs, right? That faster CPU and the extra color palette certainly gave it some potential, especially with those custom co-processors in the mix. It’s always fascinating to think about how hardware advantages didn’t always translate into better games. The C64 had such a huge developer base that it almost overshadowed those technical differences. The way the gaming ecosystem developed was a mix of power and popularity-guess the C64 just had that pull that kept developers around!
@@FloppyDeepDive I was really surprised. Even a bad code should be faster with this CPU (it was the same, just higher clocked). And even if the rest of the architecture wouldn't match the efficiency of the C64, I would expect at least the same speed level. Well, every hardware is as good or as bad as the programmers. And C64 collected all smarties on his platform to stay and they stayed! Even today after so many decades...
I grew up with a C64 so I'll always be biased towards it, but the Atari 8 bit lineup holds up well despite being 3 years older. In the right hands I'm sure the c64 would blow away the Atari lineup in sound but I'd be curious for best efforts in graphics as they seem to line up well.
Well it depends on the game and how the sound was coded. IMO sound effects were easier on POKEY due to it being a sound effects chip made by a game company. SID is a synthesizer chip, albeit very flexible and capable. Coming from Atari, it too often sounded like someone had a keyboard synthesizer and were playing notes for the effects. It just doesn't work well if the developer didn't put some more effort into the effects. Sometimes this also was true for POKEY where the effort was low and it could sound flat or very boring. POKEY requires lots of CPU updates and arcade games like Tempest or Centipede were better engineered to rapidly update POKEY. The designers of the original 400/800 systems said the CPU wasn't fast enough for POKEY.
The Atari 800 even thow its an XL is off 1979 technology the Commodore is a 1982 this is the 4 years of better tech and revisions of games some of these give the C64 an advantage over the Atari I think the 7800 is the system that surpasses the C64 with amount of colors and graphics and its closer in release offered in 1984 its only a 2 year difference.
Excellent point! Do you know why Atari didn’t upgrade when they released the 800XL? I know they wanted to be backward compatible but here’s the chance to catch up. I’m sure cost was also an issue.
@@FloppyDeepDive I think the XL was released around 83 its only upgraded on RAM 64k i do believe but still the same main IC set. Does it have composite hook ups or something else ? 1983 Atari was loosing money because of saturation of the market so they say and its probably why the company got sold in 84.
Pffft there no comparison... C64 or GTFO! Actually, it's not even about that anymore. It's about what YOU grew up with! Yeah! All original microcomputers are awesome!
The memories with these computers. One of my friends had the C-64, while I and a few others had the Atari 800s. Both systems had their strong points and weak points. The C64 was newer hardware and had awesome sound/music abilities, while the Atari had a lot of custom chips and different graphics modes (that could be combined with some skilled programming).
More often that not we were just happy that we got to play most of these games on the home computer of our choice (and back then some games would bring both the C-64 version and the Atari version in one purchase).
Yes, having both versions on one floppy was my favorite!! Great memories, thanks for sharing!
I owned an Atari 800xl and two 1050 disk drives. I also owned the C64 and two 1541 drives. The Atari was simply better better better. The commands simply made sense (unlike the C64 messed up commands like load "game",8,1 and to copy files/disks one really had to type in some funky stuff. The Atari was not only well polished - and the 1050 drives were rock solid - you couldn't break them hardly . A person that sold Commodores in England said people were always bringing in their 1541 drives to have them realigned! The Atari was much faster - the c64 with the Epyx fast load cartridge was still slower than the Atari's load/run time. The Atari being released, a couple years previously I think, the Atari really held it's ground. And the Atari also had a faster processor - clocked at nearly twice that of the C64 - this really showed when comparing games like Prince of Persia and karate games like Karateka - the c64 was just slower and it really took away from the game play. The atari's (I/O) was a precurso of modern day. The Atari's quality was similar to the Apple 2. I always regretted selling my Atari 800xl system and buying the C64 system. ~ Michael
Hey Mike, good to hear from you and your love of the Atari. Thanks for sharing my friend!
OTOH you could program 2 of the Commodore 1541 disk drive to do blind disk to disk copy and it'll keep going even after you shut C64 off. Disk drives had its own CPU and RAM and could be programmed to run independently of the host computer.
@@FloppyDeepDiveI’d be interested in knowing how much memory was used in the making of the games you are comparing as it’s always been my contention that the more memory available to game programmers, the better the games can turn out. That’s why a tiny game such as the original Atari 2600 vcs Pac-man can’t compare to say the 8k home brew version of the same game. I would suspect the same or similar situation exists for these comparisons. Also, when the game was produced as there’s always a learning curve in developing for consoles/computers to take full advantage of its capabilities.
Have several 1541 (one of them having been used a lot over the last 40 years) and never had to re-align them, ever. The cassette player (C2N), yes - you had to fiddle with the Phillips screwdriver all the time to align the azimuth. But the disk drive was (and is) a totally different kettle of fish, at least in my experience.
@@Fan-lq6uvSure. Defender of the Crown, arguably one of C64's top ten games ever, is a joy to play on floppy thanks to its use of seamless load/pipelining on the 1541. Very cool!
Had a C64 growing up in the 80s. Was THE machine at the time. But looking at the Atari 800 many years later, I can see technically, the Atari 800 was in some ways better than the C64. It had a faster version of the same CPU, almost twice as fast, and it shows in 3D games for the system. Also, the Atari 8bit was designed by none other than Jay Miner, the "Father" of the Amiga so I think the Atari 800 had a lot of technical capability.
Both great systems!!
Good video. I never played these games on either system but I did play Rescue on Fractalus and Koronis Rift on both systems. I'm a C64 guy but I have to admit that those games were better on the Atari 800XL
Thank you for watching! Glad you liked it.
Loved Rescue on Fractlus. I always felt this game was way ahead of its time. No other game came close to making you feel like you are flying a spaceship for a long time after it came out.
Yes definitely. The C64 wasn’t the best for 3D games. But it was the master of 2D.
Just come across this, and as the developer of both the C64 and Atari versions of Chuckie egg, I can say that the control system is exactly the same, the reason you're having trouble is when you run past a ladder you should be holding your joystick in the diagonal if you want to go up or down, you don't need to position yourself exactly below the ladder, also when jumping you can catch a ladder as you pass it by holding the joystick up, this may be slightly easier if you use the keys to play rather than a joystick. One other thing I notice on the Atari version is the green hue that everything has, the platforms should be brown and the ducklings should be yellow, not sure why they are all coming out greenish on your video, but overall I'm glad you enjoyed playing them both, the Atari version is my favourite too
Well, this is a first, and how cool it is to hear from the game developer! Thank you for your insight. Did you create any other games for the Atari and C64? Did Miner 2049er inspire Chuckie Egg? Thanks for Watching and welcome to the channel.
@@FloppyDeepDiveI think Nigel Alderton coded Chuckie Egg originally on the ZX Spectrum and so Sean is the guy who converted it to those platforms. I suspect you’d need to ask Nigel if he happens to comment here.
ZX Spectrum classic Manic Miner was inspired by Miner 2049 as the programmer Matthew Smith said he had played 2049 before coding Manic.
@@FloppyDeepDiveI also coded road runner for c64 along with chuckie egg 2 and gumshoe, unfortunately no more Atari games as the companies I worked for didn’t really seem interested in the Atari
6:22 there's a later/better Atari 800 choplifter for the XE line's release with real (non-artifact) color. There were several 'redo' games in that line, the mario bros. is especially impressive.
I'll have to check those out. Thank you!
Yes, there was a second version of Choplifter that was released on the Atari XE, the 7800 console, and on the first Sega console, that I think was based on an arcade version of the game. It had more colors, and faster/smoother action.
I had an Atari 600XL with a 64k upgrade. Loved playing Wolfenstein and Ultima IV on it. Both games were ahead of their times.
Great games!
When you consider the 800 XL was basically the same as the 400 from '79 and the C64 arrived 3 years later, the 800XL aged very well....
I wish they would have done more with it than just changing the name.
@@FloppyDeepDive They did give the XL a smaller form factor especially than the 800, better keyboard, and it came standard with 64k RAM instead of the lower variable standards of the 400 and 800, which the latter topped out at 48k. The hardware was often much more capable than the resources of the software programmers, in an era where many companies were trying to crank out a lot of titles in short time.
I had both systems Atari 800XL and Commodore 64. Loved both.
Looking forward for this year's release of the RM Atari 800XL. Atari 800XL in 2024.
Thanks for Watching!
Choplifter and Castle Wolfenstein both feature graphics converted almost directly from the Apple-II - it's particularly noticeable on the C64 helicopter.
Championship Loderunner featured many levels created by players of the original Loderunner that were sent into Broderbund.
Congo Bongo did have two different versions on the C64 - the disk version and the cartridge version.
Chuckie Egg - the seed piles give you points, but if you leave them the birds will pause to eat them, which can make things easier for you to dodge past.
Always love your great insights! Good Stuff; thanks for watching!
Aftrr my Sinclair ZX81, I bought an Atari 400 and later the 800XL. I've not heard of these games, except Centipede, Choplifter and Castle Wolfenstein (although I didn't play C.W). They certainly aren't the best examples on either platform. I don't recall Centipede being that bad, it was a very fast, smooth game. The 800XL was a slight refresh of the original 800, which came out in 1979, 3 years before the C64, and was probably the most advanced home computer at that time. Jay Miner designed several of the Atari's custom chips... and went on to design another system, which Commodore bought... and became the Amiga.
Good stuff! Yep, Atari and Commodore are very attached!
In the UK, I only had the Commodore 64 so can't really compare between the two, but a cousin had the Atari XE in the mid to late 80's. I remember playing Ghostbusters on it once. It was comparable to the C64 version. Most 8-bit computers were fairly evenly matched and what really made the difference, wasn't the colours or sound, but the game play. There are som Spectrum games that look AWFUL but play AMAZING, simply because the gameplay wins you over. It's a bit like old movies vs new movies. Many older movies had crappy effects but great scripts, whereas today most movies have pathetic scripts but impressive CGI effects. I'll always take a great story over a great CGI scene. I'll always take Spielberg's plastic shark Jaws over the CGI monster in the Meg....
So well said! The gameplay is huge and I'll take Jaws also! Thanks for watching. Welcome to the community!
Two differences overlooked between systems. The Commodore runs at a flat 1MZ, but the Atari systems all ran at 1.79Mhz nearly 80% faster. That meant that software that were in need of calculations, ran faster on an Atari. The load time for games from disk, was typically twice as long for commodore vs Atari All Atari systems autobooted where only the 128 was capable of autoboot
Atari definitely boots faster!
I have finally figured out precisely why your C64 captures have NTSC color fringing artifacts. Normally, these would only appear on PAL C64s or very early NTSC C64 (which had a flaw in the VIC-II chip).
But in your case, it seems to purely be an artifact of the video capture or encoding. At 13:03 you can see the green/purple artifacts switch between green < - > purple. This indicates that the real video output is correctly switching chroma phase 60 times per second, but that the capture/encoding to 30fps is very slightly out of sync, so it switches whether it's encoding the even or odd frames.
Either way, I think the best way to capture NTSC C64 is with S-Video. Here in North America, it was most common to use the C64 with an S-Video monitor (1702 most common by far), rather than composite/RF output to a TV set. So there really wasn't an issue of NTSC chroma artifacts anyway, even if Commodore went out of their way to visually eliminate those artifacts on composite output anyway (this was more of a benefit for the original VIC chip - used on the earlier VIC-20).
Thanks, Isaac, I'm always looking for ways to improve the video. Let me look into that to eliminate it. I do use S video out to the capture card, so let me look at my Capture Card settings. You have a good eye and good advice my friend!
I had a Atari 400 and then the 800xl. Back then the C64 was the far better computer, only because it was impossible to get software for the Atari, even via the mail most of the time.
Thanks for Watching!
The C64 had a better software library that is true, but was it a better computer? I doubt it. I own a C64 and 130XE, so I'm not biased. The Atari had a faster CPU, more colours, a better BASIC etc. Sure the C64 had a great soundchip, but had only 3 sound channels while the pokey had 4. I love the C64 don't get me wrong, but if you want a system to tinker with back in the day, the Atari was a better choice.
Rushed, lazy games for both platforms, a far cry from their actual capabilities. Both could do much much better. In the case of Atari there is an enhanced version of Choplifter (Choplifter!1988) with multi-color sprites and a superior 5200 Centipede version with more colors(same hardware).
I am still puzzled by the 5200 port of Centipede. It seems to have six pixel wide mushrooms, rather than 4 or 8 pixel wide. But the really crazy thing is the silky smooth motion of the Centipede. I don't think it can be pure sprites, because there can be more than 8 segments on a scanline. And the way they overlap with mushrooms, I don't think it can be tile graphics either. And the amount of rendering for such smooth motion seems to rule out pure bitmap rendering...
@@IsaacKuo The speed of the CPU and "co processor"(Antic) allow the small Atari to move software sprites really smooth. I also don't know the exact technique but there is a modern "snake'' game called Nibbly where a similar technique is used for larger SW sprites.
@@IsaacKuo I thought I know all the Atari 800 graphics "tricks" until recently when I saw a game released from Poland that had multi-colored sprites on the same graphic 'line". They were using a trick that was NEEDED to program games on the Atari 2600. It was called Ray Tracing, although I haven't looked into in detail yet.
So it is possible the centipede could be sprites. If I had my Atari here I could play the game and I can usually figure out if it was bitmapped or sprites.
Great comparison! I got the 800XL for Xmas of 84, and it was dead out the box. Returned it, got the C64, and never looked back!
Thanks!! You can't go wrong with the C64!
thats funny because in 1984 i had to return my Atari 800xl twice to Toys R Us because both systems were dead out of the box..thankfully the 3rd unit i got worked
Congrats, Tom! You win the award for the "Most American Sounding Pronunciation of C'est la Vie I've Ever Heard." 😏
Lol! Yes, an award!
A winner is you!
ALL great games and choices!..Great retro Fun and Memories!From southern California...
Thanks for watching! They are so much fun!
Caverns of Khafka is another game by Robert T. Bonifacio that was ported to the C64 by Paul Norman. The other that comes to mind is Aztec Challenge. In both cases you can't compare the games because they are almost totally different and only share the name across systems.
He did great with the Aztec challenge.
@@FloppyDeepDive c64 vs atari xl . the games on c64 looks better c64 wins . floopydeepdive can you make videos about amiga games and atari st games
@@gaminglazarus4343 I'll add it to my list.
Good comparison, I had both and slightly preferred the Atari 800XL, but it was close. I noticed the whites on Choplifter and Lode Runner on the Atari are somewhat pink, you might want to turn down or turn off your artifacting if you are using the Altira emulator for those games.
Thanks for watching and the tip! 👍🏻
Great showdown some of my all time favorites. I agree 100% with your picks. It really is too bad Commodore couldn't put the same color palette as the Plus 4 or the Atari 8 bits into the VIC-II chip as that would have been something to see. It is amazing what skilled coders pulled off with the 64s limited palette.
Right! Like, remember seeing the opening of Summer Games and how amazing they made the colors there. The coders could pull off some amazing stuff; Epyx games really come to mind for me.
The Palette CTIA 128 Colors on the Very Early Atari 800 / 400 1979/80 was less they increased the Palette to GTIA 256 colors in 1981 why Atari wasn't showing off its graphic capability on the 8 bit line , ill never know just I not so sure but I think the Commodore 64 was able to have More Sprites on the screen then the Atari 800/XL besides the Atari sprites was only one color and the C64 had 2 colors yeah very amazing what the programmers and demo hackers can do doing tricks as placing 4 colors per pixel block for the C64 C128 and C16/plus4
The most fun I ever had was playing M.U.L.E with 3 other friends on my Atari 400. I live in Owen Sound Ontario by the way.
Awesome! Welcome my Canadian friend. Thanks for sharing
Atari experiences for me are often associated with the 2600 so it's always interesting to watch your comparisons such as with the 800XL. I lean towards the C64 too and I'm of the opinion that experiences for most games are better on it than the Atari; however, there were certainly some titles on this video that the Atari did a bit better. Many classics here - I think Centipede may have been the first trackball game for me too! Timeless!
I was thinking about the trackball. Didn't Atari have an X and O football game in the late 70s that used a trackball? I love having trackball at home to play with still with Centipede, but I want my fire button to be on my right instead of my left; it messed me up. Lol As always, thanks for watching, my friend! Have a good weekend!
@@FloppyDeepDive That is true about the X and O football game - and that goes back even further :) That's a pretty awesome trackball setup you have at home and Centipede would be a blast! Yeah, I hear you with the buttons but we adapt lol have a great weekend buddy!
i owned both back in the day and i always liked the Atari 800 better...i just liked the colors on the Atari better and the games felt much smoother
Thanks for Watching!
I had an Atari 800 before I got a Commodore 64. But my first computer was a VIC 20. I had already decided to get a Commodore 64, but my high school math teacher got an IBM PC and gave me his Atari 800. Quite a gift at the time really, He was impressed with a couple fractal programs I written for the Apple II at school. He was surprised a Commodore VIC 20, stock, didn't have bitmap graphics, it needed more memory for it. Also BASIC 2.0 doesn't have commands for doing graphics. But, what interested me more than graphics, was sound. The Commodore 64 can play real notes, as in the correct pitch, which allows for me to jam along with it on the guitar.
Great story!! Thanks for Watching!
I love movies like this. It is amazing to dive into these old games again, and see how the systems compare. I love most systems from the 80's era, although I am mainly an Atari 8bit person myself. When I see those old titles on the 800xl I need to say, that obviously those old coders did not get along very well with the capabilities of the machine. If you look what today's coders achieve, you will be amazed (I think of ports of Space Harrier, Prince of Persia, Stunt car Racer) and amazing new creations. It is a fact though that these old titles do not always get the best out of the machine. Sometimes that is due to atari's policy of backward compatibility with the older systems (like the 48K Atari 800) ... Atari always wanted to release titles that would run on these older systems too, that actually did limit in some way the quality... they do not take advantage of more memory for instance, and that is one of the reasons newer titles from the Atari 8bit renaissance that happened in Eastern Europe (mainly in Poland and Hungary) in the early 90's are so much better in quality. They were coded for the 64K and 128K machines. Some people in the scene have a hard time seeing videos where there so beloved system is not demonstrated as the obvious winner. I do not care at all. I love all that stuff from the 80's (even playing Frogger on an old 16K ZX81 is a lot of fun!) ... The titles that are compared usually show more about the abilities of the coder (And the time and money they wanted to invest in a game) than the strength of the actual platform/machine. And even then... who cares? It is all about having fun and being amazed about these fabulous machines.
If you need suggestions for games to try out for your 800XL, please let me know.
And to finish this post: thank you so much for creating this content. It is wonderful to see, and hear your enthusiasm. I can totally relate to that, so you have brightened up my day. Greetings from the Netherlands, Marius.
Wow! What a great comment! Welcome to the community my friend! Hope you check out the other videos. Thanks for Watching!
'C'hampionship Lode Runner...I see what you did there! Of course you can put Lode Runner under 'L' too, and I won't complain. It deserves to be reviewed at least twice...in fact, you could have included it under 'B' as well for Bröderbund Championship Lode Runner. Such a good game!
Lode Runner on the XL uses Graphics Mode 15 (at least that's the name in BASIC) where the resolution is 160x192 with 4 colours. As a result it has a distinctly 'striped' look when it gets stretched to 320x192 for fullscreen. This gives the C64 a much cleaner graphics appearance (and all 16 colours), but gameplay is absolutely not affected, and I'll play Lode Runner on any system that's handy. (this is another one that shines on the 4A, under the name 'TI-Runner' (and/or "Star-Runner')
And NO, I'm not telling you how to get the bottom guys.
Centipede is great on both systems (as well as the TI-99/4A - Centipede and Shamus are my two favourite Atarisoft titles on that machine). Millipede on the XL is something truly special though, so I look forward to 'M'.
Since you asked where we hail from, I live in Toronto, Canada, but I hail from the french province of Québec. As such, I must tell you that the word "C'est" ('it is') is pronounced closer to "Say" so it's "Say la vie" (That's Life). "Sess la vie" hurt my ears. 😉😜 I'll forgive since I assume you don't get a lot of french spoken down in Texas, and Louisiana is a bit of a drive.
Another excellent 8-bit comparison video Monsieur Deep Dive!
Glad you caught that with Lode Runner! Including it under multiple letters would certainly be justifiable with how iconic it is. Interesting details on the graphics for the XL version-I agree, the C64 does tend to have that cleaner appearance, but I'll play it on any system I can get my hands on!
Centipede and Millipede are classics, and I’m with you on the TI-99/4A love for those. It’s great to see how well those games still hold up across various platforms.
Thanks for the language tip! I’ll have to work on my pronunciation of “C’est la vie”-good to know. And yes, down here in Texas, French isn’t as common, but I’m glad I’ve got viewers like you to keep me sharp!
Thanks again for the detailed comments, and I’m excited for what’s next in the lineup!
Hi! Love these videos, Roanoke VA USA here! I was a c64 owner, but love all retro computers. Like others, I also noticed the Castle Wolfenstein artifact color as well, which is odd for the c64. Certainly the artifact color likely came from video capture, rather than from the c64 itself. The Atari version looks closer to the original Apple II version. C64 version graphics were definitely more colorful and a departure from all other versions. The C64 version of Wolfenstien was a bit of a buggy mess though. It was too easy to run into corrupt rooms and horrendous load times. Still, fantastic game, by the late great Silas Warner, developed in Baltimore, MD.
Thanks, Sean! It probably was the capture card, I've upgraded since. It was a fantastic game and just a blast to play, even today! Thanks for Watching!
I always love how people throw the commodore 64 at the Atari 800 as if they were both made at the sametime. the commodore had years to better themselves in both graphics and sound. while the Atari 8 bits were made around the sametime as the TRS-80s and the Apples.
The Computer you should be comparing the Atari's with is the Vic -20 , released around the sametime, which Atari, graphically, wiped the damn floor with.
And by the way, I could come up with atleast 20 games that the Atari's did better than the commodore 64. doesnt mean the Ataris better, meant the programmers doin the games understood the hardware.
and with machine language you could make an Atari sound almost as good as a c64. using interrupts and sound chip timing.
by the way, Star Raiders on the Atari was voted, for I think 5 years at least, as the most advanced game in all the computer magazines back in the day.
C64 has yet to make a game better than that.
So next time, put the Atari up against the computers it went up against at the time of its release. The Apple , the TRS-80 ,the Tandy, and the Vic 20.
the Atari will win everytime.
Comparing the Atari 800 against the C64, is like comparing the C64 against the NES. which the C64 would lose .
the NES being released in japan around the sametime as the C64 in the US.
Oh and some more info, the Amiga , which the idea for , started at Atari, was basically an upgraded Atari 800, which was suppose to be released around the sametime as the C64, but Warner and Tramiel when he took over , kept milkin the 8bits for as long as they could.
and for those that say, the Vic and C64 out sold the Atari's, sure they did, they were low priced , and cheaply made.
I watched two C64 fry out after lightning hit outside of the store i was in, so did the Apples,
The Atari 400 and 800 there, just booted back up, because they were made like tanks. and shielded in a giant case of aluminum. which cost money.
Oh and I'm not blaming the maker of this video, for what it was, it was good,
even though as stated there are better version for the atari's, now that programmers know them better.
I just wanted to put the age difference of both machines, into perspective, so its understood where the C64s advantage comes from.
When was the Atari 800XL Released? 1983. As stated I do this comparisons like I was a kid in the 80’s and at my house I had a C64 and my friend had an Atari 800XL. What I would of seen at that time on my C64 and what he would have seen playing the exact same games. I know programmers are lazy but this is what would of been played no matter what I would do differently. I show the truth, like it or not. Oh I also did C64 vs NES videos. Lol. Thanks for Watching!
@@FloppyDeepDive the Atari 800 XL was a lazy release, and was done because the FCC finally allowed smaller shielding for radio interference, and so Atari's could be sold cheaper .
As I stated, what became the Amiga was suppose to be the new Atari . to be released around the sametime as the C64.
And yet the Atari XL still held its own against the new comer. and many other computers.
to suggest, just because they both had the same games at the sametime makes it a fair fight is ludicrous at best.
The C64 took what was best of the Atari and improved apon it, i know I programmed both of them.
The Atari had way easier to program scrolling . the C64 better sprites.
With the Atari's you just poked two scroll registers, and about 24 memory pointers to scroll a screen, the C64 has to scroll 8 bits, then shift the whole screen memory, . in text mode, thats 1024 bytes. like the NES does. which is painful to do. plus the C64 has a color table in 16 color text mode that also has to be scrolled, another 1024 bytes.
the only Computer at the time the Atari's first came out that could compete with it was the Ti99. and its scrolling is jerky as hell.
and the Vic-20, with its small screen , and lack of sprites , was overpowered by the Ataris and TI-99.
Look I'm not sayin the C64 sux, it doesnt, I'm actually programmin a game on it now with CBM Studio.
I'm just sayin, pitting the C64 against the Atari, and acting like they were both made at the sametime is like sayin a VW bug can go up against a jeep in hill climbin, yes they can both do it, but the Jeep is made for that. the VW is just good at bein a dune buggy, not a four wheeler.
nuff said
Why is there a colored hughe, particularly noticeable on choplifter, on the Atari 800xl? I don't notce this on my Atari.
Atari 800XL used color artifacting,
So, is it only off on captured video, looking correct in person on a crt?
Also, I'm from the Albany, NY area.
Awesome! How's the weather in Albany?
It has been mercifully moderate. Unfortunately, we will be hitting upper 80s and maybe low 90s briefly, this week.
I have to say that I always have been an Atari nerd, with my Atari XE System computer bought back in 1991! I've never tried Commodore computers before, but now I'm learning how to use VICE emulator with Commodore 64 machine. Yeah, Commodore 64 has a lot of wonderful features, but I cannot get used to the BASIC editor, that it's no DOS as a separate program or the non-repeating keys when hold a key on the keyboard. But, its advantages are the amount of sprites, colors on the screen at-the-same-time, the sound chip with all those sound effects, the possibility of changing character sets with some key combinations... and, of course, the F1-F6 keys and the colour keys.
I think we need a combination of the best features from ALL computers from that time. MSX, ZX Spectrum, Atari, Commodore, Amstrad, etc., all of them have many wonderful capabilities that deserve to be in one final complete 8-16 bits computer.
Another thing I can say is that most of the times we measure success of a computer related to their library of GAMES!! But many computers have a lot of interesting characteristics 'per se', just by the hardware they have or how the monitor/operating system is built, and deserve to be taken in account just as every other popular computer.
Well said!! Appreciate your insight! Thanks for Watching!
For the last three, I actually played Cest La Vie and Caverns of Eriban on c64. Caverns of Eriban had the melody of Holst's The Planets, Mercury. There's a few versions with different speed of music floating around, I believe in an attempt to speed correct the music for NTSC. My understanding is Eriban was a budget title from Firebird in the UK. On NTSC, it has minor graphical glitching on the bottom third of the screen when descending or ascending, due to apparent timing differences on NTSC vs PAL on C64. These glitches are not displayed on a PAL C64. Unlike the music, no one ever fixed it on NTSC, I guess because it did not break the game.
We had all sorts of glitches back in the 80s. Of course, back then, I didn't know it was because it was PAL. I just thought someone messed it up when they cracked it. Lol 😆
You dig away at the left column of bricks, to give you an escape gap. Then you climb the ladder, grab the box, and escape out the escape gap. Repeat on the right side for the other box.
Hello Isaac, glad to have you back; thanks, I will give that a go!
I just saw this video and was going to post a hint rather than just giving away the solution. Anyway, another way to do it is to free the guards by digging away the column, then lure them into crossing to the other side and get them to drop off when they're over the gold boxes. They will often pick them up on the way down. Then you dig out the column, trap them in holes and grab the boxes that they drop.
Funny you mentioned "2 player mode" for Castle Wolfenstein. I assume this was your experience growing up--and not many others. I think I might have done the same with my older brother--but we definitely did this with Commando.
If only we had a two-button joystick!
I had Atari 800XL, but I had also access to C64.
When it comes to games, these 2 actually cannot be compared. First few years it was comparable, many games were ported on both C64 and Atari, but later (cca from 1985) the compamies that produced games have abandoned Atari. Therefore C64 had much more games, especially those, that were produced later and were much better than the early ones. For example Last Ninja series, Eye of the Beholder, Turrican series, Prince of Persia, Defender of the Crown, Ultima series, Elite, Elvira series, Dizzy series, Another World, Bard's Tale series, Lemmings and many many others. In years 1987-1995 most games mostly originally produced for 16-bit systems were ported only on C64 and Sinclair Spectrum.
I think the main reason was graphics on Atari. Altrough Atari had 256 color pallete and many graphics modes, it was missing good natural game graphics modes. C64 was much better when you needed to use more colors on single screen without using special effects like interruptions. Also Sprites in C64 were much better for games. And finally sound possibilities were also better on C64. So out of 10 I would give C64 9 points and Atari800 4 points.
Atari was on other hand better for Basic programming - incl. support for graphics and sound. And later Atari was also better for demos - with using all graphics modes and interruptions it was really colorfull.
It sounds like you had quite the experience with both the Atari 800XL and the Commodore 64! Your breakdown of how the gaming landscape shifted around 1985 really captures the turning point for both systems. The sheer number of late-era C64 games, particularly classics like The Last Ninja, Turrican, Ultima, and Prince of Persia, really solidified its dominance in the market. It’s interesting how the C64 excelled in graphics and sound, with its superior sprites and the SID chip making a huge difference in game development, while the Atari 800XL was left behind by many developers in the later years.
You also bring up a great point about Atari’s strengths in other areas, particularly BASIC programming and demos, where its variety of graphic modes and ability to push the hardware for non-gaming purposes really shone through.
Your score comparison of 9 for the C64 and 4 for the Atari 800XL makes sense from a gaming perspective, but it’s great to hear you still appreciated what the Atari could offer in other areas, especially for demos and coding enthusiasts!
Re. the Atari version of Centipede
I played two versions of this, way back when. I agree, I didn't like the port for the 8-bit. The motion was too blocky. That was the main thing.
There was also a 5200 version that was a bootleg port to the 8-bit (not too hard, since the platforms were almost identical), and it was better. The animation was smooth, like the arcade version, and I think it was more like the C-64 version, in terms of color.
Re. Cosmic Tunnels
This is reminding me of another game that had a similar scene, where the guy gets out of a ship, goes around on an alien planet, and picks up things, while dodging bad guys, but I can't remember the name of it. I remember it having a different scene, where your ship tries to fight/fly through some bad guys in space, but it's just a side view. Once you get through the gauntlet, you land on a planet, etc. Once you've gathered your things, you take off, and go back through the gauntlet (IIRC), then go to the next level, where the action repeats.
I have the 5200 version, I will
check it out.
I love these comparison videos.
I grew up playing MS DOS games myself and interested to know if any Commodore 64 games were also on DOS.
If so, I'd love to see a video comparing them.
Loving the content.
Oh and seeing as you asked, I'm from Wales in the UK.
Tons were, but the DOS versions tend to be very rare.
Hello, I'm so glad you are enjoying the videos. I'm sure there were plenty of crossovers to MSDOS. I'll look into it. Thanks for watching my friend!
Ahh MS-DOS……you are jumping ahead, and they eventually win, leading to what we have today. Very humble and modular beginnings though with MS-DOS , CGA,EGA,ATI, adlib, soundblaster,Roland..etc. Before we get there, you have the dominance of Amiga and Atari ST
I am a French geek in Orlando, Florida :) Loved your video
Awesome! Thank you! Welcome to the channel.
I fell like there are 2 versions of congo bongo. The one I played as a kid seemed different 5gan one I played later.
I believe you are right.
Yep there is the 1983 version shown in this video and the 1985 version which is considered the better port.
That visual tearing on the Atari version of Cosmic Tunnels would clinch it for me, in favour of the Commodore, assuming that's not just a fault of video capture.
I'm from Perth, Western Australia.
Thanks for Watching!
You might use an Atari 800 to play those same games-which look and play exactly the same on it as on the 800XL-and then you could put “1979” under the Atari 800 and “1982” below the C64, the way you placed “1982” and “1985” under the C64 and NES - to add context (and consistency). It shows with _Centipede,_ that Atarisoft took great pride in their work, not only doing a great job for their own computers* but also for whatever system to which they ported their games, unlike what Coleco had done with the console versions for which they made ports.
It’s also very evident with the way Atarisoft made such a great port for the C64 that they were very familiar with the Commodore’s graphics and sound chips, which makes sense, considering that the same engineers who made the Atari graphics and sound chips in ‘79 (a first in computing, to take load off the CPU) went on to make the sound and graphics chips for the C64 - basically making them the second gen Atari chips. They’re what set the Atari and C64 apart from other home computers of the time-including Apple and IBM/clones-and why the (academic) deep and lengthy arguments Atari and Commodore fans have are never matched by Apple IIe or IBM PC “fans,” per se - and not just because _Karateka_ and _King’s Quest_ were their best games...
Thanks for the video, but do think about that branding in the early ‘80s wasn’t nearly so advanced or prevalent as it is, today. I’m sure there were a fair number of people who picked their computers and argued for them for no other reason than that they had them, but it seemed most of us not only knew what the specs were but what they meant and how they made computers different from one another. For instance, my next computer was an Amiga, which I bought for what it could do. I wasn’t looking to build a DAW, because a) I wasn’t a composer, and b) they didn’t exist, yet, until Cubase came out for the STs, which still have a cult MIDI composer following. I was more into “multimedia art,” which didn’t have a name, until the ‘90s, but we knew we were doing _something,_ much like pre- and early DAW users did...
* Speaking of the Atari 8-bits and Centipede, you’re really missing out if you don’t use an Atari Trak-Ball controller with it (or _Missile Command,_ _Crystal Castles,_ or _Marble Madness,_ etc). Because I had one, I know for sure that those worked the way trackballs are supposed to work, on Ataris-making the experience of those games ten times better than without-by changing the switch from joystick (direction but not velocity) to trackball. Third parties made trackballs for Commodore, but my best friend from my yoot-with whom I argued about my Atari 800 (and later 800XL, until I realized I liked my 800 better (in part because of the five-pin (chroma) monitor out, as opposed to the 4-pin monitor port on my XL) versus his Commodore 64, for years, and learned a lot from it-but he had no trackball. So, I dunno if Atarisoft made their C64 ports work with trackballs, or not. If there were a standard, Atari woulda used it, I think - and speaking of thinking, I have no idea why I never just took my trackball to his house, to check... 🤦♂️
Wow! Great write-up. I enjoyed the read, and you have valid points. I have a trackball for my Atari, and I didn't know it worked on the 800XL. I will give it a try today, then on the C64. Thanks for Watching!
Loved the video - staunch Commodore guy, too. Curious about that show/film at 0:15 ("Great sound chip, the Commodore") Would you plz let me know? 😊 Thx in advance!
Nice, any staunch Commodore guy is a friend of mine. The clip is from Black Mirror: Bandersnatch Thanks for Watching! Hope you subscribed
I have both systems. I need to hook up my Atari Again. Same as you. c64 is my nostalgia, got atari a few years ago. Bonus I found a atari tape drive for $4 at a thrift store. I think they though it was just an old cassette player :)
Nice! Love finding those rare retro finds! Thanks for watching!
Just a point about Wolfenstein (and any others in "hi-res" mode) on the Atari. The colors are incorrect in the video. It is meant to be played through an NTSC monitor and the graphics, due to artifacting, will not looks so plain, wifh lots of yellow and blue
Thanks for the heads up my friend
Спасибо за сравнение версий Castle Wolfenstein. Именно то, что я хотел.
You're welcome! Thanks for Watching!
I grew up in that era but was unprepared for the primitivosity of Castle Wolfenstein!
I totally get what you mean! Castle Wolfenstein was a real eye-opener for me too. The gameplay and stealth mechanics were ahead of their time, but going back to it now really shows how primitive it feels compared to modern standards. Still, there's something oddly charming about sneaking around those blocky Nazis and scavenging for items. It definitely takes you back to the early days of gaming!
My only real gripe on the XL was 'The last Ninja', released on the C64 but never on the XL.
Sad but true!
Some key points you keep missing. When was the game produced for each system? And what memory factor was it released. 16k cartridge or a full disk? There are many variables that make up what equals a better game.
You did a good job regardless but maybe have a deeper understanding that not all things are equal in regards to these comparisons.
Subbed!
Thanks for the sub and watching!
Good comparisons. Would be interested in seeing a Dropzone in the next video. :)
Thanks! I'll make sure it's on my list. The next C64 vs. Atari is scheduled for an August release date!
In early 1983 I had a C-64. It became very popular in America, along with the Apple //e.
The Atari 8 bit computers in my region didn't seem nearly as popular. Maybe out west near CA where Atari was from?
I assumed naturally that the C-64 was the better game machine generally speaking. I was wrong!
I did get an Atari 1200XL on closeout, but I never had a disk drive, and there was far less software available for it in my area. Nor did I know many people with an Atari 8 bit, although the Atari 800 was the very first computer I used at a friend's house in 1980.
In more modern times, I was able to check out the Atari 8 bit software library through emulation and I use a 19" arcade CRT monitor for an authentic picture. Comparing the two systems now, I generally prefer the Atari 8 bit platform. The games are often more colorful, and I was much more impressed with the sound than I expected up against the SID chip, which I assumed was always superior. The C-64 colors in the games just look dull next to the Atari 8 bit games for a lot of them. The game library was much larger and better than I expected.
I'd say to do another review, but find the better Atari 8 bit games to review. Here's a couple I can suggest. The Atari Blast home brew. It's fantastic! I probably my favorite game for the system. You'll need 1 meg to play it. If you don't have that, consider the excellent Atari 8 bit emulator. Another title is Defender, the great arcade game. Far better than the other version. Donkey Kong was a very good port too and includes all the levels unlike the other ports. Jumpman is always fun, and more colorful than the C-64 version. There are so many good games for the system. It's worth exploring them.
Here's another little known fact I didn't pick up on back in the early 80s. The C-64 runs at 1 mhz. The Atari 8 bit series runs at almost 2 mhz!
Awesome write-up. I'm just going through the alphabet and playing the games available on both systems. I am only on D but more to come.
Centipede and Congo (maybe others) seemed to have higher resolution on Atari?
Nope
I was hoping you would compare "Rescue a Fractalus" & "Ballblaze" where the 2.5D performance is seen
It's alphabetical! Checkout the B video and R video is yet to come. Thanks for Watching!
As a Canadian, I learned a bit of French in grade school. "C'est" is pronounced "ceh". It's a contraction of "ca est" which means "that is" or "that's". In French, the last letter of many words is not pronounced.
Thanks for keeping my Texas accent in check! I had a good feeling I said it wrong. LOL!
In Australia back in the early 80s the Atari 2600 was the King. Ironically, Commodore made most of the cartridge chips for Atari. Both the C64 and the Atari 400/800 also used the 6502 processor, so there was a lot of cross over. Interestingly games which started on the Atari system were later ported to the C64 and were often better. I think the systems were different, and depending on the game one usually had it over the other. Either way, both were certainly better than a TRS80! :)
Yep, Atari 2600 was the king here in the US too, in the late 70s and early 80s. I had it and then Intellivision for the sports games but the C64 took it all to another level.
I started watching this video, not realizing that I'd seen it months ago. Anyway, I thought of a couple more things I wanted to say.
The Centipede machine you're playing with the trackball would drive me nuts for how slowly the shooter/gun moves in relation to the ball. I see a trackball as essentially a mouse. If the mouse speed in Windows is set too low and it feels like the pointer is lagging behind the mouse movements, it drives me crazy. I have the mouse set so that it feels like 1:1 movement. That's the way I'd want a trackball game to be, but it seems like most arcade games were set for 2:1 movement, where the onscreen character only moves half as far as you roll the ball.
I was a big Lode Runner fan, and had finished all the levels on the C64, albeit by giving myself extra lives and jumping to whatever level I left off on, via the built-in cheat keys. This wasn't as much of a cheat as you might first think, since every level still has to be beaten with a single life. If you die, the level starts over.
In Championship Lode Runner, they removed the cheats, and gave you a limited save.system where every time you reloaded a game, it subtracted one life from your save, until the save itself was deleted. You could get around this by making a copy of the (pirated) disk, but that was a pain in the butt. Not only that, but I found a bug. I forget what level it was, but on one level, you start out on a wall of ladders and have to move IMMEDIATELY to avoid the guards. If you get to this level by beating the previous level, it works fine. If you load a save on this level, the timing is off by a fraction of a second and the guards always catch you.
I tried loading the CLR disk as a data disk for the original game, but the levels were all messed up. I used the original game's editor to make some test levels, saved them to a data disk, and then looked at how they were saved on disk (the raw sectors). Turns out that each two-digit hex number stood for two onscreen characters. Then I looked at the CLR levels on the disk and compared them to what was shown on screen. It used the exact same system, they just changed the values for each part. So I wrote a small program that would read each level from disk, convert the values to those used by the original game, and then write it back to disk, converting a copy of the game disk into a data disk that could be used with the original.
I was working my way through the levels when I got my Amiga and the C64 gradually fell into dis-use.
I've been meaning to see if I can find my conversion program and transfer it over to be preserved, but I never seem to have the time or ambition to do it.
Thank you for your write up! Great stuff my friend!! Thanks for Watching! Again lol 😂
lol everybody always immediately jumps to "great sound chip" for C64 but the reality is the innovative use of Color RAM and the humungous sprites inside the VIC-II are just as cutting edge for this 1981 custom chip as the advanced features of the SID. For the type of games I liked back then the 800 or 800XL is the only other computer I would have been happy with before I got my A1000 in 1987 etc and after getting a VCS in 1980
Great stuff! I couldn't agree more.
@@FloppyDeepDive Have you tried the color Timex computer? The Sinclair Spectrum clone not the $50 monochrome one.
I haven't tried the Timex but I do have a ZX Spectrum.
I bought the "tan tank" 800 for one reason: STAR RAIDERS . I KNOW the 800 was a more powerful graphics machine than the 64 BUT I knew that the 64 was more of a users PC . It seemed to be more for people that wanted to actually learn to program .
Both are great systems. Thanks for Watching!
C64 ruled. Their conversions/versions were almost always better. Sound chip was superior, graphics better, controls superior/easier and made use of keyboard. Other tech comparable machines were just lacking. Sprites/objects looked incomplete or pixelated and colors were boring on the competition. If you had friends that owned the different systems (apple iie vs. c64 vs. atari 800xl etc.), they would always compare and fight over which was better, and the commodore ones had more fun and definitely won. Evident in the games stores too. Goto Gamesngadgets/Electronic boutique, ToysRus video game section, etc. and that Commodore section was large and crowded. Sections for the other systems…meh
You hit 👊 it right on the head! I couldn't agree more. Thanks for watching!
The ONLY reason that there were more C64 is because at the time the C64 came out, the Atari 800 was a very well made with special shielding and a professional keyboard and it cost a lot more to make as compared the C64 which sold for less than half the cost of the Atari 800. It wasn’t until Atari brought out the 800XL that cost about what the C64 did over a 18 months later. The C64 had that much a lead. The Atari sold a ton of Atari 800 XL. I bought the Atari 800 XL because it was flat out the better computer. It had better graphics and Antic chip and the Sid chip where both great . The keyboard on the thick C64 was terrible to type on because you had to put a book under your wrists or end up with hand cramps. The speed of the processor in the Atari was much faster and load times on your disk drives loaded at a snails pace compared to the much superior Atari computer. The C64 was more a game console than a computer.
Pros of the Atari 8-bits: Better built; better (but still not awesome) BASIC; faster (but still not awesome) disk drives; more colours; faster CPU; better keyboard; and more cartridge games.
Pros of the Commodore 64: Better sprites, better sound; cheaper hardware; better and much more games.
Both machines have games that are better than the other platform. But without a doubt, the C64 wins the shootout. You just can’t beat it’s seemingly endless selection of excellent games.
I recently picked up a working Atari 800 and an 800XL. Like you I was a major Commodore fan boi back in the day. The problem I now have is I have only two game cartridges.
Im aware of products like Backbit and the Ultimate II for the C64. Is there something similar for the Atari 800's?
Yes! It's called Fujinet. Its a game-changer for the Atari 800XL
@@FloppyDeepDive Thx. Ive never heard of that! Will check into it.
Hi, is there a reason why you didn't feature the games 'Commando' and 'Crystal Castle' in this video?
I couldn't find Commando for the Atari 800XL. It was not listed in my database of games.
@@FloppyDeepDive Ah, OK.
This game is a bit complicated to get running on the 800XL since it was never officially released and it was intended to be published on cartridge, iirc.
I don't know about your 800XL setup... just discovered your channel... but sadly you need more than 64k for this game to load.
Commando is an excellent game on the Atari. The only thing that's better on the C64 is the iconic SID tune.
Welcome to the channel! I see you have one too. I will check it out. Yep that was the exact issue I was having with Commando. As for Crystal Castles it was an unfortunate oversight. Thanks for watching!
@@FloppyDeepDive I hope you find something interesting on my channel 🙂
I use original hardware exclusively and record the video off a CRT screen, which may not be suitable for everyone.
Great overviews/retrospectives, thanks!
C64 for Centipede, sadly. Atari's should have been better.
Wolfenstein rules, though some keystrokes don't work in emulation. The A8 version feels like a port of the Apple II.
Choplifter looked better on A8, best on the 7800, even if it controlled just as badly LOL.
I always felt Lode Runner was more soothing in purple...
Congo Bongo also has a better brown border, green just looks distracting
Chucky Egg and Cosmic Tunnel look interesting! Quite a few games that look new - thanks!
Thanks for the detailed breakdown! Centipede on the C64 was indeed stronger, though it would have been nice to see more from Atari there. Wolfenstein is always fun, but I know what you mean about the A8 version feeling like an Apple II port. I also agree that Choplifter looked great on the A8, even though the controls could have used some work! Congo Bongo's color choices are an interesting point-I'll have to keep that in mind next time. Glad to hear Chucky Egg and Cosmic Tunnel caught your eye! Thanks again for watching!
Watching from fort worth. Any hobby away from the evil sun monster is good right now!
Cool, hello, Neighbor! Today actually feels pretty good, and I finally got my mowing done! Thank you for watching! Hope you subbed!
The C64 Congo Bongo that you showed was the cartridge version, and I think it might be missing levels. There is also a disk version that has all four levels and much nicer graphics. They also did this with both Zaxxon and Super Zaxxon. The cartridge version of Zaxxon looks a little more like the arcade version, but plays worse. The disk version plays great, but the graphics deviate somewhat the arcade. They're not bad, just different.
Yep, I played off the cartridge. You have great knowledge of the C64 games.
@@FloppyDeepDive I was a prolific pirate back in the 80s. :)
I called pretty much every local C64 BBS I could find, made lots of connections, used my Super Snapshot cartridge to crack simple manual-based protection on a couple games and snapshotted a bunch of others. I used to rent games from a company called Rent-A-Disk, snapshot them, then upload them to the BBSs. Mostly stuff that was already available, but which didn't work correctly on NTSC machines, like Buggy Boy/Speed Buggy and Wizball.
My piracy continued on the Amiga, although I never cracked anything on that system. I did manually draw usable substitutes for the codewheels that came with various games, in Deluxe Paint though, and I once typed in the entire manual, plus four pages of copy protection codes for the game Archipelagos. :)
The Atari XL/XE version of Centipede is terrible compared to the Atari 5200 version. Same hardware, but they managed to completely remake it to be the closest to the arcade version of all the 8-bit systems. Atari 8-bit wins that round hands down, but it has to be the 5200 version. There's a conversion of the 5200 version for XL/XE up on Atarimania.
I'll have to break out my 5200. Thanks for watching.
Greetings from Birmingham, Central England.
Cheers!
As an Apple II guy, I'm not sure how you can even play Choplifter with a one-button Atari/C64 joystick? In Arizona.
Nice, enjoyed Arizona went I visited there. Appreciate your long-time support. As for Choplifter it's all about how long you hold down the fire button would turn you and quick pushes would fire your gun.
I agree with your picks for the better version of each of these. I never played the OG Wolfenstein, but watching your game play makes me want to check it out.
Centipede on the 800XL looks really bad. My favorite home version from the 80s is still the Atari 2600 version. The sounds and speed of the game are closer to that of the arcade than the C64 or Atari 800 version, IMHO. The graphics on the 2600 aren't necessarily as good, but good graphics don't always mean you've got a better game.
I live near San Diego, and it's 90 degrees (as of 1:46pm) here today.
What part of Texas are you in? I can't recall if you've ever mentioned this.
I'm just South of Fort Worth/Dallas. I've been to San Diego once, very nice.
UK here, I Grew up with Commodore pets at school, VIC20 then C64 at home, never knew anyone with a 400 or 800 Atari. Looking at UA-cam videos the Atari can look better on some games and others the C64 looks better. I tended to buy games just for the music which the 64 is famous for. I used to be a fan boy but I can appreciate other systems now and am impressed with some later Amstrads. But back in the day the best machine was the machine you had.
So true; in the 80s, I owned the C64, and I was pleased to have it! Thanks for Watching!
The Atari 8bit simply had superior sound & graphics (256 colors vs 16, and 4 voice sound vs 3.)
In a stunning twist of fate, the inventor of the Atari chipset, "Jeff Minter", went on to create the chipset for the Commodore Amiga (he offered it to Atari first, but Warner was looking to get OUT of the computer business, not deeper in), and the former owner/founder of Commodore bought Atari from Warner and released the Atari ST (whose tan color and single-piece unit resembled a C64), with fewer colors and voices than the Amiga. Crazy.
The better success of the Amiga over the ST "vindicates" those who always said the Atari 8bits were better than the C64.
Love my Amiga 500!
Hi There well that was really interesting comparing the formats of Commodore and Atari it all depends on how much effort and detail the programmers / designers / graphic artists had put in the same Game seeing I have both the Commodore 64 and the Atari 800 and 400 with 48k ( non XL ) I can related .. The Sprite was the factor both computers had sprites just Atari had only one Color for a sprite where Commodore had 2 the Atari sound chip POKEY was all Square for a waveform where The SID Chip had triangle, sawtooth, pulse, noise for waveforms. really surprised about Caverns of Khafka it looked like two completely different games ohh another thing was The Atari Game play was a bit faster and smoother ..
Hello Sparky! Thanks for watching. Glad you found the video interesting. Thanks for the great comment, can tell you know your stuff! Hope you subbed and welcome to the community!
Yes this is more a game and software comparison. POKEY is not true square wave but more of a hybrid sawtooth/square if you pause in a waveform playback.
@@FloppyDeepDive sorry for the late reply the graphics wise the Atari has a better Color Palette since 1981 i think not the 79-80 years its early production but Commodore can do the same with more color then it was designed with the thanks of Hacker programmers from the mid late 80 cracker demo scene and the game companies from the mid to late 80s to early 90s learned from those Cracker Groups of those tricks making a two color pixel to 4 color pixel that is just one example trick ..
The Epic Battle Continues. ATARI XL had the better capabilities but often was not used due to the fact that most people owned a C64.
Shame
Hi I'm ftom Australia and think C64 kind of ruled the turf here. Actually not to sound silly but after the 2600 Atari didn't really make a scene here until the 500 ST
Are you emulating? That Centipede on the Atari doesn't look right, the 8 bit line up across the 400 800 5200 centipede is very well known to almost arcade perfect.... Not sure what you have on your screen there
No emulation. Atari 800 has terrible emulation. The sound is always messed up. My centipede is the cartridge plugged into my Atari 800XL.
@@FloppyDeepDive interesting.
@FloppyDeepDive I've tried a couple, but compared to other system emulators the A8 (and ST) ones stink...
I maintain my own hardware in replacing capacitors, cleaning potentiometer, verifying power supply voltage and even putting heatsinks on the chips to prolong them. Shame Atari ditched the sockets for the XE as many units sold with poor quality RAM...
Weird that the Atari 5200 version blows both versions away, even though the 5200 is based on the Atari 800 (non-XL).
That is odd. Thanks for watching.
Kind of odd that the C64 had the better sound in Centipede when the Arcade and 800XL both used the pokey chip for the sound.
SID chip is just that good. Thanks for watching!
I generally prefer the Atari for most games. Castle Wolfenstein was not as good of a port on the Atari, as it maintains the bad colors from the original Apple II version. You can compare them on MobyGames.
Thanks for watching!
I was about to say the same thing. Many early Atari games are ports from Apple games, so they just reused the code for the Atari version ignoring the things that could have been added to make the Atari game more presentable. They didn't use the multi graphics mode features, the redefinable character sets and most importantly, they didn't use sprites (player/missile graphics). That was just the way things were at the time.
Atari has been and always will be my preferred preference. But as Chat GPT says, "Ultimately, whether one is better than the other comes down to personal preferences and intended use. If you were primarily interested in gaming and affordability, the Commodore 64 might have been a better choice. If you were more interested in graphics capabilities or specific software applications available on Atari computers, then an Atari model might have been preferred. It's worth noting that both Atari and Commodore computers played important roles in the early home computing era and have their unique strengths and charm."
Well stated my friend! Thanks for watching!
Whaaaaat? Letter “C” and you didn’t compare Crystal Castles? 😜
Great video, as usual from you, Tom. 👍
BTW, I agree with your decision about games, it’s a fair judgement. 🙂
On No! How did I miss Crystal Castles?!? When I did my research to find the games on both systems, I completely missed it! Dang it, it would have definitely made the video. Well, I still have the Apple II vs. C64 to catch it. I hope you're doing well.
@@FloppyDeepDive Yep, you MUST publish a video, maybe “the many faces of…” Crystal Castles 😉.
I’m ok thank you, just a little busy with work and other “real life” things.
Crystal Castles deserves it’s own update video. Do include arcade, c64, various ataris, apple ii.
@@thepro3729 I agree 👍🙂
The Atari centipede was out on cartridge several years before C64 on the much lower spec Atari 400 than the C64 .
The next game zx-80 looking probably ported game is why it's so bad .
Had this argument for decade with mate , back in the day .
Thanks for Watching!
One game always proves the superiority of the ATARI 800 - STAR RAIDERS . Commodore has nothing like it
Star Raiders is definitely a standout game for the Atari 800, and you’re right-there’s really nothing quite like it on the Commodore! A true classic.
Very strange choice??? C64 vs 800XL. Both supercomputer. Great games for these computers. I play both, but when I want to change something I use Amiga, ZX Spectrim, MSX, Amstrad. RERTO integrates people, never segregates better or worse.
I believe retro computers is a talking subject that brings people together! Thanks for watching and love your passion.
Just watching the Atari vs C64 on Centipede shows why, when comparing 2 systems, I don't use games as benchmarks. Who ever wrote the Atari port did use all the power of the Atari. You're trying to show which system is su, perior by comparing a C64 version that uses most of the features of the C64 to a poorly crippled version on the Atari, That doesn't prove a thing!
The Atari came out 3 years BEFORE the C64. Originally the 400 was to come with 4K and the 800 with 8K but when release day was coming up the prices of ram came down to the point where they released the 400 with 8K and the 800 with 16K (I bought my 400 in 1979 and it had 16K in it. I had to call Atari with a problem and the tech asked me to issue a PRINT FRE(0) command and tell him what it said. When I told him it showed over 13K free, he actually sound mad and ordered me to return it to Atari and they would send me a new 400 with 8K. I politely turned him down). He said the public wasn't suppose to have a 16K 400 and wanted to know where I bought it. It was from a SEARS that decided not to sell computers and dumped their demo model (that's why it had 16K) plus a cassette drive, joysticks and a track ball).
The bad thing was programmers had to write DOWN to the 400 with 8K level hence ports often were not as good as they could have been.
Do you want to see some of the Atari 8-b8t graphics power, watch the Atari Robot Demo on Facebook. The C64 could do that!
It sounds like you have a deep knowledge of the Atari systems and a strong appreciation for how hardware limitations and development decisions affected game performance. You make a great point about comparing games on these systems, especially when programmers didn’t always take full advantage of the Atari’s capabilities. The story about getting a 400 with 16K from SEARS is pretty incredible-those unique hardware quirks and upgrades really shaped individual experiences. I’ll definitely check out that Atari 8-bit graphics power video. Thanks for sharing your insights!
Interesting. I think the 800 version of Centipede looks better... the C64 version looks lower resolution to me. I had an original IBM PC when I was a kid, and that's what I gamed on (and it was amazing that they could get voices to come out of that shitty speaker on Wolfenstein, I must say), so I have no bias either way. On most of these games I think the colors were better on the C64, but the characters generally looked more detailed on the Atari.
Thanks for sharing! It is interesting what they did with Wolfenstein. Just fantastic and enhanced the whole game with those voices yelling at you. Thanks for watching!
Heya Tom great video again 🙂. I'm from the UK.
C64 walks it for me on all games. Never been a fan of the Atari machine. Only Dropzone is anygood on the Atari.
As for Chuckie Egg, the best and only version is the Spectrum version. All others are awful.
Thanks, Denny! I'll have to check out Chuckie Egg on the Spectrum.
I live in Poland and in 1988 I had an Atari 65XE and an XC12 tape recorder, and in 1990 I had an Amiga 500🕹🕹🎮🎮
At the end of the 1980s, earnings in dollars were very low, around 20-30 dollars a month, so when we couldn't afford a disk drive, we made a Turbo system for Atari
and I had one already installed in my tape recorder and the games loaded 10 times faster than normal - Turbo Blizzard - ua-cam.com/video/bmeYo_9A19s/v-deo.html
In Poland, Atari games and hardware improvements for this computer are still being created
ua-cam.com/video/zRGpT-Kjxs8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/PfonLBztBMc/v-deo.html
The sound in C 64 was better than in Atari, but the number of available colors is already greater on Atari - Greetings from Poland🕹🕹👍👍
Hello Poland!! Welcome to the channel and thank you for your story! Thanks for Watching!
@@FloppyDeepDive 🕹🕹🎮🎮😉😉👍👍
The C64 Centipede definitely wins. The Atari version seems to be a lazy port or the programmer wasn't very experienced.
The C64 Castle Wolfenstein wins for me due to the better colour. The Atari programmer may have been lazy or inexperienced.
The C64 Choplifter wins for me. The Atari version changes the palette at the ground level and everything turns green when they are below that scanline.
I agree Lode Runner is a tie. The Atari version uses artifacting. The VIC-20 version is still my favourite version.
I agree the Atari Congo Bongo wins for the controls.
Chuckie Egg is a tie. I prefer the non-3D look though. The original ZX Spectrum version didn't have the Atari's 3D look The controls are the same on the ZX Spectrum and BBC Micro versions and is unforgiving.
I've no experience with Cosmic Tunnels. They both look and sound fine to me.
The Atari version of Caverns of Khafka is an easy win because the C64 version is so terrible. This reminds me of Pitstop II on the C64 which is so good while the Atari version is so terrible it's not even the same game.
No idea about those last three games.
Final scores: C64: 5, Atari: 4, VIC-20: 1 (1 point for each win or tie)
LOL, great reply! Love you threw the VIC-20 in! I can't argue with any of that! The Cosmic Tunnels was all new to me, too; not sure how I missed that one back in the day!
The Atari came out long before the C64 so thegames were made with 16k memory(atari 400) in mind
When did the 800XL come out?
@@FloppyDeepDive
The custom chips it uses were designed way back in 1977 at Atari by Jay Miner for the 800 machine, Jay a few years later put together and led the Amiga team.
I think Atari was definitely faster at loading games from Disk Drive. It like took for ever and that eas with the fast load cart.
Yep, the 1541 wasn't the fastest for sure but it was better than tape.
awww, missed Connan...
Dang it. Thanks for Watching!
After watching this video, i had to check the specs of Atari 800XL.
Was surprised that it had faster CPU 1.79 {pal 77} MHz, more colors {256} and actually less resolution which would also make it a bit faster. And then it had 3 custom co-processors!
All this can only lead to conclusion that Atari 800XL platform had no really capable game programmers...
It is likely they all went to code for C64 {same destiny actually also the C128 had with the difference that programmers didn't went away! It's more true they just stayed with 64 }
It’s pretty surprising when you dig into the Atari 800XL’s specs, right? That faster CPU and the extra color palette certainly gave it some potential, especially with those custom co-processors in the mix. It’s always fascinating to think about how hardware advantages didn’t always translate into better games. The C64 had such a huge developer base that it almost overshadowed those technical differences. The way the gaming ecosystem developed was a mix of power and popularity-guess the C64 just had that pull that kept developers around!
@@FloppyDeepDive
I was really surprised.
Even a bad code should be faster with this CPU (it was the same, just higher clocked). And even if the rest of the architecture wouldn't match the efficiency of the C64, I would expect at least the same speed level.
Well, every hardware is as good or as bad as the programmers. And C64 collected all smarties on his platform to stay and they stayed! Even today after so many decades...
Banshee997 ale teraz mamy Atari vs Commodore :)
Thanks for Watching!
Centipede without the trackball isn’t the same game. Same with Tempest and the wheel. Playing on a joystick just isn’t the same b
Agree! 👍🏻
Centipede for the Ataris wasn't good, they putted more effort into Millipede
I'll have to check it out!
I grew up with a C64 so I'll always be biased towards it, but the Atari 8 bit lineup holds up well despite being 3 years older. In the right hands I'm sure the c64 would blow away the Atari lineup in sound but I'd be curious for best efforts in graphics as they seem to line up well.
Both are wonderful systems. I'm biased too but the Atari has impressed me.
Well it depends on the game and how the sound was coded. IMO sound effects were easier on POKEY due to it being a sound effects chip made by a game company. SID is a synthesizer chip, albeit very flexible and capable. Coming from Atari, it too often sounded like someone had a keyboard synthesizer and were playing notes for the effects. It just doesn't work well if the developer didn't put some more effort into the effects. Sometimes this also was true for POKEY where the effort was low and it could sound flat or very boring. POKEY requires lots of CPU updates and arcade games like Tempest or Centipede were better engineered to rapidly update POKEY. The designers of the original 400/800 systems said the CPU wasn't fast enough for POKEY.
The Atari 800 even thow its an XL is off 1979 technology the Commodore is a 1982 this is the 4 years of better tech and revisions of games some of these give the C64 an advantage over the Atari I think the 7800 is the system that surpasses the C64 with amount of colors and graphics and its closer in release offered in 1984 its only a 2 year difference.
Excellent point! Do you know why Atari didn’t upgrade when they released the 800XL? I know they wanted to be backward compatible but here’s the chance to catch up. I’m sure cost was also an issue.
@@FloppyDeepDive I think the XL was released around 83 its only upgraded on RAM 64k i do believe but still the same main IC set. Does it have composite hook ups or something else ? 1983 Atari was loosing money because of saturation of the market so they say and its probably why the company got sold in 84.
Muy bueno 👍👏
Gracias!
Pffft there no comparison... C64 or GTFO! Actually, it's not even about that anymore. It's about what YOU grew up with! Yeah! All original microcomputers are awesome!
Agree, they are all great!!
C'est La Vie is pronounced "Say lah vee," FYI.
Yep, not my best moment. Lol 😆
Green Beret on the Atari 800xl, the worst port on the system.
Oh wow, I will see when I get to the letter G