tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7514691251207559863.post6774592545665707161..comments2024-03-27T14:11:33.233+02:00Comments on FRGCB - Finnish Retro Game Comparison Blog: Savage (Firebird, 1988)FRGCB Dudehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16754639927704915007noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7514691251207559863.post-83219929951380994492019-02-25T18:43:55.416+02:002019-02-25T18:43:55.416+02:00Wanted to mention that the passwords for the DOS v...Wanted to mention that the passwords for the DOS versions are not sabatta or porsche.<br /><br />Level 2: TERMINATE<br />Level 3: NIGHTMAREeXohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01441564402948960758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7514691251207559863.post-49651009007029273372016-07-21T07:10:27.311+03:002016-07-21T07:10:27.311+03:00that c64 animated eagle is one of the best main ch...that c64 animated eagle is one of the best main character sprites I had seen on c64 come 1988ferdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7514691251207559863.post-81706142915326341382015-02-20T15:11:55.265+02:002015-02-20T15:11:55.265+02:00I admit you've got a few good points there, th...I admit you've got a few good points there, that I completely overlooked, but again, in my defence, I was too busy otherwise to concentrate too much on the detail. So, as far as the graphics are concerned, I might as well do a re-write of this one, but I believe that'll be enough. But because I'm currently very busy preparing a couple of entries while riding the crazy real-life train, I won't be looking into it quite yet, but I might update this entry in a couple of months, when I get the chance. Anyway, thanks for the input.FRGCB Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16754639927704915007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7514691251207559863.post-16141186322495483372015-02-20T14:11:14.817+02:002015-02-20T14:11:14.817+02:00Real-life is definitely the most important thing. ...Real-life is definitely the most important thing. Because of this it’s fully understandable that it’s simply not possible to write a blog on a constant high quality level. I guess all of your readers appreciate what you are doing here. One "not so well written" comparison will not hurt the overall quality of your blog.<br /><br />But please believe me; you are wrong about the art design issue. I hope you allow me to write about a few things that I learned over the years.<br /><br />Art is always a different thing. As you said, a part of it will always be about different tastes and the viewer’s own opinion. But on the other side there are many aspects of visual art that can be judged objectively. Among these are things like color composition, drawing style and body/object proportions. If you know about these things, then it’s easy to see if the piece of art in question is well done or not. You can objectively judge if it was the artist intention to make his/her work look like it does or if it’s simply looking like it is because the artist could not do it any better. <br /><br />Ignoring this does hurt your comparison between the Amstrad and the DOS (and C64) versions of Savage (it is objectively wrong). Since we already agree that the C64 version is not looking as good as the Amstrad version, let’s concentrate on the DOS version (again only the 1st level):<br /><br />Drawing style / Body proportions<br /> - The Sprite of our hero is totally out of proportion and not well drawn<br /> - His nose is to big<br /> - His arms are too thin (in some animation frames)<br /> - His chest is drawn badly; looks more like a female chest<br /> - Chest gets even worse in the side view<br /><br />Drawing style / object composition<br /> - The missing “eye candy” hurts the overall graphical result<br /> - The loss/or downgrade of special effects leads to a loss of the dynamic/dramatic graphical presentation that was present in the Amstrad version<br /><br />Color composition<br /> - The coloring of the sprite is badly done<br /> - Because of the color composition (and the bad drawing style) the dynamic/aggressive look of the original sprites (especially the hero) is not there in the DOS version<br /> -Color composition makes sprites and background look as if they are not a part of the same world <br /><br />So even if the DOS version is running at a higher resolution and at better framerate, the overall graphical performance of it is not as good as the Amstrad versions. And that can be said totally objectively. Sure, some people will still think that the DOS version looks better. But do these people really know what they are talking about? Aren’t they confusing taste and facts? Ask a person that knows something about art (should be an educated (art wise) person) and you will get a clear answer to these questions. <br /><br />Nick Brute did a wonderful job with the design of the Amstrad graphics. The DOS version is only a badly executed try to copy that design. <br /><br />paperinik<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7514691251207559863.post-8288615273591590842015-02-20T11:39:38.367+02:002015-02-20T11:39:38.367+02:00Okay, thanks for the very detailed comment. You...Okay, thanks for the very detailed comment. You're correct that the comparison was rushed, because I was doing it in very brief periods of time at a time, and I often lost my track of thought while doing it. I did make note of the shaking camera effects while playtesting the versions, but forgot to mention it in the text, due to the rushed writing, and I'm sorry for that, but that's what you get when the blog comes further down my priority list.<br /><br />Then again, I wrote what I felt like was truthful to my experience, and since I'm not a fan of the game, nor do I know everything about the effects and everything which I should be concentrating on, this is the result. My focus is always on the gameplay, which is mostly horrible for ALL versions of the game, and I cannot always force myself to focus on graphics when the gameplay is so sh*tty that I have trouble focusing on finding anything good about it. The reason why some of the detailed descriptions were missing: I didn't think they were all that important considering the whole. And about art design - it's a subject which will always be taken personally, and everyone has their own views which is good or bad. I don't care either way - some people will like the DOS or the C64 version better than the Amstrad or Amiga version, because they're partial to it. In a game where I don't necessarily understand all the art design related decisions, I prefer to keep them out of my text. So there. Apart from the calculations mistake in the end results, I mostly stand by my words. But I also agree, it's not my best work due to real-life issues. If you feel like writing a better comparison, be my guest.FRGCB Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16754639927704915007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7514691251207559863.post-18104564152746624892015-02-19T18:17:15.860+02:002015-02-19T18:17:15.860+02:00To be honest, I think that this comparison is a li...To be honest, I think that this comparison is a little bit on the weak side. It feels somehow rushed and unfinished. I’m not talking about the mathematical score; my main complaint is instead about the quality of the comparison itself. <br /><br />You missed so many things that the reader is not able to see how different the single versions really are. For example, if I would not know the 8bit versions, I would think that they are pretty close to each other (quality wise) after reading your post. But in reality it’s more like a night and day difference. Especially the C64 is so bad that it’s not even funny. <br /><br />I try to explain what I mean by comparing the graphics of the first level for example. The C64 has, like you mentioned, better scrolling, but it’s missing everything else what makes the Amstrad version good looking. <br /><br />Cons of the c64 Graphics (only the 1st Level) compared to the Amstrad version:<br /><br />You mentioned<br />- Sprites look ugly (especially the colors are pretty bad )<br />- Broken art design because of the color choices<br /><br />You forgot about<br />- Particle Effect” is missing<br />- Shaking Camera Effect for the jumping bosses is not nearly as impressive as in the Amstrad version <br />- Some foreground objects are missing (look at the doorframes when entering the boss room)<br />- Graphical details in the background are missing (for example the windows in the room with the jumping “boss enemy”)<br />- Some sprites are noticeably smaller<br /><br />The difference is huge, but your text does nothing to make this clear. <br /><br />Regarding the DOS version; sure it’s running on a more capable hardware compared to the 8bits, but that doesn’t mean that it has the better graphics. You already mentioned the pros of the DOS graphics, but what about the cons? <br /><br />- Shaking Camera Effect for the jumping bosses is completely missing<br />- “Particle Effect” looks ridiculous <br />- Broken art design because of the colors and badly drawn sprites (Art design seems to be a thing that you always like to ignore)<br /><br />Overall the Amstrad version delivers the better graphical experience. <br /><br />By the way, there is a small error in the overall scores. The Amstrad version should have the score of 8 (3+3+2), not 7.<br /><br />paperinik<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com