I wasn't too hot about the colour scheme of the c64 version. Couldn't stand that s****y brown colour. Where those colours changable into different ones? Can't remember actually.
Bill how do the various versions compare? I remember the AppleII beeing quite similar if not identical.
I believe the C-64 version suffered the same graphics problems as the Atari 8-bit version (which I had), and it was largely due to the way the C64/Atari handled colors in high resolution mode (320x200). I believe this is a case of "conversionitis," where the ported version actually suffered compared to the Apple II version.
The Atari had higher resolution (as did the C64) than the Apple II, but the Apple II graphics system allowed for an odd mix of "hi-res" and "medium res" on the same screen. On the Apple II, if you wanted to draw a white line, it plotted the line in hi-res on the screen, but if you wanted to plot a green line on the same screen, it plotted the line in "medium res," reducing the resolution of the line to produce the color. This allowed for more colors on the screen without much work from the artist, and without really sacrificing resolution if you were a careful artist.
The Atari could only produce one color in hi-res unless you "cheated" by using a technique called "artifacting," which utilized a quirk in the way TV sets plotted pixels. Since "hi-res" mode was actually higher resolution than the analog TV signal, an individual "pixel" would display either green or brownish-red, not white, unless two dots were placed together. By cleverly utilizing "artifacting," you could cheat the system and display more colors than the computer intended.
I believe the C64 system worked similarly in Hi-res mode, and many games utilized "artifacting." That's probably the reason of the "muddy brown" color of the tables. Of course, there was the "color cell" system with the C64 that could get around some of these limitations, but it was a very technical way to produce color and would not have worked with PCS, due to that "game's" flexibility and ease of use.
Thus, both the Atari and C-64 version probably suffered from a lack of colors compared to the Apple II version, even though both systems had ways to get around color limitations through technical means. Being a straight port of the Apple II version, the Atari version even had all the sounds coming from the computer's internal speaker, rather than through the TV's speaker! While this was normal for the Apple II system, on the Atari, it came across as low-tech and clunky.
I wasn't too hot about the colour scheme of the c64 version. Couldn't stand that s****y brown colour. Where those colours changable into different ones? Can't remember actually.
Bill how do the various versions compare? I remember the AppleII beeing quite similar if not identical.
I believe the C-64 version suffered the same graphics problems as the Atari 8-bit version (which I had), and it was largely due to the way the C64/Atari handled colors in high resolution mode (320x200). I believe this is a case of "conversionitis," where the ported version actually suffered compared to the Apple II version.
The Atari had higher resolution (as did the C64) than the Apple II, but the Apple II graphics system allowed for an odd mix of "hi-res" and "medium res" on the same screen. On the Apple II, if you wanted to draw a white line, it plotted the line in hi-res on the screen, but if you wanted to plot a green line on the same screen, it plotted the line in "medium res," reducing the resolution of the line to produce the color. This allowed for more colors on the screen without much work from the artist, and without really sacrificing resolution if you were a careful artist.
The Atari could only produce one color in hi-res unless you "cheated" by using a technique called "artifacting," which utilized a quirk in the way TV sets plotted pixels. Since "hi-res" mode was actually higher resolution than the analog TV signal, an individual "pixel" would display either green or brownish-red, not white, unless two dots were placed together. By cleverly utilizing "artifacting," you could cheat the system and display more colors than the computer intended.
I believe the C64 system worked similarly in Hi-res mode, and many games utilized "artifacting." That's probably the reason of the "muddy brown" color of the tables. Of course, there was the "color cell" system with the C64 that could get around some of these limitations, but it was a very technical way to produce color and would not have worked with PCS, due to that "game's" flexibility and ease of use.
Thus, both the Atari and C-64 version probably suffered from a lack of colors compared to the Apple II version, even though both systems had ways to get around color limitations through technical means. Being a straight port of the Apple II version, the Atari version even had all the sounds coming from the computer's internal speaker, rather than through the TV's speaker! While this was normal for the Apple II system, on the Atari, it came across as low-tech and clunky.
qoj hpmoj o+ 6uo73q 3Jv 3svq jnoh 77V