[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   
File: 26 KB, 640x480, c64 vs cpc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9705626 No.9705626 [Reply] [Original]

If you had to choose between a Commodore 64 and a CPC, which would you choose?

>> No.9705628

>>9705626
Tough call. CPC is cooler but has way way less software. Can I get a C128 instead?

>> No.9705632

Amstrad CPC would be better suited for productivity due to having 80 column display straight out of the box.

>> No.9705645

>>9705632
The choice is for games obviously

>> No.9705652

>>9705626
C64 of course no comparison. Both for productivity and gaming.

>> No.9705825

Commodore 64 hands down.

>> No.9705956

>>9705626
C64 and it's not even close.

>> No.9705971

>>9705626
CPC, if I knew french.

>> No.9705989
File: 79 KB, 768x1360, frenchcpcadventuregames.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9705989

C64 for action games, CPC for adventure games.

>> No.9706041

>>9705645
>Lots of games vs awkward looking games and bad spectrum ports
C64

>> No.9706130

C64 was based
Smooth scrolling
Absolutely incredible sound chip
Actually genius programmers working magic

In many ways even the Amiga was a step down in retrospect since it never had that same level of consistently great games.

Going back and playing the c64 again... It's still incredible

>> No.9706169

>>9706130
Really C64 is the only retro Western computer that had great games.

>> No.9706190
File: 9 KB, 384x272, xyphoes fantasy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9706190

>>9706041
>CPC
>awkward looking games
CPC had the best-looking 8-bit western computer games. Lack of features like built in hardware scrolling means the performances were dogshit.

>> No.9706193

>>9705626
The one that wasn't a complete failure

>>9705628
>Tough to find a youtube to give me a contrarian hot take

>> No.9706201

>>9706193
is this english?

>> No.9706863

>>9706201
If you weren't seething so hard from the takedown of your hot take you'd have no problem translating from English to the emoji your zoomer brain and process.

>> No.9706867

>>9705626
the cpc looks cooler, but the c64 is obviously the better choice

>> No.9706869

>>9706863
weak response

>> No.9706878

>>9706130
The C64 was a pure miracle. It was really, really cheap and everything about it was right. The only downside was it didn't more games in cart format, but at the same time it was a blessing because new indie studios and developers found it to be a really accessible platform to start their career. Too bad Jack Tramiel had to go and the Commodore Corporation instantly went to shit. Under his supervision, the Amiga would have turned the "Lorraine" chipset into a true spiritual successor of the C64, a cheap home computer with powerful gaming capability, instead of the hodgepodge of unnecessary features it ended up becoming.

>> No.9706881
File: 269 KB, 1280x720, pinball dreams CPC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9706881

>>9706190
The CPC had the best looking 8-bit games, period. It has no colour or pixel limitations, the graphics are true bitmap. Look at the works Batman Group did for the platform. It's capable of insanely good looking graphics and some decent framerate if you know what you're doing.

>> No.9706882

>>9706867
but the CPC usually has better color and detail

>> No.9706915

>>9705626
MSX

>> No.9706918
File: 36 KB, 400x400, luvmespeccy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9706918

Speccy

>> No.9706925

I preferred CPC at the time. The major issue was that a lot of games were straight ports from Spectrum due to laziness and similar architecture. When you got a game that was properly done for the CPC it tended to be better.
These days I don’t much care. I’d pick the best version of the game and emulate it on that hardware.

>> No.9707037

>>9706863
lmao

>> No.9707125

>>9707037
no need to samefag homie, it wasn't that funny

>> No.9707126

>>9707125
You wish babe

>> No.9707130

>>9707126
I'm not your babe, friend

>> No.9707397

>>9707130
I'm not your friend, guy.

>> No.9707431

>>9705626
i had both
>>9705632
fuck all software for cpc.
>>9705989
> vera cruze
that's on c64.
>>9706130
>In many ways even the Amiga was a step down in retrospect
that never happened, as most of the c64's elite coders went to amiga and pc.
>>9706169
it's also why the machine became the best selling home computer in history.
>>9706925
>. When you got a game that was properly done for the CPC it tended to be better.
much better. cpc was underrated and crippled by garbage software.

>> No.9707503
File: 8 KB, 225x224, good-good-let-the-butt-hurt-flow-through-you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9707503

>>9706869
>you nailed it

>>9707125
>and it made me seethe eve harder

>> No.9707507

Speccy

>> No.9707525

>>9705626
Do you think your Commodore 64 is really "neato?"

>> No.9707530

Didn't CPC had shitty build quality? How does it compare to C64 or speccy regarding build quality?

>> No.9707608

>>9707530
The original spectrum by Sinclair was rough. The mushy inconsistent keypresses and the sloppy manufacturing led to many a hard crash as your Kempston interface got slightly dunted.
When Amstrad bought everything and made the +2 quality went up to the same as the CPC for obvious reasons. The CPC's reputation for build quality was more it's reputation for Amstrad's cost cutting. Alan Sugar was a beast for finding a way to get 2p off the cost of a component and this led to variable consistency as any two random CPCs could have been built in two different factories using 2 entirely different sets of sourced components.
Not that the C64 was much better. The C64 went through LOADS of revisions in its life and none of them can really be held up as the definitive one. Every time they redesigned the board to save costs and improve on a busted design they'd introduce another issue somewhere else.
Most of the cost reduction going on in 8-bit was the introduction of gate arrays that let them consolidate loads of logic into a single proprietary chip. And surprise surprise that's the part that had bugs and failures a plenty.
tl;dr, the CPC wasn't any worse or better than your C64, and depending on when you bought either one you could have wildly different opinions.

>> No.9707864

>>9707530
cpc hardware was very good, the only downside was the 3" floppy drive that came with some models of cpc. it wasn't the most reliable of drives and the disks for such drives became incredibly difficult to source by the early 1990s.
>>9707608
> The C64 went through LOADS of revisions in its life and none of them can really be held up as the definitive one
> LOADS
5 or 6 revisions.. and that's not many considering it was consistently manufactured from 1983 right up until 1992 or so.
>Every time they redesigned the board to save costs and improve on a busted design they'd introduce another issue somewhere else.
that never happened - at all.
>nd surprise surprise that's the part that had bugs and failures a plenty.
i doubt you could name 5 of them or link them to a specific board revision.
>the CPC wasn't any worse or better than your C64,
c64 was vastly superior and no amount of delusional compulsive lying and revisionist history will change this fact.
tl;dr: you are a dumbest of dumbfucks i've seen here all day.

>> No.9707923
File: 3 KB, 320x200, vera-cruz-c64.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9707923

>>9707431
> vera cruze
>that's on c64.
Game is basically all black & white and the port still manages to look worse. That C64 color palette was an abomination.

>> No.9707991

>>9707525
What kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito? You're using a 286, don't make me laugh. Your Windows boots up in what, a day and a half?

>> No.9709258

>>9707923
It has a better color palette then those of the TRS-80 Model I, pre-128k Spectrum, 1980s Macintosh, Commodore PET, and IBM PCs running CGA and CGA-Composite modes. VIC 20 is just below, and both the Atari 8-bit line and the TI99 family are arguably superior overall in certain areas regarding graphical capabilities to not only the aforementioned computers, but also the C64. Ditto for the CPC's color palette, more vibrant than both the Vic 20 and C64. 8-bit Apple ][ computers are somewhere in the middle.

>> No.9710567

BUMP OF LIFE

>> No.9711050

Comparing colour pallette for 8-bit systems is like comparing MHz of modern CPUs. Fun but meaningless without additional features. CPC is unable to scroll properly, where C64 can. It does not make up for 10fps games where C64 can do 50/60.

>> No.9711662

>>9705626
CPC had shit sound and very few games that play with any sense of speed though admittedly much better colour, C64 wins.

>> No.9713128

>>9705626
As a bong who owned both back in the day, i'd lean towards the C64. Sure the 464 had a nicer palette etc but in the real world with its plethora of bad ports it didn't really add up to much outside of static-screen adventure games.
My Speccy+2 had worse GFX than the 464 but its games played so much better.
I don't particularly have any fond memories of the 464, and the less said about the CPC464 Plus the better.

tl;dr C64