The Commodore 64 vs. The NES - Which Did You Prefer?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

C64combo.jpg vs. http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNQm0GwdjieSCYK-lho6GAFnTBX3ggaByMQTdhDQgVm4v6ab6wyvlBH-GB

The Commodore 64 was a computer that lasted a long time and had a large library of video games dating from the early 80s all the way into the early 90s. Many say the latter half of the C64's life gave us games that rivaled the quality of NES games.

What do you think?

I loved my Commodore 64 until it died. I learned BASIC programming on it. Some of the first "PC" games I ever played were on the C64. But dang do the load time hurt it, IMO. It literally has some of the worst load times in gaming history. I could set up a program to load, then go in my kitchen and grab some stuff to eat, use the bathroom, come back and still wait a few moments. I've seen the Epyx Fast-Load cartridge, but never did get a hold of one before my C64 died.

The NES wasn't around for as long nor does it have as large of a library of games, but I think the instant load-times and the Nintendo first-party games more than make up for that. And the controller is so much more comfortable to use. I know the C64 has the same connection as the Genesis, which you'd assume you could use a Genesis controller on it like the Atari 2600, but I've heard stories of Genesis controllers being shorted out when used this way on the C64.

#2 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16320 posts) -

I preferred the NES over the C64. But, I preferred the Amiga over the NES.

#3 Posted by GamerZem (539 posts) -

I preferred the NES, but the Atari 2600 was my favorite console of all time.

#4 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

I have never played a single game on the Commodore that could rival anything on the NES (except, maybe, Wasteland). The games took forever to load, normally were ColecoVision in gameplay quality, and every C64 I've ever used was finnicky beyond belief.

It wasn't bad by any means, but PC gaming, for me, didn't start until Wolfenstein released.

#5 Posted by evildead6789 (7877 posts) -
the c64 was just more fun because it was a computer instead of a gameconsole, some games were better on the nes though, like double dragon. But if i had to choose c64. And the amiga was always better than the nes.
#6 Posted by evildead6789 (7877 posts) -
And as for the speed, never heard of a turbo cartridge? and off course don't use the tapes lol.
#7 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

I have never played a single game on the Commodore that could rival anything on the NES (except, maybe, Wasteland). The games took forever to load, normally were ColecoVision in gameplay quality, and every C64 I've ever used was finnicky beyond belief.

It wasn't bad by any means, but PC gaming, for me, didn't start until Wolfenstein released.

WiiCubeM1

Check this game out, the intro alone is impressive, then you get to the gameplay and it looks like sometihng from TurboGrafx-16 or Sega Genesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGORGhA6JLA

#8 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

I have never played a single game on the Commodore that could rival anything on the NES (except, maybe, Wasteland). The games took forever to load, normally were ColecoVision in gameplay quality, and every C64 I've ever used was finnicky beyond belief.

It wasn't bad by any means, but PC gaming, for me, didn't start until Wolfenstein released.

Emerald_Warrior

Check this game out, the intro alone is impressive, then you get to the gameplay and it looks like sometihng from TurboGrafx-16 or Sega Genesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGORGhA6JLA

Dang. Shut me up on that aspect at least.

#9 Posted by N8A (18602 posts) -
I was a big fan of the NES. It helped to ensure the purchase of the SNES.
#10 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

I'm not too familiar with the C64 so I can't really comment on it.

I will say that I always felt it's games ran a bit too slow, but there's no denying it had the best western RPGs out of the two (love Pool of Radiance)

also, I always wanted to try this game the version here is the colecovision, but there was also a C64 version

it's like legend of zelda before the legend of zelda :P

#11 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

I'm not too familiar with the C64 so I can't really comment on it.

I will say that I always felt it's games ran a bit too slow, but there's no denying it had the best western RPGs out of the two (love Pool of Radiance)

also, I always wanted to try this game the version here is the colecovision, but there was also a C64 version

it's like legend of zelda before the legend of zelda :P

rilpas
the speed of some games is sometimes because of the CPU , in alot ways the Atari 8 bit computers were better as far as gaming, they had a faster CPU (70% faster) and some very clever graphical options.
#12 Posted by evildead6789 (7877 posts) -
if you want to play super mario bros on the c64, play the game giana sisters, it's the same world but better music and better characters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMTdr026bZU
#13 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -
[QUOTE="evildead6789"]if you want to play super mario bros on the c64, play the game giana sisters, it's the same world but better music and better characters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMTdr026bZU

the level layout isn't really the same though obviously strongly influenced
#14 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

A better comparison would be Commodore 64 vs Spectrum ZX imo.

Because, you know, they were computers while NES was a games console and more competition for Master System and Atari 7800 (or vice versa).

Anyway, I never played an actual C-64 but I will say that I like the NES the most out of the 8-bit systems (and since I had a ZX I would have to pick the Speccy anyway; I will say that Speccy had more colorful games than C-64, despite a worse sound chip than C-64 and no dedicated graphics chip; It costed less too).

#15 Posted by BigBen11111 (1528 posts) -

When I was a kid, I mostly stuck to Atari & Nintendo. So I prefer Nintendo, although I had heard nice things about Commodore 64 & it's games in the later years, in fact I never heard of it back then.

#16 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

A better comparison would be Commodore 64 vs Spectrum ZX imo.

Because, you know, they were computers while NES was a games console and more competition for Master System and Atari 7800 (or vice versa).

Anyway, I never played an actual C-64 but I will say that I like the NES the most out of the 8-bit systems (and since I had a ZX I would have to pick the Speccy anyway; I will say that Speccy had more colorful games than C-64, despite a worse sound chip than C-64 and no dedicated graphics chip; It costed less too).

nameless12345

You've got to be mixed up somewhere. ZX Spectrum had limited color, Commodore 64 didn't have this problem at all. Here's an example with a common game, Double Dragon:

http://doubledragon.kontek.net/games/dd/images/ddspec14.gifhttp://doubledragon.kontek.net/games/dd/images/ddc64-15.gif

#17 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

A better comparison would be Commodore 64 vs Spectrum ZX imo.

Because, you know, they were computers while NES was a games console and more competition for Master System and Atari 7800 (or vice versa).

Anyway, I never played an actual C-64 but I will say that I like the NES the most out of the 8-bit systems (and since I had a ZX I would have to pick the Speccy anyway; I will say that Speccy had more colorful games than C-64, despite a worse sound chip than C-64 and no dedicated graphics chip; It costed less too).

Emerald_Warrior

You've got to be mixed up somewhere. ZX Spectrum had limited color, Commodore 64 didn't have this problem at all. Here's an example with a common game, Double Dragon:

the best computer to compare the C64 to , would be the Atari 800XL , both have their advantages over the other.

#18 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

A better comparison would be Commodore 64 vs Spectrum ZX imo.

Because, you know, they were computers while NES was a games console and more competition for Master System and Atari 7800 (or vice versa).

Anyway, I never played an actual C-64 but I will say that I like the NES the most out of the 8-bit systems (and since I had a ZX I would have to pick the Speccy anyway; I will say that Speccy had more colorful games than C-64, despite a worse sound chip than C-64 and no dedicated graphics chip; It costed less too).

Emerald_Warrior

You've got to be mixed up somewhere. ZX Spectrum had limited color, Commodore 64 didn't have this problem at all. Here's an example with a common game, Double Dragon:

http://doubledragon.kontek.net/games/dd/images/ddspec14.gifhttp://doubledragon.kontek.net/games/dd/images/ddc64-15.gif

Depends which game:

SabreWulf2.jpg

amst64sabre.jpg

C-64 had a bit washed-out colors (right one is CPC btw).

#19 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

By far, the C64 version of games were the better version. There are exceptions, like with any comparisons, but it's not the norm, by any means.

#20 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

By far, the C64 version of games were the better version. There are exceptions, like with any comparisons, but it's not the norm, by any means.

Emerald_Warrior


The argument was that Spectrum had a more "vivid" color pallete (hence the name of the system).

Of course C-64 was better at graphics and sound due to dedicated hardware, but it also costed considerably more.

#21 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

By far, the C64 version of games were the better version. There are exceptions, like with any comparisons, but it's not the norm, by any means.

nameless12345


The argument was that Spectrum had a more "vivid" color pallete (hence the name of the system).

Of course C-64 was better at graphics and sound due to dedicated hardware, but it also costed considerably more.

thats true, although you have to remember that for the most part, the spectrum was not available in too many places outside of the UK, and I wonder if the prices were cheaper in the US simply because it was the home market (plus things like VAT and such) and the more vivid colours actually come from a lack of colours, the Spectrum is capable of 7 colours on screem I believe , while the C64 is capable of 16 colours. so from a design standpoint, it was better to go for bold colours on the spectrum , very much the same thing happened with the MD and SNES , the MD's visuals were more contrasted and bolder, as opposed to the softer look of the SNES thanks to more colours. of course, one could claim those were smart choices that made the game look better
#22 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

By far, the C64 version of games were the better version. There are exceptions, like with any comparisons, but it's not the norm, by any means.

nameless12345


The argument was that Spectrum had a more "vivid" color pallete (hence the name of the system).

Of course C-64 was better at graphics and sound due to dedicated hardware, but it also costed considerably more.

To each his own, I guess. But I don't see how anyone could consider a small handful of unrealistically bright colors looks better than the various natural colors of the Commodore 64.

#23 Posted by logicalfrank (1641 posts) -

The one thing I will say about the C64 is it had much better sound than the NES. I think the NES beats it in most other regards though, esp. as far as the games library and controllers are concerned.

#24 Posted by Talldude80 (6321 posts) -

NES is WAY better for fast and exciting games, but it's not quite comparing an apple to an apple. The C64 is more like a computer and the NES is purely a console.

#25 Posted by MonkeySpot (6070 posts) -

My neighbor had a C64 growing up, and I loved it. "Turican", killer ports of stuff like "Dig-Dug"... I recall a text-based adventure of "Nine Princes in Amber", and even "ZORK" if I'm not mistaken. The NES was good, but the 64 had more depth, over-all, possible.

I think I still have cuts and callouses on my hands from "Summer Games" on the 64. "Meeeeemo-rieeeeees, like the corners of my mind..."

:lol:

#26 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

NES is WAY better for fast and exciting games, but it's not quite comparing an apple to an apple. The C64 is more like a computer and the NES is purely a console.

Talldude80

Yes, but the C64 was the most console-like computer out there. It definetly had a much larger focus on gaming than other computers at the time. And it even hooked up to your T.V. like a console.

#27 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Talldude80"]

NES is WAY better for fast and exciting games, but it's not quite comparing an apple to an apple. The C64 is more like a computer and the NES is purely a console.

Emerald_Warrior

Yes, but the C64 was the most console-like computer out there. It definetly had a much larger focus on gaming than other computers at the time. And it even hooked up to your T.V. like a console.

I don't know, the Atari 8 bit computers were very game oriented, hardware and all. if anything Id say the PC was the one probably least suited to gaming, really until the very late 80s there were always better computers out there for games, be it the C64 and Atari 8bit early on , or the Amiga and Atari ST later on.
#28 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Talldude80"]

NES is WAY better for fast and exciting games, but it's not quite comparing an apple to an apple. The C64 is more like a computer and the NES is purely a console.

Darkman2007

Yes, but the C64 was the most console-like computer out there. It definetly had a much larger focus on gaming than other computers at the time. And it even hooked up to your T.V. like a console.

I don't know, the Atari 8 bit computers were very game oriented, hardware and all. if anything Id say the PC was the one probably least suited to gaming, really until the very late 80s there were always better computers out there for games, be it the C64 and Atari 8bit early on , or the Amiga and Atari ST later on.

To be honest all popular 80s 8-bit home computers were game-oriented as they had limited business and artistic capabilities.

People who were dealing with graphics and sound were mostly using Amiga and people who were doing business were mostly using IBM PC or Apple 2.

So the 8-bit machines were mostly used for simple programming and gaming (altho Commodore did try to market the C-64 as a cheap business/work machine; Besides running games.).

And the C-64 did get a console version - the C-64GS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64_Games_System

#29 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Yes, but the C64 was the most console-like computer out there. It definetly had a much larger focus on gaming than other computers at the time. And it even hooked up to your T.V. like a console.

nameless12345

I don't know, the Atari 8 bit computers were very game oriented, hardware and all. if anything Id say the PC was the one probably least suited to gaming, really until the very late 80s there were always better computers out there for games, be it the C64 and Atari 8bit early on , or the Amiga and Atari ST later on.

To be honest all popular 80s 8-bit home computers were game-oriented as they had limited business and artistic capabilities.

People who were dealing with graphics and sound were mostly using Amiga and people who were doing business were mostly using IBM PC or Apple 2.

So the 8-bit machines were mostly used for simple programming and gaming (altho Commodore did try to market the C-64 as a cheap business/work machine; Besides running games.).

And the C-64 did get a console version - the C-64GS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64_Games_System

some do a better job than others , put it this way, the Atari 8 bit computers were better for games than say, the Apple 2., or the TRS machines. in some ways its better than the C64 , though in there its more of a competition , and the games tend to be better on the system it was designed for.
#30 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] I don't know, the Atari 8 bit computers were very game oriented, hardware and all. if anything Id say the PC was the one probably least suited to gaming, really until the very late 80s there were always better computers out there for games, be it the C64 and Atari 8bit early on , or the Amiga and Atari ST later on.Darkman2007

To be honest all popular 80s 8-bit home computers were game-oriented as they had limited business and artistic capabilities.

People who were dealing with graphics and sound were mostly using Amiga and people who were doing business were mostly using IBM PC or Apple 2.

So the 8-bit machines were mostly used for simple programming and gaming (altho Commodore did try to market the C-64 as a cheap business/work machine; Besides running games.).

And the C-64 did get a console version - the C-64GS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64_Games_System

some do a better job than others , put it this way, the Atari 8 bit computers were better for games than say, the Apple 2., or the TRS machines. in some ways its better than the C64 , though in there its more of a competition , and the games tend to be better on the system it was designed for.

But for business use Apple II and IBM PC were dominating, regardless of their worse graphical and sound capabilites and higher price.

#31 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

To be honest all popular 80s 8-bit home computers were game-oriented as they had limited business and artistic capabilities.

People who were dealing with graphics and sound were mostly using Amiga and people who were doing business were mostly using IBM PC or Apple 2.

So the 8-bit machines were mostly used for simple programming and gaming (altho Commodore did try to market the C-64 as a cheap business/work machine; Besides running games.).

And the C-64 did get a console version - the C-64GS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64_Games_System

nameless12345

some do a better job than others , put it this way, the Atari 8 bit computers were better for games than say, the Apple 2., or the TRS machines. in some ways its better than the C64 , though in there its more of a competition , and the games tend to be better on the system it was designed for.

But for business use Apple II and IBM PC were dominating, regardless of their worse graphical and sound capabilites and higher price.

of course, the IBM was meant for business and really wasn't meant for games. really until the very late 80s, and early 90s, when things like VGA and soundblaster came out, the PC was behined , first behined the C64 and Atari8bit , and then the Amiga and ST.
#32 Posted by MrYaotubo (2709 posts) -

I preferred the NES over the C64. But, I preferred the Amiga over the NES.

jun_aka_pekto
Exactly the same for me.
#33 Posted by MonkeySpot (6070 posts) -

I had a friend who owned an Atari 800, and we used to go to the computer store and damned if this fool wouldn't just shop-lift the PISS out of the place, over and over and over... Games back then were on floppies, and the bags for them were often just zip-locks (I'm sure the games were run off onto disc, and bagged up by the guys who programmed them) - There were no security systems, so he would purchase a game and go lift about four more... This was the EARLY 1980s, and I'm not proud of him, or my complicity... But it was a different time. We were punk kids. Listening to Sex Pistols records and thumbing our nose at the conventional world.

:oops:

Anyway, he had just about every game there was for that thing. We played ALL the early "Ultima", there was a fantastic treasure hunting game about salvaging stuff from ship wrecks... Things seemed so new and impossible. A new wonder was just a bike ride and some stolen discs away, and we were ADDICTED.

I had a gigantic exposure to early gaming because of this klepto-idiot friend of mine... He would even lift stuff for another friend of ours who had an Apple II, "Wolfenstein", "Wizardry".

I had an IBM 286, so I had stuff like "ZORK", and "Microsoft Adventure", and "Oubliette" which was an OUTSTANDING game...