man, the C64 had all the cool shoot em ups

[Arkhan]

The shooters were abysmal compared to other computers at the time.

1 button, totally cool.  NOT.



MSX had better Konami shooters, and PC Engine had better everything.


Sorry, but the C64 ports of nearly every shooter were a disaster.



does Parallax count as a shooter?  It was good.

[Arkhan]

I don't think it's fair to compare it to the PC Engine, since it came along much later.

Sure it is. It was only 3 years later, and uses a 6502 based CPU just the same.     Sure its souped up, but its still an 8bit CPU.

If we cant compare to the PCE, we could just compare them to the NES and get similar results.

or the arcade originals.


Sidearms on C64 is an abortion.

[Arkhan]

1982 vs 1987 is not 3 years.

whatever, 82, 84, close enough.
 
Splitting hairs since the PCE was ready in 86, so 4 years difference and the same CPU architecture.
 
I blame the VIC-II for all the commodore shmups sucking.  It just doesn't do action-packed shooters right without looking like crap.
 
and the SID for often having sfx that overtake the music, no music at all, or no sfx.  
 
No shooter really found the proper balance on the C64.

[Arkhan]

Why do you blame the VIC-II. Any particular reason, or are you just saying it for fun ? What aspect of the VIC-II do you blame for this ? Additionally I wonder if you actually know anything about it other than the name ? As it is it sounds like you're deliberately trying to provoke responses from people. If that's something you enjoy then good luck to you.
As for the CPU, a 7.16 mhz HuC6280A is far from the same thing as a 6502. Sure they share some herritage, but so does a 80286 and an i7.

The VIC-|| palette is ugly in general.  Its drab, and all the shooters lose their vibrance and get very muddy.    R Type looked terrible compared to the arcade one, and compared to other home versions.
 
The resolution makes the games look chunky.  It just looks gooney in comparison to the arcade one.  Look at Sidearms, Nemesis, and even Saint Dragon.  Muddy.  Alot more crisp/vibrant on other computers... even if there was blocky scrolling (which is frivolous imho).  Sidearms is just a travesty in general.  both audio/video wise.
 
The 6280 is a 6502 derivative with the only real differences being the speed increase (With the option to flip back to the slow-as-balls mode), and onboard PSG.  They use the same irritating 6502 assembly, and are way more similar than you seem to think.  The real gain the PCE has over the C64 is much better tile/sprite hardware.  But it has no other screen modes, so you can't do alot of the neat tricks the VIC *did* have access to, despite having ugly colors.
 
 
I program for both machines.   Its not like im just flailing around and making stuff up.

[Arkhan]

well, when everyone else is playing their C64's in 1982, you can wait till 1989 for your PCengine USA launch. Good luck with that.

You mean Turbo Grafx-16 in USA.
 
and its all history, meaning it all happened already....so...... theres no waiting.
 
also, might want to pony up on your wikipedia skills or something.  Most of the good shooters didn't come out until the PCE was either out, or about to be out, and by then the NES, SMS, and MSX has tons of shooters too.   Star Soldier, Gall Force, Star Force, Starship Hector, a bunch of other stuff not-released-on-c64 that was completely awesome, and then the same stuff as the C64....so.... yeah
 
Were comparing shooters.   The C64 did not do shooters as well as alot of people think.  Especially when you have one frigging button.
 
plus i think bitd i would rather shove quarters in an arcade machine than play the home versions on the c64, if having one of the other machines wasnt an option.

[Arkhan]

"Sure it is. It was only 3 years later, and uses a 6502 based CPU just the same."
 
your specificaly comparing architectures that are 7 years apart in date (you might as well say, hey why play doom? just wait and play unreal tournament!).

3-4ish years of difference.  Oh no.  The difference between the current argument, and your new example is 1) Yours is predicting the future 2) DOOM wasnt trying to bring arcade games home in a poorly done fashion.
 
Its not even just the shooters.  Wanna play Double Dragon on c64? I sure dont.
 

Seeing as your a coder, you should know what a massive gap that is, you should also know better than to come into other peoples threads with your fists swinging.

you mean with a different opinion that at least has reasons why, that aren't really too unacceptable.  Sorry I don't drop my pants and pleasure myself to all things C= as if theyre the only true way of life.
 
and no, the two processors arent that super duper different.  The video chip difference is what really makes or breaks things, not the CPU.

[Arkhan]

You keep mentioning conversions, but that's far from a benchmark for what a machine capable of, especially in the early 80's. Much like the Amiga games designed for the machine show what it's capable of more often than badly coded conversions. Gimme Katakis, iO, Armalyte, Citadel, Cybernoid, and a bunch of others over the arcade conversions anyday. Also, just because conversions are poor doesnt mean the machine isnt up to the task (hmm,... this is familiar). Unlike some of the systems you've mentioned developers of c64 ports seldom received the same sort of help that was given to big name Asian compaines. Even if it's not (up to a particular task) so freaking what ?
 
End of the day the c64 had some great shooters, regardless of what other machines did better/worse.

 
were talking about shooters.  That includes them all.  including the shoddy conversions.  I wasnt the only one who mentioned them so dont go acting like I went and did the unthinkable or some shit.
 
if the conversions blow, thats not good.  The games that defined the genre blow on the c64, and you dont see it as a problem because Katakis and Armalyte are around? euhhh.   I don't think like 5 ok shooters make up for all the conversions sucking.
 
whats next, Lions of the Universe is the holy (hahah) grail of c64 shooters?

[Arkhan]

Lets try this again, 1982....1989. I'm not the one who needs to pony up on Wikipedia Arkhan.
 
'waana play double dragon' -couple years wait for PCE after that came out.
 
'two processors arent that super duper different' other than one being 7 times faster than the other, you mean? been coding long dude?
 
as for dropping your pants, I know you only lube up for X68000.

1) REMOVED the PCE came out in 87, but was developed in 86
 
2) 6-2 = 4.
 
3) Double Dragon was never released on the PCE.
 
4) Yeah I've been coding long. You can toggle the PCE down to a standard 6502 speed, and whats funny is in many instances it doesn't impact things. Sometimes doing so even makes memory transfer faster.
 
The mhz aren't really the big factor. Its the video hardware. Thats what makes it do so much better. From a coding standpoint, theres not much difference at all. You still have the same annoyances and optimizations to worry about despite having 6 more mhz of power.
 
The MSX2 pulls off better shooters than the c64, using a plain z80 which is slower than the PCE too. The video chip is the key. See how that works?
 
5) You don't know much apparently then. I dont like x68000's much.
 
 
Did you have two scoops of fail for breakfast or what.

[Arkhan]

I never said (or even implied) there was anything wrong with pointing out that a lot of c64 shooter conversions werent good, heck, even I did it, merely that it's not the way to judge a genre on a particular system, as most of your posts have alluded to (you even bought up double dragon for Pete's sake).
Just a thought but maybe you should stop clutching at straws here trying to dismiss c64 shooters. By now you're just embarassing yourself. Everyone else seems to see it, but you continue to argue for the sake of arguing. Let it go dude, it's more than obvious most dont agree with you. To each his own.

I never said you said that. I was talking to Sgt. Fail up there above you. I dont see the big deal with saying/thinking the C64 shooters suck. I'm sure im not alone. There are better options out there, lol. The c64 had some awesome adventure and RPG games though.
 
Its not really embarassing myself either if im not wrong, and I've explained some valid opinions as to WHY they aren't kickass.
 

1) You were living in Japan then Arkhan, at the time of release? Or did you have to wait till '89 like everyone else?

Location of release is irrelevant to time of release. The hardware date is what we're comparing. The hardware didn't change in 2 years. Try to use some common sense there champ.
 

4) If you think processor speed is not important, then there is only one 'dumbass' here, and I don't think it's me (on this occassion).
 
Yes I see how that works, iv'e been in videogame dev for 14 years, so I do have some small inkling.

Processor speed *is* important, but not when its 6ish mhz on a 6502 based chip that can flip down to the slow mode,and has the same setbacks as the slow one either way. Some commercial games even USE the slow mode, and you can't even tell. You're staring at the glory of the video chip, not the glory of 6 extra mhz.
 
Youd think with 14 years of game dev experience, youd understand that video is far more important than cpu.
 
Case in point: SuperCPU on the c64. Metal dust has SO MANY MORE MHZ OMG GO GO GO, but the games still ass ugly and sucks.
 
Case in point 2: the z80 is faster than the 6502. The spectrum looks like shit. The games mostly blow because of that.
 
I dont think you really see how it works at all.
 
 
and yeah I took it to mean every 8bit ever.
 
and by your logic, were not allowed to compare the c64 to the amiga anyways, so why would you think thats what the threads comparing?
 
You change your mind alot.  Do you take a pill to regulate that?
*wipes your chin* Here, you had a little drool on you.

[Arkhan]

Err,... you might want to keep track of things. It's all in this thread so changing your tune, etc. doesnt really work. What youve just now said you didnt say to me was quoted from my response to something you addressed to me.
 
As I suggested earlier it mightn't be a bad idea to call it quits here. You're doing yourself no favors.

oh, whoops.  I thought khephren was the one that said the shit about conversions/benchmarks/stuff.  My bad.  
 
Im not changing my tune, I just dont pay much attention to who Im yelling at usually, :laughing:
 
 
The games designed for the system werent so hot either though usually.   I liked parallax, like I said in my first post.  That one was good.   I never understood why Katakis was so popular.  
 
and Uridium.  That game is dumb.

[Arkhan]

well, i'm done talking to him.
 

Good. I didnt want to talk to you anyways.
 
I maintain that parallax was the best shooter on the system.

[Arkhan]

Anyway, it was nice to describe your original posting of "at the time" since "at the time" the PCEngine didnt exist in 1982, and "at the time" the MSX didnt exist either.

Right, and neither did the shooting genre as we know it, because that all happened thanks to Japan.  If round-eye shooters became the standard, good lord would shooters be a joke.  They are generally a mess gameplay wise.

Anyway, its all fairly similar hardware really. The video chips and developers are the big differences.   Japanese games have very distinct qualities that Western games don't.  The CPU itself is mostly irrelevant, and the video chip is what matters in the end.   Noone stares at the cpu instructions and machine language while playing the game, do they? :hammer:

If the c64 had a z80, the average game player wouldn't know any better.

It's just a shame the VIC-II has such an ass-ugly palette.  Its drab.  Washed out.  Gooney.  Some later games managed to overcome that debacle, but a ton of games, R-Type included, are a muddy disaster.

Heres games worth comparing to if were comparing "of the time" hardware:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dihQ8iAQsiY  Gall Force
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-esZGz8PEhw  Salamander
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZ42uqtkkk  Star Soldier    <<< \o/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkeWijrZGKg  Gulkave
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTrvmjmy1jQ   Laydock

There are tons more.  

Now if we're going to assume the MSX2 can be mentioned, this is where shit gets real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRjPfucz5G0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cITedbFqpU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OugPDO9sp9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fnAl4dH5-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Gy5PTe4-M

I'm not even going to post any PC Engine shooters because it will make everything else mentioned looked like total crap.


Oh, screw it:  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opjCapt4N64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5t-MEhino8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTym3-Qvadw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otz8kIUqN38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_W_NhGTN9g


I think the "cool shooters" thing just got beat to the ground.

Though, Parallax is still an awesome game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfiFDYuxGuY

it really is the coolest shooter on the C64.

I dont remember TGX16 ever coming to Australia, I never saw one up close until much later on when I was in England. Since TGX16 was designed to be nothing but a _games console_, one would hope its shooters would be better quality than something designed 5 years prior as a computer, with its 1 button joystick designed to be compatible with old atari 2600 sticks, whose joystick interface was designed in 1977... maybe in 1977 they didnt think you needed more than 1 button on a stick...

Unfortunately you guys never got the PCE/TG, and that really sucks.  It is the defacto standard for shmups.   You haven't lived until you've played Sapphire, Lords of Thunder, Gate of Thunder, and the Soldier series.  

C64 shooters couldnt have been too bad, afterall it sold 30million units, while TGX16 sold only 10 million..

Well when you factor in that it was also just a home computer/used in schools/businesses, ... the extra 20 million may not have been due to the shooter library....especially since alot of the sales were most likely before the shooter genre took off anyways.

The RPG library is pretty boss.  I think Temple of Apshai Trilogy on the C64 is better than the Amiga one even.

[Arkhan]

Radiant silvergun... sigh. My dreamcast and my saturn... best shmup consoles ever.

I pumped soo many coins into the arcade playing Raiden 1+2 and Macross Plus..

until I saw the PC version, I think TGX16 had best raiden port...

Dont forget Gunbird 2

[Arkhan]

While the PC-Engine has some ok shooters I wouldnt say theyre any better than what's available elsewhere. Graphics, sure, theyre better than c64 shooters, but the games themselves are no better on average. Theyre mostly generic eastern style with nothing to make them stand out from others of the same style.

Yes, that's right, some people do have different tastes.....

I think maybe someone hasn't played many PCE shooters.

Sinistron, Dead Moon, Lords of Thunder, Forgotten Worlds, and Cotton are all distinctly different.

Blazing Lazers, Steam Hearts, Override, Image Fight,  and Sylphia are too also different.


This is just the icing on top of the cake that is PCE shooters.

If they're generic eastern style with not alot making them stand out, how come the europeans kept trying to jock the style, albeit poorly.

Menace is a good example of how NOT to copy a shmup concept.

[Arkhan]

Oh hell yes, Cotton is awesome. I'm not even a big shmup fan (R-Type excepted) and I love Cotton.

Everyone loves Cotton.  its like, a rule.