Same. I love the fact that people are so arguing about which machine was better, 30 odd years on. Speccy all the way for me: half the price, smoother and faster running games and a much larger and more diverse library of games.
one thing to bear in mind here is that the the youtube playback will be out of sync with any smooth scrolling on C64. Same with any movement in fact even on Speccy but it's less of a thing there from the it being generally inconsistent anyway. Games featuring scrolling were generally 100% silky smooth on C64 unlike the jittery movement from the video
Yep, unless you use NTSC versions that run at 60 Hz, and not many C64 games from its peek time even had NTSC releases, although a few have since been fixed by homebrew coders etc.
One thing you can't unsee in games is that characters or enemies will walk *behind* things on the ZX Spectrum. e.g. in Ghosts & Goblins behind gravestones. They don't on the C64 because while sprites don't clip properly. So they look better but they have limitations. Also some C64 games look weirdly scaled because sprites have scaling but are a fixed pixel size underneath.
In the 80s, all 8bits systems faced the same equation, the best graphics resolution in the available memory at an acceptable cost . And the choices were always the same : high color low resolution or/and or high resolution low color. Even the 1st IBM PC was confronted to this problem, reason of the CGA vs MDA graphic adapter and later the dual-mode (I don't remember the exact name) MDA/CGA adapters. And on PC, the EGA card finally solved this question and after the VGA. Commodore decided to implement both on the C64 BUT almost all games were in high color low res, Sinclair implemented the low color high resolution. For a gaming/home machine, more dedicated to be a game console than a working machine, C64 was the best option, especially because of the ZX keyboard (and except on the 128K , all keyboard were terrible). The colors on ZX are more "CGA" like than on the C64 lowres mode. And also the lack of audio chip and sprites on the original ZX. As a retrogeek, I now have both, the C64 and the speccy and I love them equally.
No matter what qualities the zx spectrum might have had, I never liked the terrible graphics, with half the screen being only 1 color so I don't like any game on that machine. All those speccy fans are just used to those monocolor planes because they look at the world through rose tinted glasses 🤣
A nice video, but comparing Spectrum to Commodore 64 was not fair back in the day, and is not fair now. Spectrum was a significantly inferior entry level home computer, competing against Oric Atmos, Vtech Laser and Commodore Vic-20. And in that weight class, it fared rather well. Commodore 64 was a mid-tier home computer and fair comparison was with Atari 400/800, Amstrad CPC, Spectravideo MSX and Sharp MZ series, to mention few.
The videos are not really meant as a "battle" between systems. We all know that C64 hardware was superior (apart from maybe the CPU which was faster in ZX). The videos are meant more like a "research" in how the different titles looked on these two systems. I'm planning to cover other systems (like CPC, Atari...) and do the "versus" videos between them as well. Thanks for watching and am glad you liked the video. 1987 coming soon :)
@@retrononame Indeed. Worth bearing in mind that games that were unable to benefit from the C64's sprite handling (3D polygon games, etc.) generally tended to fare better on the Speccy and especially the CPC. Examples include the FreeScape games (Driller) and Chase HQ.
There are many instances where the speccy trashes the c64, like ghosts and goblins shown here (plays so much better on the speccy, bubble bobble 128k version (also plays better on the speccy)) and pretty much every racing game out there, from hang-on to outrun, to chase hq...
@@retrononame I understand what you mean and I know this is not a "Battle" what so ever. Both machine has a limitation in many aspects. Actually I just enjoy what you have done, to see old games side by side in comparison....the games that's I never owed back then is a joy to me. I do own Speccy and C64 for a period of time but games are very hard to find in SEA.
Let me preface this by saying I have never played any 64 or spectrum games or used the original hardware at all. I think the colors used on the spectrum are strange to me a lot of the games that function as essentially monochrome in the play area and have different colors on the "hud" are odd choices using the yellow magenta and cyan feels odd, because to me those are an awful combination of colors but I generally hate cyan and magenta their so saturated and bright they kinda hurt my eyes.
Yes, I have to agree. As a Speccy owner with fond memories of the machine, I still cannot overlook the fact that most of these are better on Commodore. I enjoyed Bomb Jack and Cobra more on the ZX, but other games from this list are better on C64.
Imagine what games we would get back then if they somehow mixed Spectrum pixels with C64 colours. Pure gold. I had C64, never had Spectrum, but seeing the comparison here I feel they would had to work together and they would have given us the best games. Money won as allways.
The original plan for the Acorn BBC micro (before it was called that) would have been something like that - it was going to have two processors, a Z80 and a 6502.
You are quite right. I never had a C64, it was always the rival to my beloved Spectrum. But I always thought that the best of Spectrum games had incredible animation, and resolution, for the era. The C64 obviously had the colour resolution, although I still love the Spectrum's bright colours. And the sound. A mix of the 2 might well have been the perfect 8 bit beast.
Or better: imagine if the C64's VIC-II had been properly adjusted for PAL and had a more sophisticated bus contention scheme that let it run faster. That would pretty much give you what you're looking for.
ZX Spectrum was way cheaper than C64. The hardware of the C64 was much more capable in terms of sound and (overall) graphics. The ZX Spectrum had some unique and good games, but games released on C64 and Spectrum were badly ported to the Spectrum.
Bombjack and Cobra are clear Spectrum wins - the former due to the brilliance of the Spectrum version, the latter due to the ineptness of the C64 one. Jack the Nipper and Heartland are the kind of inventive, imaginative things that only seemed to originate on the Spectrum (see also Trap Door from 1986, even if it is a license). Otherwise the C64 is on top, in this 2D-leaned selection at least.
@@retrononame Really? I understand liking Bomb Jack's speccy graphics over the C64 ones because your personal tastes may favor resolution - hence, detail - over color, but we're talking about GAMES here, and the smooth, fast gameplay on the C64 version puts the ZX to shame - not to mention the 64's astounding music. The Cobra comparison is kind of a moot point. The truth is, whether you prefer one or the other, they're actually two completely different games that only share three things in common: they're based on the same movie, they pertain to the same genre and they were published by the same company. It's like comparing Datasoft's The Goonies for the C64 with Konami's MSX version: same movie, same genre, totally different games.
@Oscar Jiménez Garrido It's totally personal preference, but I do like Bomb Jack on ZX more than on C64. The playing area feels condensed in C64 and I have problems navigating the main character. Check the videos (I'm playing both versions) and you'll see how much more comfortable I am navigating the room in ZX version. I also think C64 version has problems with collision detection - just a feeling though. There is no comparison in music/sfx department of course. C64 wins ... no contest at all. But overall, as a complete package, I like Bomb Jack on ZX more than on C64. But as I said, totally personal preference and I'm sure lots of people like C64 version more. And that's completely fine.
Paperboy unfortunately shows how much the Atari hardware was ahead of everything else. Light years. Both conversions die a death in comparison. I have played it very recently and it's still a great game. On the arcade.
The only (technical) difference between the 48k and 128k was the amount of ram in each machine (as far as I can recall). Sure the 128k had better keyboard but the "guts" were, as I can recall, the same. But as I wrote in comment below. It's not really a video of "battle" between the systems. C64 hardware was superior (apart from CPU which was faster in ZX). The videos are done more as a "research" in how the different titles looked on these two systems. I'm planning to cover other systems (like CPC, Atari...) and do the "versus" videos between them as well. Thanks for watching the video!
My bad, you are correct. Never owned the 128k Spectrum so I didn't remember that sound chip was added to it. So again, you are correct and I apologise for my wrong statement.
Normally yes, although two problems with your argument here: 1. The 128K Spectrums actually came out in 1986, making their contemporaries the Amiga and ST. Not a fair comparison. The 48K came out at around the same time as the C64, hence the comparison is more valid. 2. This video focuses on 1986 games. While the 128K Speccies were on the market, there were actually very few 128K games developed in '86. Some had last-minute AY music support shoehorned in, but real 128K support didn't come until 1987.
The only time the Speccy wins is if the C64 version was badly made and is total garbage, which happened quite a few times. I would say Cobra is a good example here. I used many different computers in the 80's, my first 8bit computer was a Dragon32, which was pretty awful, but even that had better gfx and sound than the speccy lol.
@@iantellam9970 if it wasn't for the god awful color scheme, it may have been a contender. But there just wasn't ever any wow games. the computer itself looked more professional than others and had a really nice keyboard, but the software was inferior. As soon as I saw my neighbours C64, that was all I wanted LOL.
@@RussMichaels It actually had a pretty decent game library because of all the CoCo ports despite the fact it lacked the NTSC colour capability. But yeah both the Spectrum and C64 were more interesting in terms of software. Most of the people I knew had C64s, but I had a friend with a +3 and thought that was just fine too. I liked the higher res graphics and the built in disk drive was pretty sweet. Tbh I was too young to really know or care in the 80s, and by the time I was old enough it was the NES and Amiga that really caught my eye. Did eventually pick up a preowned Speccy in the 90s and had fun with the back catalogue. Might still be my favourite retro system despite not owning it when it was in its heyday. The fact that it’s so extremely limited makes it kind of interesting to see how people have pushed it, and because the clones were such a big deal internationally makes it quite an active retro scene.
@@iantellam9970 the few games I can recall looking any good were Jet Set Willy, Donkey King, Rommels Revenge, Chuckie Egg. I think almost all my school friends had different computers.. Amstrad, MSX, Spectrum, BBC, Electron.... But C64 was the most popular.
@@RussMichaelsIt was a fascinating time with all those different formats competing with one another, each with their own hardware quirks. Of course in retrospect the Amstrad CPC should have been viewed better than all the other 8 bits, it's a shame it wasn't taken advantage of and ended up with loads of downgraded Spectrum ports. Nice to see the homebrew scene righting that wrong these days.
In 80s C64 won the war but today ZX Spectrum graphic is lot more Retro liked because of the better graphic-sprite resolution and more vibrant color palette. Today lot of Indie retro-games copy the monochrome or color-clash cursed ZX palette with its distinct stylized and abstract sprites...while C64 blocky and pastle brownish color-palette are a relict of a past forgotten era.....C64 had better hardware. Sure it had but it was hardly exploired to th limit while ZX dignitously competed with half the power and double the talent and experience of great developers....
At first glance the C64 versions look better (and of course wins hands down sound wise). But a lot of the character sprites on the 64 look awful. Asterix especially they look like Atari 2600 graphics! Also think a lot of C64 graphics look dull and dirty albeit better than the annoying monochrome games that too many Speccy games were displayed in later in its lifespan.
I think that more "blocky" sprites on Commodore are the result of lower resolution that you need to use in order to not deal with color clash. Any C64 owners out there that can support this statement (or correct me if I'm wrong)?
@@retrononame It’s not necessarily a “color clash” situation. Commodore has two types of sprites: Multicolor and “hires”. Hires sprites can only have a single color (like spectrum). Multicolor sprites can have 3 colors, but they have lower horizontal resolution. Two out of the three colors are the same for every sprite, adding further limitations. Many games use multicolor sprites and that’s why some of these games have lower resolution. Developers could layer multiple sprites on top of each other, but this was rarely used as C64 only had 8 hardware sprites. C64 could easily achieve Speccy type hires graphics, but most developers preferred colors as resolution wasn’t that important with CRT TVs.
@@iantellam9970 thats an acquired speccy user taste, c64 users never knew their games were blocky until speccy users started telling them in the internet era.
Generally most easy wins for the c64, though bombjack played better on the speccie, and cobra was much better (an acceptable game on the speccie, shocker on the 64)
I'd generally agree, and also argue that the Speccy version of Paperboy was much more playable than the C64 version. In general, I tend to be more impressed with games like Heartland and Jack the Nipper, which manage to bring over the detailed visuals of the Spectrum version, but infuse the whole thing with vibrant colour and keeping the smoothness of the gameplay without resorting to the C64's blocky sprite handling.
@@jamyskis not sure about paperboy mate. Play them today - the c64 is much better. Speccie one is a bit Jerky. Doesn't play as well (and that's before the vast downgrade in graphics and sound).
I agree on Bomb Jack. The game play was completely ruined on C64 because of the size of the monsters and Jack. (look at the first level. On C64 it is not possible to fly above monsters on the top-most platforms)
Did you watch the video? Characters merging into the background in the Speccy, lack of colours. Never wanted to swap my C64 for Speccy, no competition.
@@markevs3360 What I'm referring to is the fact that your experience is not mine, therefore me watching the video, like you, might mean that we both come to different, valid, conclusions.
Speccy games always look unfished, c64 showing it's a much better gaming system. Bombjack isn't that good on the c64, the sprites are too big so everything is squashed, i think it's getting a remake. (Amstrad is probably the best version) I also think paper boy is more playable on the Speccy but haven't played that game for years,
I actually like Paperboy more on C64. For me, Bomb Jack and Cobra are better on Spectrum from this list. Other titles are better on C64 (for me at least).
Bomb Jack C64's graphics looks less detailed than the Spectrum's, but not squashed - at all. That's a result of the aspect ratio on this video being incorrect, making everything looking squashed on it, with the C64 working in multicolored mode faring comparatively worse because of the rectangular 2:1 pixels. Look for DerSchmu's longplay here on TH-cam for real hardware footage with the correct aspect ratio and you'll find out it actually looks better than you think it does judging by this video.
@@oscarjimenezgarrido7591 It's not. the sprites are too big for the game to played properly, it means there's not much room to manoeuvre around, hence it's getting a remake. i've had a c64 for 30 years i know what real hardware is.
@@MephProduction You said everything is squashed. I told you it's not, and I stand by it. You replied by saying that sprites are too big so there's not enough room to manoeuver properly, which A- is a matter that I never addressed, nor discussed and B- is a way different argument from graphics being squashed. And I've had my C64 for 39 years, by the way, still in working condition, but I don't see how why that's supposed to be relevant to the matter at hand - I told you to compare *the footage* on this video to video from other sources displaying the *correct* and un-squashed aspect ratio, that's all. DerSchmu using original hardware is just an added bonus. Look at the moon, not the finger.
@@oscarjimenezgarrido7591 *sigh* The bigger sprits makes the playing area smaller, meaning everything is squashed/squeezed in. My comment has nothing to do with aspect ratio, 🤦♂
The Amstrad is conspicuously missing from these videos, and for most of these games it looks a ton better than the C64 and plays just as well. Perhaps with the exception of 1942 and Paperboy which are really really smooth and arcade-like on the Commodore. The least said about the Spectrum the better : it's a joke, and Britain's most puzzling computing obsession.
For me there are no good games on the Spectrum. Simply I hate its color switching graphics. You know, the little dude walks and changes its graphics according to the background color. This is unacceptable to me. I’d rather have an Atari 2600. It doesn’t do that. Thanks to the main constructor, I had a C64!
You dont understand, the ugly graphics are a deal breaker for us. I would rather have no colour at all than zx spec colours. And since the c64 had plenty of top games to keep us busy for years we don't feel we missed out by not having some unique zx game.
Yeah. I had one and looking back now, it was fairly chunky. The other thing is I now find the colour palette a bit dull. The Amstrad CPC had amazingly bright colours. The spectrum had headache inducing colours but they look more hi res.
I think you misunderstand the context of why the Spectrum was so successful, especially in the UK, and why so many games were produced for it. In 1982, the UK was known as the "poor man of Europe", where £360 for a C64 was often too much to ask for many families. Thatcherism pretty much destroyed the livelihoods of the working classes even further. So you can imagine that when Clive Sinclair came along with the Spectrum, costing a third of the C64, it was a very attractive proposition for many hard-up families. Believe it or not, the C64 actually hit its stride in the UK in the LATE 80s, but by 1987, Speccies had outsold the C64 four-to-one.
@@eugenecruz3977 But you're not buying a umbrella with "holes". You're buying a cheap plastic umbrella that will still keep the rain out like a reinforced wooden umbrella. It may not be a nice umbrella, but it gets the job done and is good for a limited budget. I have to say: you have a remarkable chip on your shoulder for two 40-year-old computers and a format war that hasn't existed in ernest for 30 years (and was considered childish even back then).
So: the graphics were awful. The sound was awful. The keyboard was awful. The basic was out of standard. The microdrives were unreliable. The printer was useless. It was a calculator with some graphics and audio.
@@eugenecruz3977 to use your analogy about umbrellas. Most families in the UK in the 80s wouldnt of been able to afford the C64 umbrella and, once again using your analogy would simply have to have got wet because they were poor. I came from a family who couldnt afford a C64 and i had a spectrum. That spectrum gave me the love of computers that i hold today. If not for the spectrum, many UK children wouldnt of had a computer and many children would of missed out so actually, the Spectrum did something the C64 couldnt and, in my opinion was the most important thing back then - it allowed everyone, even children from poorer families to have a computer; it made computer games accessiable to the majority. Why should children from poort families go without a computer?
I love the Amstrad in spite of being a Commodore owner back in the day, but you must be on a dangerously high dose of 'member berries to say that. I'll cut you some slack, tho', and assume that you haven't played or even watched a video of the original GnG on the CPC in decades, because the objective reality is that it was an awfully clumsy program with blocky backgrounds, rough animations, fewer onscreen enemies, awful collision issues, slowdowns and, the worst of it all, a completely unjustifiable screen-to-screen scroll that not only looks atrocious but also obliterates the game's playability by causing a lot of unfair kills. The CPC is capable of so much more. As is the C64 itself by the way; there's a 2015 fan remake of Ghosts and Goblins that improved everything from the original - except Sir Arthur's new sprite design that makes him look like an NFL quarterback and the music, because I don't know whose idea it was to think that Mark Cooksey's re-interpretation of Chopin's Funeral March could be topped by some random compositions that didn't even try to adapt the original arcade's ones but, sadly, that's exactly what they did. If you really want to know how good a well-made CPC conversion of Ghosts n' Goblins could have been just have a look at much better games on the system that share genre, playability, style and presentation with it like, say, off the top of my head, last year's Siemb Chronicles or Space Moves.
Lol that was a terrible version it had useless scrolling and didn't even have the dirt form when they came up from the ground . A500 version of that game isn't bad i just tried it on the Mini last week.
@@samcoupe4608KB CPC+, yeah. I insist, it had terrible blocky graphics and the scroll, hardware or otherwise, was of the slideshow kind, with each new screen remaining static until scrolling sudden and roughly onto the next whenever Arthur reached the far right end of the current one. The cpc+ version's only saving grace was its decent, catchy music, but that's all. Regarding everything else, the C64 one was objectively better by far this time.
PS. And the music on C64 - pure PERFECTION. Lacking on Spectrum.
I am and always will be a spectrum fan
Same. I love the fact that people are so arguing about which machine was better, 30 odd years on. Speccy all the way for me: half the price, smoother and faster running games and a much larger and more diverse library of games.
one thing to bear in mind here is that the the youtube playback will be out of sync with any smooth scrolling on C64. Same with any movement in fact even on Speccy but it's less of a thing there from the it being generally inconsistent anyway. Games featuring scrolling were generally 100% silky smooth on C64 unlike the jittery movement from the video
Yep, unless you use NTSC versions that run at 60 Hz, and not many C64 games from its peek time even had NTSC releases, although a few have since been fixed by homebrew coders etc.
i love the 8 bit era
Ok, can some explain me why one of boars in Spectrum's Asterix walk on two legs.
Yeah, was looking at that as well. No explanation though - we would need to ask the developers, I guess :)
@@retrononame I had to double take if it's really boar and not very unfortunate sprite for roman soldier or something xD
Hahaha, true, true... Who knows what developers smoked back then when doing work on the title. They had much fun, that's for sure :)
If you read the classic asterix strips, you will recognize the image of that boar
Please post your video's in the correct aspect ratio, seeing old classics I played stretched to widescreen is really annoying.
Why is there an apostrophe in "video's"?
One thing you can't unsee in games is that characters or enemies will walk *behind* things on the ZX Spectrum. e.g. in Ghosts & Goblins behind gravestones. They don't on the C64 because while sprites don't clip properly. So they look better but they have limitations. Also some C64 games look weirdly scaled because sprites have scaling but are a fixed pixel size underneath.
Heatland proves otherwise
In the 80s, all 8bits systems faced the same equation, the best graphics resolution in the available memory at an acceptable cost .
And the choices were always the same : high color low resolution or/and or high resolution low color. Even the 1st IBM PC was confronted to this problem, reason of the CGA vs MDA graphic adapter and later the dual-mode (I don't remember the exact name) MDA/CGA adapters.
And on PC, the EGA card finally solved this question and after the VGA.
Commodore decided to implement both on the C64 BUT almost all games were in high color low res, Sinclair implemented the low color high resolution.
For a gaming/home machine, more dedicated to be a game console than a working machine, C64 was the best option, especially because of the ZX keyboard (and except on the 128K , all keyboard were terrible).
The colors on ZX are more "CGA" like than on the C64 lowres mode. And also the lack of audio chip and sprites on the original ZX.
As a retrogeek, I now have both, the C64 and the speccy and I love them equally.
Very nicely written!
@@retrononame Thanks ! Great video.
and I love my Atari 800XE 😊
No matter what qualities the zx spectrum might have had, I never liked the terrible graphics, with half the screen being only 1 color so I don't like any game on that machine.
All those speccy fans are just used to those monocolor planes because they look at the world through rose tinted glasses 🤣
A nice video, but comparing Spectrum to Commodore 64 was not fair back in the day, and is not fair now. Spectrum was a significantly inferior entry level home computer, competing against Oric Atmos, Vtech Laser and Commodore Vic-20. And in that weight class, it fared rather well. Commodore 64 was a mid-tier home computer and fair comparison was with Atari 400/800, Amstrad CPC, Spectravideo MSX and Sharp MZ series, to mention few.
The videos are not really meant as a "battle" between systems. We all know that C64 hardware was superior (apart from maybe the CPU which was faster in ZX).
The videos are meant more like a "research" in how the different titles looked on these two systems. I'm planning to cover other systems (like CPC, Atari...) and do the "versus" videos between them as well.
Thanks for watching and am glad you liked the video. 1987 coming soon :)
@@retrononame Indeed. Worth bearing in mind that games that were unable to benefit from the C64's sprite handling (3D polygon games, etc.) generally tended to fare better on the Speccy and especially the CPC. Examples include the FreeScape games (Driller) and Chase HQ.
Its fair to compare as the Spectrum and C64 were big at the same time and games often came out on both systems.
There are many instances where the speccy trashes the c64, like ghosts and goblins shown here (plays so much better on the speccy, bubble bobble 128k version (also plays better on the speccy)) and pretty much every racing game out there, from hang-on to outrun, to chase hq...
@@retrononame I understand what you mean and I know this is not a "Battle" what so ever. Both machine has a limitation in many aspects. Actually I just enjoy what you have done, to see old games side by side in comparison....the games that's I never owed back then is a joy to me. I do own Speccy and C64 for a period of time but games are very hard to find in SEA.
Let me preface this by saying I have never played any 64 or spectrum games or used the original hardware at all. I think the colors used on the spectrum are strange to me a lot of the games that function as essentially monochrome in the play area and have different colors on the "hud" are odd choices using the yellow magenta and cyan feels odd, because to me those are an awful combination of colors but I generally hate cyan and magenta their so saturated and bright they kinda hurt my eyes.
I have to admit, theese games are better on C64
Yes, I have to agree.
As a Speccy owner with fond memories of the machine, I still cannot overlook the fact that most of these are better on Commodore. I enjoyed Bomb Jack and Cobra more on the ZX, but other games from this list are better on C64.
Cobra, GNG And Bomb Jack plays much better and look better on spec than c64
@@Martincic2010 🤣
Catch yourself on.
Imagine what games we would get back then if they somehow mixed Spectrum pixels with C64 colours. Pure gold. I had C64, never had Spectrum, but seeing the comparison here I feel they would had to work together and they would have given us the best games. Money won as allways.
The original plan for the Acorn BBC micro (before it was called that) would have been something like that - it was going to have two processors, a Z80 and a 6502.
You are quite right. I never had a C64, it was always the rival to my beloved Spectrum. But I always thought that the best of Spectrum games had incredible animation, and resolution, for the era. The C64 obviously had the colour resolution, although I still love the Spectrum's bright colours. And the sound. A mix of the 2 might well have been the perfect 8 bit beast.
Or better: imagine if the C64's VIC-II had been properly adjusted for PAL and had a more sophisticated bus contention scheme that let it run faster. That would pretty much give you what you're looking for.
@@talideon Fore sure. It would blow our minds back then.
The C64 version of Paperboy is my happy place
That trend that started in 1986 to prevent Color Clash from making the games almost MONOCHROMATIC ruined the Spectrum games!
ZX Spectrum was way cheaper than C64. The hardware of the C64 was much more capable in terms of sound and (overall) graphics. The ZX Spectrum had some unique and good games, but games released on C64 and Spectrum were badly ported to the Spectrum.
Bombjack and Cobra are clear Spectrum wins - the former due to the brilliance of the Spectrum version, the latter due to the ineptness of the C64 one. Jack the Nipper and Heartland are the kind of inventive, imaginative things that only seemed to originate on the Spectrum (see also Trap Door from 1986, even if it is a license). Otherwise the C64 is on top, in this 2D-leaned selection at least.
C64 Cobra is disappointingly lacking in killer baby prams and Daleks.
❤️
One love, One Makaimura
Did they pay Jean Michel Jarre for his music on the C64 version?
Only Cobra is better on the speccy here I would say, Paperboy was ok, the rest not great 👍🏻
I do like Bomb Jack better on Spectrum as well. So, for me, Cobra And Bomb Jack are better on ZX and all others are better on C64.
@@retrononame Sorry, I agree, Bomb Jack was class, how could I have missed that one out, better on the speccy definitely 👍🏻
@@retrononame
Really? I understand liking Bomb Jack's speccy graphics over the C64 ones because your personal tastes may favor resolution - hence, detail - over color, but we're talking about GAMES here, and the smooth, fast gameplay on the C64 version puts the ZX to shame - not to mention the 64's astounding music.
The Cobra comparison is kind of a moot point. The truth is, whether you prefer one or the other, they're actually two completely different games that only share three things in common: they're based on the same movie, they pertain to the same genre and they were published by the same company. It's like comparing Datasoft's The Goonies for the C64 with Konami's MSX version: same movie, same genre, totally different games.
@Oscar Jiménez Garrido
It's totally personal preference, but I do like Bomb Jack on ZX more than on C64.
The playing area feels condensed in C64 and I have problems navigating the main character. Check the videos (I'm playing both versions) and you'll see how much more comfortable I am navigating the room in ZX version.
I also think C64 version has problems with collision detection - just a feeling though.
There is no comparison in music/sfx department of course. C64 wins ... no contest at all.
But overall, as a complete package, I like Bomb Jack on ZX more than on C64.
But as I said, totally personal preference and I'm sure lots of people like C64 version more. And that's completely fine.
Paperboy unfortunately shows how much the Atari hardware was ahead of everything else. Light years. Both conversions die a death in comparison. I have played it very recently and it's still a great game. On the arcade.
👍👍
It would have been a fairer battle to compare the 128k Speccie to the C64.
The only (technical) difference between the 48k and 128k was the amount of ram in each machine (as far as I can recall). Sure the 128k had better keyboard but the "guts" were, as I can recall, the same.
But as I wrote in comment below. It's not really a video of "battle" between the systems. C64 hardware was superior (apart from CPU which was faster in ZX).
The videos are done more as a "research" in how the different titles looked on these two systems.
I'm planning to cover other systems (like CPC, Atari...) and do the "versus" videos between them as well.
Thanks for watching the video!
@@retrononame wtf dude, the 128 has a propper sound chip.
My bad, you are correct. Never owned the 128k Spectrum so I didn't remember that sound chip was added to it.
So again, you are correct and I apologise for my wrong statement.
@@retrononame You say it's not a 'battle' but you have titled your 'vs'.
Versus is about competition between entities.
The title is misleading.
Normally yes, although two problems with your argument here:
1. The 128K Spectrums actually came out in 1986, making their contemporaries the Amiga and ST. Not a fair comparison. The 48K came out at around the same time as the C64, hence the comparison is more valid.
2. This video focuses on 1986 games. While the 128K Speccies were on the market, there were actually very few 128K games developed in '86. Some had last-minute AY music support shoehorned in, but real 128K support didn't come until 1987.
The only time the Speccy wins is if the C64 version was badly made and is total garbage, which happened quite a few times.
I would say Cobra is a good example here.
I used many different computers in the 80's, my first 8bit computer was a Dragon32, which was pretty awful, but even that had better gfx and sound than the speccy lol.
I dunno, man. We were a Dragon 32 house and I disagree with that assessment :p. Loved the Dragon anyway.
@@iantellam9970 if it wasn't for the god awful color scheme, it may have been a contender. But there just wasn't ever any wow games.
the computer itself looked more professional than others and had a really nice keyboard, but the software was inferior. As soon as I saw my neighbours C64, that was all I wanted LOL.
@@RussMichaels It actually had a pretty decent game library because of all the CoCo ports despite the fact it lacked the NTSC colour capability. But yeah both the Spectrum and C64 were more interesting in terms of software. Most of the people I knew had C64s, but I had a friend with a +3 and thought that was just fine too. I liked the higher res graphics and the built in disk drive was pretty sweet.
Tbh I was too young to really know or care in the 80s, and by the time I was old enough it was the NES and Amiga that really caught my eye.
Did eventually pick up a preowned Speccy in the 90s and had fun with the back catalogue. Might still be my favourite retro system despite not owning it when it was in its heyday. The fact that it’s so extremely limited makes it kind of interesting to see how people have pushed it, and because the clones were such a big deal internationally makes it quite an active retro scene.
@@iantellam9970 the few games I can recall looking any good were Jet Set Willy, Donkey King, Rommels Revenge, Chuckie Egg.
I think almost all my school friends had different computers.. Amstrad, MSX, Spectrum, BBC, Electron.... But C64 was the most popular.
@@RussMichaelsIt was a fascinating time with all those different formats competing with one another, each with their own hardware quirks.
Of course in retrospect the Amstrad CPC should have been viewed better than all the other 8 bits, it's a shame it wasn't taken advantage of and ended up with loads of downgraded Spectrum ports. Nice to see the homebrew scene righting that wrong these days.
SPECTRUM - BEST!!!
still in denial ah? :)
@@Corsa15DT Spectrum is better than commodore, it's 100%)))
@@arturpupkow 100% of what?
Best at what?
@@MrNemoYo Great games, low cost.
Emulated both of em
In 80s C64 won the war but today ZX Spectrum graphic is lot more Retro liked because of the better graphic-sprite resolution and more vibrant color palette. Today lot of Indie retro-games copy the monochrome or color-clash cursed ZX palette with its distinct stylized and abstract sprites...while C64 blocky and pastle brownish color-palette are a relict of a past forgotten era.....C64 had better hardware. Sure it had but it was hardly exploired to th limit while ZX dignitously competed with half the power and double the talent and experience of great developers....
Interesting take on the subject. Never thought about it this way, to be honest.
C64 wins this round!
At first glance the C64 versions look better (and of course wins hands down sound wise). But a lot of the character sprites on the 64 look awful. Asterix especially they look like Atari 2600 graphics! Also think a lot of C64 graphics look dull and dirty albeit better than the annoying monochrome games that too many Speccy games were displayed in later in its lifespan.
I think that more "blocky" sprites on Commodore are the result of lower resolution that you need to use in order to not deal with color clash. Any C64 owners out there that can support this statement (or correct me if I'm wrong)?
@@retrononame It’s not necessarily a “color clash” situation. Commodore has two types of sprites: Multicolor and “hires”. Hires sprites can only have a single color (like spectrum). Multicolor sprites can have 3 colors, but they have lower horizontal resolution. Two out of the three colors are the same for every sprite, adding further limitations. Many games use multicolor sprites and that’s why some of these games have lower resolution. Developers could layer multiple sprites on top of each other, but this was rarely used as C64 only had 8 hardware sprites. C64 could easily achieve Speccy type hires graphics, but most developers preferred colors as resolution wasn’t that important with CRT TVs.
@@retrononame you trade lower res for more colors. color clash is not an issue here.
I was never really fan of the blocky look of many C64 games. Tbh I’d prefer more detailed monochrome graphics in many cases.
@@iantellam9970 thats an acquired speccy user taste, c64 users never knew their games were blocky until speccy users started telling them in the internet era.
Generally most easy wins for the c64, though bombjack played better on the speccie, and cobra was much better (an acceptable game on the speccie, shocker on the 64)
I'd generally agree, and also argue that the Speccy version of Paperboy was much more playable than the C64 version. In general, I tend to be more impressed with games like Heartland and Jack the Nipper, which manage to bring over the detailed visuals of the Spectrum version, but infuse the whole thing with vibrant colour and keeping the smoothness of the gameplay without resorting to the C64's blocky sprite handling.
@@jamyskis not sure about paperboy mate. Play them today - the c64 is much better. Speccie one is a bit Jerky. Doesn't play as well (and that's before the vast downgrade in graphics and sound).
Renegade was better on the Speccie too. Not sure what on earth happened but most versions of that game sucked so bad lol
I agree on Bomb Jack. The game play was completely ruined on C64 because of the size of the monsters and Jack. (look at the first level. On C64 it is not possible to fly above monsters on the top-most platforms)
C64 wins hands down every time.
On flash and bang, but not content.
Did you watch the video? Characters merging into the background in the Speccy, lack of colours. Never wanted to swap my C64 for Speccy, no competition.
@@markevs3360 I'm pleased for you. Your experience is your own.
Well thanks for stating the obvious 😂🙄
@@markevs3360 What I'm referring to is the fact that your experience is not mine, therefore me watching the video, like you, might mean that we both come to different, valid, conclusions.
Speccy games always look unfished, c64 showing it's a much better gaming system. Bombjack isn't that good on the c64, the sprites are too big so everything is squashed, i think it's getting a remake. (Amstrad is probably the best version) I also think paper boy is more playable on the Speccy but haven't played that game for years,
I actually like Paperboy more on C64. For me, Bomb Jack and Cobra are better on Spectrum from this list. Other titles are better on C64 (for me at least).
Bomb Jack C64's graphics looks less detailed than the Spectrum's, but not squashed - at all. That's a result of the aspect ratio on this video being incorrect, making everything looking squashed on it, with the C64 working in multicolored mode faring comparatively worse because of the rectangular 2:1 pixels. Look for DerSchmu's longplay here on TH-cam for real hardware footage with the correct aspect ratio and you'll find out it actually looks better than you think it does judging by this video.
@@oscarjimenezgarrido7591 It's not. the sprites are too big for the game to played properly, it means there's not much room to manoeuvre around, hence it's getting a remake. i've had a c64 for 30 years i know what real hardware is.
@@MephProduction
You said everything is squashed. I told you it's not, and I stand by it. You replied by saying that sprites are too big so there's not enough room to manoeuver properly, which A- is a matter that I never addressed, nor discussed and B- is a way different argument from graphics being squashed. And I've had my C64 for 39 years, by the way, still in working condition, but I don't see how why that's supposed to be relevant to the matter at hand - I told you to compare *the footage* on this video to video from other sources displaying the *correct* and un-squashed aspect ratio, that's all. DerSchmu using original hardware is just an added bonus. Look at the moon, not the finger.
@@oscarjimenezgarrido7591 *sigh* The bigger sprits makes the playing area smaller, meaning everything is squashed/squeezed in. My comment has nothing to do with aspect ratio, 🤦♂
The Amstrad is conspicuously missing from these videos, and for most of these games it looks a ton better than the C64 and plays just as well. Perhaps with the exception of 1942 and Paperboy which are really really smooth and arcade-like on the Commodore.
The least said about the Spectrum the better : it's a joke, and Britain's most puzzling computing obsession.
I will cover Amstrad CPC as well, and soon... ;)
For me there are no good games on the Spectrum. Simply I hate its color switching graphics. You know, the little dude walks and changes its graphics according to the background color. This is unacceptable to me. I’d rather have an Atari 2600. It doesn’t do that. Thanks to the main constructor, I had a C64!
You may have missed out due to your bias. Ultimate produced games from the era that have never been bettered, almost all on the Spectrum.
You dont understand, the ugly graphics are a deal breaker for us. I would rather have no colour at all than zx spec colours. And since the c64 had plenty of top games to keep us busy for years we don't feel we missed out by not having some unique zx game.
C64 always looked very blocky
Yeah. I had one and looking back now, it was fairly chunky. The other thing is I now find the colour palette a bit dull. The Amstrad CPC had amazingly bright colours. The spectrum had headache inducing colours but they look more hi res.
C64 killed the ZX Spectrum !!!!!
no, you have it all wrong! it was video that killed the radio...man!
@@roelgeurtsen6035 Walk like an egyptian...
Eh, no. Look at the sales figures.
The mistake was making games for the Spectrum. It is not suitable.
I think you misunderstand the context of why the Spectrum was so successful, especially in the UK, and why so many games were produced for it. In 1982, the UK was known as the "poor man of Europe", where £360 for a C64 was often too much to ask for many families. Thatcherism pretty much destroyed the livelihoods of the working classes even further. So you can imagine that when Clive Sinclair came along with the Spectrum, costing a third of the C64, it was a very attractive proposition for many hard-up families. Believe it or not, the C64 actually hit its stride in the UK in the LATE 80s, but by 1987, Speccies had outsold the C64 four-to-one.
Would you buy a umbrella with holes if it cost half the price?
@@eugenecruz3977 But you're not buying a umbrella with "holes". You're buying a cheap plastic umbrella that will still keep the rain out like a reinforced wooden umbrella. It may not be a nice umbrella, but it gets the job done and is good for a limited budget.
I have to say: you have a remarkable chip on your shoulder for two 40-year-old computers and a format war that hasn't existed in ernest for 30 years (and was considered childish even back then).
So: the graphics were awful. The sound was awful. The keyboard was awful. The basic was out of standard. The microdrives were unreliable. The printer was useless. It was a calculator with some graphics and audio.
@@eugenecruz3977 to use your analogy about umbrellas. Most families in the UK in the 80s wouldnt of been able to afford the C64 umbrella and, once again using your analogy would simply have to have got wet because they were poor. I came from a family who couldnt afford a C64 and i had a spectrum. That spectrum gave me the love of computers that i hold today. If not for the spectrum, many UK children wouldnt of had a computer and many children would of missed out so actually, the Spectrum did something the C64 couldnt and, in my opinion was the most important thing back then - it allowed everyone, even children from poorer families to have a computer; it made computer games accessiable to the majority. Why should children from poort families go without a computer?
amstrad cpc+ wins ghosts n goblins
I love the Amstrad in spite of being a Commodore owner back in the day, but you must be on a dangerously high dose of 'member berries to say that. I'll cut you some slack, tho', and assume that you haven't played or even watched a video of the original GnG on the CPC in decades, because the objective reality is that it was an awfully clumsy program with blocky backgrounds, rough animations, fewer onscreen enemies, awful collision issues, slowdowns and, the worst of it all, a completely unjustifiable screen-to-screen scroll that not only looks atrocious but also obliterates the game's playability by causing a lot of unfair kills. The CPC is capable of so much more. As is the C64 itself by the way; there's a 2015 fan remake of Ghosts and Goblins that improved everything from the original - except Sir Arthur's new sprite design that makes him look like an NFL quarterback and the music, because I don't know whose idea it was to think that Mark Cooksey's re-interpretation of Chopin's Funeral March could be topped by some random compositions that didn't even try to adapt the original arcade's ones but, sadly, that's exactly what they did.
If you really want to know how good a well-made CPC conversion of Ghosts n' Goblins could have been just have a look at much better games on the system that share genre, playability, style and presentation with it like, say, off the top of my head, last year's Siemb Chronicles or Space Moves.
@@oscarjimenezgarrido7591 cpc+ version hardware scrolling n sprites
Lol that was a terrible version it had useless scrolling and didn't even have the dirt form when they came up from the ground . A500 version of that game isn't bad i just tried it on the Mini last week.
@@samcoupe4608KB
CPC+, yeah. I insist, it had terrible blocky graphics and the scroll, hardware or otherwise, was of the slideshow kind, with each new screen remaining static until scrolling sudden and roughly onto the next whenever Arthur reached the far right end of the current one. The cpc+ version's only saving grace was its decent, catchy music, but that's all. Regarding everything else, the C64 one was objectively better by far this time.
This comparison is unfair.