I am 56 years old, I was firmly in the "Commodore" camp back in the day by choice, not until many years later as a retro collector would I obtain various Atari 8 and 16 bit machines, even still I would have never changed being a "Commodore" kid, honestly this series has simply reminded me just how amazing the C64 was for it's time!
The Atari came out 3 years BEFORE the C64 and its graphics coprocessor allowed it to do sprites and fine horizontal and vertical scrolling. It also allowed many graphic and character modes that could be mixed allowing it to do more than the C64 could.
Nobody really ceases from being a fan of his childhood system. I have around 20 different retro systems from the 80s(8&16bit) and I daily end up firing up my Atari XL. The familiarity and lack of hassle make it ideal for a quick game session.(No need to change joystick ports, no need to write a cryptic text line for a game to load(autoboot), no need to find out which key starts a game etc.). Most 00's ports of popular games are equally good and many times superior on the A8 so I don't really bother using my C64c fo playing them, plus Atari's PAL color palette is more pleasing than C64 PAL colors. So there are many factors that guide people's preferences.
C64 all day for me based on these comparisons but I can appreciate the Atari 800XL games a lot too. Legendary games featured here for the letter 'G' - these all really take me back! I've always loved these 80's movie-based games, and Green Beret is still so good. Many other classics here like Gauntlet, Gorf, and others - just awesome!
Really enjoying the Floppy Deep Dive channel. I started out with the VIC from my grandfather after he kindly loaned me his Tandy machine. After that got the C128. Now I’m back 30 years later to the C64C. Using Mssiah cartridge to make some music has been so much fun.
Played all these games between 1984-1985. Started with tape unit, but soon got a disk drive. September 1984 changed the path of my life, when I bought my first C64.
Nice video! One small remark: 11:47 Gremlins was never officially released for the Atari 8-bit home computers. What you are playing is a conversion of the Atari 5200 game (the 5200 is almost technically the same as the Atari 8-bit computers, but not 100% compatible).
@@FloppyDeepDive good video on youtube - atari 800xl games vs commodore 64 games . gauntlet, ghostbusters, gyross, gremlins, green beret look on commodore 64 better
Great video! Early "G letter"games weren't kind to the Atari 8bit family! Gaunlet was really bad for the Atari series, this is why Atari returned 3 years later with "Dark Chambers". At Ghostbusters I thought I was controlling a couple of smurfs on my Atari. Only recently I realize I was dealing with figures of the ghost busters. Goonies, never liked this game. It looks and sound similar on both machines. Galaxian , the ability of the Atari machine to not depend on its sprites engine for smooth scrolling is obvious here. On the other hand it was a bad call on the C64 not to use sprites. Gyruss , I've played this game on both machines and the main difference is that the C64 version is faster. The controls are accurate and fluid on the Atari but a bit slower. Gorf is better on the C64 for a good reason. Gorf was an 800/400 game aimed for systems with less memory. Gremlins on NTSC systems look different. The colors on the Atari PAL game look more vibrant than the C64 port. That's common for many PAL games for those two systems. Green Beret, I remember laughing when I loaded this game on my Atari for the first time. I never loaded it again. Really bad on the Atari while its a really good effort on the C64 Gateway to Apshai and Gridrunner are basic and they look and sound similar.
Was there a problem with the video capture or emulator for the Atari Gyruss footage? It seemed to be freezing or stuttering; I'd be surprised if the game did that on real hardware! I was amazed how similar The Goonies was on the two platforms, but then Bruce Lee is very similar on both platforms too, and some of the same people worked on both. I was surprised how much slower Gauntlet is on the Atari. I expected the extra 20% or so CPU cycles the Atari has over the C64 to have been more than enough to render all those software sprites.
I was using real hardware. Gyruss was acting weird on the Atari. That's why I mentioned C64 was so much smoother. I wonder if I could duplicate it. Good eye! Great insight!
@@FloppyDeepDive Possibly the Hardware it was running on. Some games ran better on the Original Hardware, 400/800 machines due to changes in the custom chips in the later machines that had various querks.
Im an Atari man, but i very much appreciate the great C64 and i admit i like the speccy very much! I would think how some games are better on one machine over the other is down to the programmers. A remake of these games nowadays would be impressive , if you have seen some of the demos on both machines from recent times its truly amazing what both machines can do. Most impressive thing ive seen is Atari actually emulate the SID. Astounding achievement. Overall i dont think one is better than the other. Both are brilliant!
Both the C64 and Atari 800XL have their strengths, and it’s amazing to see what modern demos can do on both systems today. The SID emulation on Atari is truly impressive. It’s hard to say one is better than the other-both are fantastic in their own right. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Check "I am a SID Alternative Facts (remix)" by Roland Voss (triace) on ASMA library. I myself prefer the clean sounds of Pokey in tunes like "Rastan"& "Candy mountain" by BeWu or "Beyond the Stars" & "Be strong" by Gaetano Chiummo.
@nickolasgaspar9660 I prefer pokey also, in the right hands it's mind blowing what it can do. As each atari and c64 have their strengths, that's what makes me think neither are really better than the other.
For the Gauntlet comparison, make sure you are comparing the same character class in each, different classes have different abilities including rate of fire. Also be sure to compare if games have multiplayer options. Keep up the good work!
BTW the strange colors being displayed by the 800XL was from a change to the color artifacting and was different than the original 800. So a lot of the goofy XL colors you see are because of this.
Seems like often that which version was superior didn't necessarily come down to hardware limitations but instead was determined by which platform the original version of the game was created on. Often a genius game maker would make the original version and then the publisher would get a less accomplished talent to create the ports for other systems. The less accomplished talent(s) would put less time and skill into the ports, as it wasn't as much of a labor of love for them, more of a job they got hired to do as quickly as possible.
Hey Tom! lol as, like you, I never knew about this Gremlins game either only the text adventure. haha. Well that was. great list and I have to agree with you on all the pics. I might give the C64 a little nudge on Gridrunner as the graphics are slightly cleaner and less blurry.
Played Ghostbusters at a friends house on the C64 mostly around Xmas time. Always enjoyed it, never had it on the Atari. As for Green Beret on the Atari, oh my god that was abysmal. Those developers should have been put up against the firing squad. As for the Goonies, I really enjoyed it on the Atari. Never played Gremlins, and the other titles I never played either. Good video though showing the titles off.
Nice overview, thanks! At the end of the day,a game holds up or it doesn't. It's not really nostalgia when some modern games just combine gameplay but with sharper effects and 500-channel sound, hehe. Imagine Yar's Revenge revised to play on a 70.1 Dolby system hehe Gauntlet - C64 wins on music and shooting, but for effects and visuals, both are on par Ghostbusters- Atari version look like big Smurfs. C64 got more love but the theme did sound a little better, even if sound sampling was rarer... Gremlins and Galaxian = Atari with ease, especially sound and smoothness. It's interesting to hear the strengths and weaknesses of both sound coprocessore. Apshi is brighter on the Atari. Both versions remind me of the Commodore Pet game "Dungeon". Never played the others. P.s. I am in Camp Atari
Thanks for watching! Glad you enjoyed the overview. Totally agree that some games just hold up, and others don’t, regardless of the nostalgia factor. The idea of Yars’ Revenge with modern sound effects cracked me up! Also, interesting points on Gauntlet and Ghostbusters. I definitely think the C64’s music often had a slight edge, but the Atari had its strengths too, especially in sound and smoothness with games like Gremlins and Galaxian. Always great to hear different perspectives-especially from someone in Camp Atari! Appreciate the feedback!
Agree with you on each game. When a C64 game looks better, it looks CLEARLY better. (I found Gyruss sounds better on the XL, but that's more from memory than your review. And yes the XL graphics on that one are quite 'muddy') Glad that 'G' included Ghostbusters as I downlaoded a homebrew version for the TI-99/4A a couple weeks ago, that I forgot about entirely. I'll copy it over to the SD card and check it out right now! It's written by the same coder who ported Sega's Alex Kidd over to the 4A a couple years ago, and that was exceptional, so looking forward to his go at Ghostbusters. Who knew that some of the best Arcade ports would appear for our early 80's systems 40 years later ??? And it really doesn't matter what your system of choice is, there's a never ending stream of new software - with each new title pushing the limits of the hardware in a way we could never have imagined! When limits are reached - new hardware is concocted.
Thanks for the awesome comment and for sharing your thoughts! I agree-when the C64 has the visual advantage, it’s a pretty obvious win. Gyruss is an interesting one, and it’s cool to hear your perspective on the XL’s sound. I love that you’re diving into a homebrew version of Ghostbusters on the TI-99/4A-those modern retro releases are just incredible. It’s amazing what coders are doing with 40-year-old hardware today, pushing systems beyond what we ever thought possible. Enjoy your time with Ghostbusters, and thanks for watching!
Gremlins was the only game I had never seen before too. Looks neat, and interesting to learn from another comment that it was actually just an Atari 5200 release officially, which got converted to the Atari computer platform (fairly easy to do since they're so similar, but still). Green Beret was amazingly bad on the Atari, pretty shocking! Gateway to Apshai is a favourite of mine too, nice to see it well done on both systems. I found the extra flashing on the Atari version of Gridrunner annoying, but Jeff Minter probably just did that because it's really easy to implement on the Atari since the wider colour palette is one of its strengths. It would be just a few lines of assembly to do that on the Atari, but quite a bit more on the C64 and the colour changes wouldn't be as smooth either.
I really enjoy your videos. I never had a computer as a child but i had a friend that had the c64. I played Beach Head a lot. Please dont think i am picking on you when i tell you Fugue is pronounced fewg. The u and e are silent. Thanks for your great content!
Your analysis of each game seemed pretty accurate. The only thing I would differ on is Galaxian. Neither version seemed very good to me. Galaxian was all about being accurate with your shots. In the C64 version the enemies moved too "wonky" for that too happen and in the Atari version your ship moves way to fast allowing you to get out of bad situations too easily making strategy less important. I guess home versions were always nerfed a bit because it was trying to appeal to a broader audience than arcades and it wasn't trying to get more of your money, haha, you already spent it. Thanks for the series! You are constantly looking at games I never knew about.
@@R3tr0-ld4xb The Atari 400/800 were released in the year of 79, so 3 years ahead of the 64. The Architecture is very similar, the only difference being the extra ram, and some hardware changes, but the overall machine is exactly the same.
@@leerudd1294 You contradict yourself: "some hardware changes but exactly the same". Contradictions aside, using your logic, one can argue that the C64 was a VIC20 with "some hardware changes" making the C64 two years older.
@@R3tr0-ld4xb the hardware changes they made were to do with the memory, reduction of parts etc, the main custom chips are basically the same as released in the 400/800 range. The only change i remember was the Ctia chip being upgraded to Gtia and i had that upgrade in my 800 as it was released before the 800xl range came out, so still before the release of the c64. Other than that, most of the Atari hardware specs stayed the same throughout its life. So no, the c64 wasnt just a vic20 with hardware changes, as its a whole new machine.
Atari vs Commodore was always a bit of a mismatched comparison to me. The Atari launched a full three years earlier and the c64 lasted later into the 80s and very early 90s For me, the Atari does a lot of fast , golden era arcade games better while the c64 has a lot better/more late 80s stuff, rpgs and the like. There’s always been this big competition but the two systems complement each other remarkably well game wise. On a graphics and sound front, the c64 is slightly better but it comes down to the individual game, often times. However, back in the day, the Atari was a more well rounded general use PC than the c64c with its terribly slow drive and inflexible dos. The apple 2 was a far better productivity machine than either, and a far worse game matching than both. For me, it’s the Atari line, followed very closely by the c64.
“Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree that the Atari vs. Commodore comparison can feel a bit mismatched, especially considering the timeline differences. The Atari really shines with those fast-paced arcade ports, while the C64 comes into its own with more complex late 80s games and RPGs. It’s true that both systems have their strengths, and it’s interesting how they complement each other depending on the type of game. I also hear you on the C64’s slow drive and DOS limitations compared to the Atari’s versatility as a general-use PC. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference and what games you’re into. I’ll be diving into these kinds of comparisons in future videos, so stay tuned!”
based on our current understanding of technology we can call it a mismatch but not back then. Their processors remained at the forefront for almost a decade. The only difference between those two machines was their architectural approach and their custom silicons. The C64 graphic engine was technically more advance, while Atari's dual Graphic chip, large palette and faster architecture could close the gap and even produce superior results under specific scenarios. Common ports and homebrew titles verify this"face off" in my opinion. We have titles that look identical i.e. bruce lee , henry's house, zorro etc and we have homebrew titles that take advantage the specific powers of each machine (i.e. Atari Yoomp!, Total eclipse, Prince of Persia, vs C64 high res games and the list goes on). I don't subscribe to absolute statements "The C64/Atari, is much better than the other", because they weren't/aren't.Again different scenarios favor different architectures. The Atari machine was a far better multimedia (out of the box) machine while the C64 had far better RAM and Color management with Supreme High Res quality. At the department of sound, again, the approach was different. A cut down Roland chip with amazing synth capabilities for the C64, while a Hybrid PCM chip with Tracker sampling and a very good softsynth engine for the Atari8bit. (Unfortunately most of the music library was produce in eastern Europe and most western retro users aren't familiar with the actual capabilities of the Pokey chip). The quality homebrew library of both machines prove that those machines were closer than we think and they are still trading blows....for the benefit of their users.
Not surprising you gave the games that were programmed mostly with Hi-Res mode a tie. That brief period near the early days of both computers where a lot of the games were coming from the Apple II. Although I'm not as familiar with the Atari's architecture, it seems both companies were keen enough to add a Hi-Res mode in a way that apparently was easy enough to port from Apple II games.
When I got my first Atari computer, an Atari 400 but with 16K (at the time, the 400 came with 8K) many of the games were ports of Apple games because the hires mode of both system were very similar. I actually learned how to write games using bit mapped graphics (when the program actually draw each pixel itself instead of relying on hardware to do the work) from a book about programming on the Apple. Apple hires was 280×192 while the Atari was 320x192. The Apple could put 8 colors on the screen in hires mode HOWEVER they do count black and white twice (there is a legitimate reason for them doing this) making the number of colors = 6. The Atari could put 4 colors on the screen in hires mode but Atari wasn't limited to black and while. The background could be any color in Atari's 128 palette. Also, using display list interrupts one could change the background color which also changed the artifact colors. And they could also put two 3 color sprites on the screen at the same time bring the number of colors up to 10 (or even more if using DLI's to change the color vertically).
@@bjbell52 Neat. I have dabbled with programming on Apple II but I'm most proficient with C64. I own Mapping the Atari but have never tried to program for the system.
@@bjbell52 Atari in HiRes mode (Graphics 8) had a resolution of 320x192 but only in two colors. The mode you are talking about as HiRes with 4 colors is probably Graphics 15, but it had a resolution of 160x192, because each color was encoded by two bits, hence the line resolution was reduced by half. However, on Atari, all colors could be freely selected from a palette of 16 colors and 16 shades (i.e. 256). Apart from these, there were a lot of other graphics modes, some of them encoded colors differently. Additionally, sprites and projectiles had their own color registers. And if you add DLI interrupts to this, you could further increase the number of colors on the screen :) But that's a completely different story.
Excellent content as always. The Ghostbusters in the Atari version look like smurfs 😂 And the Atari release of Green Beret is just an embarrassment. I wonder who was in charge of quality control for that one.
Green Beret was an absolute joke at the time. I hold Atari themselves to account for how poor a lot of the games were, because they held back the hardware reference manuals. It's why some of the Activision games were actually really well done, because the devs came from Atari if I remember right.
I agree with your take on these. Generally speaking, it did seem like the Atari got better arcade ports than the other micros - so I'm not surprised with it edges out the C64 on those titles. Fortunately there's a remake of the C64 Galaxian that's way better I still need to try Gremlins on the C64. I've only ever played it on the Atari 5200 where it might have been the single best game on that console. There's just something addictive about its gameplay. I wouldn't be surprised if the 800 and 5200 versions are identical. It seemed like something was off with the Atari footage, like it was dropping frames or something. Did the games play this way too or was it just a video capture issue?
Gremlins was my Gold nugget from this round for sure. Gyruss was a little strange on the Atati, but I didn't notice it on any others Will have to look at that and see if I can duplicate.
Nope, the C64 and other micros outperformed the Atari on most arcade ports. In many cases, arcade ports weren't even attempted on the Atari due to its limited sprite capabilities.
@@R3tr0-ld4xb Really? Can you name a few of those games that outperformed the Atari? Can you name the games that weren't even attempted on the Atari? I know the Atari used bit mapped graphics for some things and sprites for other things. I also know that some programmers found ways to have more sprites and colors per display list (think of scan lines or groups of scan lines) using only software. Check out some of the games that came out of Europe (esp. Poland). I really doubt all those micros out performed the Atari, at least the ones they were competing with (Radio Shack, Apple, Commodore). So PROVE your claim because I really doubt that it's true.
@@bjbell52 Firstly, my comment was about arcade ports on the C64 and other 8-bit machines of the time, so your response about techniques discovered on the Atari in later years is irrelevant. Your response is additionally irrelevant because new techniques continue to be discovered on all the main 8-bit machines. Plus, numerous modern games on the stock C64 are way beyond Atari’s capabilities, like Atic Atac, Eye of the Beholder, Polar Bear in Space, Robot Jet Action, Runn n’ Gunn, Sam’s Journey, Soul Force, Zeta Wing 1 & 2, and many more. Secondly, are you serious about proof??? See below for a *very* few of the many commercial arcade ports on the C64, Spectrum, and CPC that weren’t attempted on the Atari at the time: Buggy Boy, Commando, Hypersports, Midnight Resistance, Outrun, Outrun Europa, Powerdrift, R-Type, Rodland, Salamander, Shinobi, Turbo Outrun. A few of these were attempted on the Atari in recent years, using the huge advantages of modern IDEs and no commercial or time pressure. But they’re still crap - Outrun and Commando immediately come to mind. In addition to all the above, there were numerous original/exclusives on the C64 during its commercial life that the Atari can't do, even today, like Armalyte, Denaris, Enforcer, Mayhem in Monsterland, Sanxion, The Last Ninja Series, The Turrican series, and many more.
I absolutely loved Gauntlet in the arcade, but I was pretty disappointed by the Atari computer version. They actually did a good job replicating the game given the Atari's technical limitations, and the game was still somewhat fun to play. However, it made me realize that the Atari computer was just not going to be able to replicate 1985 and beyond games. The character graphics were just too limited without enough color, and the 4 single colored sprites were just not enough. Still, the Atari computers were pretty amazing considering they were released in 1979. Atari graphics were far superior to TRS-80 and Apple II computers released just 2 years earlier.
Having neither a C=64 nor an 8-bit Atari BITD I don't have an overly lingering axe to grind... what I do find interesting about such comparisons is the only practicable difference between the machines is C=64 programmers tended to put in more effort than their Atari equivalents... ...I wonder if this might be due to the C=64 being relatively much more popular than the Atari in the UK - a place where the classic home micro had greater and longer-lasting appeal than the US.* *You can usually tell a US-coded game vs a UK-coded one. The former tend to give the impression of "Get it done as quickly as possible", whereas the latter tend to have more care put in to them. Funnily enough today I'd always pick the Atari version of a game if it's of equal or better quality, but more often play the C=64 version. Why? -I've never liked the dull C=64 palette, am not a huge fan of the SID vs POKEY (gasp!) -But it's more common to find the superior versions of games on the C=64
Atari held back the hardware reference manuals, so Atari development was a lot harder, which was really stupid on there part. The Atari is a very capable machine. Just check out the likes of Rescue on Fractalus, Eidolon, Ball Blazer, Alternate Reality just to name a few, that I think play to the Atari's strengths when the machine is coded properly. And Drop Zone on Atari is one of the best games to play.
@@leerudd1294yes I mean for more 3d or bitmap style manipulation Atari is a lot better. When it comes to side scrolling action with lots of sprites the C64 is hard to beat. Issue with c64 was not just the palette but the “stupid” choice to have one bit decide if a background tile is hires or multicolor. Due to that you could only choose from the first 8 colors and not the full 16 and that is why some games look a bit garish
The Atari 800XL did nothing in Europe and was destroyed by the C64, Spectrum, Amstrad and BBC Micro. But the Atari ST 16 bit computer was massively popular, with the Amiga 500.
You're absolutely right! The Atari 800XL struggled in Europe compared to the dominance of the C64, Spectrum, Amstrad, and BBC Micro. However, the Atari ST and Amiga 500 were indeed the big names in the 16-bit era. It's fascinating how those systems defined the landscape of computing in Europe!
Due to all the replies, I meant the Hardware was from 1979 (the 400) not the actual model 800XL. Same hardware 3 years older than the C64 but with more Ram. 😊 would still have loved a 400 though 😊😊😊😊😊
Yes but same applies to Atari as well. And amstrad and spectrum :) C64 was an excellent machine for scrolling sprite heavy action games. Pretty unbeatable there. But for more bitmap / vector based then Atari and others could be pushed to beat the c64 I mean it’s all down to how the architecture on the different machines had their strength and weakness. But like check modern spectrum games like “Serafina” that really blows my mind how they achieve really smooth multi parallax layer action with little color clash. Or some racing games and the space barrier port for Atari is crazy amazing where C64 don’t stand a chance. Then look what good c64 is if it has more storage and mem with the c64 port of master system version of Sonic which proves that basically C63 lower resolution aside could match most master system games
Slight Commodore Bias! But generally fair. My favorite version of Gorf is for the VIC 20. I just think it plays better the the C64 one. Green Beria was bad on the Atari, there really wasn't any excuse for making it that bad.
Gorf is great on the VIC-20. I also really enjoyed Omega Race on it (and a number of other arcadey games). The VIC's low resolution means the CPU doesn't have to move as much data, making fast graphics possible.
At that time, the ATARI arcade division and the ATARI home computer division were 2 seperate entities with absolutely no connection because the arcade division had been sold off to another company in 1983. Thus, the only connection was the ATARI name.
Gauntel was an interesting development, neither machine had a pretty amazing effort by a long shot and highlight what can go wrong with mediocre devs. By contrast the Amstrad port had some very talented people working on it so it actually scrolled really fast for that machine.
More love for the Amstrad. One day, I will get one of those. It always had such vibrant colors playing in emulation. I will load it up and try it on my retro pie Thanks for Watching!
@@litjellyfish Well the C64 port doesn't use colour ram and all the levels are flat grey background (Garrison is more colourful) and the Atari version used a single colour/16 luminance screen mode. The C64 port plays manically fast and is good enough and a lot less crash happy/choppy than the sequel. It just could have looked better on floor tiles and different background colours for each level not grey as Madcommodore showed with his pixel art skillz :)
@@FloppyDeepDive lol not love for the machine, I like 60fps capable machines more, but it had an excellent Gauntlet port. Amstrad monitor/emulators have saturation set to 100% and it's easy to gt th same colourful look on a real C64 on a TV as Madcommodore shows on stuff like Terra Cresta/Who Dares Wins II videos on his Sony with colour set to max :)
Haha... because, as the Stones once sang, "I'm a man of wealth and taste." But I have to admit that I did laugh out loud at how offhand that comment was. Your commentary on the games should be more of that and less scripted, IMO.
A C64 with Fastload cart or just an original C64 game with built-in fastloader easily matches or exceeds the Atari's disk speed. There are lots of easy and even free solutions for this, it's really not a big deal. The actual huge con is the Atari's tiny 90K single-density disk capacity, compared to 170K on a 1541 disk for the C64.
@@8_Bit It was possible to do 130k (with the 1050 drive), for one. And I had them and knew many ewith one or both. They did not match the load times for disk based games, they just didn't. And that includes games made to take advantage of it. Aaand it's not like that Atari's didn't have their own ways of making things even faster but it was via hardware modifations or a 3rd party drive. Most people didn't bother because we weren't having to wait 5 minutes to load games.
@@competetodefeat4610 The 1050 was released in mid-1983, far too late, and publishers weren't going to risk shipping 1050 format disks when so many users had an 810 disk drive, especially just to get an extra 40K per disk. Most commercial Atari disk games shipped on the 90K disks for this reason, and it contributed to the publishers abandoning Atari in favour of the C64. If we're talking about buying other drives, Commodore even had their SFD1001 disk drive that could store a full Megabyte (!) on a disk, and the 1571 also came along with 340K capacity but like the 1050 those didn't see much publisher support. And no C64 disk game took 5 minutes to load. 2 minutes is the upper end, and of course most commercial games would immediately switch to a software fastloader, and then load the rest of the game much more quickly.
This was close... Commodore 64 seemed to have slightly better detailed graphics... so Commodore 64 for a narrow win.. Atari 800 XL seemed decent on its own right.
What you have to remember is that the Atari come out 4 years before the C64... That's like SD to 4K comparison difference or spectrum 48k to an Amiga 500
The difference with the comparisons you’ve made is 4K is superior and the Amiga is superior, whereas in many areas the Atari XL is superior (faster CPU, more vibrant colours, four channels of sound rather than three). There are many games that show the capabilities of the Atari over the C64 (go compare ElektraGlide and Rescue on Fractalus, for example).
The comparison is between the Atari 800XL and the C64. The 800XL came out more than a year AFTER the C64 so the comparison is entirely fair. If for some reason you mean the Atari 800, that only came out 2 years 9 months before the C64, not 4 years before.
@@mortimore4030You don't know what you're talking about. The C64 had 3 16-bit channels. The Atari had 4 8-bit channels. Therefore, having 4 channels doesn't make the Atari better. Plus, the C64 sound was multiwave, the Atari was single wave. The C64 also had superior colour and graphics capabilities in many cases, and better built-in hardware capabilities, like sub pixel scrolling. There are countless games on the C64 that are way beyond the Atari's capabilities.
It's really difficult for Atari games to match the C64 for horizontal scrollers with half the sprites per horizontal area, and half the scrolling resolution for a multicolour game. For vertical scrollers the Atari has a lot more going for it.
I actually spent a while looking for good Atari side-scrolling platformers and besides an impressive Mario-style game called Crownland that seems to be pulling every modern trick in the book (and will only run on PAL as a result) I couldn't find any. Any suggestions? Especially games actually from the '80s and early '90s.
@@8_Bit The Atari may be more suited to vertical scrollers but still no match for the C64. Games like Zeta Wing 1 and 2, LED Storm, Thunder blade, Corescape, and countless others are impossible on the Atari.
@@R3tr0-ld4xb I generally agree. The one category I'm aware of where the Atari's hardware is consistently stronger than the C64's is pseudo-3d / first person like BallBlazer, Rescue on Fractalus, ElectraGlide etc. where the ~20% faster CPU and strong vertical use of colour give it the edge.
C64 vs Atari Play List
ruclips.net/p/PL70122o_bB73I419GmCnyM0W_OIDWwXez&si=pPYpQGY1a2qoLasX
I am 56 years old, I was firmly in the "Commodore" camp back in the day by choice, not until many years later as a retro collector would I obtain various Atari 8 and 16 bit machines, even still I would have never changed being a "Commodore" kid, honestly this series has simply reminded me just how amazing the C64 was for it's time!
We had a very similar journey! Appreciate you sharing and Thanks for Watching!
The Atari came out 3 years BEFORE the C64 and its graphics coprocessor allowed it to do sprites and fine horizontal and vertical scrolling. It also allowed many graphic and character modes that could be mixed allowing it to do more than the C64 could.
@@bjbell52Where's the evidence?
C64 is still amazing, the legendary SID chip.
Nobody really ceases from being a fan of his childhood system. I have around 20 different retro systems from the 80s(8&16bit) and I daily end up firing up my Atari XL. The familiarity and lack of hassle make it ideal for a quick game session.(No need to change joystick ports, no need to write a cryptic text line for a game to load(autoboot), no need to find out which key starts a game etc.). Most 00's ports of popular games are equally good and many times superior on the A8 so I don't really bother using my C64c fo playing them, plus Atari's PAL color palette is more pleasing than C64 PAL colors. So there are many factors that guide people's preferences.
Awesome video! I'm so glad I found you on Twitter.
I'm glad you found us too! Welcome to the channel! 😁 Thanks for watching!
C64 all day for me based on these comparisons but I can appreciate the Atari 800XL games a lot too. Legendary games featured here for the letter 'G' - these all really take me back! I've always loved these 80's movie-based games, and Green Beret is still so good. Many other classics here like Gauntlet, Gorf, and others - just awesome!
Thanks, buddy! It's always good to have you stop by and give your 2 cents.
Really enjoying the Floppy Deep Dive channel. I started out with the VIC from my grandfather after he kindly loaned me his Tandy machine. After that got the C128. Now I’m back 30 years later to the C64C. Using Mssiah cartridge to make some music has been so much fun.
Thank you so much! We all come back to our Commodores! Thanks for Watching!
Played all these games between 1984-1985. Started with tape unit, but soon got a disk drive. September 1984 changed the path of my life, when I bought my first C64.
That's awesome 👍🏻 Thanks for Watching!
Nice video! One small remark: 11:47 Gremlins was never officially released for the Atari 8-bit home computers. What you are playing is a conversion of the Atari 5200 game (the 5200 is almost technically the same as the Atari 8-bit computers, but not 100% compatible).
I did not know that! I love learning more about these games and systems. Thanks!
@@FloppyDeepDive good video on youtube - atari 800xl games vs commodore 64 games . gauntlet, ghostbusters, gyross, gremlins, green beret look on commodore 64 better
@@FloppyDeepDive hi i have question . can you make video about atari st games and amiga games on youtube
You got Toccata right, but it's Toccata and "FYOOG" in D-Minor 🙂
Really enjoyable video. New sub and thumb!
Cool, thanks! Welcome to the channel! Thanks for Watching!
Great video! Early "G letter"games weren't kind to the Atari 8bit family!
Gaunlet was really bad for the Atari series, this is why Atari returned 3 years later with "Dark Chambers".
At Ghostbusters I thought I was controlling a couple of smurfs on my Atari. Only recently I realize I was dealing with figures of the ghost busters.
Goonies, never liked this game. It looks and sound similar on both machines.
Galaxian , the ability of the Atari machine to not depend on its sprites engine for smooth scrolling is obvious here. On the other hand it was a bad call on the C64 not to use sprites.
Gyruss , I've played this game on both machines and the main difference is that the C64 version is faster. The controls are accurate and fluid on the Atari but a bit slower.
Gorf is better on the C64 for a good reason. Gorf was an 800/400 game aimed for systems with less memory.
Gremlins on NTSC systems look different. The colors on the Atari PAL game look more vibrant than the C64 port. That's common for many PAL games for those two systems.
Green Beret, I remember laughing when I loaded this game on my Atari for the first time. I never loaded it again. Really bad on the Atari while its a really good effort on the C64
Gateway to Apshai and Gridrunner are basic and they look and sound similar.
Thank you my friend. Always great to hear from you and read your reviews.
Was there a problem with the video capture or emulator for the Atari Gyruss footage? It seemed to be freezing or stuttering; I'd be surprised if the game did that on real hardware!
I was amazed how similar The Goonies was on the two platforms, but then Bruce Lee is very similar on both platforms too, and some of the same people worked on both.
I was surprised how much slower Gauntlet is on the Atari. I expected the extra 20% or so CPU cycles the Atari has over the C64 to have been more than enough to render all those software sprites.
I was using real hardware. Gyruss was acting weird on the Atari. That's why I mentioned C64 was so much smoother. I wonder if I could duplicate it. Good eye! Great insight!
@@FloppyDeepDive Possibly the Hardware it was running on. Some games ran better on the Original Hardware, 400/800 machines due to changes in the custom chips in the later machines that had various querks.
@@leerudd1294 Could it be a NTSC vs PAL issue? Some US versions were fixed for PAL, and vice versa.
Im an Atari man, but i very much appreciate the great C64 and i admit i like the speccy very much!
I would think how some games are better on one machine over the other is down to the programmers. A remake of these games nowadays would be impressive , if you have seen some of the demos on both machines from recent times its truly amazing what both machines can do.
Most impressive thing ive seen is Atari actually emulate the SID. Astounding achievement.
Overall i dont think one is better than the other. Both are brilliant!
Both the C64 and Atari 800XL have their strengths, and it’s amazing to see what modern demos can do on both systems today. The SID emulation on Atari is truly impressive. It’s hard to say one is better than the other-both are fantastic in their own right. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Check "I am a SID Alternative Facts (remix)" by Roland Voss (triace) on ASMA library.
I myself prefer the clean sounds of Pokey in tunes like "Rastan"& "Candy mountain" by BeWu or "Beyond the Stars" & "Be strong" by Gaetano Chiummo.
@nickolasgaspar9660 I prefer pokey also, in the right hands it's mind blowing what it can do. As each atari and c64 have their strengths, that's what makes me think neither are really better than the other.
For the Gauntlet comparison, make sure you are comparing the same character class in each, different classes have different abilities including rate of fire. Also be sure to compare if games have multiplayer options.
Keep up the good work!
Good point! Thanks brotha! 👊🏻👍🏻
BTW the strange colors being displayed by the 800XL was from a change to the color artifacting and was different than the original 800. So a lot of the goofy XL colors you see are because of this.
I did not know this, thanks for heads up. Thanks for Watching!
Seems like often that which version was superior didn't necessarily come down to hardware limitations but instead was determined by which platform the original version of the game was created on. Often a genius game maker would make the original version and then the publisher would get a less accomplished talent to create the ports for other systems. The less accomplished talent(s) would put less time and skill into the ports, as it wasn't as much of a labor of love for them, more of a job they got hired to do as quickly as possible.
Good observation
Great vid. Green beret also has "that" loading music and great title music on rhe c64.
Yes sir! Thanks for Watching!
Really like this series. But I don't think, that the Atari Galaga uses HW sprites, as the system did not had enough of them.
Thanks, glad you like it. Thanks for Watching!
My best guess, they used a redefined character set when the aliens were in formation and sprites when they were flying down for the attack.
Hey Tom! lol as, like you, I never knew about this Gremlins game either only the text adventure. haha. Well that was. great list and I have to agree with you on all the pics. I might give the C64 a little nudge on Gridrunner as the graphics are slightly cleaner and less blurry.
Thank you, sir!! How did we all miss Gremlins? You are probably right on Gridrunner.
I loved GI Joe on C64 when I was young. Awesome game
Good one
Played Ghostbusters at a friends house on the C64 mostly around Xmas time. Always enjoyed it, never had it on the Atari. As for Green Beret on the Atari, oh my god that was abysmal. Those developers should have been put up against the firing squad.
As for the Goonies, I really enjoyed it on the Atari. Never played Gremlins, and the other titles I never played either.
Good video though showing the titles off.
Thank you. I'm glad you like it, my friend.
Man I loved Gateway To Apshai on the c64. Loads of replayability there and I played it a lot.
It was great! Thanks for Watching!
Nice overview, thanks! At the end of the day,a game holds up or it doesn't. It's not really nostalgia when some modern games just combine gameplay but with sharper effects and 500-channel sound, hehe. Imagine Yar's Revenge revised to play on a 70.1 Dolby system hehe
Gauntlet - C64 wins on music and shooting, but for effects and visuals, both are on par
Ghostbusters- Atari version look like big Smurfs. C64 got more love but the theme did sound a little better, even if sound sampling was rarer...
Gremlins and Galaxian = Atari with ease, especially sound and smoothness. It's interesting to hear the strengths and weaknesses of both sound coprocessore.
Apshi is brighter on the Atari. Both versions remind me of the Commodore Pet game "Dungeon".
Never played the others.
P.s. I am in Camp Atari
Thanks for watching! Glad you enjoyed the overview. Totally agree that some games just hold up, and others don’t, regardless of the nostalgia factor. The idea of Yars’ Revenge with modern sound effects cracked me up! Also, interesting points on Gauntlet and Ghostbusters. I definitely think the C64’s music often had a slight edge, but the Atari had its strengths too, especially in sound and smoothness with games like Gremlins and Galaxian. Always great to hear different perspectives-especially from someone in Camp Atari! Appreciate the feedback!
Agree with you on each game. When a C64 game looks better, it looks CLEARLY better. (I found Gyruss sounds better on the XL, but that's more from memory than your review. And yes the XL graphics on that one are quite 'muddy')
Glad that 'G' included Ghostbusters as I downlaoded a homebrew version for the TI-99/4A a couple weeks ago, that I forgot about entirely. I'll copy it over to the SD card and check it out right now!
It's written by the same coder who ported Sega's Alex Kidd over to the 4A a couple years ago, and that was exceptional, so looking forward to his go at Ghostbusters. Who knew that some of the best Arcade ports would appear for our early 80's systems 40 years later ??? And it really doesn't matter what your system of choice is, there's a never ending stream of new software - with each new title pushing the limits of the hardware in a way we could never have imagined!
When limits are reached - new hardware is concocted.
Thanks for the awesome comment and for sharing your thoughts! I agree-when the C64 has the visual advantage, it’s a pretty obvious win. Gyruss is an interesting one, and it’s cool to hear your perspective on the XL’s sound. I love that you’re diving into a homebrew version of Ghostbusters on the TI-99/4A-those modern retro releases are just incredible. It’s amazing what coders are doing with 40-year-old hardware today, pushing systems beyond what we ever thought possible. Enjoy your time with Ghostbusters, and thanks for watching!
i played gyruss and green beret on the arcade and my c64. both where made very well on the c64. "arcade perfect" as possible on the c64
Agree! 👊🏻👏🏻
Gremlins was the only game I had never seen before too. Looks neat, and interesting to learn from another comment that it was actually just an Atari 5200 release officially, which got converted to the Atari computer platform (fairly easy to do since they're so similar, but still). Green Beret was amazingly bad on the Atari, pretty shocking! Gateway to Apshai is a favourite of mine too, nice to see it well done on both systems. I found the extra flashing on the Atari version of Gridrunner annoying, but Jeff Minter probably just did that because it's really easy to implement on the Atari since the wider colour palette is one of its strengths. It would be just a few lines of assembly to do that on the Atari, but quite a bit more on the C64 and the colour changes wouldn't be as smooth either.
I wonder how we all missed Gremlins? Always enjoy reading your comments, Robin! Thanks for Watching!
I really enjoy your videos. I never had a computer as a child but i had a friend that had the c64. I played Beach Head a lot. Please dont think i am picking on you when i tell you Fugue is pronounced fewg. The u and e are silent. Thanks for your great content!
I appreciate it!! I knew I was saying it wrong; thanks for letting me know and for Watching!
All I’ve got to say is spot on with your conclusions 😊
Smart man! Lol 😆 Thanks for Watching!
Love the Channel
Thank you for the kind words!
Commodore 64 was such a great computer. The price for its time was more than fair.
Agree! Thanks for Watching!
Do you have any commodore 16 games. Some of those were really good.
I don't have one.
Commodore 64 is still supported in 2024. New Demos, Games and software.
In fact someone made a mouse controlled OS for C64 in recent time too.
All the new stuff is still coming out for the C64!
@@FloppyDeepDive Yes. C64 never died, and it's 42 years old now.
In fact even Amiga gets over 50 new games in 2024.
As is the Atari
@@tharkthax3960 I believe that.
Nicely Done 👏
The C64 version of Gorf had speech if you had the magic voice cartridge. Same goes for Wizard of Wor.
Thank you! I need a magic voice cartridge.
Your analysis of each game seemed pretty accurate. The only thing I would differ on is Galaxian. Neither version seemed very good to me. Galaxian was all about being accurate with your shots. In the C64 version the enemies moved too "wonky" for that too happen and in the Atari version your ship moves way to fast allowing you to get out of bad situations too easily making strategy less important. I guess home versions were always nerfed a bit because it was trying to appeal to a broader audience than arcades and it wasn't trying to get more of your money, haha, you already spent it.
Thanks for the series! You are constantly looking at games I never knew about.
Good insight! Thanks for Watching!
Atari holds up well for 3 years older. It was a great machine for it’s time 😊😊😊😊😊
I think so too! Thanks for Watching!
Atari 800 XL was released in 1983. The C64 was released in 1982.
@@R3tr0-ld4xb The Atari 400/800 were released in the year of 79, so 3 years ahead of the 64. The Architecture is very similar, the only difference being the extra ram, and some hardware changes, but the overall machine is exactly the same.
@@leerudd1294 You contradict yourself: "some hardware changes but exactly the same".
Contradictions aside, using your logic, one can argue that the C64 was a VIC20 with "some hardware changes" making the C64 two years older.
@@R3tr0-ld4xb the hardware changes they made were to do with the memory, reduction of parts etc, the main custom chips are basically the same as released in the 400/800 range. The only change i remember was the Ctia chip being upgraded to Gtia and i had that upgrade in my 800 as it was released before the 800xl range came out, so still before the release of the c64.
Other than that, most of the Atari hardware specs stayed the same throughout its life.
So no, the c64 wasnt just a vic20 with hardware changes, as its a whole new machine.
Atari vs Commodore was always a bit of a mismatched comparison to me.
The Atari launched a full three years earlier and the c64 lasted later into the 80s and very early 90s
For me, the Atari does a lot of fast , golden era arcade games better while the c64 has a lot better/more late 80s stuff, rpgs and the like.
There’s always been this big competition but the two systems complement each other remarkably well game wise.
On a graphics and sound front, the c64 is slightly better but it comes down to the individual game, often times.
However, back in the day, the Atari was a more well rounded general use PC than the c64c with its terribly slow drive and inflexible dos. The apple 2 was a far better productivity machine than either, and a far worse game matching than both.
For me, it’s the Atari line, followed very closely by the c64.
“Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree that the Atari vs. Commodore comparison can feel a bit mismatched, especially considering the timeline differences. The Atari really shines with those fast-paced arcade ports, while the C64 comes into its own with more complex late 80s games and RPGs. It’s true that both systems have their strengths, and it’s interesting how they complement each other depending on the type of game. I also hear you on the C64’s slow drive and DOS limitations compared to the Atari’s versatility as a general-use PC. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference and what games you’re into. I’ll be diving into these kinds of comparisons in future videos, so stay tuned!”
based on our current understanding of technology we can call it a mismatch but not back then. Their processors remained at the forefront for almost a decade. The only difference between those two machines was their architectural approach and their custom silicons. The C64 graphic engine was technically more advance, while Atari's dual Graphic chip, large palette and faster architecture could close the gap and even produce superior results under specific scenarios.
Common ports and homebrew titles verify this"face off" in my opinion. We have titles that look identical i.e. bruce lee , henry's house, zorro etc and we have homebrew titles that take advantage the specific powers of each machine (i.e. Atari Yoomp!, Total eclipse, Prince of Persia, vs C64 high res games and the list goes on).
I don't subscribe to absolute statements "The C64/Atari, is much better than the other", because they weren't/aren't.Again different scenarios favor different architectures.
The Atari machine was a far better multimedia (out of the box) machine while the C64 had far better RAM and Color management with Supreme High Res quality.
At the department of sound, again, the approach was different. A cut down Roland chip with amazing synth capabilities for the C64, while a Hybrid PCM chip with Tracker sampling and a very good softsynth engine for the Atari8bit. (Unfortunately most of the music library was produce in eastern Europe and most western retro users aren't familiar with the actual capabilities of the Pokey chip).
The quality homebrew library of both machines prove that those machines were closer than we think and they are still trading blows....for the benefit of their users.
Atari 8-bit Ghostbusters certainly had voice samples, at least the tape version I have does.
It just says Ghostbusters, nothing else, like he slimed me.
Not surprising you gave the games that were programmed mostly with Hi-Res mode a tie. That brief period near the early days of both computers where a lot of the games were coming from the Apple II. Although I'm not as familiar with the Atari's architecture, it seems both companies were keen enough to add a Hi-Res mode in a way that apparently was easy enough to port from Apple II games.
Very good point! Thanks for Watching!
When I got my first Atari computer, an Atari 400 but with 16K (at the time, the 400 came with 8K) many of the games were ports of Apple games because the hires mode of both system were very similar. I actually learned how to write games using bit mapped graphics (when the program actually draw each pixel itself instead of relying on hardware to do the work) from a book about programming on the Apple. Apple hires was 280×192 while the Atari was 320x192.
The Apple could put 8 colors on the screen in hires mode HOWEVER they do count black and white twice (there is a legitimate reason for them doing this) making the number of colors = 6. The Atari could put 4 colors on the screen in hires mode but Atari wasn't limited to black and while. The background could be any color in Atari's 128 palette. Also, using display list interrupts one could change the background color which also changed the artifact colors. And they could also put two 3 color sprites on the screen at the same time bring the number of colors up to 10 (or even more if using DLI's to change the color vertically).
@@bjbell52 Neat. I have dabbled with programming on Apple II but I'm most proficient with C64. I own Mapping the Atari but have never tried to program for the system.
@@bjbell52 Atari in HiRes mode (Graphics 8) had a resolution of 320x192 but only in two colors. The mode you are talking about as HiRes with 4 colors is probably Graphics 15, but it had a resolution of 160x192, because each color was encoded by two bits, hence the line resolution was reduced by half. However, on Atari, all colors could be freely selected from a palette of 16 colors and 16 shades (i.e. 256). Apart from these, there were a lot of other graphics modes, some of them encoded colors differently. Additionally, sprites and projectiles had their own color registers. And if you add DLI interrupts to this, you could further increase the number of colors on the screen :) But that's a completely different story.
Excellent content as always.
The Ghostbusters in the Atari version look like smurfs 😂
And the Atari release of Green Beret is just an embarrassment.
I wonder who was in charge of quality control for that one.
Green Beret was an absolute joke at the time. I hold Atari themselves to account for how poor a lot of the games were, because they held back the hardware reference manuals. It's why some of the Activision games were actually really well done, because the devs came from Atari if I remember right.
Thank you, friend! They did look like Smurfs! I saw your latest video; it's good stuff!
@@FloppyDeepDive Ah thanks man, I really appreciate that
I agree with your take on these. Generally speaking, it did seem like the Atari got better arcade ports than the other micros - so I'm not surprised with it edges out the C64 on those titles. Fortunately there's a remake of the C64 Galaxian that's way better
I still need to try Gremlins on the C64. I've only ever played it on the Atari 5200 where it might have been the single best game on that console. There's just something addictive about its gameplay. I wouldn't be surprised if the 800 and 5200 versions are identical.
It seemed like something was off with the Atari footage, like it was dropping frames or something. Did the games play this way too or was it just a video capture issue?
Gremlins was my Gold nugget from this round for sure. Gyruss was a little strange on the Atati, but I didn't notice it on any others Will have to look at that and see if I can duplicate.
Nope, the C64 and other micros outperformed the Atari on most arcade ports. In many cases, arcade ports weren't even attempted on the Atari due to its limited sprite capabilities.
@@R3tr0-ld4xb Really? Can you name a few of those games that outperformed the Atari? Can you name the games that weren't even attempted on the Atari?
I know the Atari used bit mapped graphics for some things and sprites for other things. I also know that some programmers found ways to have more sprites and colors per display list (think of scan lines or groups of scan lines) using only software. Check out some of the games that came out of Europe (esp. Poland).
I really doubt all those micros out performed the Atari, at least the ones they were competing with (Radio Shack, Apple, Commodore).
So PROVE your claim because I really doubt that it's true.
@@bjbell52 Firstly, my comment was about arcade ports on the C64 and other 8-bit machines of the time, so your response about techniques discovered on the Atari in later years is irrelevant. Your response is additionally irrelevant because new techniques continue to be discovered on all the main 8-bit machines. Plus, numerous modern games on the stock C64 are way beyond Atari’s capabilities, like Atic Atac, Eye of the Beholder, Polar Bear in Space, Robot Jet Action, Runn n’ Gunn, Sam’s Journey, Soul Force, Zeta Wing 1 & 2, and many more.
Secondly, are you serious about proof??? See below for a *very* few of the many commercial arcade ports on the C64, Spectrum, and CPC that weren’t attempted on the Atari at the time:
Buggy Boy, Commando, Hypersports, Midnight Resistance, Outrun, Outrun Europa, Powerdrift, R-Type, Rodland, Salamander, Shinobi, Turbo Outrun.
A few of these were attempted on the Atari in recent years, using the huge advantages of modern IDEs and no commercial or time pressure. But they’re still crap - Outrun and Commando immediately come to mind.
In addition to all the above, there were numerous original/exclusives on the C64 during its commercial life that the Atari can't do, even today, like Armalyte, Denaris, Enforcer, Mayhem in Monsterland, Sanxion, The Last Ninja Series, The Turrican series, and many more.
Nice one. I had the C64, my friend got the 800XL. I liked both. Mostly, the graphic on the C64 was Better, but I also liked the Atari.
Thanks!! Appreciate you watching!
I had a 2600 till 82, wish I had the 800XL at the time 😊
Loved both!
I absolutely loved Gauntlet in the arcade, but I was pretty disappointed by the Atari computer version. They actually did a good job replicating the game given the Atari's technical limitations, and the game was still somewhat fun to play. However, it made me realize that the Atari computer was just not going to be able to replicate 1985 and beyond games. The character graphics were just too limited without enough color, and the 4 single colored sprites were just not enough. Still, the Atari computers were pretty amazing considering they were released in 1979. Atari graphics were far superior to TRS-80 and Apple II computers released just 2 years earlier.
Thanks for Watching!
Having neither a C=64 nor an 8-bit Atari BITD I don't have an overly lingering axe to grind... what I do find interesting about such comparisons is the only practicable difference between the machines is C=64 programmers tended to put in more effort than their Atari equivalents...
...I wonder if this might be due to the C=64 being relatively much more popular than the Atari in the UK - a place where the classic home micro had greater and longer-lasting appeal than the US.*
*You can usually tell a US-coded game vs a UK-coded one. The former tend to give the impression of "Get it done as quickly as possible", whereas the latter tend to have more care put in to them.
Funnily enough today I'd always pick the Atari version of a game if it's of equal or better quality, but more often play the C=64 version.
Why?
-I've never liked the dull C=64 palette, am not a huge fan of the SID vs POKEY (gasp!)
-But it's more common to find the superior versions of games on the C=64
Atari held back the hardware reference manuals, so Atari development was a lot harder, which was really stupid on there part. The Atari is a very capable machine. Just check out the likes of Rescue on Fractalus, Eidolon, Ball Blazer, Alternate Reality just to name a few, that I think play to the Atari's strengths when the machine is coded properly. And Drop Zone on Atari is one of the best games to play.
@@leerudd1294yes I mean for more 3d or bitmap style manipulation Atari is a lot better. When it comes to side scrolling action with lots of sprites the C64 is hard to beat.
Issue with c64 was not just the palette but the “stupid” choice to have one bit decide if a background tile is hires or multicolor. Due to that you could only choose from the first 8 colors and not the full 16 and that is why some games look a bit garish
Thanks for Watching!
Thanks for Watching!
The Atari 800XL did nothing in Europe and was destroyed by the C64, Spectrum, Amstrad and BBC Micro. But the Atari ST 16 bit computer was massively popular, with the Amiga 500.
You're absolutely right! The Atari 800XL struggled in Europe compared to the dominance of the C64, Spectrum, Amstrad, and BBC Micro. However, the Atari ST and Amiga 500 were indeed the big names in the 16-bit era. It's fascinating how those systems defined the landscape of computing in Europe!
Due to all the replies, I meant the Hardware was from 1979 (the 400) not the actual model 800XL. Same hardware 3 years older than the C64 but with more Ram. 😊 would still have loved a 400 though 😊😊😊😊😊
Thanks for Watching!
When programmers really tried the C64 will shock you with it's ability to push the graphics
Agree!!
Yes but same applies to Atari as well. And amstrad and spectrum :)
C64 was an excellent machine for scrolling sprite heavy action games. Pretty unbeatable there.
But for more bitmap / vector based then Atari and others could be pushed to beat the c64
I mean it’s all down to how the architecture on the different machines had their strength and weakness.
But like check modern spectrum games like “Serafina” that really blows my mind how they achieve really smooth multi parallax layer action with little color clash.
Or some racing games and the space barrier port for Atari is crazy amazing where C64 don’t stand a chance.
Then look what good c64 is if it has more storage and mem with the c64 port of master system version of Sonic which proves that basically C63 lower resolution aside could match most master system games
Slight Commodore Bias! But generally fair.
My favorite version of Gorf is for the VIC 20. I just think it plays better the the C64 one.
Green Beria was bad on the Atari, there really wasn't any excuse for making it that bad.
Guilty! 😆 Thanks for Watching!
Gorf is great on the VIC-20. I also really enjoyed Omega Race on it (and a number of other arcadey games). The VIC's low resolution means the CPU doesn't have to move as much data, making fast graphics possible.
Green Beret looks great on the C64. Although the Amstrad version i think is even better.
Are you serious? The Amstrad version is terrible. Horrendous scrolling (if you can even call it scrolling) and sprites. Terrible audio too.
@R3tr0-ld4xb it's my opinion and that's what I think but thanks for your thoughts.
I'll have to give it a play.
@FloppyDeepDive it's what I grew up with on the cpc6128 so I suppose I have rose coloured glasses on a bit lol.
Not thoughts, simple facts.
Gauntlet being lesser on the 800XL is kind of embarrassing, when you consider Gauntlet is an Atari game.
Right!?! Thanks for Watching!
The game wasn't made by the same company, atari split in the early 80s, games division and computer division bought by jack t
At that time, the ATARI arcade division and the ATARI home computer division were 2 seperate entities with absolutely no connection because the arcade division had been sold off to another company in 1983. Thus, the only connection was the ATARI name.
I still remember buying green beret for the 800xl. I was so disappointed, it was awful.
That is very sad 😩 I feel for you brotha! Thanks for Watching!
Totally with you there. It was one of the worst let downs ever.
Gauntel was an interesting development, neither machine had a pretty amazing effort by a long shot and highlight what can go wrong with mediocre devs. By contrast the Amstrad port had some very talented people working on it so it actually scrolled really fast for that machine.
More love for the Amstrad. One day, I will get one of those. It always had such vibrant colors playing in emulation. I will load it up and try it on my retro pie Thanks for Watching!
Loved the Amstrad version, and so much more colourful too. Was probably the best version out there compared to the arcade.
Oh I found the gauntlet ports good visually and gameplay if you look at the arcade. What is that you don’t like in them?
@@litjellyfish Well the C64 port doesn't use colour ram and all the levels are flat grey background (Garrison is more colourful) and the Atari version used a single colour/16 luminance screen mode. The C64 port plays manically fast and is good enough and a lot less crash happy/choppy than the sequel. It just could have looked better on floor tiles and different background colours for each level not grey as Madcommodore showed with his pixel art skillz :)
@@FloppyDeepDive lol not love for the machine, I like 60fps capable machines more, but it had an excellent Gauntlet port. Amstrad monitor/emulators have saturation set to 100% and it's easy to gt th same colourful look on a real C64 on a TV as Madcommodore shows on stuff like Terra Cresta/Who Dares Wins II videos on his Sony with colour set to max :)
Great vid as usual. C-64 all the way!
Thank you for the kind words, my friend. Thanks for Watching!
I'm pretty sure there is a better port of Galaxian on the C64. But I could be suffering from Mandela effect.
Could be. This is the one I played back then.
I must add Green Beret on Atari was a joke. Its not the Ataris fault, its the rush job programmers!
Totally agree! Green Beret on Atari definitely had its issues, but like you said, it’s more on the rushed development than the hardware itself.
Gridrunner on the C64 is much better, way to much flashing on the Atari version 18:06
I can see that.
Not a classical music aficionado, eh Tom? 😏
Lol, why did I think of you when I said that? 😆
Haha... because, as the Stones once sang, "I'm a man of wealth and taste."
But I have to admit that I did laugh out loud at how offhand that comment was. Your commentary on the games should be more of that and less scripted, IMO.
Appreciate the input.
They both had their pros and cons. One huge con for for the C64 was the load times (even with a FastLoad cart).
It's really not that bad. I'm not loading from tape. Thanks for Watching!
A C64 with Fastload cart or just an original C64 game with built-in fastloader easily matches or exceeds the Atari's disk speed. There are lots of easy and even free solutions for this, it's really not a big deal. The actual huge con is the Atari's tiny 90K single-density disk capacity, compared to 170K on a 1541 disk for the C64.
@@8_Bit It was possible to do 130k (with the 1050 drive), for one. And I had them and knew many ewith one or both. They did not match the load times for disk based games, they just didn't. And that includes games made to take advantage of it. Aaand it's not like that Atari's didn't have their own ways of making things even faster but it was via hardware modifations or a 3rd party drive. Most people didn't bother because we weren't having to wait 5 minutes to load games.
@@competetodefeat4610 The 1050 was released in mid-1983, far too late, and publishers weren't going to risk shipping 1050 format disks when so many users had an 810 disk drive, especially just to get an extra 40K per disk. Most commercial Atari disk games shipped on the 90K disks for this reason, and it contributed to the publishers abandoning Atari in favour of the C64. If we're talking about buying other drives, Commodore even had their SFD1001 disk drive that could store a full Megabyte (!) on a disk, and the 1571 also came along with 340K capacity but like the 1050 those didn't see much publisher support. And no C64 disk game took 5 minutes to load. 2 minutes is the upper end, and of course most commercial games would immediately switch to a software fastloader, and then load the rest of the game much more quickly.
@@8_Bit Bung a Happy Chip in the Atari 1050 floppy drive, and it's like a rocket ship, games load in seconds.
This was close... Commodore 64 seemed to have slightly better detailed graphics... so Commodore 64 for a narrow win.. Atari 800 XL seemed decent on its own right.
Thanks for Watching!
Easy Commodore win.
Easy enough
atari best
Thanks for Watching!
Gateway to apshai on atari looks bit better because of color scheme, just fit bit better with that kind of game. Just saying 😉
I'll accept that.
The commodore has better sound the atari has better display modes
Thanks for Watching!
What you have to remember is that the Atari come out 4 years before the C64... That's like SD to 4K comparison difference or spectrum 48k to an Amiga 500
The difference with the comparisons you’ve made is 4K is superior and the Amiga is superior, whereas in many areas the Atari XL is superior (faster CPU, more vibrant colours, four channels of sound rather than three).
There are many games that show the capabilities of the Atari over the C64 (go compare ElektraGlide and Rescue on Fractalus, for example).
I did Elektraglide in the E’s.
Thanks for Watching!
The comparison is between the Atari 800XL and the C64. The 800XL came out more than a year AFTER the C64 so the comparison is entirely fair. If for some reason you mean the Atari 800, that only came out 2 years 9 months before the C64, not 4 years before.
@@mortimore4030You don't know what you're talking about.
The C64 had 3 16-bit channels. The Atari had 4 8-bit channels. Therefore, having 4 channels doesn't make the Atari better. Plus, the C64 sound was multiwave, the Atari was single wave.
The C64 also had superior colour and graphics capabilities in many cases, and better built-in hardware capabilities, like sub pixel scrolling.
There are countless games on the C64 that are way beyond the Atari's capabilities.
The Atari deserved a better version of Green Beret. I could be as good as the C64 version.
It needed one. Thanks for Watching!
It's really difficult for Atari games to match the C64 for horizontal scrollers with half the sprites per horizontal area, and half the scrolling resolution for a multicolour game. For vertical scrollers the Atari has a lot more going for it.
I actually spent a while looking for good Atari side-scrolling platformers and besides an impressive Mario-style game called Crownland that seems to be pulling every modern trick in the book (and will only run on PAL as a result) I couldn't find any. Any suggestions? Especially games actually from the '80s and early '90s.
@@8_Bit The Atari may be more suited to vertical scrollers but still no match for the C64. Games like Zeta Wing 1 and 2, LED Storm, Thunder blade, Corescape, and countless others are impossible on the Atari.
@@R3tr0-ld4xb I generally agree. The one category I'm aware of where the Atari's hardware is consistently stronger than the C64's is pseudo-3d / first person like BallBlazer, Rescue on Fractalus, ElectraGlide etc. where the ~20% faster CPU and strong vertical use of colour give it the edge.
Its joke ? Any good platformer game like on c64? Flimbos quest ? Atari800, yes, good joke. Try with real computer. Ha ha ha.
Thanks for Watching!
Of course Galaxian looks better on the Atari, They (Atarisoft) published both versions.
Makes sense. Thanks for Watching!