I don't know if it's a capture thing, but in most cases the Atari seems to have noticeably higher frame rates and smoother animation. The C64 can display more colors on screen simultaneously, but the fixed color palette sometimes makes the graphics look weird. The SID usually produces a more appealing soundtrack, though not by as much as I would have thought based on its reputation.
The C64 has far better color management but it can't reach the number of colors on screen Atari can do. There are so many games displaying 16 to even 60+ colors. That said the C64 color palette is small but well thought allowing great hi res artwork and great in game palette when the programmer is also an artist. The said part is that like in many 8bit machines people without graphical aesthetics ended up producing the same monotonus dirty grey/purple look of c64 games.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I would hardly call a fixed palette of 16 colors to be color management at all, let alone superior. There is no mode on the C64 that lets you use more than 16 colors, and those 16 colors are always the same. The two machines were quite different in how they handled graphics. The Atari had a lot more flexibility in terms of which colors you could use. It had a palette of 128 (or 256 on later models) colors, and for most modes you could choose any of those in varying numbers. The C64, by contrast, only had a total of 16 colors... that's it, no matter what mode you were in. The C64 had a few higher resolution modes that allowed more colors on screen simultaneously than similar resolution modes on the Atari, but those colors always had to come from that same fixed palette of 16. And it had some significant limitations on how many of those colors could be used in close proximity to one another. I don't think it's fair to say one is better than the other... it all depends on the needs of the developer. But a fixed palette of 16 colors is hardly better color management than a flexible palette of 128/256. And the display list / display list interrupt capabilities of the Atari allowed a lot more flexibility than its basic design might suggest. If you think I'm wrong, do a quick search online. They're both very well documented.
@@djp_video as an owner of both machines (so I'm not biased) I dare to say, you are absolute right. And when it comes to music and effects in games, the pokey has a benefit because it had on channel more at some games. Warhawk is good example.
Donkey Kong is definitely more playable on the Atari, due to tighter controls, better arcade-like sounds. The head-bang on the barrels above is arcade-perfect. Dig Dug is a fine game to play on both, but the C64 music played in the background is just bad.
The reason why Donkey Kong is like that on the Atari is the original arcade game used a monitor rotated 90 degrees, a 3:4 ratio instead of 4:3. Everyone had normal standard 4:3 TVs or monitors hooked up so whoever created the DK port removed the top layer of some of the levels, so it filled the screen properly. I'd like to see the C64 version at full screen it's either stretched out, or there's gaps on the sides. Even PacMan on the Atari is stretched out sideways for the same reason.
I would give Defender and DropZone to the Atari. It seems to do this kind of scrolling better. Plus both games have starfields in the background that the c64 lacks. Colors are more vibrant on Dropzone for the 8bit.
Archer McClean said himself the Atari 800 version of Dropzone is better. 'The [Commodore] 64 Dropzone is about 46k [kilobytes] long and consists of 15,000 lines of sparsely commented code with around 350 subroutines and around 3000 labels. Those who can reach Megastar status on the 64 should have had enough practice to attempt an Atari supervised Dropzone mission. The Atari, being the Porsche of home computers, is capable of running Dropzone 2.5 times faster than the 64 and can handle any amount of blobs on screen, even when you release a Strata Bomb. It is visually, sonically etc., identical and about 12K shorter. However, the 64 is still a respectable BMW316'
I think I'd have a pretty great time playing on either computer system but side-by-side the C64 shines for me. Good times had playing these classics. Drol was a game that I absolutely loved playing back in the day - a lot of fun and nice graphics and mechanics for its time!
@FloppyDeepDive For sure, there's something really nice about the fluid motion and how they created that game - so glad you included it with the "D's" as I hadn't seen or played it in a long while! Always great to hear from you my friend!
The Atari defender is better. I like the starfield and the particle effects. I wish they'd done better with the laser sound, though, it drives me up the wall. Dropzone looks better on the Atari with respect to the colors and the 3d starfield, though it's impressive McLean managed to port it to c64 so well. All others are either a wash or C64 for this round.
I loved the ship explosion when I died on the Atari version. It was fantastic to see it fill the screen. Thanks for Watching! I love hearing the insights from everyone.
Demon attack was not an arcade game it was produced by Imagic for the Atari 2600. That is why the Atari version looks like the 2600 version. The C64 put all that background graphics and it makes it harder to see the shots coming down at you and it is even harder to see you gun st times. I like the Atari version because it’s faithful to the original!
Yep, I didn't say it was an arcade, I said it reminded me of Phoenix. I'm ok with the 2600 version on my 2600 but 800XL IS so much more of a machine! Thanks for Watching!
A lot of it was up to the individual effort of the programmers for each system. They were both comparable computers. The only thing I would says that the Atari 800 came out in 1979, 3 years before the 64.
@@FloppyDeepDive The original Atari 400 and 800 came out in 79, which is the same hardware as the XL except 8K memory to a maximum of 48k instead of 64k. Way way ahead of its time compared to what was on the market. The 800 XL came out in 83 I think and there was supposed be another 2 models as well 1400xl and 1450xld which had enhanced chip sets, but they were canned when a new CEO came in. There were only a couple or so of games that required 64k. Kronos rift and the edilon spring to mind. 99% of games run on the original systems.
I owned both a 800XL and C64. I do think the 800XL was a better computer, but you could not beat the games and add ons for the C64 I also had a JVC flat screen TV. I do believe it is what Commadore used for their monitor. Looked exactly like the Monitor over your shoulder but it was JVC
@FloppyDeepDive Yeah, my favorite is the XE version of Mario Bros, that version is fantastic! Especially compared to the one made for the 400/800 which needs Translator on the 800xl, or the music is distorted.
Hey some cool games here. I have to agree with you on all games really. Though the Atari does give some unique effects on a couple of those games with scrolling gradients that are different on the C64 because of the limited color palette. I don't remember Defelctor and I wasn['t really into the pinball games either. They were just so so on the 8-bit sysyems and didn't really get good until the Amiga/16-bit days. Great video as always, Tom.
@@FloppyDeepDive Pinball games on the Amiga were legendary! The Amiga was the successor of the Atari 8 bit computer line. The Atari ST the successor of the C-64, but a step back in terms of the sound chip. Although with the extra power/memory, some ST games could use sampled sounds if enough tricks were done. The Amiga had state of the art graphics when it came out and a state of the art audio chip. It's CPU was almost idol at times as the custom chips allowed for amazing performance. Pinball Dreams, and Pinball Fantasy are the ones to check out for the Amiga. Pinball Fantasy was the later game, and I bought the AGA version for the later Amiga's with an enhanced graphics chipset and faster processor.
Aside from colour palette differences, I'd say that 'D' is a 'D'ead heat, and every game was six-of-one and half-dozen of the other on each system. I prefer the palette on the XL for Drop Zone (that's probably just because it's the one I've grown accustomed to), but While the Atarti shows off it's colour gradient capabilities with Deflektor, seeing 16 distinct colours put to use on the C64 was a revelation. I haven't thought about Droll in years, so that was a cool one to see, and I'll probably play that for a round (or six) this afternooon. Demon Attack on the C64 uses similar backgrounds to the TI, but the 'Demons' are closer to the Atari version (The TI is a thing of beauty in this regard with truly spectacular sprites, each with their own theme tune - it really is worth doing a YT search to check that one out. It is gorgeous!). BUT the TI version is also broken, in as much as the 3rd time you get to the Demon-Boss level, it becomes impossible to shoot the waves of small demon ships, ending the game regardless of how many lives you have built up. (Which absolutely ruins any replayability). To be fair on this one, despite the C-64's improved graphics over the XL, this is a game where visuals are secondary to the frenetic pace of the attack waves, and so between the C64 and XL the C64 only wins in the visuals and the XL version, while visually austere, is a blast to play. I'm curious. Does the C64 version of Donkey Kong include all four levels (including the cement factory - commonly known as the pie factory) ?? I've heard it said that some ports are missing this level. (The 2600, for example, only has two of the four levels (although modern homebrews have addressed that))
Drop Zone on the XL really does have a fantastic palette, and I agree-it’s often what you're used to that sticks with you! *Deflektor* on the Atari shows off some amazing gradients, but yeah, seeing the C64 pull off 16 colors so well is a bit of a revelation. I’ve actually thought about *Drol* recently since I made a video about it! Still such a cool game and always fun to revisit. As for *Demon Attack*, the TI-99’s sprites with their own theme tunes sound like a must-see, even with that unfortunate game-breaking bug. I agree-on this one, the gameplay pace matters more than visuals, and the XL really shines in that department. Regarding *Donkey Kong* on the C64, the original AtariSoft port is missing the cement factory (pie factory) level, but the Ocean version does include all four levels, making it a much more complete experience. Definitely the better option for fans of the full arcade game! Thanks for all the great insights!
@@FloppyDeepDive The Ti's gerry-rigged architecture and it's drachonian licensing policies at the time, would give the C-64 s distinct advantage on most titles - what few titles there would be to compare. Putting a 16-bit processor on an 8-bit bus just created wait states that slow everything down, and TI's licensing (requiring control over everything from packaging to marketing, and hefty GRom user fees keeping unlicensed carts to 8K) kept developers away in droves (no Epyx, Electronic Arts, Sierra or Bröderbund removes a huge chunk of the C64 library from comparison!!) A side by side of Demon Attack would be VERY intersting though. They end up being very different games because of the unique graphic differences. (which is probably why Imagic went for the "Demon Attack II" title on the TI - it really isn't Demon Attack in any true sense). In graphics (and audio quality) the TI would hold it's own for this title, but for very different reasons, making the comparison more about the differences in gameplay, than which excelled in presentation and production values.
@@FloppyDeepDive The TI Atarisoft Donkey Kong DOES have all 4 levels, but the spring level has no springs (kinda the point, one would think), and no flames on the first level. Also the sound is single channel (unlicensed TI carts, so 8K limitation - multi-timbral sound and cut scenes are the first to go). I'm glad we got the cement factory, but it came at the cost of some signature Nintendo elements.
I remembered the bumper the Atari 8-bit version of David's Midnight Magic having the Atari logo. I have no idea why it's got an Apple here, like I assume the Apple II version had.
With increased memory, there are now "arcade ports" of some games for the Atari 8-bit that make them look or sound closer to the arcade versions than the original 8-bit ports did. These ports come on larger 128K cartridges (the older versions were on 8K cartridges). There was a "hacked" version of Donkey Kong that came out in the last several years that brings it closer to the arcade look, and maybe some of the sound effects. I loved the look and animation of Dropzone on the Atari, since it was so reminiscent of the arcade version of Defender, but the gameplay was way too hard, for my taste. I wished there was a difficulty setting on it. I liked playing Atari's port of Defender, for the sound effects, which were nicely close to the arcade version. It didn't have the smoothness of the animation of the arcade version. The action got boggy, if there were a lot of objects on the screen. Something that felt weird, and maybe this had to do with the difficulty level I played on it (though, I think I tried increasing it), but I got so good at it that I could play for hours on it without losing all my lives. It felt too easy after a while. I loved the concept of Drol. I played it on the Apple II and the Atari, and it was good on both. I couldn't get past the 2nd or 3rd level, though.
Archer Mclean said one of his greatest achievements was to get Dropzone running on the C64, he outdid himself in my opinion and equaled the original. No starfield on C64 but the laser blasts look better. Defender Atari ship flickers for some reason.
These comparison videos are great. It's amazing to see how much these games varied depending on which system you played them on, even though they're essentially the same game. I think the Commodore versions ever so slightly win overall as they look just a bit better and the motions are a tad smoother in my opinion. Great content 👌
I don't know why USA home ports of Donkey Kong tend to lack Mario's sexy butt flip at the top of ladders. I was disappointed with the Atarisoft C64 ports of Donkey Kong and Defender, but didn't really experience the Atari 8-bit games in comparison. I felt like Donkey Kong was slow for some reason, and the fat pixels disppointed me. Defender, though, was a big disappointment to me due to the very low resolution looking green landers, and the unimpressive explosions. The Atari 8-bit version of Defender has massive pixel explosions, which would have satisfied me a lot more! But for other games, the C64 port seems better due to the more colorful sprites. Dig Dug is a good example of that. Anyway, check out the original Apple ][ version of Drol. It's more colorful, using the Apple ]['s 6 colors rather than dropping it down to just 4 colors.
It's funny you mention the Defender's huge explosion on the Atari. While taking pics tonight for social media posts the Atari kept exploding. I thought to myself, how did I NOT notice how cool that looked when making my video? Good stuff as always Isaac!
Great video Tom, great video with some absolutely fantastic games. Defender can be used with joytokey on the pc to use two buttons. Obviously there was no choice back then.
Most of the games are close enough that I believe it comes down to which system one grew up playing on. Back in the day other than in store kiosks never saw an Atari 400 or 800 being used. We had an extensive Commodore group with probably 40 people in it. There may have been an Atari group around but if there were I didnt know about it. There was one guy in our Commodore group that supposedly had an Atari 800 he used in his business.
So true! The original system you grew up on had such a huge impact on our taste in games. I also never knew anyone who had an Atari computer growing up. We all had the Atari 2600 but when we got our first computer it was all Commodore.
It must be said that Atari Inc's decision to publish their videogames on rival platform, and making those the superior versions, was among the most suicidal decisions the company ever made. Why even bother buying an Atari computer when C64 has the better version of the same games? Now on to the games: Donkey Kong: C64 offers better colors and even includes all six ramps on the first stage, but Mario runs a touch slow. Atari has better speed & flows nicely, the intro screens are included, but graphics take a slight hit. There is a homebrew "Donkey Kong Arcade" that looks far better. Verdict: Lean Atari. Dig Dug: Commodore looks terrific & sounds great. Atari: You're showing the 5200 version, whoops! The 800 version is slightly different, looks a little better, but still a clear step behind C64. How nice of Atari to make their chief competitor look so good. Verdict: Hard C64. Defender: Commodore looks sharp and smooth, but explosions are muted & audio is different from arcade. Atari is slightly choppier, but the details, action & audio are top-notch. And the particle explosions are fantastic. Still, I'm sure this game is fun on both platforms. Verdict: Learn Atari. Demon Attack: Ugh on both versions. C64 has ugly backgrounds that obscure the enemies, crippling gameplay, while the Atari 8-bit version is merely a lazy 2600 port. Verdict: Tie (in a bad way). Drol: Commodore looks cleaner, sharper with better color. Atari runs faster and smoother, you can tell this is an Apple II port. Gameplay appears identical on both, everyone is happy. Verdict: Tie (in a good way). David's Midnight Magic: C64 is slightly crisper, but note how the Atari pinball board is larger. Gameplay and ball physics appear identical. This was a fun game until Bill Budge blew the entire genre to smithereens. Verdict: Pinball Construction Set. Deflektor: Commodore has some really nice color, but animation is limited and music is strangely missing. Atari 8-bit has this quasi-monochrome style you'll either love or hate, impressive animation & some really good music. Since when does POKEY ever beat the almighty SID? Verdict: ZX Spectrum. Dropzone: Archer Maclean preferred the Atari original to the C64 port, but aside from the parallax scrolling of the background stars, and maybe the different color palettes, both versions are identical. This is a good thing because Dropzone is a stone-cold classic and a must for everyone. Verdict: Gameboy Advance. Drelbs: Proving, once again, that the entire Golden Era of Videogames was created by acidheads. What a gloriously trippy game. Atari runs faster and smoother, C64 is slightly choppier and less manic. Both seem to play really well. Check out the Apple IIgs version sometime, it sounds like bugs crawling through your brain. Verdict: Lean Atari, with help by the Santos Corporation.
Wow, excellent write up! Enjoyed reading it. I need you as a script writer! 😉 Dig Dug was my original cartridge for my Atari 800. It’s just the same as the 5200. Thanks for Watching!
I had to chuckle at 9:52 when you say the Atari was not as vivid as the Commodore ... ah ... I guess you must be wearing the rose colored glasses of nostalgia.
AtariSoft really took some care for non-Atari systems. Wish they had more for Atari ones! 😅 (im an Atari guy of course...) C64 definitely looks brighter for so many games. I think the A8 ekes out Defender and Dropzone better, though both are definitely solid. C64 Defender did feel smoother... C64 wins Demon Attack. The A8 conversions of the 2600's Demon and Attack and Turmoil were barely conversions! 😳 Sadly, Midnight Magic seemed better on the 2600! 🤯 Never heard of Deflector, but C64 all the way. Dropzone definitely proves how the initial platform being developed for can be better than ports of it to other systems. The A8 was definitely capable but Commodore had direct access to chip fabrication, which led to lower cost... as more people went to C64, more honed development went to it and A8 lost out...
Thanks for sharing your insights! AtariSoft definitely took their time with non-Atari systems, though it’s a shame they didn’t do more for their own. I agree that the C64 generally looks brighter, and Dropzone is an excellent example of how being developed for a platform from the start can make all the difference. It’s interesting how the Commodore had that edge with lower costs and direct access to chip fabrication. Defender feeling smoother on the C64 is another great point, and Demon Attack really shines on it as well. Thanks again for the thoughtful comments!
Oh no, you have serious problems with your grabber for Atari and those games loose a lot. In fact the quality of video is quite similar and Atari has better colour palette which is not visible here. I also made quite detailed Atari vs Commodore comparison some time ago...
Retrotink to HD60X - It is what it is; I can only put so much lipstick on it. Upscaled Up. I could emulate but it's not the same, only use real hardware. Thanks for watching!
You keep saying these games are made for the 800XL, that isn't the case.. you're just playing them on an 800XL. Most games, if not all of them, are made for the lowest common denominator, the Atari 400 (maybe the 600XL), and some are ports from the 5200, these machines had much less RAM than the 800XL.
Imho "Donkey Kong" goes to the Atari 8bit ( referring to the PAL versions, but they are a couple of new arcade versions on the Atari which are even better). I still play the game on both machines and on the Atari version the main character is considerably faster, the controls snappier and the Pal colors more vivid, plus the size of the the screen is noticeably larger. "Dig DUg" is better on the c64(graphic details, more colors on screen). The Atari port is really " lazy." "Defender" is better on the c64. I never liked this game on my Atari. "Demon Attack" is better on the c64, better graphics, faster "missile" which makes the game easier. Again one more "lazy" port for the Atari machine but I do prefer the "ship" on that one. "Drol" is a bit better on the Atari XL (colors on PAL version). NTSC version look similar. "David's Midnight Magic" I will give it to the C64 even if the Pal versions are similar. I never liked this game on the Atari. "Deflektor" better on the C64. Graphically lazy Atari port. "Dropzone" Pal version is better on the Atari 8bit (color-wise). NTSC versions look similar. "Drelbs" Pal version is more colorful on the Atari 8bit.(NTSC versions look similar) The main problem with the c64 version is the huge speed difference between vertical and horizontal movement of the main sprite.
@@FloppyDeepDive Thanks for giving us the chance to see how these games look on the other side of the pond. I find it really strange that the C64, here in Europe (PAL) , was known for its washed out colors while the Atari NTSC model appears to suffer from the same flaw. I have a C64 maxi and I have set it to "NTSC model" so I can enjoy the vivid palette and compare it to my C64c PAL machine.
Yep, I'm an Atari 800XL die hard but clearly the C64 shines the brighter here - better character definition, sonics and so closer to the original. I'm sure a more up to date homebrew on the 800XL would push the 64 closer but on this evidence... it's the breadbin all the way! Neat videos, fella. Keep em coming. Very nicely compared and a wicked set-up you have there - lovely jubbly.
Hello and welcome! Glad you enjoyed the video. I'm sure homebrews are great in the Atari; I haven't dived into them too much. I will have to check them out-more videos to come. Letter E is following, and it's not a huge list. Thanks for Watching!
I had the C-64 versions of Donkey Kong & Defender back in the 80s, but I prefer the Atari 8 bit versions of those games. Donkey Kong for the Atari had the extra level missing from the C-64 version. I like the game play better too. Defender on the Atari 8 bit had the explosions much more like the coin-op version.
I didn't care for the controls on either version of Donkey Kong. C64 was too slow and Atari too fast. Both had issues with ladders and jumps. C-64 version looks nice though. Agree on Dig Dug. Defender wasn't my game so I don't think I've tried them. Didn't have any of the others although I kind of like the premise of Deflektor. Some other "D" games that probably had versions on both were Decathlon and Dino Eggs. And one of my favorites, Diamond Mine, started on the Atari and was ported to the Apple and C-64.
Looked to me like the C64 won every single head-to-head comparison! I think you covered all the big arcade titles I could think of. Other ones that would be interesting are Defender of the Crown, Decathlon, or Dragon's Lair. I was going to try to come up with more but all I can think about now is playing Donkey Kong!!
I would of loved to do Defender of the crown and Dragons Lair but it's not on the Atari800XL. They are on the NES. Check out that video ruclips.net/video/5KsLCE4LvIY/видео.htmlsi=g8LxjJ64u7BdbF2J
Donkey Kong runs a lot faster on the Atari but the c64 is more accurate in speed to the arcade. Mario is running but going nowhere fast! 🙂 I've never heard of Drol before or Drebs.
For all the games in this episode, I like the C64 better except for Drop Zone. The reason is the commodore had better a better color palette in the games. The Atari had a better color palette in Drop Zone. The bad color palette makes the games look drab.
These games weren’t released in 1979. Atari didn’t have to dumb down all its games, most of these were released in 83 after first coming out on the Apple II. Imagine if Commodore only made games for the 64 that would also work on the Vic 20.
@@FloppyDeepDive the games had to work on anything marked "400/800" or "All Atari Computers" which meant it had to abide by the RAM limitations of the original hardware 1979 specs. They weren't made for the top-end 800XL with 64K RAM, which wasn't released until 1983. Commodore VIC and 64 software are incompatible with each other, so it was never necessary to limit the 64's capabilities for backwards compatibility.
For the Atari, games on cart didn't require more than the base RAM on the early hardware, all code and data residing in ROM. Games on disk usually required 48k, since they needed somewhere to load in. The C64 saw far fewer game cartridges, but had a base RAM size of 64k. It wasn't a major difference, really.
And remember the 1979 Atari 8 bit computer ran at almost 2 mhz while the C-64 ran at 1. So much for the C-64 being more advanced. 😄 Properly written Atari games could be more impressive than C-64 games and more colorful.
Check out my other C64 vs Atari videos - ruclips.net/p/PL70122o_bB73I419GmCnyM0W_OIDWwXez
I don't know if it's a capture thing, but in most cases the Atari seems to have noticeably higher frame rates and smoother animation. The C64 can display more colors on screen simultaneously, but the fixed color palette sometimes makes the graphics look weird. The SID usually produces a more appealing soundtrack, though not by as much as I would have thought based on its reputation.
Thanks for Watching!
The C64 has far better color management but it can't reach the number of colors on screen Atari can do. There are so many games displaying 16 to even 60+ colors. That said the C64 color palette is small but well thought allowing great hi res artwork and great in game palette when the programmer is also an artist. The said part is that like in many 8bit machines people without graphical aesthetics ended up producing the same monotonus dirty grey/purple look of c64 games.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I would hardly call a fixed palette of 16 colors to be color management at all, let alone superior. There is no mode on the C64 that lets you use more than 16 colors, and those 16 colors are always the same.
The two machines were quite different in how they handled graphics. The Atari had a lot more flexibility in terms of which colors you could use. It had a palette of 128 (or 256 on later models) colors, and for most modes you could choose any of those in varying numbers. The C64, by contrast, only had a total of 16 colors... that's it, no matter what mode you were in. The C64 had a few higher resolution modes that allowed more colors on screen simultaneously than similar resolution modes on the Atari, but those colors always had to come from that same fixed palette of 16. And it had some significant limitations on how many of those colors could be used in close proximity to one another.
I don't think it's fair to say one is better than the other... it all depends on the needs of the developer. But a fixed palette of 16 colors is hardly better color management than a flexible palette of 128/256. And the display list / display list interrupt capabilities of the Atari allowed a lot more flexibility than its basic design might suggest.
If you think I'm wrong, do a quick search online. They're both very well documented.
@@djp_video as an owner of both machines (so I'm not biased) I dare to say, you are absolute right. And when it comes to music and effects in games, the pokey has a benefit because it had on channel more at some games. Warhawk is good example.
Donkey Kong is definitely more playable on the Atari, due to tighter controls, better arcade-like sounds. The head-bang on the barrels above is arcade-perfect. Dig Dug is a fine game to play on both, but the C64 music played in the background is just bad.
Thanks for watching and commenting on all of these; I enjoyed reading all your insightful comments!
The reason why Donkey Kong is like that on the Atari is the original arcade game used a monitor rotated 90 degrees, a 3:4 ratio instead of 4:3. Everyone had normal standard 4:3 TVs or monitors hooked up so whoever created the DK port removed the top layer of some of the levels, so it filled the screen properly. I'd like to see the C64 version at full screen it's either stretched out, or there's gaps on the sides. Even PacMan on the Atari is stretched out sideways for the same reason.
Good stuff! I didn't know that. Thanks!
I would give Defender and DropZone to the Atari. It seems to do this kind of scrolling better. Plus both games have starfields in the background that the c64 lacks. Colors are more vibrant on Dropzone for the 8bit.
Hmm, Atari does scroll well. That's a valid observation. Thanks for Watching!
@@FloppyDeepDive I would give Deflektor to the c64 easily. Way more colors at high rez.
Love these vids. Keep them coming.
Thanks!
Archer McClean said himself the Atari 800 version of Dropzone is better. 'The [Commodore] 64 Dropzone is about 46k [kilobytes] long and consists of 15,000 lines of sparsely commented code with around 350 subroutines and around 3000 labels. Those who can reach Megastar status on the 64 should have had enough practice to attempt an Atari supervised Dropzone mission. The Atari, being the Porsche of home computers, is capable of running Dropzone 2.5 times faster than the 64 and can handle any amount of blobs on screen, even when you release a Strata Bomb. It is visually, sonically etc., identical and about 12K shorter. However, the 64 is still a respectable BMW316'
@@virtuafighter3Ah but the c64 version has a better player bullet graphic. And that makes all the difference 😉
I think I'd have a pretty great time playing on either computer system but side-by-side the C64 shines for me. Good times had playing these classics. Drol was a game that I absolutely loved playing back in the day - a lot of fun and nice graphics and mechanics for its time!
Drol is awesome and just really unique. I love everything they have going on in that game. Good to hear from you my friend!
@FloppyDeepDive For sure, there's something really nice about the fluid motion and how they created that game - so glad you included it with the "D's" as I hadn't seen or played it in a long while! Always great to hear from you my friend!
One thing about 'Defender' for Atari - those particle explosions look awesome!
They were awesome!
The Atari defender is better. I like the starfield and the particle effects. I wish they'd done better with the laser sound, though, it drives me up the wall. Dropzone looks better on the Atari with respect to the colors and the 3d starfield, though it's impressive McLean managed to port it to c64 so well. All others are either a wash or C64 for this round.
I loved the ship explosion when I died on the Atari version. It was fantastic to see it fill the screen. Thanks for Watching! I love hearing the insights from everyone.
Demon attack was not an arcade game it was produced by Imagic for the Atari 2600. That is why the Atari version looks like the 2600 version. The C64 put all that background graphics and it makes it harder to see the shots coming down at you and it is even harder to see you gun st times. I like the Atari version because it’s faithful to the original!
Yep, I didn't say it was an arcade, I said it reminded me of Phoenix. I'm ok with the 2600 version on my 2600 but 800XL IS so much more of a machine! Thanks for Watching!
There's no excuse for the Atari version not being upgraded to take advantage of the system. An incredibly lazy port.
A lot of it was up to the individual effort of the programmers for each system. They were both comparable computers. The only thing I would says that the Atari 800 came out in 1979, 3 years before the 64.
Atari800XL came out when?
@@FloppyDeepDive The original Atari 400 and 800 came out in 79, which is the same hardware as the XL except 8K memory to a maximum of 48k instead of 64k. Way way ahead of its time compared to what was on the market. The 800 XL came out in 83 I think and there was supposed be another 2 models as well 1400xl and 1450xld which had enhanced chip sets, but they were canned when a new CEO came in. There were only a couple or so of games that required 64k. Kronos rift and the edilon spring to mind. 99% of games run on the original systems.
I owned both a 800XL and C64. I do think the 800XL was a better computer, but you could not beat the games and add ons for the C64 I also had a JVC flat screen TV. I do believe it is what Commadore used for their monitor. Looked exactly like the Monitor over your shoulder but it was JVC
Thanks for Watching!
Always good to see Drol again...
It's a classic!
I just found out recently through the excellent Amiga WinUAE emulator there was an Amiga version of this game.
Atari has 2 versions of Donkey Kong as well (or at least two).
Seems to be the case for a lot of games. Thanks for Watching!
@FloppyDeepDive Yeah, my favorite is the XE version of Mario Bros, that version is fantastic! Especially compared to the one made for the 400/800 which needs Translator on the 800xl, or the music is distorted.
Hey some cool games here. I have to agree with you on all games really. Though the Atari does give some unique effects on a couple of those games with scrolling gradients that are different on the C64 because of the limited color palette. I don't remember Defelctor and I wasn['t really into the pinball games either. They were just so so on the 8-bit sysyems and didn't really get good until the Amiga/16-bit days. Great video as always, Tom.
I'll have to check out some pinball games on the Amiga. I haven't played any yet. Thanks for Watching!
@@FloppyDeepDive Pinball games on the Amiga were legendary!
The Amiga was the successor of the Atari 8 bit computer line. The Atari ST the successor of the C-64, but a step back in terms of the sound chip. Although with the extra power/memory, some ST games could use sampled sounds if enough tricks were done.
The Amiga had state of the art graphics when it came out and a state of the art audio chip. It's CPU was almost idol at times as the custom chips allowed for amazing performance.
Pinball Dreams, and Pinball Fantasy are the ones to check out for the Amiga. Pinball Fantasy was the later game, and I bought the AGA version for the later Amiga's with an enhanced graphics chipset and faster processor.
Great side by side comparisons. Really interesting to see the two versions together.
Thank you, sir! I appreciate you checking it out!
Aside from colour palette differences, I'd say that 'D' is a 'D'ead heat, and every game was six-of-one and half-dozen of the other on each system.
I prefer the palette on the XL for Drop Zone (that's probably just because it's the one I've grown accustomed to), but While the Atarti shows off it's colour gradient capabilities with Deflektor, seeing 16 distinct colours put to use on the C64 was a revelation.
I haven't thought about Droll in years, so that was a cool one to see, and I'll probably play that for a round (or six) this afternooon.
Demon Attack on the C64 uses similar backgrounds to the TI, but the 'Demons' are closer to the Atari version (The TI is a thing of beauty in this regard with truly spectacular sprites, each with their own theme tune - it really is worth doing a YT search to check that one out. It is gorgeous!). BUT the TI version is also broken, in as much as the 3rd time you get to the Demon-Boss level, it becomes impossible to shoot the waves of small demon ships, ending the game regardless of how many lives you have built up. (Which absolutely ruins any replayability). To be fair on this one, despite the C-64's improved graphics over the XL, this is a game where visuals are secondary to the frenetic pace of the attack waves, and so between the C64 and XL the C64 only wins in the visuals and the XL version, while visually austere, is a blast to play.
I'm curious. Does the C64 version of Donkey Kong include all four levels (including the cement factory - commonly known as the pie factory) ?? I've heard it said that some ports are missing this level. (The 2600, for example, only has two of the four levels (although modern homebrews have addressed that))
Drop Zone on the XL really does have a fantastic palette, and I agree-it’s often what you're used to that sticks with you! *Deflektor* on the Atari shows off some amazing gradients, but yeah, seeing the C64 pull off 16 colors so well is a bit of a revelation. I’ve actually thought about *Drol* recently since I made a video about it! Still such a cool game and always fun to revisit.
As for *Demon Attack*, the TI-99’s sprites with their own theme tunes sound like a must-see, even with that unfortunate game-breaking bug. I agree-on this one, the gameplay pace matters more than visuals, and the XL really shines in that department.
Regarding *Donkey Kong* on the C64, the original AtariSoft port is missing the cement factory (pie factory) level, but the Ocean version does include all four levels, making it a much more complete experience. Definitely the better option for fans of the full arcade game! Thanks for all the great insights!
Maybe I need to make the C64 vs TI99 series.
@@FloppyDeepDive The Ti's gerry-rigged architecture and it's drachonian licensing policies at the time, would give the C-64 s distinct advantage on most titles - what few titles there would be to compare.
Putting a 16-bit processor on an 8-bit bus just created wait states that slow everything down, and TI's licensing (requiring control over everything from packaging to marketing, and hefty GRom user fees keeping unlicensed carts to 8K) kept developers away in droves (no Epyx, Electronic Arts, Sierra or Bröderbund removes a huge chunk of the C64 library from comparison!!)
A side by side of Demon Attack would be VERY intersting though. They end up being very different games because of the unique graphic differences. (which is probably why Imagic went for the "Demon Attack II" title on the TI - it really isn't Demon Attack in any true sense). In graphics (and audio quality) the TI would hold it's own for this title, but for very different reasons, making the comparison more about the differences in gameplay, than which excelled in presentation and production values.
@@FloppyDeepDive The TI Atarisoft Donkey Kong DOES have all 4 levels, but the spring level has no springs (kinda the point, one would think), and no flames on the first level. Also the sound is single channel (unlicensed TI carts, so 8K limitation - multi-timbral sound and cut scenes are the first to go). I'm glad we got the cement factory, but it came at the cost of some signature Nintendo elements.
I remembered the bumper the Atari 8-bit version of David's Midnight Magic having the Atari logo. I have no idea why it's got an Apple here, like I assume the Apple II version had.
Hmm worth checking into. Thanks
Worth checking into!
With increased memory, there are now "arcade ports" of some games for the Atari 8-bit that make them look or sound closer to the arcade versions than the original 8-bit ports did. These ports come on larger 128K cartridges (the older versions were on 8K cartridges).
There was a "hacked" version of Donkey Kong that came out in the last several years that brings it closer to the arcade look, and maybe some of the sound effects.
I loved the look and animation of Dropzone on the Atari, since it was so reminiscent of the arcade version of Defender, but the gameplay was way too hard, for my taste. I wished there was a difficulty setting on it.
I liked playing Atari's port of Defender, for the sound effects, which were nicely close to the arcade version. It didn't have the smoothness of the animation of the arcade version. The action got boggy, if there were a lot of objects on the screen. Something that felt weird, and maybe this had to do with the difficulty level I played on it (though, I think I tried increasing it), but I got so good at it that I could play for hours on it without losing all my lives. It felt too easy after a while.
I loved the concept of Drol. I played it on the Apple II and the Atari, and it was good on both. I couldn't get past the 2nd or 3rd level, though.
Great write up! Enjoyed reading it. Thanks for Watching!
Archer Mclean said one of his greatest achievements was to get Dropzone running on the C64, he outdid himself in my opinion and equaled the original. No starfield on C64 but the laser blasts look better.
Defender Atari ship flickers for some reason.
Thanks for Watching! O
These comparison videos are great.
It's amazing to see how much these games varied depending on which system you played them on, even though they're essentially the same game.
I think the Commodore versions ever so slightly win overall as they look just a bit better and the motions are a tad smoother in my opinion.
Great content 👌
Awesome, glad you enjoy them! Always good to hear from you and thanks for supporting the channel!!
I don't know why USA home ports of Donkey Kong tend to lack Mario's sexy butt flip at the top of ladders.
I was disappointed with the Atarisoft C64 ports of Donkey Kong and Defender, but didn't really experience the Atari 8-bit games in comparison. I felt like Donkey Kong was slow for some reason, and the fat pixels disppointed me. Defender, though, was a big disappointment to me due to the very low resolution looking green landers, and the unimpressive explosions.
The Atari 8-bit version of Defender has massive pixel explosions, which would have satisfied me a lot more!
But for other games, the C64 port seems better due to the more colorful sprites. Dig Dug is a good example of that.
Anyway, check out the original Apple ][ version of Drol. It's more colorful, using the Apple ]['s 6 colors rather than dropping it down to just 4 colors.
It's funny you mention the Defender's huge explosion on the Atari. While taking pics tonight for social media posts the Atari kept exploding. I thought to myself, how did I NOT notice how cool that looked when making my video? Good stuff as always Isaac!
Great video Tom, great video with some absolutely fantastic games.
Defender can be used with joytokey on the pc to use two buttons. Obviously there was no choice back then.
Thanks Denny!! Always good to hear from you.
Most of the games are close enough that I believe it comes down to which system one grew up playing on.
Back in the day other than in store kiosks never saw an Atari 400 or 800 being used. We had an extensive Commodore group with probably 40 people in it.
There may have been an Atari group around but if there were I didnt know about it. There was one guy in our Commodore group that supposedly had an Atari 800 he used in his business.
So true! The original system you grew up on had such a huge impact on our taste in games. I also never knew anyone who had an Atari computer growing up. We all had the Atari 2600 but when we got our first computer it was all Commodore.
It must be said that Atari Inc's decision to publish their videogames on rival platform, and making those the superior versions, was among the most suicidal decisions the company ever made. Why even bother buying an Atari computer when C64 has the better version of the same games?
Now on to the games:
Donkey Kong: C64 offers better colors and even includes all six ramps on the first stage, but Mario runs a touch slow. Atari has better speed & flows nicely, the intro screens are included, but graphics take a slight hit. There is a homebrew "Donkey Kong Arcade" that looks far better. Verdict: Lean Atari.
Dig Dug: Commodore looks terrific & sounds great. Atari: You're showing the 5200 version, whoops! The 800 version is slightly different, looks a little better, but still a clear step behind C64. How nice of Atari to make their chief competitor look so good. Verdict: Hard C64.
Defender: Commodore looks sharp and smooth, but explosions are muted & audio is different from arcade. Atari is slightly choppier, but the details, action & audio are top-notch. And the particle explosions are fantastic. Still, I'm sure this game is fun on both platforms. Verdict: Learn Atari.
Demon Attack: Ugh on both versions. C64 has ugly backgrounds that obscure the enemies, crippling gameplay, while the Atari 8-bit version is merely a lazy 2600 port. Verdict: Tie (in a bad way).
Drol: Commodore looks cleaner, sharper with better color. Atari runs faster and smoother, you can tell this is an Apple II port. Gameplay appears identical on both, everyone is happy. Verdict: Tie (in a good way).
David's Midnight Magic: C64 is slightly crisper, but note how the Atari pinball board is larger. Gameplay and ball physics appear identical. This was a fun game until Bill Budge blew the entire genre to smithereens. Verdict: Pinball Construction Set.
Deflektor: Commodore has some really nice color, but animation is limited and music is strangely missing. Atari 8-bit has this quasi-monochrome style you'll either love or hate, impressive animation & some really good music. Since when does POKEY ever beat the almighty SID? Verdict: ZX Spectrum.
Dropzone: Archer Maclean preferred the Atari original to the C64 port, but aside from the parallax scrolling of the background stars, and maybe the different color palettes, both versions are identical. This is a good thing because Dropzone is a stone-cold classic and a must for everyone. Verdict: Gameboy Advance.
Drelbs: Proving, once again, that the entire Golden Era of Videogames was created by acidheads. What a gloriously trippy game. Atari runs faster and smoother, C64 is slightly choppier and less manic. Both seem to play really well. Check out the Apple IIgs version sometime, it sounds like bugs crawling through your brain. Verdict: Lean Atari, with help by the Santos Corporation.
Wow, excellent write up! Enjoyed reading it. I need you as a script writer! 😉 Dig Dug was my original cartridge for my Atari 800. It’s just the same as the 5200. Thanks for Watching!
I had to chuckle at 9:52 when you say the Atari was not as vivid as the Commodore ... ah ... I guess you must be wearing the rose colored glasses of nostalgia.
I do tend to slip those glasses on while making videos. Lol, Thanks for Watching! Keep me honest.
AtariSoft really took some care for non-Atari systems. Wish they had more for Atari ones! 😅 (im an Atari guy of course...)
C64 definitely looks brighter for so many games.
I think the A8 ekes out Defender and Dropzone better, though both are definitely solid. C64 Defender did feel smoother...
C64 wins Demon Attack. The A8 conversions of the 2600's Demon and Attack and Turmoil were barely conversions! 😳
Sadly, Midnight Magic seemed better on the 2600! 🤯
Never heard of Deflector, but C64 all the way.
Dropzone definitely proves how the initial platform being developed for can be better than ports of it to other systems. The A8 was definitely capable but Commodore had direct access to chip fabrication, which led to lower cost... as more people went to C64, more honed development went to it and A8 lost out...
Thanks for sharing your insights! AtariSoft definitely took their time with non-Atari systems, though it’s a shame they didn’t do more for their own. I agree that the C64 generally looks brighter, and Dropzone is an excellent example of how being developed for a platform from the start can make all the difference. It’s interesting how the Commodore had that edge with lower costs and direct access to chip fabrication. Defender feeling smoother on the C64 is another great point, and Demon Attack really shines on it as well. Thanks again for the thoughtful comments!
Great video but I would have loved if you had included Draconus in the comparison.
My bad - overlooked it. Thanks for Watching!
The only #Atari makes it possible !
Atari definitely made it possible!
I guess if you cover the left half of the screen, that's true. Lol
Lol
Oh no, you have serious problems with your grabber for Atari and those games loose a lot. In fact the quality of video is quite similar and Atari has better colour palette which is not visible here. I also made quite detailed Atari vs Commodore comparison some time ago...
Retrotink to HD60X - It is what it is; I can only put so much lipstick on it. Upscaled Up. I could emulate but it's not the same, only use real hardware. Thanks for watching!
@@FloppyDeepDive 🤔🤔🤔
You keep saying these games are made for the 800XL, that isn't the case.. you're just playing them on an 800XL. Most games, if not all of them, are made for the lowest common denominator, the Atari 400 (maybe the 600XL), and some are ports from the 5200, these machines had much less RAM than the 800XL.
Valid point
Imho "Donkey Kong" goes to the Atari 8bit ( referring to the PAL versions, but they are a couple of new arcade versions on the Atari which are even better). I still play the game on both machines and on the Atari version the main character is considerably faster, the controls snappier and the Pal colors more vivid, plus the size of the the screen is noticeably larger.
"Dig DUg" is better on the c64(graphic details, more colors on screen). The Atari port is really " lazy."
"Defender" is better on the c64. I never liked this game on my Atari.
"Demon Attack" is better on the c64, better graphics, faster "missile" which makes the game easier. Again one more "lazy" port for the Atari machine but I do prefer the "ship" on that one.
"Drol" is a bit better on the Atari XL (colors on PAL version). NTSC version look similar.
"David's Midnight Magic" I will give it to the C64 even if the Pal versions are similar. I never liked this game on the Atari.
"Deflektor" better on the C64. Graphically lazy Atari port.
"Dropzone" Pal version is better on the Atari 8bit (color-wise). NTSC versions look similar.
"Drelbs" Pal version is more colorful on the Atari 8bit.(NTSC versions look similar) The main problem with the c64 version is the huge speed difference between vertical and horizontal movement of the main sprite.
Great review!! Thanks for watching and always for your support!
@@FloppyDeepDive Thanks for giving us the chance to see how these games look on the other side of the pond. I find it really strange that the C64, here in Europe (PAL) , was known for its washed out colors while the Atari NTSC model appears to suffer from the same flaw.
I have a C64 maxi and I have set it to "NTSC model" so I can enjoy the vivid palette and compare it to my C64c PAL machine.
Glad you enjoy them!
You should do a comparison of type ins from compute magazine
Would I have to type them in?
Draconus...
Oh missed that one. Good one.
Drop Zone better on the C64? Hmmmm.....
Looks a bit better on the Atari IMHO.
That's why I love doing these, to hear everyone’s opinions! I wouldn't argue. They were very close.
Yep, I'm an Atari 800XL die hard but clearly the C64 shines the brighter here - better character definition, sonics and so closer to the original. I'm sure a more up to date homebrew on the 800XL would push the 64 closer but on this evidence... it's the breadbin all the way! Neat videos, fella. Keep em coming. Very nicely compared and a wicked set-up you have there - lovely jubbly.
Hello and welcome! Glad you enjoyed the video. I'm sure homebrews are great in the Atari; I haven't dived into them too much. I will have to check them out-more videos to come. Letter E is following, and it's not a huge list. Thanks for Watching!
I had the C-64 versions of Donkey Kong & Defender back in the 80s, but I prefer the Atari 8 bit versions of those games.
Donkey Kong for the Atari had the extra level missing from the C-64 version. I like the game play better too. Defender on the Atari 8 bit had the explosions much more like the coin-op version.
I loved the Defender explosions on the Atari! Thanks for Watching!
There are 2 Dig Dug versions from Atari
Yep, Thanks for Watching!
I didn't care for the controls on either version of Donkey Kong. C64 was too slow and Atari too fast. Both had issues with ladders and jumps. C-64 version looks nice though.
Agree on Dig Dug. Defender wasn't my game so I don't think I've tried them. Didn't have any of the others although I kind of like the premise of Deflektor.
Some other "D" games that probably had versions on both were Decathlon and Dino Eggs. And one of my favorites, Diamond Mine, started on the Atari and was ported to the Apple and C-64.
I didn't know Atari had Dino Eggs. Diamond Mine I started and even recorded but then decided I had enough. Thanks for Watching!
Atari might not have had Dino Eggs. I was just assuming it would, haha.@@FloppyDeepDive
Yeah, I assumed incorrectly... no mention of it on Wikipedia or any RUclips videos... my bad.
I guess Diamond Mine isn't for everyone. Variety is the spice of life. @@FloppyDeepDive
I liked it, I just got lazy at the end. lol@@GDLarcade
C64 Drol has a cut down playfield, Atari is full width of the screen. On this type of game this makes the difference, Atari has the edge.
I love the full screen on the Atari! Thanks for Watching!
I give 7 to C64 and 3 to XL...
Thanks for Watching!
Great comparison! Except Dropzone i'd prefer the C64 versions over the 800XL. Besides that i also really love the 800XL too. 😀
Thanks for Watching!
Looked to me like the C64 won every single head-to-head comparison! I think you covered all the big arcade titles I could think of. Other ones that would be interesting are Defender of the Crown, Decathlon, or Dragon's Lair. I was going to try to come up with more but all I can think about now is playing Donkey Kong!!
I would of loved to do Defender of the crown and Dragons Lair but it's not on the Atari800XL. They are on the NES. Check out that video ruclips.net/video/5KsLCE4LvIY/видео.htmlsi=g8LxjJ64u7BdbF2J
Donkey Kong runs a lot faster on the Atari but the c64 is more accurate in speed to the arcade. Mario is running but going nowhere fast! 🙂
I've never heard of Drol before or Drebs.
Happy New Year Hazy!
@@FloppyDeepDiveand to you and your family. I hope 2024 is great as 2023 was the worst year of my life so things have to get better 😊
Here’s to an Amazing year for you! 🙏
For all the games in this episode, I like the C64 better except for Drop Zone. The reason is the commodore had better a better color palette in the games. The Atari had a better color palette in Drop Zone. The bad color palette makes the games look drab.
I can’t argue with that! I agree! Thanks for Watching!
1979 vs. 1982 hardware, 8KB vs. 64KB RAM - remember the games were programmed for the hardware older than the 800XL.
These games weren’t released in 1979. Atari didn’t have to dumb down all its games, most of these were released in 83 after first coming out on the Apple II. Imagine if Commodore only made games for the 64 that would also work on the Vic 20.
@@FloppyDeepDive the games had to work on anything marked "400/800" or "All Atari Computers" which meant it had to abide by the RAM limitations of the original hardware 1979 specs. They weren't made for the top-end 800XL with 64K RAM, which wasn't released until 1983. Commodore VIC and 64 software are incompatible with each other, so it was never necessary to limit the 64's capabilities for backwards compatibility.
For the Atari, games on cart didn't require more than the base RAM on the early hardware, all code and data residing in ROM. Games on disk usually required 48k, since they needed somewhere to load in. The C64 saw far fewer game cartridges, but had a base RAM size of 64k. It wasn't a major difference, really.
@@robertmiles9942 back then 8K vs. 64K was a *huge* difference. The 2600 only had 128 *bytes* of RAM
And remember the 1979 Atari 8 bit computer ran at almost 2 mhz while the C-64 ran at 1. So much for the C-64 being more advanced. 😄 Properly written Atari games could be more impressive than C-64 games and more colorful.