>mogs the Speccy in every way
>>10257448Imagine playing doom with those arrow keys
The hardware specs are amazing for an 8-bit microcomputer.The software catalog... is disappointing, to say the least.
>>10257467imagine thinking joysticks didnt exist in 1985
>>10257448>in every wayexcept the speccy had 10 times the amount of software.all the good amstrad games were just unaltered speccy ports.
>>10257735Speccy ports actually ran slower on CPC than on Spectrum. You had to optimize your code.
>>10257448I wouldn't know honestly. You can show me a C64, Speccy, Amstrad CPC, Atari ST, and maybe even an early MSX or DOS game side by side and I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference
>>10257448my friend bought an "ammy" just to be different from our gang who all had C64s and speccys.we used to laugh at him, a lot.
>>10257467I think the 3 FPS gameplay would be a bigger problem
>>10257448Except aesthetic and colour pallete.
>>10257790I thought it was a straight Z80 copy and paste, and the 464 is twice the speed of the speccy, whats the issue?
But can it play Horace?
>>10257448speccy had better games
>>10257951Spectrum is 3.5 Mhz Z80, CPC is 4 Mhz Z80. CPC had slower memory access, which in practice was similar to downclocking the CPU to 3.3 Mhz.
It finished third to the Speccy and C64 in bongland. I think it was number one in France if memory serves correct.
>>10257807Spectrum had some neat 3d games. c64 had better everything else.