next »

[abeaver]

So I've been wondering this for a while; Why is it that many games from the 70s and 80s have sprites that appear to be stretched? Look at almost any Atari 2600 game for example. It seems that each pixel on the sprite actually occupies a 2x1 space on the screen. Many old PCs such as the Apple II have games with this too. I'm asking because I like making sprites in this style, but I don't actually know why they should look that way. Hopefully some of you more knowledgeable people could shed some light on this?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

the reason is that old consoles had less memory for pixels than pixels available on the tv screen. in the atari's case, 192x160

this was scaled up when put on the screen, so you get strange things happening

but most amusingly, the atari 2600 didn't even have a screen buffer in memory. it only had a *line buffer*. so you had to draw the image to screen line by line, not all at once, and so you also had to break 'sprites" up into line-sprites etc. -- and you couldn't even do much code between drawing lines to screen, you had to render a line to screen in a very small amount of time (which means very few instructions when drawing). it was all enormously difficult, i've lots of respect for anyone who managed to program an atari 2600 game (either today for emulators or in the past for the actual machine)

[im9today]

it was the aesthetic at the time. tastes changed and now everything is 3d. sign my petition to make games good again.

[abeaver]

the reason is that old consoles had less memory for pixels than pixels available on the tv screen. in the atari's case, 192x160

this was scaled up when put on the screen, so you get strange things happening

but most amusingly, the atari 2600 didn't even have a screen buffer in memory. it only had a *line buffer*. so you had to draw the image to screen line by line, not all at once, and so you also had to break 'sprites" up into line-sprites etc. -- and you couldn't even do much code between drawing lines to screen, you had to render a line to screen in a very small amount of time (which means very few instructions when drawing). it was all enormously difficult, i've lots of respect for anyone who managed to program an atari 2600 game (either today for emulators or in the past for the actual machine)

Interesting stuff, thanks.

[1982]

it was the aesthetic at the time. tastes changed and now everything is 3d. sign my petition to make games good again.

No it was not, it was the technical restrictions. Believe me, they sure would wanted to make super realistic graphics but it was impossible. Or then I am being trolled here.

Anyway, truth still is that I tend to like those aesthetics, mainly because they are more abstract and leave a lot room for players imagination. Nice colors were often used, everything was built around controls and mechanics (obviously not around graphics) and many of the good games played like charm. Developers also used to came up with some peculiar ideas when trying to push the envelope of creating immersion:

President is Missing: http://www.lemon64.com/games/details.php?ID=3247

Explorer: http://www.lemon64.com/games/details.php?ID=3512

Cyborg: http://www.lemon64.com/games/details.php?ID=1840

[moi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

[1982]

In the 1980s, I think programmers were optimistic about the technology they had, and strived to make the most of it. If the graphics limit was 16 sprites, they would see that as a positive that gave them "amazing possibilities", wheras nowadays it would be looked at with contempt. "What can you do with only 16 sprites?"

In a sense, the technical restriction sparked creativity, and that led to fun games. But nowadays the technical limitations are so much harder to hit, so are not felt as readily, and don't stimulate our minds in the same way.

Very true, usually great artistic masterpieces have born from facing challenges, not from endless possibilities.

[moi]

In the 1980s, I think programmers were optimistic about the technology they had, and strived to make the most of it. If the graphics limit was 16 sprites, they would see that as a positive that gave them "amazing possibilities", wheras nowadays it would be looked at with contempt. "What can you do with only 16 sprites?"

I don't really agree, back in the 80s, everybody (programmers and players)knew that the tech was pretty shitty, everybody knew how moving a bicolor sprite was far from having a walt disney cartoon on screen or sthg.
But that's all we had so everybody was using it the best that they can, knowing that the technology would eventually improve.

[moi]

I remember playing berzerk(or any other game) on atari VCS and wondering why the characters looked so basic and monochrome. My sisters thought the same thing.

I'm pretty sure that the early 8 bit devellopers were feeling very limited by the specs of the era.