Is the Amiga 500 the best gaming computer of all time? It came out in 1987. This thing was way ahead of its time. Almost all games are colorful, fun, aestethic. Alot of them look like they could be from arcade machines or from the 90s. No other platform could do that.

File: 81 KB, 800x622, serveimage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 04:20:05 2019 No.5810729 [Reply] [Original]

Is the Amiga 500 the best gaming computer of all time? It came out in 1987. This thing was way ahead of its time. Almost all games are colorful, fun, aestethic. Alot of them look like they could be from arcade machines or from the 90s.
No other platform could do that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 06:32:16 2019 No.5810846 >>5810729 lol. No. It was a cheap way to play quite a few good, and even more shitty, games for a while but was quickly BTFO by PCs

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 07:04:36 2019 No.5810870

>>5810729
ausfag here. grew up with my dad and uncles all having these and it was the best.
great sound, great graphics and so many games. had something in the order of 3000 pirated floppies all filled with games.
I liked the Workbench OS too though only a few games actually needed to be launched from it.
I miss the grunts and chug noises the floppy drives used to make, especially if you have 2 or 4 installed.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 07:10:01 2019 No.5810875

>>5810846
By quickly you mean after 6-7 years? Because until maybe 1994 PCs were horrible for gaming. And in 1987, while the Amiga looked and sounded like arcade machines, the PC had 5 colors, absolute shit reolution, and a screeching beepbop internal speaker.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 07:17:16 2019 No.5810880 >>5810729 Pity most the games had shit playability dressed up in their fancy graphics. You were better off sticking to arcades/consoles in those days.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 07:21:09 2019 No.5810889

Though Amiga didn't always look and played like an arcade machine, for a while, the only games that tried that were ports, and a lot of Amiga ports were awful or somehow surpassed by ports on other systems.

It still looked better than anything else in 1987, but the games weren't there yet, heck, the first two big killer apps that had great graphics and sound, Defenders Of The Crown and Shadow Of The Beast, are not what i would call great games.

The games were still better than what the PC had for a while, but honestly, aside from some games like Turrican, there isn't much reason for me to go back to the Amiga when a lot of the games i liked on it are on other systems, have been remade or...are just not as good as i recall them to be.

It still has it's good games like Speedball 2 but it's not exactly my favorite system of all time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 09:38:07 2019 No.5811045 >>5810875 My 1987 IBM with a 10MHz 286 can easily run Wolf3D after a simple RAM upgrade. And it looks and runs better than the best homebrew offerings I've seen for an Amiga 500.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 09:54:45 2019 No.5811063
File: 15 KB, 320x200, just like the arcade.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5810875
Top kek kid. You've been watching too many zoomers on the youtube. You basically just announced that you weren't alive in 87 and have never been to an arcade. In 1987 PCs had VGA and adlib and games using them came out right away. Sorry kiddo. Youtube lied to you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 10:22:30 2019 No.5811106 File: 12 KB, 320x224, 43E970EF-4A7D-4360-9BB2-ADB9EB65DCD0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5811063 Stupid amerifats playing muh genesis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 10:32:02 2019 No.5811126 >>5810729 I like the Amiga and all, but didn't we just have a similar thread? Or is this another one of those bait threads that's all the rage these days?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 12:35:24 2019 No.5811301 >>5811126 >Or is this another one of those bait threads It one of these, where the entire thread devolves into Amiga/console/PC Top-Trumps with little discussion

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 13:56:18 2019 No.5811446

>>5811045
1. Wolf3D didn't exist in 1987 and it came out in the era of the 486 when 286s were ancient, archaic shit.
2. Most 286 PCs in 1987 had EGA or Hercules graphics
3. Most 286 PCs in 1987 didn't have XMS memory installed (it cost $$$ and few applications could use it)
4. Most PC games in 1987 were CGA/EGA shit like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhRuI4PDCbk

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 13:57:45 2019 No.5811450 >>5811063 >unironically posting US Poop's port of Strider as an example of arcade gaming on a PC

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 14:02:26 2019 No.5811458 >>5811450 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucTL8AZkPFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYfs6_CeQzA /thread

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 14:11:18 2019 No.5811474

>>5811063
The earliest commercially released games to use VGA appeared in 89 ttbn, I don't know of anything earlier than that. And sound card support didn't really begin to appear until 89. King's Quest IV in 88 was the first or just about the first with sound card support and Sierra was a AAA developer who supported the latest cutting edge hardware.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 14:19:46 2019 No.5811492

>>5811446
Sadly this is true for a typical pc experience,.including my own. 16 color EGA was all we had until around 1989. The first VGA game that I recalled being impressed by was 688 attack sub and it was a "holy shit we are living in the future now!" Moment. By 1990 we started getting a good mix of good VGA games and only at this point did the PC start to pull ahead.

Even into 1992/1993 Sierra was still modernizing their policequest/kingsquest games as VGA editions.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 14:25:42 2019 No.5811504

The early VGA games were still pretty shitty because they ran on shit ISA cards and had to support 8086/286 and the older video standards as well. Only by the mid-90s when everything was running on 386/486 machines and VESA had appeared did PCs decisively outperform Amigas.

Some so-called "VGA" games like Bubble Bobble and Simpsons Arcade Game didn't even really run in VGA, they used EGA Mode D and if the game detected a VGA card, it would use different colors than the default EGA palette.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 14:43:12 2019 No.5811561 >>5811446 Yeah it's like the argument that Amigas could do Doom using knowledge and programming tricks nobody knew about back then.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 15:59:23 2019 No.5811725
File: 62 KB, 640x400, 9158-688-attack-sub-dos-screenshot-soviet-control-room.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5811492
688 Attack Sub really doesn't use VGA's 8-bit color depth that much, it has mostly just the EGA graphics with some added gradients. It looks worse than Wolfpack which does make proper use of VGA.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:07:57 2019 No.5811739 >>5810729 My grandmother had an Amiga. Our family had an Atari ST. I liked them both.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:09:57 2019 No.5811742 VGA had nicer looking graphics than OCS Amiga due to the greater color depth but PCs couldn't match the Amiga for fluidity of animation until VESA.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:19:10 2019 No.5811769 FS-UAE 3.0 is out, fags.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:29:29 2019 No.5811790

Pirates! on the Amiga blows away the PC, but it also came out in 1990 not 87 like the PC version. Three years later means better development tools and more programming knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7i6MHFPkdQ

If the Amiga Pirates! had been done in 87 it probably wouldn't have looked as good as this and you'd have something that felt more like the C64 version with more colors.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:32:18 2019 No.5811804 >>5810729 The best Amiga game (Frontier: Elite II) has a superior DOS version

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:36:36 2019 No.5811816

didn't the markets where amiga actually succeeded then move to consoles, just as pcs were actually becoming much more powerful? Talk about getting double fucked in the ass: use shitty ass computers when consoles were way better, and then move to consoles after pcs eclipsed them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:39:13 2019 No.5811820 >>5811725 Looking back, I played that at my uncle's and it was probably MCGA and not VGA. It was way more colorful than normal CGA, that much I remember.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:40:57 2019 No.5811825 File: 501 KB, 800x600, Disposable hero.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5811790

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:42:00 2019 No.5811828 File: 353 KB, 800x500, fear 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:43:04 2019 No.5811834 File: 368 KB, 800x500, fzsef.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:44:06 2019 No.5811836 File: 809 KB, 1024x819, gods.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:45:09 2019 No.5811839 File: 635 KB, 1024x768, indy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:46:11 2019 No.5811843 File: 280 KB, 800x500, Metal mutant 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:47:23 2019 No.5811848 File: 491 KB, 800x600, Metal Mutant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:48:27 2019 No.5811851 File: 292 KB, 800x500, mrnutz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:49:28 2019 No.5811852 File: 275 KB, 1280x800, winuae 2013-11-07 19-34-16-55.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:50:41 2019 No.5811857 File: 269 KB, 1280x800, winuae 2013-12-06 10-40-44-42.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:51:47 2019 No.5811859 File: 601 KB, 800x600, disposable hero 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:52:48 2019 No.5811861 File: 318 KB, 1680x1050, winuae 2012-12-09 23-06-31-24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:53:24 2019 No.5811862 >>5811820 MCGA was nothing but a diet VGA they had on the PS/2 Model 25 and 30 which omitted EGA modes and VGA 640x480x16 mode.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 16:56:07 2019 No.5811863 It looks pretty nice but it only has 32 colors so VGA and even the Mega Drive will look nicer. Considering the OCS Amiga came out in 1985 though it looks impressive for the time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 17:26:24 2019 No.5811917 >>5810729 >Alot of them look like they could be from arcade machines or from the 90s. >No other platform could do that. Someone hasn't heard of the X68000

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 18:37:12 2019 No.5812061 >>5811863 The Mega Drive has more colors on screen at once but a smaller total palette than the Amiga (512 colors versus 4096). So most Amiga games don't look quite as monotonous color-wise as MD ones.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 19:41:19 2019 No.5812179

If there's one thing I liked about Amiga games that I wish was more common on other platforms, it's the background gradients.
It'd have been piss simple and given most hardware a real boost in terms of visual "oomph" to be able to change the background color (or hell, the whole palette) each line easily.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 20:13:12 2019 No.5812231 >>5812179 The copper was an inherited feature from the Atari 2600 and ANTIC/GTIA since they were all designed by the same people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 20:26:40 2019 No.5812254 >>5810889 Defender of the Crown is probably best on the C64, actually all of Cinemaware's games were programmed better on the C64 than any other system they were on.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 20:48:59 2019 No.5812286

>>5811839
I'm sorry, but this is the only game you posted that i actually think is good and worth playing even nowadays, i mean, Mr.Nutz!?

I hope you aren't saying that game is exactly a classic, and yes, i don't care that much for Gods.

Unless you are talking about games that are impresive to look at?

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 21:00:46 2019 No.5812305

>>5812179
It only gives a "oomph" when you have a large enough palette. For example, on the C64 it was used extensively but mostly to change the border color to indicate decompression was running. In a game a 16 color gradient of random colors wouldn't look that impressive. The 2600, on the other hand, had 128 colors so you could do much better looking gradients.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 21:19:17 2019 No.5812340 >>5810729 lol no, amiga is shit. nothing but off brand games with europoor influences.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 21:20:20 2019 No.5812343 >>5810875 commodore 64 had better games desu

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 21:22:54 2019 No.5812348 >>5812343 During the CGA/EGA era it generally did unless it was games like King's Quest that specifically took advantage of the PC's larger memory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 22:24:36 2019 No.5812478 Most Amiga developers started out on the C64 and Spectrum and it shows.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 22:33:33 2019 No.5812490

>>5812478
In the US it would have been C64 and Apple II developers mostly. Many US Amiga games did feel like an Apple II game with more color. Arcade style games seem to have been really rare in the US Amiga scene, it's almost all grognard RPGs and simulations.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 22:54:12 2019 No.5812534

>>5811446
>Wolf3D didn't exist in 1987!
Sure, but this 1987 IBM that has a 10MHz 286 runs it better than an Amiga and at a playable speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0djMnESvus

That PC came out in 1987 and had VGA built in. If we're going to throw early 90's Amiga games into this mix we may as well be allowed to throw in PC games that came out around the same era that are capable of running on 1987 hardware.

It's not like the PC Existed in a vacuum. New cards and upgrades were constantly coming out. That same 10MHz 286 from 1987 by 1990 could have an Adlib or Sound Blaster card added, more memory added, maybe even a CPU upgrade thrown in making it far more capable.

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 23:31:02 2019 No.5812584

If you're nitpicky enough you could argue that a first gen PS/2 is a slightly newer machine than the OCS Amiga, which came out in 1985 whent there were only shit 8086 and 286 PCs with CGA graphics. The ECS Amiga would still outperform a 1990 PC, though the AGA chipset came out too late when VESA was around the corner and PCs were overtaking the Amiga.

Though still, the PS/2 had the MCA bus which gave the video faster thoroughput than ISA which was slow as shit and ISA is what nearly all consumer level PCs had through 1993.

If you also compared a Mac of this period, the Mac II would probably have been more than a match for the Amiga at a price of $7000.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 23:35:15 2019 No.5812591 >>5812534 amiga sucks, only europoors cling to it for nostalgia sake

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 23:37:05 2019 No.5812596 >>5812584 Yeah I'd like to see a video of Wolf 3D on a 286 PC with an ISA VGA card. Enjoy your 10 fps.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 23:38:37 2019 No.5812603 >>5812478 >Most Amiga developers started out on the C64 and Spectrum and it shows. Most of the big name european devs/studios of the 90's and later started out on the C64 and spectrum, your point?

Anonymous Thu Aug 15 23:43:54 2019 No.5812614

Anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHmHGU7TtBQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyzwIm8Ditk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cehaqXFCGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O6v5VNFCXc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV7HSJbJcZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B65t1VRGekw

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 23:44:02 2019 No.5812615 >>5811450 >unironically being this wrong and retarded >>5811474 >i don't know about anything earlier and was born much later so history be damned You already demonstrated you're young and dumb. Now you're just showing off. ttbn.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 23:46:38 2019 No.5812617 >>5812614 The Amiga version of Double Dragon is way worse than the PC one desu. I wouldn't even call the Amiga version a "game" at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 15 23:50:09 2019 No.5812623 >>5812614 The PC Arkanoid is a bit minimalist but it's still tons of fun to play and it does seem to have been quite popular back then.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 01:04:33 2019 No.5812736 >>5812490 American devs made lots of action games on computers in the early 80s however the Amiga's rise coincided with a general shift to RPGs and strategy titles.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 01:25:19 2019 No.5812785 >>5811834 >>5811852 >>5811861 What are these ones called

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 01:28:09 2019 No.5812794 >>5812736 Why was this though? Why stop making arcade stuff?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 01:34:35 2019 No.5812803 >>5812794 Mostly because of the NES. They figured you'd just play arcade games on there instead of a computer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 01:36:40 2019 No.5812804 >>5812596 >>5812584 Ok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lBHxfsCqWw

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 01:46:50 2019 No.5812824

>>5812804
>Playing Wolfenstein 3D on my 20+ year old 286 PC that I bought way back in 1991 or so.
It's a 16MHz 80286, have fitted XT-IDE BIOS rom to use modern IDE drives, 4x 1Mbyte SIMMs, Creative Soundblaster 16, Roland MPU interface and Roland MT32 MIDI module. Currently running MSDOS 5.

By 286 standards this is a pretty jacked machine, in fact 1991 would be reaallllyy late for a 286. The typical 1986-87 286 box was 8-10Mhz with an EGA card and an ESDI hard disk. Some late 286 boxes did have SIMM slots, IDE drives, and VGA, although a 16Mhz CPU is a third party one because Intel never made them in speeds greater than 10Mhz.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 01:49:23 2019 No.5812827 >>5812824 Not sure who was going to buy a 286 by 1991 anyway, all the new software was needing a 386.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:08:16 2019 No.5812859

>>5812827
Most software out in 1990-91 still ran on an 8086/286. 386 software wasn't really a thing until 92 outside some expensive programming tools and other stuff that was intended for enterprise sales and run on a high end workstation like a PS/2 Model 80--the typical home user didn't have much use for AutoCAD 386 or Ami Pro. In particular, virtually all games in 90-91 ran on the 8086/286.

386 machines became affordable for consumer level machines in 1990 when Intel began licensing second sources and also introduced the 386SX, but the 386SX was only a 386 internally; externally it was a 286 (16-bit data bus and 24-bit address bus). A full 386DX machine with the 32-bit data/address bus still cost $$$ and most of these ran on the ESDI or MCA buses. They were too expensive for consumers and they were workstations the office used to run AutoCAD.

A 386SX could still run any 32-bit software, but it ran like dogshit due to the 16-bit data bus (it takes twice the number of clock cycles to send and receive 32-bit data as it would on a 386DX). So the things were really only useful for 16-bit software.

Why didn't they just keep the 286 in production instead since the 32-bit capabilities of the 386SX were fairly useless? Well, for one thing it was marketing and it looked good to say you had a 386 machine, and it probably saved on money because chip fabs could produce 386SX and DX chips on the same line instead of needing a separate line for the outdated 286 which was very different internally than the 386 (remember: the DX and SX are the same internally, only the external connections are different). Note that those later 16Mhz 286s were made by Taiwanese companies while Intel and the other first-tier manufacturers had discontinued 286 production by 1990. And of course you _could_ run AutoCAD on your 386SX with ISA slots even though it would run at a painfully slow clip, which you could not do on a 286.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:12:50 2019 No.5812862 >>5812859 386SX chips came in higher speeds than even the fastest 286. Most were 16, 20, and 25Mhz. I don't think there were 33MHz ones though, those may have all been 386DX.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:14:58 2019 No.5812864 >>5812859 When was the last year for 286 production?

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:17:47 2019 No.5812867

>>5812864
I believe 1989 was the last year Intel produced them; since the 386SX came out the following year there would have been no reason whatsoever to keep the 286 in production. Taiwanese manufacturers kept making them until probably 92 in speeds up to 16Mhz.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:20:56 2019 No.5812868

>>5812824

You asked for an ISA VGA card running Wolf 3D, so I showed you one. I don't think there were any 286 Boards with VESA slots.

XT-IDE isn't going to affect frame rates, just load times. So not really worth bitching about in this case. 4MB of RAM isn't that big of an issue either. Again you could get cards for that back in the late 80s, IBM supplied them for their computers after all. Sound cards are a bit beefy, but they were available as Sierra games from the late 80s support them.

There actually are some good performing 16-bit ISA VGA cards out there that are perfectly capable of running Wolf3D at good frame rates. And the IBM PC AT had 16-bit ISA slots in it. So you could in theory put one of those 16-bit VGA cards in the later PC AT's that had an 8 MHz 286 and probably run Wolf3D at a playable speed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:22:20 2019 No.5812870 >>5812868 8Mhz sounds too weak. I'd think you have to get to 12Mhz to have a fighting chance.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:28:49 2019 No.5812881

>>5812868
>4MB of RAM isn't that big of an issue either. Again you could get cards for that back in the late 80s, IBM supplied them for their computers after all

XMS boards back then didn't have SIMMs, they were massive monsters with like 80 RAM chips on them and required a heavy duty PSU. Yeah they existed but they were gruesomely expensive especially since the late 80s was a period of a DRAM shortage and high prices, and only some pricey enterprise software could even use them. Later on in the twilight of the 286 you could get XMS boards with SIMMs, for what little software supported extended memory on a 286 anyway.

But it's a moot point for Wolf 3D since it's a real mode game that doesn't use XMS anyway.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:31:54 2019 No.5812886 >>5812881 Protected mode on the 286 was worthless anyway since it still required everything to be organized as 64k memory segments, there was no virtual memory, and you couldn't even get the CPU back into real mode without resetting it.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:41:37 2019 No.5812896

>>5812870

Again, I ran it on a 10MHz 286 and it was definitely playable. Yeah it was a PS/2 with MCA, but I think you overestimate how much of a difference in performance that would really make.

Here it is running on a PC AT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7EC7GAG0_8

But it doesn't really say how fast the 286 is nor does it say what kind of VGA card it has.

The point is, the PC didn't exist in a vacuum. You could easily upgrade your PC you bought in 1987 to still be competitive with new 16-bit ISA VGA cards, Sound cards, etc.

Was it going to cost a lot more than an Amiga? Yes. But you also got a lot more.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:47:47 2019 No.5812903 >>5812881 IBM's Memory Expansion cards for it's PS/2 Line that came out in 1987 used SIMMs as did the computers themselves: http://ps-2.kev009.com/ohlandl/misc/IBM-mem-expand.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:48:40 2019 No.5812904 File: 1.21 MB, 4032x3024, MacIntosh_Plus_img_1317-780x521.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >The virgin Amiga >The chad Macintosh How could they even compare when the Mac had games such as >Glider >Shufflepuck cafe >Cosmic osmo

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:49:20 2019 No.5812905

I used to have a 386SX 20Mhz with an Oak VGA card and it was pokey if you tried running VGA stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxwRQKmin-E

For example this Mario ripoff here would slow down quite a bit. I also ran the VGA version of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and it would noticeably pause to draw the screen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:50:21 2019 No.5812908 >>5812904 In no way did a Mac outperform any Amiga at gaming back then unless you paid $7000 for a Mac II.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:52:39 2019 No.5812913

>>5812903
PS/2s were almost all MCA though and IBM also used proprietary SIMM types (the proprietary everything on PS/2s really sucks). Most XMS cards of this period were ISA monstrosities with dozens and dozens of DIP RAM chips on them. You could not get ISA XMS cards with SIMMs until 1989 or so.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 02:54:47 2019 No.5812917

I think SIMMs were the standard on almost all 386 boards except maybe those very first Compaq Deskpro 386s from 1986. Macs universally used them from the Plus onward. Standard 286 boards usually used DIP RAM until those very late ones from 89-91 which had SIMM slots.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 03:02:17 2019 No.5812929 File: 7 KB, 508x336, Cosmic osmo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5812908 But they have SOUL, and colors are just a gimmick anyway. Really, show me an Amiga game with more soul than this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 03:17:28 2019 No.5812950 >>5812824 I'm not sure what myriad of mental disorders lead to a post like that but I'm pretty sure your fucked up brain is worth something to science and nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 03:18:53 2019 No.5812954 >>5812785 Unreal Lionheart Blade Warrior

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 03:34:16 2019 No.5812970

>>5812913
Even the ISA PS/2s are typically able to run Wolf3D at playable speeds and had VGA or MCGA on them.

And again, we weren't discussing cost here. We were discussing technical capabilities. Yeah it would be pricey, but doable. And considering how much more useful a PC was I'd say it would probably have been seen as a worthwhile investment.

And finally, Wolf3D doesn't even need 4MB of RAM. It needs 2 at most and can run with as little as 528k. That would definitely be doable in the late 80s. Wolf3D really just needs Memory, a fast enough 286, and a fast enough VGA card to run at a playable speed. All of which were available in 1987. By 1989 it was definitely available.

The Amiga may be cheaper than a PC, but it's also not going to run things like Wolf3D very well. Where as that decent 286 you bought in the late 80s could run it with the worst case scenario needing just a faster VGA card and about 512k-1MB more RAM.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 03:48:01 2019 No.5812987 Not him but was there a specific technical reason the Amiga would choke on Wolf 3D and Doom?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 03:52:59 2019 No.5812993 >>5812987 I always thought it was because the Amiga had planar graphics and not the linear VGA Mode 13.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 04:08:33 2019 No.5813014 >>5812993 It could be. I mean, the AGA Amigas still had planar graphics. This made sense in the 80s as a means of memory conservation but by 1992 it was laughably outdated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 04:17:57 2019 No.5813021 In regards to the PS/2 having an MCA bus. Yes this was true but 286 models had a cut down 16-bit version and it was likely not any faster than ISA.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 04:21:27 2019 No.5813024 >>5812905 Maybe this wasn't a very good VGA card but some of the top-shelf ones like Tseng Labs were quite speedy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 04:33:00 2019 No.5813034 >>5812591 Shit bait, have a (You) for your trouble, though.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 07:19:27 2019 No.5813247

>>5811063
An adlib card in 1987 would have been around $600, about $1400 today. A vga car something similar, maybe $700 so around $1600. On top of the PC itself which cost a fortune, this was not something that you'd find in a normal PC.

Also, thanks for calling me a kid. It really warms this old generation xer's heart.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 07:55:26 2019 No.5813320 >>5813247 >be wrong and fail >b-b-b-but >reddit space like a mofo >larp like a mofo Gotta ask, kid. Have you ever, in your entire life, done anything that doesn't embarrass yourself?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 08:02:29 2019 No.5813338 >>5810729 No, my A2000 was moar betterer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 11:20:31 2019 No.5813809 >>5810875 No. Amiga never looked and sounded like late 80’s arcade. Kindly reminder that Final Fight was released in 89 and the only decent port is the x86k one

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 12:23:18 2019 No.5813926 >>5813320 >>5813247 It's was $245 according to this: https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-first-sound-card.html And dropped to $190 when they realised a cheaper version for games would sell.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 12:25:35 2019 No.5813930
File: 72 KB, 500x500, 5.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5810729
a lot of amiga games are big on eye candy, a lot of them have original concepts. the problem stems from lack of polish and the horrendous one button layout which limits how complex most games can get. amiga games lack the qa that made console games of the time age better, difficulty tends to be too steep, controls are unresponsive or cumbersome in most games, games can become repetitive, even if in terms of graphics some of those 2d games are gorgeous, the budget constraints of most amiga teams were obvious. even worse almost all amiga games that did well were ported into other systems of the time (see lemmings etc) nullifying the need for buying a dedicated amiga (funnily most of the better exclusives were released when the amiga was unprofitable). still it's an inseparable part of the european market history, a lot of euro game studios that have transformed into big, successful companies (rockstar north, dice, naughty dog etc) started as small software houses developing for the platform making some of their early games on the amiga a novel curiosity (also as said there are some decent exclusives and definitive versions like worms dx)

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:32:13 2019 No.5814253 >>5813930 Publishers wanted games out in three months, none of them were willing to spend 1-2 years on a single game like Nintendo or Konami did.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:34:52 2019 No.5814265 >>5813930 >and the horrendous one button layout which The Amiga could support three button sticks though.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:40:30 2019 No.5814279
File: 38 KB, 768x948, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5814253
yea it's obvious european teams also had to develop in tighter schedules than their jap equivalents (that black mirror interactive episode kinda pokes fun at this)
>>5814265
how many games actually used it though? the joystick with 1 button setup became defacto standard it seems

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:48:32 2019 No.5814304

Games that supported two and three button sticks weren't that rare although it was more common to support one button sticks because there were millions of those around and they were cheap as water.

Lionheart, Apidya, Street Fighter 2, and Turrican can all use two buttons.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:49:43 2019 No.5814310 >>5813930 One big problem was that developers kept trying to make the same games they had made on 8-bit machines but with more colors.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:52:00 2019 No.5814316

>>5813809
>No. Amiga never looked and sounded like late 80’s arcade
Of course not. Arcade technology was advancing incredibly fast in the late 80s, on average there were major leaps every six months. The OCS Amiga came out in 1985 so it's more comparable to arcade games like Gauntlet or Gradius.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:53:16 2019 No.5814319 How about the burger Amiga scene? All anyone talks about is Europe. What did you guys exactly do with yours other than run Video Toaster?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:56:30 2019 No.5814327 The HAM mode was largely worthless, a relic from a prototype of Denise when Jay Miner was experimenting with different stuff. They left it in only because they didn't want to leave a bunch of unused space on the die.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 14:58:30 2019 No.5814330 I don't think the Amiga's floppy format was all that robust. Disks seemed to go bad and produce errors at a higher rate than PC or Mac disks.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 15:01:50 2019 No.5814340

>>5814330
The PC's wider sector gaps probably masked faults in floppy media. 3.5" disks in general were not as dependable as 5.25", but the issues Amiga users had could be the result of several things. PC users had hard disks a lot more often and weren't as dependent on floppies, so their drives and disks didn't tend to get used as hard as Amiga floppies were. I also wonder how many Amiga owners took proper care of their drives and cleaned the heads.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 15:05:50 2019 No.5814352 On that note, why could Amiga users not into hard disks? Having a floppy only PC was early 80s shit, after 85 there was no reason to not have a hard disk.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 15:09:15 2019 No.5814356 >>5814352 In Europe at least, people treated the Amiga as a roided out 8-bit computer. You bought them for your 12 year old to play games on, not do work with. Since few users had hard disks, there was no incentive to support it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 15:10:41 2019 No.5814359 >>5814327 HAM wasn't that useless, in fact it was even innovative for the time although on A500s there wasn't enough memory to use it for anything but static images.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 15:12:22 2019 No.5814362

>Floating point on Amiga being a complete mess, with two different incompatible software implementations randomly tossed into Kickstart and Workbench, and one hardware implementation that may or may not be present.
>Application stack management also being a mess. Instead of simply putting the required stack space in the executable right from start, we now have a myriad of incompatible patches and hacks for AmigaDOS and Exec to fix it.
>No file system meta-data for icons, giving us the annoying .info files.
>The copper doing logic ops before inversion filling, making polygon rasterization significantly slower (why Doom wasn't feasible), and other silly technical details.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 15:15:42 2019 No.5814369 The Amiga could have used a video mode that allowed application software to be more usable the way the Atari ST had hi-res monochrome mode. 640x200 with 8x8 text doesn't cut it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 15:28:19 2019 No.5814394 >>5811106 What game is that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 15:33:22 2019 No.5814405 File: 119 KB, 640x480, FM TOWNS、PC-8801 MC、X68000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5810729 >Is the Amiga 500 the best gaming computer of all time? No.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:02:34 2019 No.5814478 >>5814405 >>>/a/

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:06:17 2019 No.5814489

Amiga was fine for 1985. The problem was that it stayed in 1985 and didn't evolve that much. By 1990 it was looking very outdated indeed in a brave new world of Mega Drives, VGA PCs, Mac IIs, and Capcom CPS arcade boards. Commodore milked the A500 for way too long and badly neglected R&D.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:07:42 2019 No.5814492 Yeah I agree HAM was not particularly useful, but 4096 color pictures certainly looked amazing. PCs weren't able to do that until the mid-90s.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:09:21 2019 No.5814498 >>5814327 HAM? Worthless? >he has no idea just how cool it was to look at scanned 4k color Playboy spreads

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:12:14 2019 No.5814505 It would have been nice if the Amiga's sprites had discrete pointers like the C64's sprites so you could insta-switch sprite patterns without needing to copy the new sprite data over the old one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:15:43 2019 No.5814513 >>5814505 I'd have preferred the Amiga have hardware sprite flipping. Imagine how much RAM that would have saved.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:16:34 2019 No.5814517 >>5814498 Damm, that must have been a mind blowing experience back then

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:20:46 2019 No.5814528 >>5814498 Especially when you were 14.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:23:38 2019 No.5814539 >>5810729 Never cared much for Amiga as a gaming platform. Great for creative, ambitious people to create graphics and music with, but not so much for playing "arcade quality" games.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:24:34 2019 No.5814543 Some of the oddities and limitations in the Amiga's design are explained by how it started out as a next-gen 16 bit console that was supposed to output composite video and be used with a TV and later got converted to RGB for computer use.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:26:13 2019 No.5814550 The reliability issues on Amiga floppies can likely be explained by how Amiga floppy drives and disks got about 10x as much use as PC ones and many games used twitchy custom formats for copy protection.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:27:42 2019 No.5814557 >>5814489 Yes unfortunately Commodore preferred to invest in buying Irving Gould a new vacation home in Hawaii instead of R&D.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:30:25 2019 No.5814562

I felt the Amiga was not as immediately accessible as the C64. On the C64 it wasn't hard to get some crude game or demo up and running in BASIC, with Amiga it was harder and required some detailed knowledge of the chipset and 680x0 assembly language to do anything with it.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:32:35 2019 No.5814571

>>5814513
I agree. I would have preferred hardware flipping and perhaps sprites of a comparable dimension to the C64's instead of the weird 8x200 sprites with no pointers or position registers, though if you understand the Atari 2600 you know where this setup originates.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:33:05 2019 No.5814572
File: 691 KB, 1024x681, VideoToaster-original.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5814489
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_K8vnx2ZDc
Got one of those babies in late 1990(and its successor in 1992 and 1994), it took PCs and Macs years to catch up even halfway.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:34:48 2019 No.5814575

It's clear they had something very special on their hands, they just couldn't focus it's vast capabilities. Was it a games machine? Was it a business machine? Was it both? The market wasn't mature enough at that time to appreciate a machine that did both, and they failed to turn that into an advantage. Probably just talking rubbish, my take on it anyway.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:42:41 2019 No.5814602

The Amiga was an absolute bargain at the time for what you got. $1500 for a computer with 4096 color graphics and 4 voice PCM sound.

Meanwhile you could pay $4000 for a 286 PC with monochrome Hercules graphics, a CLI OS, and a one voice bleeper for sound.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:46:44 2019 No.5814609 >>5814602 This.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 16:50:54 2019 No.5814617

Hardware is designed under time, budget, and "good enough" constraints. The C64 had some aspects that could have been improved on such as more than three sound channels, but Jack Tramiel told them it was good enough and would still beat the competition (and by 1982 standards it certainly did).

The Amiga by 1985 standards was a very capable machine and nobody at the time foresaw VGA, Capcom CPS boards, and stuff like that, all of which benefited from rapid improvements in IC fabrication that allowed more pins, more stuff on a chip die, and higher yields.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:29:51 2019 No.5814687 I recall hearing that a lot of Amiga ports were pasted from the Atari ST. Was there a specific reason for this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:33:00 2019 No.5814694 >>5810729 >This thing was way ahead of its time Whenever you hear this about a console or computer, it usually means it failed commercially. The herd doesn't care about what's good, they care about what's popular.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:34:20 2019 No.5814702 [DELETED]

>>5814687
The ST was more popular than the Amiga <1989 due to price so it got an established body of software faster. So they ended up writing games for the ST first and trying to simply copypaste it onto the Amiga. The core game engine and assets would be retained and they'd just change the I/O routines to the equivalent on the Amiga, bit like MSX <-> Spectrum ports or Amstrad <-> ports.

Disassembly of Bubble Bobble reveals lots of leftover bits of code for handling soft sprites on the ST. At least they used the copper.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:34:21 2019 No.5814703 >>5814694 Fuck the herd then (figuratively)

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:35:30 2019 No.5814704 The ST just has frame buffer graphics, it's more straightforward to code for than the Amiga's complex custom chips, so lazy ST ports were common.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:36:59 2019 No.5814709

>>5814703
The problem is that if the herd doesn't buy the stuff, it doesn't succeed, like Jaguar. Just like anything else, the market specifically for what's good is a fraction of the market for what's popular. Sometimes you just get lucky and something is both good and popular, like NES. Sometimes not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:37:11 2019 No.5814710 >>5814694 Well yes, because if it was successful, it would simply be in its time, not ahead of it.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:38:20 2019 No.5814715

Also the Amiga can do anything the ST does but the ST can't do a lot of what the Amiga does, so using the ST as the baseline system made for an easier port than if they'd started on the Amiga first and tried to port it the other way around.

The ST was cheaper in general so a software house could have a room full of five STs and one Amiga. It also ran at a full 8Mhz as opposed to the Amiga's 7.16Mhz so compiling/assembling code on the ST was a little quicker.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:40:00 2019 No.5814723 >>5814709 The machine that has the best balance of price/features/ease of programming usually wins. Thus the PS1 was successful, the Saturn was not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:40:57 2019 No.5814725 >>5814715 Ha ha ha, video editing on the ST. Get the fuck outta here bucko.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:41:18 2019 No.5814726 >>5814715 Defender of the Crown was ported from the Amiga to the ST though and turned out fine. I do agree though that the Amiga was harder to master and it didn't have many competent coders around.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:42:28 2019 No.5814730

>>5814715
>It also ran at a full 8Mhz as opposed to the Amiga's 7.16Mhz so compiling/assembling code on the ST was a little quicker.
I would also think writing code on the ST was a little nicer due to the high res monochrome graphics which were way easier on the eyes.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:44:05 2019 No.5814736

>>5814704
The ST was more popular than the Amiga <1989 due to price so it got an established body of software faster. So they ended up writing games for the ST first and trying to simply copypaste it onto the Amiga. The core game engine and assets would be retained and they'd just change the I/O routines to the equivalent on the Amiga, bit like MSX <-> Spectrum ports or Amstrad <-> Spectrum ports.

Disassembly of Bubble Bobble reveals lots of leftover bits of code for handling soft sprites on the ST (masking and bit
shifting stuff). At least they used the copper.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:49:09 2019 No.5814751 >>5814319 IDK but Sierra's Amiga games were absolute trash and totally phoned in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:52:35 2019 No.5814760 >>5814751 I know. LucasArts did some very nice Amiga ports. Sierra were just lazy. And they never supported the A1200 and hard disks. Space Quest IV was so lame back in the day. I could tolerate the graphics if it wasn't so dogshit slow.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:53:23 2019 No.5814763

>>5814478
>muh murricanusm is threatened
Yes, America got the shitty fucking Amiga and masturbated over it. Meanwhile in Japan there were gaming computers that were hugely better and more advanced. Keep sitting in the corner smearing your poop on the wall, though...

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:55:17 2019 No.5814768 >>5814760 I wonder too why Sierra didn't try. LucasArts' Amiga titles were put together well. Why couldn't they do it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:55:28 2019 No.5814771 >>5814763 >gaming when you can do serious work on them and earn money Consoles are for gaming, computers are for computing

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:56:32 2019 No.5814772 >>5814768 didn't the Amiga have a lot of piracy and the stuff wasn't profitable for them?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 17:58:43 2019 No.5814776 >>5814772 I'm pretty sure Sierra were just lazy. And LucasArts dropped Amiga support when Day of the Tentacle came out likely because the game would have really needed an ECS/AGA Amiga and the market for those was too small to justify it.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 18:00:59 2019 No.5814782

Not all of Sierra's Amiga releases (Willy Beamish, Heart of China, etc) were bad ports but those were developed by Dynamix so not in-house. The "pure" Sierra games like King's Quest et al were awful ports. Considering how many games Sierra were churning out back then, they may have just not had the time or resources to spend on the Amiga ports.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 18:03:27 2019 No.5814790

The Amiga's bitmapped screen made it harder to do things that were easy on the C64 especially animated backgrounds and diagonal scrolling. It wasn't too difficult to scroll diagonally on the C64, on the Amiga it was an absolute bitch and used like 40% CPU. There were tricks you could employ to do it, but they weren't discovered until pretty late.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 18:05:05 2019 No.5814793

The amiga was fucking amazing. My dad had about a billion pirated floppies. I used to spend entire days going through them. I played some shit and i played some great games that I'll never see again.

Remember bubba and stix? Lost vikings? SWIV? Bill the tomato?

All fucking wonderful. I miss the amiga.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 18:08:34 2019 No.5814805 >>5814793 If you actually replayed most of those games, you'd realize how shitty they were and how poorly they've held up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 18:11:19 2019 No.5814815 >>5814805 Maybe, but i like retro games. That's why I'm here.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 18:18:47 2019 No.5814839

There's good retro games and then there's this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bJMnQxrxHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbbkDEeolYg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxef66P3Z3g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDgt26Zcio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb6VvtAcmb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucTL8AZkPFI

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 18:28:12 2019 No.5814862 The programmer of Bionic Commando said he tried his best but the game was awfully complex and very difficult to adapt to the Amiga.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 19:03:05 2019 No.5814942

>>5814793
>Remember bubba and stix? Lost vikings?
Yea because they were 1993/1994 console games on genesis/snes and lost Vikings in particular was a hit game for the SNES and an early success story for blizzard. The success of RNR racing and lost vikings on the SNES paved the way for them to make warcraft next, but in the mean time they pirted some stuff to the genesis and amiga.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:03:27 2019 No.5815085 https://www.lemonamiga.com/games/votes_list.php

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:04:36 2019 No.5815089 >>5814782 Sierra were very very committed to the PC and x86, they believed that was where the future lay, and they didn't regard the Amiga as important. All of their Amiga and Mac releases were very poorly optimized and ran at a snail's pace.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:08:33 2019 No.5815098

>>5814763
>Meanwhile in Japan there were gaming computers that were hugely better and more advanced
The NEC PC series just had frame buffer graphics. They were higher resolution than Western machines, but that was more because of the need to display kanji.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:11:43 2019 No.5815108 >>5813930 >>5814253 A lot of publishers just wanted to check off a box on a list. People would buy Double Dragon or other horrible ports just because they thought they were getting the arcade game on their Amiga.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:15:45 2019 No.5815118 The worst was trying to port games like Stun Runner or Street Fighter 2 on arcade hardware that was as much as 5-6 years newer than the Amiga which was clearly never going to work.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:27:24 2019 No.5815152

Body Blows is the closest you can get to SF2 on the Amiga. Stuff like that demonstrated that a Street Fighter kind of game was definitely possible with a competent team who understood the hardware well. The best Amiga games tended to come from studios like Studio 17, Gremlin Graphics, and Psygnosis. These were pros who really knew their shit and were also making original games, not ports, so they weren't under so much time pressure to get them finished.

Most of the arcade ports and licenced games were from shitty outfits like US Gold/Tiertex, Domark, and Ocean, which were all lazy cash grabs done as quickly and cheaply as possible. Ocean France had some competent, skilled people but Ocean UK weren't as good for the most part, but they had a huge advertising budget and lots of slick ads in magazines.

Some of the studios that US Gold and Ocean used were competent people like Sales Curve, Core Design, and sometimes Probe. The rest were just hacks who hired teenagers as a summer job and gave them two months to finish a game.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:32:08 2019 No.5815161

Richard Aplin the main programmer of Double Dragon made some quite excellent stuff later on so he clearly wasn't a hack, it's more like publishers simply didn't give programmers the time or resources to accomplish the job properly. US Gold favoured studios like Tiertex who could reliably get the game out on the deadlines they wanted, no matter how shitty it was.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:34:11 2019 No.5815165 >>5814304 >Street Fighter 2 >two buttons amazing

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:35:27 2019 No.5815171

As everyone knows, it was very very easy to make shoddy games on home computers as there was no licencing or Q/C standards like on consoles. Publishers like US Gold and Ocean who made shoddy arcade ports were usually just in it to make a quick buck (arguably a shitty port won't sell as well and you won't make much money from it, but the production cost and time spent are smaller).

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:38:52 2019 No.5815176

>>5815171
The reasoning US Gold and friends had was that they could sell a crapton of copies of Double Dragon or SF2 based on the name alone, so they didn't need to spend more than about £100 on making them. And they still do today--movie games are often questionable, although for a different set of reasons.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:40:42 2019 No.5815182 The Amiga couldn't really match arcade games until AGA and that was too little too late.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:41:55 2019 No.5815185 >>5815182 The OCS Amiga came out in 1985. It would have been easily able to do most arcade games made up to that point in time. Within 4-5 years though...

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 20:44:02 2019 No.5815191

>>5815182
>>5815185
Depends on the game. Stuff like Double Dragon, Bad Dudes, New Zealand Story, Golden Axe, and Street Fighter were all made later than 1985 and they were easily doable on the Amiga. When you get into Sega Super Scaler games, all bets were off--not even the AGA Amiga could do that.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:40:59 2019 No.5815363

Exolon - great on 8-bit but absolute shite on the Amiga.

Should have been great.

Commando was a terrible conversion on the Amiga too--again it should have been great.

Space Harrier is one that disappoints me a little--I mean it wasn't a terrible conversion, but it could have been better. If they had sharpened the graphics and put more effort into the music.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:42:00 2019 No.5815368 Street Fighter 2. It's no match for the SNES version sadly.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:46:10 2019 No.5815391

>>5815368
Not only that but the SNES SF2 may be one of the very best games ever made on that system. As for the Amiga version, the game floppy should be given to your dog as a chew toy. At the same time, we hit US Gold's offices with multiple thermonuclear strikes.

Sorry, it's just that the Amiga SF2 and Final Fight cause me to involuntarily shudder a little. At the same time I've heard Amiga fanboys say that SF2 isn't that bad and one guy even saying he thinks it's slightly preferable to the SNES? Like what the fuck man.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:48:54 2019 No.5815402 >>5815363 Commando is a bad port? Excuse me? The graphics look near 1v1 from the arcade. Maybe you miss the awesome Ron Hubbard soundtrack from the C64? That would be the only real flaw (that the Amiga version has worse music).

>>	Sonic 2 Fri Aug 16 21:50:30 2019 No.5815412 File: 1.20 MB, 1440x2560, IMG_20190804_140116.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5815391 Fuck with me on that Xbox street fighter 2 Believe me, there's no reason to play it on SNES or Genesis now

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:51:52 2019 No.5815416

Paperboy is a very meh conversion with meh graphics and sound and the gameplay feels off. Also it's missing all the speech samples.

I hated games like Dragon Spirit where they just copypasted the Atari ST graphics and putting a huge giant score bar that occupied 30% of the entire screen. Like why did they need to do that?

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:52:54 2019 No.5815419

>>5815191
commando and pacmania are really close to arcade

>>5815368
sf2 on snes has crappy graphics compared to the arcade

No matter what the Amiga is the computer that kicked off so many companies that still exist to this day that wouldn't have started if it wasn't for amiga, A lot more that the ibm.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:54:35 2019 No.5815421 How good could Final Fight and SF2 be on the OCS/ECS Amiga anyway? Capcom CPS-2 arcade games were quite a bit more advanced hardware.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:56:11 2019 No.5815424 >>5814394 Strider.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:56:56 2019 No.5815427 >>5815419 >sf2 on snes has crappy graphics compared to the arcade They had to make a few compromises since the SNES has 256x224 graphics and the arcade was 384x224. Though it's not that huge a difference, just a little more horizontal resolution.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 21:59:22 2019 No.5815432

>>5815421
Maybe not but they still could have been a little better. Final Fight could have had music and SF2 maybe they reduce the sprite sizes a bit for better performance (also supporting three button sticks would be nice).

Richard Aplin the programmer of Double Dragon and Final Fight on the Amiga said he was working under tremendous time pressure and didn't have access to the arcade game's source code.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:01:22 2019 No.5815440 Like seriously, how the fuck could anyone objectively think the Amiga SF2 was on par with the SNES or arcade? So since it's opposite day, let's go and also claim Afterburner and ESWAT on the Amiga were excellent ports of those games.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:02:33 2019 No.5815445 >>5815440 >Like seriously, how the fuck could anyone objectively think the Amiga SF2 was on par with the SNES or arcade? The graphics are copied pretty faithfully from the arcade and the gameplay honestly isn't that bad.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:04:39 2019 No.5815453

>>5815445
LOLno it's not, son. The sprites look like shit, the animation is choppy, the collision detection is awful, just all-around terrible programming. The four disks and loooonnnggg load times don't help either. It could have been a lot better even putting aside the fact that the Amiga was less capable hardware than the CPS-1.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:09:23 2019 No.5815464 >>5815453 The CPS-1 video sub system is pretty good, the rest is a joke desu.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:10:41 2019 No.5815468 [DELETED]

The graphics on SF2 are actually pretty decent despite the reduced colour depth (greatly reduced--the arcade has 4k colours while the Amiga is limited to 32). The sound and music are dreadful and the game has only two tunes in it. The load times are horrible and you need to swap disks every 5 minutes. But that's not the worst of it.

The gameplay is absolutely painful. The arcade game has superbly designed controls and you can tell that Capcom put a tremendous amount of thought and design into it. The Amiga one isn't even close--you jump around the screen mashing buttons frantically. If you're lucky you might get a move after several frames. If you press strong kick jumping forward, you’ll get a medium jumping kick? If you're Ken. Dragon punches, as well as other moves have been changed destroying all strategy to the game. Fireballs are impossible to pull out. You end up fighting the joystick rather than your opponent.

'Nuff said.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:12:33 2019 No.5815479

The graphics on SF2 are actually pretty decent despite the reduced colour depth (greatly reduced--the arcade has 4k colours while the Amiga is limited to 32). The sound and music are dreadful and the game has only two tunes in it, neither of which sound anything like the music from the arcade. The load times are horrible and you need to swap disks every 5 minutes. But that's not the worst of it.

The gameplay is absolutely painful. The arcade game has superbly designed controls and you can tell that Capcom put a tremendous amount of thought and design into it. The Amiga one isn't even close--you jump around the screen mashing buttons frantically. If you're lucky you might get a move after several frames. If you press strong kick jumping forward, you’ll get a medium jumping kick? If you're Ken. Dragon punches, as well as other moves have been changed destroying all strategy to the game. Fireballs are impossible to pull out. You end up fighting the joystick rather than your opponent.

'Nuff said.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:14:46 2019 No.5815484

I wonder if some people weren't getting it mixed up with Super SF2 and SF2: The World Warrior which are totally different games. Super SF2 on the Amiga was actually pretty good even with the dumbed down graphics. World Warrior though was just terrible--choppy animation, long long times, impossible controls, extremely unresponsive when you try to pull off a punch. Need I go on?

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:40:10 2019 No.5815531

I'd say that the worst ports to the Amiga are as follows:

Outrun

Afterburner (it's not great)

Street Fighter II The World Warrior

Buggy Boy (although not bad on the Amiga - the whole 'feel' of it wasn't there, far better on the C64)

Bomb Jack (same reason as Buggy Boy, although I do like it on the Amiga, much better as an 8-bit game)

Exolon (terrible in comparison to the Amstrad CPC version)

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:41:16 2019 No.5815538 King's Quest 6 was the biggest letdown I can recall. >promise of an AGA game ends in a 32 color down-conversion from VGA, after which Sierra simply dropped Amiga support

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:43:44 2019 No.5815540

After thinking a lot about it, I decided that for me the WORST conversion EVER is Rolling Thunder.

1) ST port with small video portion and huge frame around it.
2) Jerky slow scrolling, slow responding controls.
3) All the main enemies had the same exact colors, while the original game had a lot of different colors (And was not for scene only, their behavior changed too).
4) They sampled the first 7-8 seconds of the original background music and played them in loop, making it an awful monotonous tone...original ST version had VIC-20 tier music, but at least it was more faithful to the original tune than this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:45:29 2019 No.5815542 Is it unfair anyway to compare arcade games like SF2 with 4MB ROMs to an Amiga which typically had 512k-1MB of RAM?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:46:49 2019 No.5815546 Ghouls'n Ghosts was not bad and also = Shinobi and Afterburner.

Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:48:02 2019 No.5815547

>>5815546
Excuse me? GnG on the Amiga was totally unplayable rubbish.

Afterburner might have been hard to port on Amiga, but I can't agree with the other games: Victory Road or Rolling Thunder could have been converted on Amiga and be exactly identical to the originals.

Remember Rainbow Islands, New Zealand Story, Bubble Bobble or Silk Worm on Amiga? Those are nearly perfect copies of the originals. So why not an old and basic game such as Rolling Thunder?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:49:05 2019 No.5815550 How about Star Wars? It's not bad but they blundered by limiting themselves to a 512k Amiga when 1MB would have allowed them to fit in all the speech clips and other content from the arcade.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:50:06 2019 No.5815552 While not an arcade port, Hardball. The graphics look better than the C64, but the physics are vastly worse and the game overall became much too easy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:51:10 2019 No.5815554 Try the Mega Drive GnG and you'll never want to go near the Amiga again. The Amiga Shinobi is also beaten handily by the Master System port, and that's on a fucking 8-bit system.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:52:16 2019 No.5815556 >>5815538 KQ6 is honestly pretty damn good compared with the Amiga ports of their AGI games. It's only too bad we never got an AGA version of like promised.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 22:58:24 2019 No.5815563 >>5815538 KQ6 is honestly pretty damn good compared with the Amiga ports of their AGI games. It's only too bad we never got an AGA version of it like promised.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 16 23:54:10 2019 No.5815684 >>5815453 If you want to see bad programming, try the Amiga Castlevania. I'm positive this game cannot be beaten without a trainer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:18:54 2019 No.5815729 I love the sound of adlib and general MIDI, but there's a reason .mods and etc are still being made. https://youtu.be/Wc3XxSp0wXc?t=227 I'm actually not sure why SNES music doesn't usually sound this good, maybe it's the samples.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:28:57 2019 No.5815743 >>5815729 SNES music sounds like it's being played through a portable cassette player because it has only 64k of audio RAM. That is the big deficiency of PCM-based sound; it sounds only as good as the samples/amount of RAM available.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:31:33 2019 No.5815750 >>5815729 Fury of the Furries is also a super late Amiga game from 1993. It took programmers that long to get this good and by then it was just about over.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:33:13 2019 No.5815757 >>5815750 They might have gotten there sooner if the Amiga had been popular in 1985-88 but it was too expensive back then.

Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:34:40 2019 No.5815760

>>5815757
The A1000 wasn't very successful due to its price and it came with a stock 256k of RAM. It took the launch of the A500 in fall 87 to get sales moving, especially in Europe (the earliest Amiga games were American and mostly just Apple II games with more colours).

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:36:47 2019 No.5815762 >>5815729 Fury of Furries is great, that dual Hz mode is very unique

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:37:07 2019 No.5815763 The lack of HD floppies until the AGA models was also a bitch and a half. Right to the very last commercial games in the mid-90s they were still coming on DD disks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:42:21 2019 No.5815774 >>5815750 Let's see how far back we can go, and still have that distinct sound https://youtu.be/BLX5HAIlRLs?t=165

Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:42:43 2019 No.5815776

>>5815762
See >>5815152

Late period original Amiga games (as opposed to ports and licenced titles) made by experienced programmers with enough time to work on them could look impressive. But these games were also designed around the Amiga's hardware instead of trying to force it to do Super Scaler or whatever games, which is essentially jamming a square peg into a round hole--Sega didn't even try to do those games on their own consoles because they knew it was impossible.

And it's too bad that all that trash churned out by US Gold and Elite is what people most often associate the system with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:48:17 2019 No.5815792 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr2iUSfeilk Hardball is 87, but it sounds more chiptune and not as sampled.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 00:49:33 2019 No.5815794 >>5815776 >Sega didn't even try to do those games on their own consoles because they knew it was impossible. There's lots of janky non-scaling super-scalers on the Sega Genesis...

Anonymous Sat Aug 17 01:21:19 2019 No.5815865

>>5815792
As mentioned earlier, the Amiga Hardball is kind of weak compared with the C64 version. Though a lot of American Amiga stuff like Sierra and Cinemaware tended to not be programmed as well as the versions on other systems. However, the Amiga was pretty new at the time when Hardball and Defender of the Crown were made and programmers just didn't know it all that well while they had loads of experience with the C64 and 6502 coding in general.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 01:22:21 2019 No.5815868 >>5815794 Sega had intended for the Mega Drive to have sprite scaling but there wasn't enough room left on the VDP die.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 01:24:52 2019 No.5815878 >>5815763 The Amiga's custom floppy controller was an issue there. Though why they didn't just build one out of a standard WD17xx controller I don't have any idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 01:26:25 2019 No.5815883 >>5815878 Most likely because Commodore were big on vertical integration and preferred to design an in-house FDC. Not like HD floppies existed in 1985 anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 01:26:32 2019 No.5815884 >>5815794 Meanwhile, Road Rash on Genesis was basically a super scaler game by Amiga programmers. Sure it ran at 10fps, but it had full scaling and a kickass soundtrack (by C64 legend Rob Hubbard).

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 01:35:45 2019 No.5815893 >>5815427 256 color SNES palette vs 4096 color arcade palette

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 01:53:39 2019 No.5815909 >>5815868 That was a very early first concept but it was ruled out quickly due to the high cost of dedicated hardware sprite scaling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 02:34:58 2019 No.5815946 >did not get any port of Might & Magic or Wizardry

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 03:11:11 2019 No.5816003 >>5815878 If you weren't just a twinkle in your moms eyes at the time you'd know there was no "standard" for 3.5 floppies. Mac, Amiga and PCs all did their own thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 03:15:31 2019 No.5816007 >>5815946 It had M&M 2 and 3 and Wizardry 6.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 03:37:15 2019 No.5816032 W6 on the Amiga was a phoned in, shitty port like Sierra's Amiga stuff was.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 03:39:02 2019 No.5816036 >>5816003 The MFM style floppy format with WD17xx controllers very much was an industry standard that almost everything used and only Apple and Commodore used their own special snowflake controllers and disk formats.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 04:21:13 2019 No.5816105 >>5816036 Sorry kid. Youtube lied to you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 14:52:55 2019 No.5817279 Why do underage dickfucks keep pretending as if they were there and were gaming on an Amiga back in 89?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:13:24 2019 No.5817331 >>5817279 >>5816105 Australia-kun plz.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:15:15 2019 No.5817336 >>5817279 Like the "gaming historian" faggot? These 20-somthing year olds documentary the history of videogames they never fucking played lol. I would beat that kid to death with a fucking golf club if i ever ran into him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:17:25 2019 No.5817345 >>5817336 *document. Oh and also, fuck all these youtube millenial attention whores. makes me sick.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:19:57 2019 No.5817352 Let it be known that Australia-kun was born in 1998 and is massively projecting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:26:24 2019 No.5817375 >>5816036 >WD17xx controllers These dated to 1976 or 77. The IBM PC used an NEC FDC though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:34:59 2019 No.5817387 I'm 31, I've been using computers since I was six years old in 1995 so no I'm not underage or born in 1999, thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:37:37 2019 No.5817398 >>5817387 Yes, but do you like when I shit in your mouth?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:40:11 2019 No.5817409 >>5817387 That's nice and all but you were still an infant when the Amiga was around so you don't get to talk about anything older than the mid-90s, when you first became consciously aware of vidya existing. So still, fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:44:12 2019 No.5817415 Actually my dad had a C64 until getting a PC in 95 so that was the first computer I used.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 15:54:02 2019 No.5817452 >>5817415 So? You were like 6, all you could do there was play kiddie eduware. Were you in the demoscene or cracking protections on floppies back in the C64's time? No you weren't so you can't say you were there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 17 22:20:27 2019 No.5818331 >>5817331 Sorry kid. Not both me. Not Australian. Keep on failing.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/vr/ - Retro Games