C64 vs. Atari 800XL - 8 games from 1985

Hello and welcome to the third episode of Commodore 64 versus Atari 800XL games.
In this video, 8 games released in 1985 (with 2 exceptions - noted below) are shown running on both machines so you can see how different (or similar) they were.
PLEASE NOTE : I had difficulties finding relevant, quality games released for both machines in 1985, so I made 2 exceptions here (as far as I know).
1. Chuckie Egg was released in 1984 for C64 (not 1985)
2. Starquake was released in 1986 for C64 (not 1985)
Thanks for watching and let me know in the comments section below who "wins".
And, of course, see you in the next RetroNoName episode

[@RetroDawn]

You really need to do a followup to this video for 1985 with the 4 amazing games Lucasfilm Games released that year: Ballblazer, Rescue on Fractalus, Koronis Rift, and The Eidolon. They all were significantly better on the Atari. This video should have really included all of them.

[@datacipher]

Oh those are a wipe-out for Atari, not even close.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

that is only for game presentation.....not for comparing them. Not a fair game since C64 is good in many things but not in moving pseudo 3d graphics/complex backgrounds.

[@RetroDawn]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 That's ridiculous. The Atari is not as good as the C64 in having lots of big sprites with either multiple colors or high resolution nor at having backgrounds with changing colors on the same scanline, but that doesn't mean they should have excluded those types of games. The point of the video, according to the creator was, "so you can see how different (or similar) they [the computers] were"--i.e. for comparing them. Why would you say it was not for comparing them? Why else make the video, anyway? BTW, those games are all 3D, not pseudo 3D. 3D doesn't mean polygons. Side note: I knew Loren Carpenter personally and professionally in the 90s. He would definitely argue with you about your characterization of his fractal landscape rendering routines using in RoF and KR. He won a SIGGRAPH award for inventing the first fractal landscape animation software, and film created with it, in 1980.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@RetroDawn No they shouldn't have excluded them but it would be a useless comparison to use all of them in a video imho. We already know that the Atari can move and scale (pseudo) 3d graphics in a far superior way. The games you mentioned plus Yoomp, Total Eclipse, Stunt Car racer etc verify just that. Its like trash-talking while the opponent is on his back! We are way to old to act like fan boys...lol ITs good to challenge the competition in their own court like i.e. Trax vs Chaos Engine, Guard vs Tangent, Prince of Persia, Albert or Crownland, Pang etc etc vs any platform/adventure game. Acknowledging the strong and weak points and trying to push the limits of the machines is what enables advances and progress in both platforms. Sure C64 fanboys will always make hasty and uniformed judgments (like the do in these threads) ignoring the size and quality of the Atari 8bit game/demo/music library and without knowing the flexibility of the Atari 8bit platform to overcome most of the hardware limitations through clever programing and excess cpu power provided by the custom chips onboard. What can you do? In my opinion the trick is to demonstrate how close the race really was during the "bad" commercial years and maybe some will be interested to found out how good this machine was. The satisfying thing is that almost all popular retro computer channels arrive to that exact conclusion.

[@ukcroupier]

Bad programming or severe time restrictions has screwed the Atari in a couple of these games. Atari has smooth hardware scrolling that's easy to code, but racing destruction looks like the programmer didn't know this and just started shifting bytes around the screen.

[@retrononame]

It must be, because some games on Atari are fantastic and others have, as you mentioned, horrible, slow movements/scrolling. Shame, because the colors/gfx are really nice on the machine.

[@RetroDawn]

@@retrononame This port was developed by the famous Burger Becky Heineman. I recommend listening to her talk about this port (and more) in her interview on the ANTIC podcast. She is very disparaging of the Atari HCS.

[@virtuafighter3]

@@RetroDawn Should have given the job to Archer McLean.

[@RetroDawn]

@@virtuafighter3 That would have been awesome! Silly US companies like EA not giving contracts to UK devs. Although they hired them as long as they moved to the US (like Rob Hubbard and many others).

[@chazcov08]

Boulder Dash on the C64 didn't have the Pacman ghosts. That's obviously a mod.

[@ModernClassic]

I guess the moral of the story is that some games are better on the C64, some are better on the Atari 8 bits.

[@random_precision_software]

You got to remember the C64 had 3 years on the Atari.. it was out in 79.. And 3 years in computer life is a long time.

[@timecapsule5604]

The Commodore 64 was introduced but released in August 1982 not 1979 maybe ur thinking of the Commodore Pet or the Atari 800

[@random_precision_software]

@@timecapsule5604 Oh I meant it the other way round !! The Atari had 3 years on the C64 !! DOH lol

[@tomastrezor165]

Great comparsion! Finaly somebody compares my favorite 8 bit platforms. Thank you!

[@retrononame]

I'm glad you liked the video! More to come soon. Thanks for watching!

[@RacerX-]

Nice video. Was the Boulder Dash 2 game for C64 a modded version? I don't remember Pac-Man ghosts in the original. Of course it has been a while since I played BD2...

[@szymonpioterek4565]

I think they looked like the Atari version shown.

[@bsdetector6908]

Bd2 aka Rockfords Riot most certainly did not have Pacman ghosts. The video is of a cracked copy.

[@massmike11]

Considering how capable the Atari was graphically it just seems the programmers weren’t really trying sometimes

[@PeBoVision]

1985 the ST was on store shelves. That likely reduced excitement about coding on 8-bit tech.

[@Soundtrackspecialist]

Also most devs on the A8 were not going past the 48K threshold as the original 800 installed base was still quite large.

[@PeBoVision]

@@Soundtrackspecialist Very true. I don't follow the Atari retro scene, but judging by the TI-99/4A's modern hardware & homebrew development, 1MB is not uncommon today. I would assume it to be the case on the C64 and 800 today as well. 64k of memory in 1980 wholesaled at over $405, so a 1MB would have been (I suck at math but I calculated it as roughly) $6328. I brought home about $1600 a month. Obsolescence, component prices and nostalgia have created a "resto-mod" tech sector.

[@bitset3741]

Unfortunately that is true. Piracy was rampant on both platforms, but C64 market was bigger - more money available. After '86 or so devs weren't interested in Atari as much.

[@PeBoVision]

@@bitset3741 I ran an Atari BBS for several years. First thing new users would ask was "where are the L33T files ?" When I would explain I didn't host pirated files, they would challenge me and sometimes attempt to crash the board (just getting the printer to run out of paper or jam would work). Piracy in the Atari community was deadly for such a small installed user base, even though it was the superior machine at the time.

[@JaneDoe-rj4jn]

I loved spy vs spy for the Atari!! Memories!! I was 14 or 15 back then and my older teenage brother was a bootlegger for Atari 800 games. He had a “business” in my parents living room (I’ll never forget the sound of that dial up modem and getting yelled at for picking the phone up). I had absolutely no clue what the instructions were for the Spy vs Spy but thought the graphics were amazing- fun just running around. Another Atari 800 game I loved was Ballblazer.

[@roo72]

I'm a C64 fan but Atari was graphically far more capable machine. Such a pity it has such lazy programmers

[@SChristianCollins]

Apart from having more colors to choose from, how was it "far more capable?" C64 had only 16 colors, but could put more of them on the screen at a time, and the C64's hardware sprites were much more powerful.

[@samp3413]

@@SChristianCollins Correct, all 16 colours on a single scanline on the c64 in high res 320x200. Atari character screen modes are rather weak

[@markdillon5494]

Huh? C64 was far superior

[@roo72]

@@markdillon5494 No. It wasn't. It has far superior sound capabilities but overall was not a better machine.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@SChristianCollins Not true, or better not accurate. Atari can put more colors on screen but the C64 can manage their position far better.....that is until the homebrew scene of Atari showed us differently.

[@Retro_B8]

Awesome video mate, I always enjoy these. I’m a huge fan of the c64 but I’ve got to admit these Atari games look really good!!

[@retrononame]

Thanks! As I mentioned in one of the other comments, I didn't know Atari back in the days, and am quite impressed with what was done on it. Thanks for watching!

[@Retro_B8]

@@retrononame yeah same here, my mate has just bought an XL I think it is, looks a great piece of kit!

[@CaptainRufus]

@@Retro_B8 I've got a 130xe (and later an og 800 because of how 70s it is) and while it doesn't hold up to the C64 its still very cool. It mostly covers Crash era stuff and the home brewers make some excellent original games mostly for free which puts it above a lot of old system communities that just want you to pay 50 bucks for an unapproved underpowered version of Galaga. Thats mostly just taking MSX games and forcing you to also get on a preorder list for a ram expansion so you can uhh.. waste money because you want it to be roughly 1983 forever I guess?

[@turrican4d599]

What?! Those games look horrible! Racing *Destructionkit

[@Retro_B8]

@@turrican4d599 each to their own I guess

[@VIC-20]

Good selection. I found it strange the scrolling on Atari Racing Destruction Set was so poor. The high-res sprites and backgrounds of the C64 Starquake really jump out here.

[@SyntheToonz]

Yes, zero reason for that. Fine scrolling on the Atari works with much less cpu time than the C64. Maybe the game was originally written for the C64 and the programmers didn't know how to do it on the Atari.

[@retrononame]

Thanks. Yeah, the scrolling on Racing Destruction Set ruins the experience on Atari. Shame, as the colors used in the game are pretty nice.

[@thorstenguenther]

You should see how they butchered Pitstop II on the Atari, or Rampage. Funnily, Shanghai is an awesome port - but the story behind it is that its programmer ported it first and then approached Activision to publish it as an official port.

[@VIC-20]

@@thorstenguenther Yeah, I've seen the butchered Atari Pitstop II, terrible! It shouldn't be that way at all.

[@moronicmisfit9148]

great video, but I'm always amazed at people comparing the Atari's against the Commodore 64, when at the time of Atari's release, the Vic-20 was what an Atari was up against. Also Atari was created to be better than the Apple II, which it was. At the time of Commodore's release, 3 years later , if Jay miner had had his way, Atari would have had a mini Amiga style computer to replace the aging Atari 8 bits. And would have kicked the C-64's butt. People tend to forget the Amiga was created by ex Atari employees . and Atari had the Amiga first. till greedy Jack tried to screw them and they ran to Commodore to protect their chipset. So the Atari, for being 3 years older, did a great job at takin on the new kid on the block. Oh and I seen some programmer here sayin the C-64 could put all its colors anywhere on the screen at the sametime and had better scrolling? what the hell are you talkin about? The C-64 has a color table, that limits the change in colors to 8x8 blocks, because its only 1k in size. and Atari's scrolling registers and Display list load memory pointers. are far better than what the C-64 can do. with Interrupts the Atari could be made to do about anything the C-64 could do. put more colors on a single line with Display list interrupts and clock cycle timing. use more sprites on a single line doin the samething. sure it was a pain in the ass, but it could be done. and the excuse that comparing the 800XL to the c-64 is fair is bull. Atari by then just wanted a cheaper Atari , with the only upgrade bein 64k and a built-in better basic. they could have improved the machine, but the Atari 800xl was just a cheaper version of the 800 so Atari could cash grab. So, I like your video, its good, but lets be fair and compare the Atari 8 bits to the Commodore it was up against in the first place, the vic-20, cause I need a good laugh. by the way, I'm a 6502 , 68000 , 386 machine language programmer, been programming since 1982 ,so no one here try to gas lite me about these machine. I know them well.

[@retrononame]

Nicely written. Just wanted to add that these videos are only meant for fun comparison, not a "fair fight" ;) I also compare Spectrum vs. C64 and then PC vs. Amiga, etc... just to see the difference of the same games on the different machines.

[@hammer86_]

Love these comparison videos. Would love to see them side by side.

[@mjs28s]

C64 Racing Destruction Set was the best! Being able to make you on tracks, change gravity use different surfaces (pavement, ice, dirt, etc). The best was low gravity with a very steep ramp. Your car would shoot out of the top of the screen and not come back for quite sometime. So much fun was had with that game.

[@retrononame]

Agreed. It's a fantastic racing/building game on C64 (slow scroll on Atari kills it IMO).

[@gamingtonight1526]

Racing Destruction Set - one of the best game themes you never hear on best lists!

[@lazarushernandez5827]

Had 3 of the games shown in this vid, The Goonies, Spy vs Spy 2 and Racing Destruction Set on the Atari 800xl. For me Goonies and Spy vs Spy 2 was a draw between the Atari and C64 versions. Racing Destruction Set was clearly smoother on the C64. I believe at least one of these games had both Atari and Commodore versions in one purchase, I remember playing all of them at my friends house who had the C64. Great memories.

[@turrican4d599]

Goonies looks and sounds horrible on the Atari.

[@bjbell52]

"Racing Destruction Set was clearly smoother on the C64". Which is why using games written by persons unknown is not the best way to compare one computer's abilities against another. Atari scrolling is very smooth which makes me think the writer of Racing Destruction Set did NOT use the built in scrolling hardware of the Atari 800.

[@CarsandCats]

I can't believe how bad the Atari's sound was on some of these games. Yet on other, it was ALMOST as good as the SID chip. Just lazy programmers I guess because I remember some incredible Atari demoscene releases. And it's graphics were much better than the C64 as well. I had both computers at the same time back in the day so could do direct comparisons.

[@rbrtck]

I've owned and programmed (in machine language) both for decades, and I disagree that the Atari's graphics were better, let alone much better, than the C64's. Each has different strengths, with the Atari's being its much larger palette, for one thing, but the C64 has its own advantages, including better sprites and generally being better at hi-res graphics.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Don't blame the programmers. There were deadlines by software houses and the Atari company doing its best to sue those who wrote games for the platform.

[@timlocke3159]

Boulder Dash: Commodore 64 (Better colors and sound) Silent Service: Tie (Not much difference) StarQuake: Commodore 64 (Better colors) Zorro: Atari 800XL (Better colors and sound) The Goonies: Atari 800XL (Better colors and sound) Spy vs. Spy II: Atari 800XL (Only due to better colors. They are pretty even) Chuckie Egg: Commodore 64 (Better choice of color. Why is the Atari version 3D?) Racing Destruction Set: Commodore 64 (Better scrolling) I haven't played these on real hardware where usually the Atari has better joystick handling. Speaking of all games on both platforms, the Atari versions are usually better due to the faster CPU and larger palette, but sometimes the inability to put as many colors on the screen at the same time hurts it. I'm impressed with the colors on the Atari version of Spy vs. Spy II. The SID is better than the POKEY but the POKEY is no slouch. It has an extra voice, gives the SID some competition, and definitely beats every other 8-bit sound chip. I grew up with a Commodore 64 and didn't get into the Atari computers until about 10 years ago. Today I see the Commodore 64 as more of a game console with a keyboard and a slow floppy drive, and the Ataris as a real computer with a real operating system and DOS, and powerful video game quality graphics. If the Atari had an extra bit plane in bitmap mode, and access to 16KB of RAM like the VIC-II in the C64, that would have allowed twice as many colors, and I think it could have given the Commodore 64 a better fight.

[@ukcroupier]

Fair summary, except Boulder Dash colours vary from level to level on both versions and this video compares a good colour palette vs a poor one. The c64 sound is better though, Atari just sounds like white noise instead of digging.

[@timlocke3159]

@@ukcroupier I find a lot of drum lines in Atari POKEY music also sounds like white noise.

[@turrican4d599]

Tim, are you blind??! Silent Sevice looks UGLY on the Atari!!! And Goonies sounfs HORRIBLE on the Atari! What are you on about???

[@owen800xl]

Boulderdash played a lot better on the Atari. Especially on the harder difficulties when it gets fast the commodore port shows its cracks.

[@CaptainRufus]

The 800 does well for being a 79 computer and not an 82 but... the C64 wins.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

they trade blows at best. I like Starquake on the C64

[@McPlot28]

Having had a C64 back in the day I wanted it to win. But I have to admit that the Atari 800XL looked much better.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Not really. They traded blows.

[@chriscowey7464]

in earlier years the Atari was definetaly in the lead, however you can see how they started to work out how to use the C64 better in this year. Overall I would say the C64 wins, with some close loses. Though you have to wonder are the loses due to the c64 being better, or down to the coding of the game itself. As others have listed them. Boulder Dash: Commodore 64, however I like the Atari graphics. They are quite different styles. Silent Service: Tie. The map room looks better on the c64, The font on the periscope section looks better on the Atari. Its almost like they just shoved it on the screen on the C64 without much thought. Again at a push I would go Atari on this. (The Atari was the first computer I played it on, my neighbour has both the 800xl and 1300xe) StarQuake: Commodore 64, suprisingly better. Like so much better. Was it just a badly written Atari conversion.? Zorro: Tie, in some scenes the c64 seems to have better detail, where as in others the atari does., The Goonies: Again pretty much a tie for me. However the c64 sounds like its running slow. The sound seems..off? So I might lean towards Atari. Spy vs. Spy II: C64, honestly for me the colours and sound are better. Though at the moment it appears to be 2v1 lol :p I think its as the Atari looks darker it does not seem quite right, but then I grew up with spy vs spy on the c64 and the commodore plus 4, and they look similar where as the Atari does not, so maybe I am slightly biased. Chuckie Egg: This is an odd one The c64 is smoother, but the main character seems to be slower. I quite like the look of the atari one, but its not quite like the chuckie egg of other sytems (like C64 bbc micro etc) Racing Destruction Set: Commodore 64 certainly has the better scrolling. Not sure I could put up with that playing like it did on Atari. (again maybe a bad conversion perhaps).

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

If you follow the Homebrew scene and compare common titles you will have your answer. The Atari 8bit is better in many aspects while the c64 is better in specific things.

[@Ayrshore]

Did they port the Spectrum version of Starquake to the Atari by mistake?

[@yksnidog]

A thing needed for comparison would be for which system a game was developed and to which ones it had been when ported. Or if it was recreated. And who had done it. Because if a game was developed on IBM machines, ported to the C-64 and from there ported again to the Atari (which was often the case around this time) it is no wonder if it looks and/or sounds bad on Atari. I'm really a C-64 fanboy but this is unfair for the Atari which was more advanced regarding graphics. The other way around it is also not showing what a C-64 can do when an pure Atari coder did the port. So it would be better to compare games which had been developed in this year but for exactly one of them. Or from developers which made several games for both machines. So Boulder Dash 1 and 2 for example had been developed on an Atari 400 if I remember correctly and the second game was than expanded on an Atari 800. None had been optimized for the Atari 800XL back than as far as I know. But with the knowledge from two machines Peter Liepa got to the C-64. And he didn’t make a port. He recreated the whole thing. New sound, new graphics and so on. So how could we compare Boulder Dash 2 for the Atari 800XL and the one for the C-64? I don’t think we even should...

[@RetroDawn]

Almost no games were created first for IBM PC and ported to C64/Atari HCS.

[@yksnidog]

@@RetroDawn Would be nice to know how you know. I read it was often this way in larger US companys back than. I am more from the homebrew side of software development in europe so I don't know for sure, but it was allways plausible to me. 2 disk drives and the option to add 2 more externally, easy to get parts for it and it was "the" machine around 1982 and 1983 together with Apple II. So what do you think or know? Please share it.

[@RetroDawn]

@@yksnidog You can verify this quite easily by noting that almost none of the action games for both the Atari HCS and C64 were released at all for the IBM PC. Even for those few that were, the ones I can think of were released for the PC later. Games that were developed for the PC first would be RPG and adventure games. Those were often developed for the IBM PC or Apple II first. You are likely especially thinking of Sierra and Origin, for example. None of their games that were released for the Atari HCS were developed for the IBM PC first. The Ultima series, for example, was developed for the Apple II first. Note that most of the Datasoft adventure platformer games, including The Goonies and Zorro in this video, but also including Conan, appear to have been developed first for the Apple II, as they do not use sprites with colors separate from the background, and are perhaps even using soft sprites, like on the Apple II. Not sure where you get that the IBM PC and Apple II were "the" machine in 82-83. The Atari was considered *the* machine for game devs at that time, and the C64 took that position starting in 84. This is with the exception of RPGs and adventure games, ofc, for which the Apple II was *the* machine during that period. I'm speaking as someone from the US who lived through this period.

[@yksnidog]

@@RetroDawn I knew the C-64 came around the corner 1984 as an alternative. So 1 year isn't much time to get used to it. That's why ports came to mind. The IBM 5150 was around for so long and had a huge amount of sales. So it is quiet logical to use it also as software developer and so as game developer. And Apple always did its own thing with all the pros and cons. But it had always design in mind. Tandy TRS-80 was already outdated, but a start for many games which later came to Apple/Atari like Worm (better known as "Snake"), Sea Dragon, Defence Command, Ants!!! or Pinball. But yeah my knowledge is from articles, magazines, websites, interviews and so on. And like I said I would not bet on my informations. But I would also not easy bet on yours. Because "you lived there at the time" doesn't mean you know everything going on around you. My neighbors today also don't know I am a game/software developer and which of my machines I use for what. So if I present a Nintendo Switch game to them I wouldn't be surprised they imagine I developed it on this too. I started programming with the C-64 aged 8. But I also used the PC years later to develop for the C-64 and I even used more years later the C-64 to develop BASIC code I used on Windows Vista. And I spend many time with the history of video games. So for example the Sumerian Game was developed on a PC later ported to Commodore and from there to Atari. So no games had been ported this way can't be correct if there clearly is one. But this doesn't mean I am correct either. It also can be the 1 exception. So I don't want to argue here. I just wanted to state it would be better if there would be informations about it in the video. So maybe we can put a list together?

[@rbrtck]

I wouldn't say that the Atari has more advanced graphics, overall. Having two LSI graphics chips instead of one gives it a lot of modes and features, but the C64 has color maps and a more advanced sprite system for sure, along with some more subtle advantages.

[@triptothebeach]

Nice 1

[@JustMe99999]

The Atari 800 was pretty long in the tooth at this point and was just getting terrible ports. A lot of the selected games aren't really taking advantage of what it was capable of doing.

[@BassGoesBoom1]

Always impressed with the Atari eight bit machines.

[@6502Nerd]

Nice video. I guess you were a little constrained by 1985, but Elektra Glide by English Software was available for Atari and C64 in 1985. I really enjoyed that game on the Atari and thought it played, looked and even sounded better than on the C64! Also, in 1985 was the amazing Ballblazer by Lucas Arts - again it looked and even sounded better on the Atari than the C64. You can tell I am a little biased towards the Atari - partly because I had one back in the day vs a C64!!

[@RetroDawn]

Don't forget the other 1985 Lucasfilm Games titles: Rescue on Fractalus, Koronis Rift, and The Eidolon. They all were also better on the Atari. This video should have really included all of them.

[@6502Nerd]

@@RetroDawn Oh I thought Fractulus was 1984 and forgot about Eidolon! But yes totally agree, they showed off the Atari 8 bits really well.

[@RetroDawn]

​@@6502Nerd The beta version, Behind the Jaggi Lines, was leaked in 84 (along with Ballblaster--the Ballblazer beta leak), and it originally was supposed to be released in the 3rd quarter of that year. Most of the delay was because Jack Tramiel bought Atari and no longer wanted to abide by the original publishing deal--most likely due mostly to his focus on getting the Atari ST released. The 5200 version of it and Ballblazer were released in late 86, along with the 7800, two and a half years after the previous 5200 cartridge release from Atari.

[@ingoinkognito4517]

Ich fühle mich wie ein Spieletester beim ASM-Magazin :-)

[@cybermodo]

European game coders did a lot to push C64 to the maximum, but Atari's 8-bit machines weren't as relevant for European market as C64 was. Thus having much smaller pool of dedicated skillful coders.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

IT depends what you mean by "European game coders". If you follow the Homebrew scene you will see that Eastern Europe still produces amazing games and hardware for the Atari bit machine. There is a health competition between these platforms. Check "Chaos" and "Trax" for these machines.

[@montymole7114]

Worth remembering that the Atari hardware is circa 78-79 which is quite a long time.

[@thehmc]

This is the Atari 800XL, which came out in 1983. The Atari 800 is the one that came out in '79.

[@montymole7114]

@@thehmc Same fundamental hardware with the only notable difference being 64k vs 48k. The technology is 79.

[@gregornu]

@@montymole7114 Yes, the roots of Atari lies in the video game business. While Commodore came in 1975 with the PET for school and office/business.

[@RetroDawn]

@@gregornu The PET 2001, CBM's first computer, was in 1977.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@thehmc Same chipset, minor improvements.

[@michaelhill6453]

Racing Destruction Set aside, it looks like Atari was holding its own back in 1985.

[@Dan-in-Virginia]

Silent Service was cool, but Spy vs Spy was awesome. They need to produce a new version of that like Shadow Complex.

[@RetroDawn]

The 2005 Spy Vs Spy "sequel" for the XBox and PS2 was pretty bad, unfortunately. My dad and I played the heck out of it, anyway (mostly b/c he enjoyed it). There was a 2018 attempt at a sequel and remaster of that 2005 sequel, named Spy vs. Spy vs. Spy (or Spies), but it was cancelled, as they didn't get permission from DC

[@bitset3741]

C64 - slightly better sprites, scrolling, and sound but slower cpu - color ram made a big difference. Atari - enough of a faster cpu to make up a lot of the difference. (1.79mhz, but the video chip interrupted it more often) They were very evenly matched, unfortunately the Atari market had some trouble. I remember reading articles and interviews at the time from devs saying they weren't planning Atari releases, because while piracy was as rampant on both, the Atari market was just smaller. Unfortunately that affected the quality of some of the games they did release on Atari. I started out in the 80's with Atari, and then got into Commodore, and had both, then and now.

[@RetroDawn]

Atari HCS (8-bit Home Computer System) had a more flexible graphics chipset that actually had bitmap scrolling support, unlike the C64. Also it had far more colors and video modes. And the Pokey had an additional voice and better sound effects.

[@rbrtck]

I would say that the C64's sprites are quite a bit better, having the twice the detail horizontally, in addition to other advantages. In general, the C64 does "hi-res" better, and has more useful hi-res modes, due to the color maps (1, 2, or 3 of them, depending on the mode). The Atari's CPU runs at the full speed of the system bus, which is nice, but that means the ANTIC has to interrupt the CPU for every single byte it accesses, so effectively the CPU was only about 13% faster, with both computers running in the most commonly used mode and sprites active. The Atari's sprites don't have vertical position registers (like on the C64), so it takes more CPU cycles to copy/shift data to move sprites vertically, and they don't have pointers (like on the C64), either, so animating them involves copying sprite data, as well. So even when using only hardware sprites, that extra 13% is already getting used up. I think one of Atari's problems with market share was that Atari's financial problems were widely publicized at the time, so the C64 seemed like a safer bet. Whether one was technologically superior to the other, they were close enough that other factors were more significant.

[@rbrtck]

@@RetroDawn Having more colors (mostly through 8 shades of each hue) is nice, but having tons of modes chewed up a lot of silicon real estate for features that weren't necessarily all that useful or actually utilized. It's like the low-res 16-color 40x40 graphics mode on the Apple II. Who cares about that? The HCS has a 40x24 graphics mode and other low-res modes that I bet hardly anyone ever uses, but each takes a different DMA access pattern that fills up a second graphics chip with circuitry that isn't used. All of this circuitry could have been used to implement more useful features, such as better sprites. Or maybe everything could have been condensed onto a single graphics chip instead of two. For kicks, early this year, I made an Atari 800 "emulator" for the C64 called Commodore 800 or C800. It's only for running Atari BASIC programs, but I still had to emulate the HCS' many graphics modes. Except for the three GTIA modes, of course, I found it rather easy to emulate the HCS' more numerous graphics modes, and with processing speeds equal to or exceeding those of a real Atari 800 (meaning, for one thing, that I'm not using modes that take tons more data and processing for this--most operations under Atari BASIC actually run faster on my "emulator" on the C64, even with its slightly slower CPU). The C64's character modes in conjunction with the color map easily emulated all of the lower resolution modes of the HCS, so the C64 can have the same modes while using less silicon (only one graphics chip), which means it is a more efficient design in some ways, which was why Commodore made a profit on every C64 sale, while Atari lost money on most of their 800XL sales (the most popular HCS model, no less). So the C64 only has 5 graphics modes versus 17, but it doesn't mean the HCS is more than 3 times as capable. That's not how things work at all. The C64 is also very "flexible" in its own ways, while the HCS is arguably more about brute force: more graphics chips, lots more graphics modes, a little bit faster CPU. But it still has to resort to using "tricks" early on to do what the C64 does naturally with its color map(s), for example. Speaking of tricks, the C64 can do some of its own with raster interrupts. I'm not sure what you mean by "flexibility", but there are different types of that, as I've described. The C64 can do just as much or more of some things with fewer modes, which seems pretty "flexible" to me. Of course, the HCS is also better at some things than the C64. I've owned and programmed both for many years, and it is really difficult for me to pick which one is "better" overall. "Better at what?" is an easier question.

[@rbrtck]

@@RetroDawn As for the POKEY vs the SID, the POKEY does have an additional voice and more options for sound effects, but the SID has more options and automation for music, including independent envelope generators for each voice. In terms of frequency resolution, the SID also has 3 16-bit voices compared to 4 8-bit voices on the POKEY. This is why many POKEY tunes sound out of tune for those who can accurately perceive pitch. The POKEY can combine 2 voices to make a single 16-bit voice, but then it would either have 3 voices total like the SID, with 2 of the voices only being 8-bit, or only 2 16-bit voices compared to 3 on the SID. So for noise-like sound effects, the POKEY is definitely better, but for music and for fancy sound effects made by someone who knows how to use a synthesizer, the SID is definitely better. The POKEY is also better if you absolutely need 4 voices instead of 3, but those would only be 8-bit voices, as I said. As with these computers as a whole, it's hard to pick which is "better" overall. Better at what?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@rbrtck CPU interruptions are common in all machines (I think the C64 has two types of Cpu interruptions). After all those interactions don't affect the performance of the CPU , just its access to the memory. The processing goes on in the CPU for the cycles it has being interrupted by Antic . Now the percentage of how faster the CPU is differs from game to game. i.e. THe atari 8bit is 21% in Stunt Car racer.(pretty convenient game to compare performances).

[@merman1974]

Chuckie Egg and Starquake originated on the Spectrum/Timex, but the others all started life on the Atari 8-bits. Racing Destruction Set has lengthy load times on the C64, it must be even worse on Atari! Datasoft had some very original games, including the likes of Zorro, The Goonies (love the way you control two characters) and of course Bruce Lee.

[@RetroDawn]

The other games were not all originally developed for the Atari HCS. RDS was a C64 original, for example. Not sure why you think the load times would be worse on the Atari HCS, as its FDD was far faster than the C64's--although neither were very fast, as they both used a serial interface.

[@rbrtck]

@@RetroDawn The serial buses weren't the reason both were so slow with disk drives. With *no* hardware modifications, just software solutions, the C64 and 1541 could load 10 times or more faster, easily, and with a relatively simple hardware modification to the Atari's drives, along with some driver support, they could load just as fast. Why they were so slow out of the the box (especially the C64) is kind of a long story.

[@rbrtck]

@@RetroDawn Out of the box, the HCS' disk data transfer rate was about 3 times faster at 1200 bytes/s, but that was still really slow, even for an 8-bit computer. The C64 with common software- or cartridge-based "fastloaders" exceeded this speed by quite a bit. The C64 and 1541 floppy drive were originally designed to transfer data at about 4 kB/s, and could easily do it, but mistakes and bad decisions from management were made, and the data transfer rate ended up being about 1/10th the intended rate. The HCS' disk data transfer rate was limited for different reasons, one of which being that Atari lacked the signal analysis equipment to test it at a faster rate. Engineers of both companies also ran out of time, as they usually did, so all of the problems they ran into couldn't be fixed before release. The cool thing about the 1541 (and all Commodore drives), though, is that it can be reprogrammed from the computer, which allowed for highly effective software/firmware-based fastloaders (using much faster, more optimized protocols) to be made before long.

[@RussMichaels]

I definitely would have been happy with the Atari 800 if I didn't have a c64 Although what was the demo/cracking scene like on Atari? As that's where most of my time was spend. Cracking, coding, phreaking, bbs's

[@turrican4d599]

Yeah, If I would have been blind and tonedeaf, I would have been happy too with an Atari.

[@RussMichaels]

@@turrican4d599 it looks like you are already 🤣

[@RetroDawn]

You should check out the Atari demos. There are some *very* impressive ones.

[@RussMichaels]

@@RetroDawn i have already checked out some of them on KZbin

[@RetroDawn]

@@RussMichaels Not quite the same, ofc, but definitely gives an idea. Have you seen Drunk Chessboard or Numen? Those are the best 2 classics. Also Ultra, Vengance, Asskicker, Tekno, and more.

[@CaratacusAD]

You must remember that the Atari came out in 1979 vs 1982 for the C64. But to be honest it all depended on the programmers. As you can see from some of your games the Atari versions looked better mostly and vice versa. The colour palettes were different too. Even the POKEY chip on the Atari could be made to sound as good as the SID on the C64. Atari did also sometimes suffer from some truly awful conversions by some lazy programmers. Check out how bad Green Beret is on the Atari.

[@MacMelmac]

Star Quake was a favourite on the C64

[@dyscotopia]

Very impressive considering the tech was multiple years old when the c64 came out. Commodore just figured out how to make it cheaper and less colorful

[@fredflintstone505]

Commodore bought the company that made the 6502 cpu and other custom chips. That was one way they made it cheaper. The Atari 800 was a much more solid build computer.

[@Chiavaccio]

👏👏👍👍👍👍

[@bsdetector6908]

The Atari 800 had inferior sprites, audio and resolution (16 colour mode was 80x200 on Atari) . The c64 had an inferior CPU and colour palette. But, you show me an Atari 800 game with better graphics than Uridium c64 or better music than Parallax c64, not happening. Horizontal scrollers exposed the Ataris graphical shortcomings.

[@virtuafighter3]

Zaxxon was fast on the Atari. Dropzone better on the Atari and fast. Read Archer Macleans interview he says the Atari was faster than the C64 conversion he did. "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.[5]" < This is why I think later programmers did not try hard enough on the A8. The Lucasfilm games are better on the A8.

[@bsdetector6908]

@@virtuafighter3 Dropzone was released in 1985 when the c64 was barely 3 years old and devs were getting to grips with the hardware. Look at Uridium, Delta, Last Ninja, Katakis or Paradroid on the c64 and tell me the stock Atari 800 could look as good and play as well.Ive seen Uridium clones on an A800 and they are ugly affairs. Blobs? Atari doesnt have a blitter. I respect Archer but I think there are top, top c64 devs who got more out of the box than he did.

[@virtuafighter3]

@@bsdetector6908 You make a point. I have both C64 and Atari. I do think top level A8 development stopped in 1985 and no progress in bulk really after that. I have Uridium on the c64, played it in 1986 January. Have fond memories. I do not think Paradroid and Uridum could not be cloned. It may have less colours or something but the scrolling is not beyond the A8 in theory. *It is the programmer that counts*. Time and again I see 2000s remakes on computers from all 8 bit types and the things they make them do are beyond the 80s programmers.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

You are confusing the incompetence of programmers (or the tight deadlines) with the capabilities of the machines. Atari 's hardware sprites (player missile graphics) were inferior only because it the machine doesn't need them. Atari can move software sprites with ease. Most Homebrew games prove that. Audio on Atari 8bit isn't inferior. Jay Miner in his talks describes the capabilities of Pokey and its similarities to Paula(Amiga).The ASMA project and Homebrew/Demo scene prove his words 100%. C64 Cpu isn't inferior. IT is limited by the architecture's clock of the platform. Atari resolution aged fast but you wont find a game at that mode with only 16 colors. There are many tricks that allow more than 60 colors to be on screen. Atari has hardware scrolling and scaling. Compare Tangent and Guard (same game on different platforms in my channel) to see the difference between these platforms. also check the following games for Better graphics and animation in general: Prince of Persia, Bomp Jack, Pang, Assembloids, Bosconian, Lunarblitz, Mario Bros XE arcade, Popeye Arcade, Stealth, Stunt car racer, Fractalus, Eidolon,Koronis Rift, , Eidolon, Timeslip, Space Harrier, Total Eclipse, Frogger 2, Mutant Camels...etc Both machines are really good for their era but to say that the C64 was better in graphics, sound and scrolling is just ignorant of the Atari library.

[@bsdetector6908]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 the Atari 800 was better at 3D games. However, when it comes to scrolling arcade type shoot em ups the Ataris colour limitations became apparent. A stock C64 could scroll a multicolour bitmap mode image 160x 200 with all 16 colours on the same raster line, a stock Atari cannot - not at the same resolution. An Atari's hardware sprites are single coloured and just 8 pixels wide as compared to the C64's 24. The Atari software sprites you are talking about would have to share the same colour palette as the bitmap they are placed on. In addition, pixel perfect positioning without pre-shifting the pixel data was impossible. You can place a C64 sprite in any X,Y coordinate without such tricks. There is absolutely nothing the Atari can do that the Atari can't, albeit slower and with less colour.

[@ckatheman]

I had the Atari growing up and there was always the C64 Atari “war” as to which was better. 6 of the games were basically par, but with Starquake it’s obviously worse on the Atari, and Racing Destruction Set was always a pile of crap on the Atari

[@virtuafighter3]

I can't see why they could not have more than 1 colour on Starquake on the A8

[@PG-gs5vb]

@@virtuafighter3 Atari does not have a color map, or attributes, as they're called on the Spectrum. So coloring hi-res graphics was very limited - you could only use Display List interrupts to add color vertically, or PMGs (sprites) to add a some horizontally. It took a lot of effort to do it.

[@jamesg872]

The SID chip still legendary.

[@aaronbrowne7862]

Too muffled with it's analogue filters compared to Atari's digital POKEY. Oh dear, what have I said? ::-D

[@gamedoutgamer]

Prefer both Zorro and Goon's music on A8bit pokey.

[@jay1177]

C64 wins most of those match ups

[@retrononame]

For me, Silent service and Spy vs. Spy 2 play better on Atari. Chuckie Egg is there/there. Others are (for me) better on C64. Oh, and Zorro has better music on Atari as well, but the game is better on C64 overall. The problem is (probably) that it was hard to even find 8 games released on both systems in 1985, and there are probably quite a few very nice gems on Atari that are not available on C64. Will cover Atari in more detail in the future, because I'm really interested in what I can find in the catalogue. As always - thanks for watching!

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

another way to say "I am a C64 fanboy" ...lol

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@retrononame "Better" is a vague term.Most of the time people prioritize different aspects of the game in their evaluations. 1. Boulder Dash 2 is good in both platform for what it is. I prefer the low robust SFXs produced by the Pokey than the scritchy sfx on the C64...but that doesn't make a port better than the other. 2.Silent Service. I prefer the graphics on the C64 even if there is nothing special for both platforms. I don't like this type of games so I can not verify your point in favor of the Atari (gameplay). 3.Starquake: I prefer the C64 version. Graphics and Sound are better. The Atari 8bit version is a lazy port. 4. Zorro: The Atari port is superior in color and sound. The gameplay is equal. 5.The Goonies. The GFX are the same , the music on the C64 is even more annoying than the Atari version. 6.Spy vs Spy 2: The GFX are similar but I prefer the darker colors on the Atari. SFX are annoying on the Atari version. The game play is superior on the Atari. 7.Chuckie Egg:.....well bad SFX in both ports, interesting perspective on the Atari version, better colors on the C64. 8.Racing Destruction Set. Bad scrolling on the atari machine, great on the C64. Better colors and gfx on the Atari.

[@retrononame]

I agree. That's why I always mention better "for me" (so what I personally like more). It's a matter of taste and opinion of course and most games are very close (quality wise) on both systems.

[@rbrtck]

@@retrononame Did you consider _Mail Order Monsters_ ? I know they were released in different years, but on the title screens, the copyright dates are 1984-85 for the original C64 version and 1985-86 on the Atari version, so there is some overlap at 1985, at least based on this. I think it's a pretty decent example of some of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both computers, as the Atari version at least tries to do some "Atari-esque" things, rather than being sort of a common subset of the original. By that I mean how colors are used, "rainbow" effects, and such. And the C64 version uses hi-res graphics where the Atari can't, for instance.

[@dennyhaynes3]

I've checked all the comments but hands down the C64 comes out top on all the games, whether it's graphics, gameplay or music. Great video again mate.

[@retrononame]

Thanks!

[@b213videoz]

NOT true! Even in this video Boulder Dash was better on Atari... and so were River Raid, Blue Max, Ninja, Dropzone, H.E.R.O., Star Raiders 2 (C64 didn't even have Star Raiders 1 which is the first 3d space sim game on pc)

[@elmoredneal5382]

You might want to get glasses and a hearing aid then 🤔

[@dennyhaynes3]

@@elmoredneal5382 Why are you being so rude. Jesus, they're just retro games. Last time I comment on this channel, always attracts comments like this.

[@madd20]

during wars between c64 and atari owner - we despised atari - now i know that atari cpu was faster, have better colour palette and only disadvantages were lack of SID (was pokey -not this same quality) and lazy programers :)

[@retrononame]

I know. It was similar between Spectrum and C64 owners (I was a Speccy owner as a kid). But, today, I'm just interested in these machines in general, because when you try them, you can see that all of them have good and bad things about them. I never knew Atari XL back then and I must say I'm impressed by some games that were made for it. Thanks for watching!

[@turrican4d599]

@@retrononame Excuse me, but the Speccy was in no regard better than the C64. Same goes for the 800XL.

[@retrononame]

I didn't actually meant that any machine was better than the other. I was talking about "wars" between owners (I said it was similar "war" going on between the Spectrum and C64 owners back in the 80s). I do state, however, that the "beauty" is in the eyes of beholder and though I do agree that C64 was generally more advanced machine than the Speccy (bar the slower CPU of course), there were (at least for me) some games that were better (played better) on Spectrum. As I mentioned a couple of times here on the channel - I just enjoy all retro machines now and enjoy exploring things I couldn't when I was a kid back in the 80s. For me personally, the "war times" between owners of different micros are long over ;)

[@madd20]

@@retrononame anyone who is interested in the history of the creation of zxspectrum and c64 knows how these computers were created and what are their differences - "wars" that were fought between "tribes" are normal (in every aspect of life) :) if you got such a computer from your parents and you have to live with it, now that you defend it probably because of nostalgia. Even recently at work a friend tried to "crush" me with an amstrad cpc464 (which was made 3 years after c64 and comparing every game on it - personaly it was a piece of shit served by Alan Sugar and with core from sinclair). Often it's not about the hardware but about the developers and the quality of the games. Many of them were made in a hurry to publish them - to earn money on the hype of the arcade port that sells. You can have the technically best console in the world, but if it is difficult to program and there are no games for it, it will only become a shabby piece of equipment on the collector's shelf. The speed of the processor itself means nothing - the c64 had 1Mhz and the amiga 7mhz but the 6502/10 performed more operations per clock cycle - so theoretically the amiga was only 2.4x faster but it had better graphics, music and more ram. Same with the ZX spectrum - the z80 at 3.5Mhz was only slightly faster than the 6502/10 @1Mhz (0.52Mips vs 0.46Mips). The whole architecture matters because if the processor has an external graphics chip, it doesn't have to process graphics on its own.

[@madd20]

@@turrican4d599 ok, why?

[@AgentM79]

In the final tally, the Atari 800/800XL was a better game machine AND a better computer. The C64 disk drive was SLOW. And the cartridge library was small. The 800/800XL had a better disk system and a large library of cartridge software. Also, AtariWriter was a great WP -especially given the 40 column display. C64 DID possess a superior sound chip in the SID. But, the play is the thing. And Atari wins in my book.

[@jssonstevens59]

Haha hmm

[@AgentM79]

@@jssonstevens59 Change my mind.

[@tm0054]

The C64 def had advantages but the C64 disk drive was horrendous, it was the speed of a tape drive. No idea how they allowed that to hit the market in that state, it was very slow even for its time. You could buy accessories to speed up loading on some games though. Also their disk management was archaic as you needed the load command in Basic to run games as opposed to just turning on the computer with a disk inserted. I loved both machines though, the C64 def had an edge in sprites. Honestly though I think the rift in quality favoring the C64 from the mid 80s on was just the popularity of the machines. When the C64 first came out games looked much better on the Atari 8 bit line most likely because devs were building on Atari first then porting to the C64. I think that flip-flopped in the mid 80s as the C64 surpassed Atari in popularity.

[@AgentM79]

@@tm0054 I think programmer skill brought both systems within margin-of-error. C-64 games often looked better, but Atari games played better. C-64 had the SID chip, but Atari had four voices to the C-64’s three. Atari’s player/missile graphics were comparable to the C-64’s sprites. And if you prefer cartridge-based games (as I did, and still do!), the Atari wins hands-down. There were more games available in that format. The C-64 never had Star Raiders of K-Razy Shootout. Additionally, Atari first-party games were usually better on the Atari machines as opposed to their AtariSoft ports to the C-64 (perhaps by design). I concur that Atari games probably saw their best quality earlier in the 400/800 lifecycle, as opposed to later in the 80’s when the C-64 captured a far-larger market share. Software producers invested more heavily in C-64 development, and it did show. Plus, software piracy undermined later Atari game development due to the smaller user base. I will say this, though, in 2022. Atari machines, particularly the 800, were built to last. I’m still gaming on a machine I bought before Y2K. I have an 800XL as well, but only use it for newer 64K games. I also don’t think anyone in the 80’s would have chosen a C-64 keyboard over that of an Atari 800 for word processing.

[@turrican4d599]

@@AgentM79 BULLSHIT!

[@CaptainDangeax]

Graphically I would call a draw. When scrolling or sound is involved, the C64 wins

[@turrican4d599]

A draw. 🤣

[@manonpiano]

Boulder Dash 2 = Digger clone.

[@PeBoVision]

POKEY certainly could hold it's own against much lauded SID!

[@tm0054]

Yea some games proved the POKEY was not hitting it's potential like the SID was. Games like International Karate from Epyx, the theme song sounds amazing on the Pokey chip. Also modern homebrews show the chip had a lot more juice in it than the vast majority of games utilized.

[@PeBoVision]

@@tm0054 I installed a DSAPSC SID card in my TI peripheral expansion box a few years ago, and while it did make chiptunes sound far more rich than they had any right to sound, I think a Pokey card would probably sound equally good similarly gerryrigged into the TI, and only moderately better than the native TMS9919 already sounds under the instructions of a skilled coder.

[@turrican4d599]

Oh man, the comment section. Blind people and now also tonedeaf ones.

[@AgeofReason]

To be fair, these are mostly terrible games on with system.

[@storhemulen]

Smooth scrolling and superior sound, the 64 wins most of the times. Even more so for later games.

[@pauledwards2817]

The C64 won out because it had 8 conventional sprites and could do hires text/graphics with parallel colour attributes but other than that it was a PET with more memory and cheap case. I never understood why it was such a hit, the basic was dreadful, sixteen miserable washed out colours and huge border around the screen for PAL. Turboloading tapes probably saved it, without them appearing fairly quickly it would have tanked. The SID was a step forward but it always sounded like someone had let a swarm of insects in to the room and never had much colour or urgency, at least it was in tune unlike most NTSC games on PAL Atari 8 bit and the same 16 colours on PAL and NTSC. Always remember that Atari was released 3 years before the C64.

[@SChristianCollins]

Here's one reason the C64 was such a hit: it didn't cost a fortune. We can talk about all the ways the Atari 8-bits may have been technically better, but they were EXPENSIVE, had less RAM, and were not so much better than the C64 to warrant the cost. People voted with their wallets.

[@turrican4d599]

Paul, the SID is AWESOME! You need to see the Doctor.

[@rbrtck]

And the Atari 8-bit (A8) was based on the VCS/2600, so what's your point about the PET? They're all built around a MOS (owned by Commodore) CPU. So what? You're saying that aside from the chip set (VIC-II and SID) and features that really define the C64, it's just a PET. Most games and applications on the C64 ignored the ROMs or switched them out for RAM anyway, so how is it a PET in any meaningful and presumably disparaging way? I can tell you that the weird player-missile graphics on the A8 are based on the weird equivalents on the VCS. Is that disparaging, or just another case of one thing being based on another, but is still different and its own thing? The C64 has a bad BASIC? Well, the Atari 800 doesn't even have BASIC unless you plug in a cartridge. There is the _Simons' BASIC_cartridge on the C64 that gives it a far more complete and advanced BASIC with a much fuller set of graphics commands than _Atari BASIC_ offers. Of course, there are better BASICs and other languages available for the A8, as well, but if you're comparing what they came with, then the C64 came with a rudimentary BASIC while the Atari 800 came with none. The C64's colors are only washed out and miserable on PAL. On NTSC, they look fine and make for somewhat "naturalistic" images, as opposed to the garishly saturated and thoroughly artificial-looking palettes of many computers of the time. The A8 has 16 hues and 8 values or shades of each, which is certainly more, but they're kind of odd, not-fully-saturated hues--whatever Atari could get for the least circuitry, and the hues were different between NTSC and PAL because whatever happened, happened--the hues were not specifically chosen. The C64 became such a hit in large part because it offered a lot for the money, and programming it was often easier than most other computers. You didn't have to go straight to your "bag of tricks" to get more colors and/or sprites on the screen, for example. Atari responded with the reduced-cost XL and even-more-reduced-cost XE series, but by then, the industry was wondering how long they'd be around, given all of the money the company was bleeding. Warner wanted to dump Atari, and so did the industry. Without Jack Tramiel, whom I realize some love to hate, who knows what would have happened? The C64 became a happening thing while the A8 looked like it might soon be orphaned, and once people and software developers started making their choice based on this, the C64 really had no competition in the home computer market. I know this on a personal level because I had this choice to make at the time, and I chose the C64, despite having always wanted an Atari computer to go with my Atari VCS. Additionally, the C64 surprised me with what it could do when I played with ones that my friends and neighbors owned. Then, as now, I can see that the C64 and A8 each have strengths/advantages over the other. Commodore managed to roughly match the A8's capability at a lower price, and to this day, I can't decide which is better overall. I had always thought of the A8 as being higher-end and more capable, but having learned about them both thoroughly and programmed them in machine (assembly) language, I was surprised at what the C64 can do and some of the limitations that the A8 that I hadn't expected. They're both pretty much equal, as far as I'm concerned.

[@rbrtck]

@@SChristianCollins There are ways in which the C64 is technically better, too. That's not a one-way street, and it's really hard to choose between the two as the best overall. Commodore could have gone for superior in every way, since the C64 came later, but they chose instead to hit a low price point that would allow the C64 to sell well and make a profit on each sale in the face of competition from the upcoming 16-bit computers.

[@GandaMelgao]

Bloody awful 😞. Amazing how people played these games. And I played even worse, because at the time I had a Spectrum 48k. 😁

[@ZXSpectrumHotel]

Atari wins!

[@marcsmithsonian9773]

Well, Atari have nothing but excuses, what else can come from company witha alogo depicting two drunk guys leading sober one in the middle, not to.mention function keys resembling Cheskie Knedlicki.

[@aaronbrowne7862]

Come again? The Atari logo is one of the most iconic of all time! Do you go to sleep cuddling a C64? :-D

[@illegalquantity]

Zorro and Chuckie Egg are better on the Atari 800 XL. The rest is better on the C64.

[@turrican4d599]

What a horrible system!

[@advfreak]

C64 Sounds better 🖖🏻😜

[@RetroDawn]

POKEY made better sound effects in general, though.

[@aaronbrowne7862]

SID is muffled analogue mess! Give me digital pokey any day. Sounds more authentic. SID sounds like a wannabe. :-D

[@elmoredneal5382]

Sid might be "better" 🤷‍♂️ But every single game shown here sounded worse on the C64 version

[@pablopereyra5837]

c64 forever!!!