Official Retro Computer game discussion

I love my PC-88, MSX-2 and X68000 systems. Though most of the times emulation is more comfortable than handling all those floppy disks.

I love my PC-88, MSX-2 and X68000 systems. Though most of the times emulation is more comfortable than handling all those floppy disks.

Panzer_Zwei

Does this count as retro Captain claw.. my fav pc platformer.. that boss music was legendary

Canyon Climber, in 1982, was the first game we ever had in the house.  We ended up getting a TRS-80 computer from Radio Shack that year.

CC is most similar in style to Donkey Kong, and probably the most vivid memory of playing the game at that time was getting to the end of the 3rd screen, and suddenly a goat came along and knocked me back down. I was too young at the time to realize my game hadn't ended, just the sequence, and that going back to the first screen kept your score going while the screens themselves increased in difficulty.

Edit:  Here's a video someone posted of the game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnJU4fiiE2w

By 1987, we had upgraded to a Tandy 1000 EX computer, and most the games I remember having for that were Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy and Police Quest.

I love my PC-88, MSX-2 and X68000 systems. Though most of the times emulation is more comfortable than handling all those floppy disks.

Panzer_Zwei

I'm seriously considering selling my CPC that i've had from childhood. PC emulation is more convenient, accurate and doesn't take half an hour to load.

Realistically, i'm highly unlikely to play the old system or have it out for any extended period of time. Sad, but true.

I have a large pc collection 100 boxed pc games with 8 computers raging from a 286 to a p3 i have like 4 crt monitors etc... All of which i rarely touch, playing computer games has really become more hassle then it's worth. a P2 - 450 mhz with windows 98 has a hell of a time trying to play super old dos games and my p-75 with 16 megs of ram has a hard time playing quake and duke nukem 3d etc... im going to keep a couple around but i've been thinking of selling my vintage pc collection it really has become more hassle then it's worth i have a folder on my desktop that well play basiclly anything. Then with GOG you can play the "newer" older stuff with ease. I spent a entire day Restoring a P3 with windows 98 and loaded it with tons of games worked on it for like 6 - 8 hours. The next day the hard drive crashes... Since then i've been like **** these dinosaurs" it's easier to just find a old crt tv and hook up a old ps1 or sega saturn. But at 33 years old i just don't find working on computers fun anymore it just feels like a waste of time.

I have a large pc collection 100 boxed pc games with 8 computers raging from a 286 to a p3 i have like 4 crt monitors etc... All of which i rarely touch, playing computer games has really become more hassle then it's worth. a P2 - 450 mhz with windows 98 has a hell of a time trying to play super old dos games and my p-75 with 16 megs of ram has a hard time playing quake and duke nukem 3d etc... im going to keep a couple around but i've been thinking of selling my vintage pc collection it really has become more hassle then it's worth i have a folder on my desktop that well play basiclly anything. Then with GOG you can play the "newer" older stuff with ease. I spent a entire day Restoring a P3 with windows 98 and loaded it with tons of games worked on it for like 6 - 8 hours. The next day the hard drive crashes... Since then i've been like **** these dinosaurs" it's easier to just find a old crt tv and hook up a old ps1 or sega saturn. But at 33 years old i just don't find working on computers fun anymore it just feels like a waste of time.

NinjaLegacy

I had a Spectrum ZX aka "Speccy".

It took ages for the games to load (accompanied with strange noises and distortions on the screen) and it was hard to figure out the controls but still I liked it.

The color graphics and sound FX were cool to me.

I also played on the Amiga and I had a Windows PC.

I'm probably one of those people who likes all computers and consoles. ;)

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

I love my PC-88, MSX-2 and X68000 systems. Though most of the times emulation is more comfortable than handling all those floppy disks.

NationProtector

I'm seriously considering selling my CPC that i've had from childhood. PC emulation is more convenient, accurate and doesn't take half an hour to load.

Realistically, i'm highly unlikely to play the old system or have it out for any extended period of time. Sad, but true.

BarbaricAvatar

I wouldn't sell it if I were you.

CPC seems like a really cool computer to me.

If nothing you can have it for collector's puposes.

Acorn Archimedes was another cool computer of the era. (first 32-bit home computer and it came out before the Amiga 500)

Here's a demo of what it could do:

This thread if for discussing Retro computer gaming and purchases if need be. Since it is rare to see retro forums focused on PC, and though the legacy platforms forum could use one.

I was recently dusting off my Commodore since I was able to get a copy of IK+.

3 fighters? Heck yeah!NationProtector

International Karate + was one of the first games I ever played as a kid! Brings back memories...

I'm surprised why there are so few fighting games that have ever attempted a three-way battle royale since then (besides WWF and Smash Bros)... I'd love to see a modern fighting game do something like that! The closest thing we have today is probably that four player battle mode in Street Fighter X Tekken (along with WWE and Smash Bros, of course)...

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

I love my PC-88, MSX-2 and X68000 systems. Though most of the times emulation is more comfortable than handling all those floppy disks.

Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

I love my PC-88, MSX-2 and X68000 systems. Though most of the times emulation is more comfortable than handling all those floppy disks.

Jag85

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] the X68000 is one of those "I wish I could own one" type of systems, but between the price of the computers themselves and the price of shipping (Ive yet to see one on sale outside of Japan), kinda kills it, that and navigating my way through a Japanese computer would probably be a painDarkman2007

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

I love my PC-88, MSX-2 and X68000 systems. Though most of the times emulation is more comfortable than handling all those floppy disks.

Darkman2007

The good thing when it comes to buying retro Japanse PC systems is that everyone seem to be after the latest models, so in the case of the X68000 or any other PC system you can buy a model capable of running all games (like the EXPERT II or PRO for the X68k) very cheap.

I barely use any windows programs, so I could care less about using obsolete programs on those old PC systems.

I bought my X68000 (CPU, keyboad, speaker etc.) practically in mint condition with original box and documentation, plus a controller and 2 games for around US$70.

The bad thing is that the monitor alone costs more than that. Though if you don't want to own the original monitor, there's always the possibilty of A/V cables or RGB. Of course the X68k monitor is beautiful, plus it can be used with my other PC systems, so it was worth the investment.

I also bought this cheap RGB to JAMMA adapter from Japan that lets me hook up the X68k and PS2 to my arcade cabinet.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Jag85"] The Sharp X68000 computer was the most powerful home gaming system of the 80s, which obviously means that it would have been one of the most expensive home computers of that era. It was pretty much the closest we got to arcade quality graphics in the 80s, but only if you were willing to spend thousands for it.NationProtector

Nevertheless, the CPS1 was mid-level arcade hardware in the late 80s, much like the Sega System 16 (the high-end arcade hardware was stuff like Sega's Super Scaler series and the Namco System series), so it's safe to say the X68000 was able to deliver at least mid-level arcade quality graphics.

Another thing to note is we may not ever see more computer wars for games. Right now the only real thing that is even close is MAc Vs. PC, yet they are so similar it practically does not matter.NationProtector

It's AMD vs Nvidia (& Intel) now.

In general, the "3D accelerator wars" of the mid-late 90s/early 2000s are the computer equivalent of console wars.

There used to be a lot of competitors from 3dfx (Voodoo), Rendition (Verite), S3 (Virge 3D, Savage 3D), PowerVR (CLX, Kyro), ATi (Rage 3D, Radeon - now called just AMD), Matrox (G series, Parhelia), ect.

But most dropped out of the graphics card race and now we have only AMD and Nvidia as the big players and Intel who only makes integrated graphics sollutions.

Anyway, you can see how these "3D card wars" looked like here:

PC gaming mags also had a lot of comparison charts, test and stuff like that.

yeah there were alot of cards, but honestly it was mostly as 3 horse race by 1997 or so , I don't think I ever saw a PowerVR (which to be fair is a great card) , or an S3 3D card.

3DFX had the performance image (no doubt helped by GlQuake and Tomb Raider being associated with it) while Nvidia and ATI were often popular parts in OEM machines (my retro PC is an odd one, as it came with a Voodoo3),

PowerVR still exists though , only for tablets/phones, not to mention the Dreamcast used a PowerVR2 (which in hindsight was probably better than choosing 3DFX)

yeah there were alot of cards, but honestly it was mostly as 3 horse race by 1997 or so , I don't think I ever saw a PowerVR (which to be fair is a great card) , or an S3 3D card.

 

3DFX had the performance image (no doubt helped by GlQuake and Tomb Raider being associated with it) while Nvidia and ATI were often popular parts in OEM machines (my retro PC is an odd one, as it came with a Voodoo3),

 

Darkman2007

Yep.

My 'first' 3D card was a built-in 4mb ATI chip on a Compaq desktop. I upgraded this to a 3DFX Voodoo3 and was astonished by the giant evolutionary step of the 16mb card. Then i upgraded again to -what was known as- the best card of the generation; an NVidia TNT2 and was equally astonished at the poor performance of the 32mb card.

If i'd tried it first then likely i'd have been just as amazed by the graphical improvements of the TNT2 and none-the-wiser as to the comparative slowness of the card. Obviously, i put the Voodoo3 back in. On one hand i wasted money in buying the 'upgrade', but on the other i'd likely have still hankered after the 32mb card because of all the positive-press it was soaked in at the time. So i'm glad i made the mistake.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

yeah there were alot of cards, but honestly it was mostly as 3 horse race by 1997 or so , I don't think I ever saw a PowerVR (which to be fair is a great card) , or an S3 3D card.

 

3DFX had the performance image (no doubt helped by GlQuake and Tomb Raider being associated with it) while Nvidia and ATI were often popular parts in OEM machines (my retro PC is an odd one, as it came with a Voodoo3),

 

BarbaricAvatar

Yep.

My 'first' 3D card was a built-in 4mb ATI chip on a Compaq desktop. I upgraded this to a 3DFX Voodoo3 and was astonished by the giant evolutionary step of the 16mb card. Then i upgraded again to -what was known as- the best card of the generation; an NVidia TNT2 and was equally astonished at the poor performance of the 32mb card.

If i'd tried it first then likely i'd have been just as amazed by the graphical improvements of the TNT2 and none-the-wiser as to the comparative slowness of the card. Obviously, i put the Voodoo3 back in. On one hand i wasted money in buying the 'upgrade', but on the other i'd likely have still hankered after the 32mb card because of all the positive-press it was soaked in at the time. So i'm glad i made the mistake.

yeah there were alot of cards, but honestly it was mostly as 3 horse race by 1997 or so , I don't think I ever saw a PowerVR (which to be fair is a great card) , or an S3 3D card.

 

3DFX had the performance image (no doubt helped by GlQuake and Tomb Raider being associated with it) while Nvidia and ATI were often popular parts in OEM machines (my retro PC is an odd one, as it came with a Voodoo3),

 

PowerVR still exists though , only for tablets/phones, not to mention the Dreamcast used a PowerVR2 (which in hindsight was probably better than choosing 3DFX)

Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

yeah there were alot of cards, but honestly it was mostly as 3 horse race by 1997 or so , I don't think I ever saw a PowerVR (which to be fair is a great card) , or an S3 3D card.

 

3DFX had the performance image (no doubt helped by GlQuake and Tomb Raider being associated with it) while Nvidia and ATI were often popular parts in OEM machines (my retro PC is an odd one, as it came with a Voodoo3),

 

PowerVR still exists though , only for tablets/phones, not to mention the Dreamcast used a PowerVR2 (which in hindsight was probably better than choosing 3DFX)

Jag85

yeah there were alot of cards, but honestly it was mostly as 3 horse race by 1997 or so , I don't think I ever saw a PowerVR (which to be fair is a great card) , or an S3 3D card.

 

3DFX had the performance image (no doubt helped by GlQuake and Tomb Raider being associated with it) while Nvidia and ATI were often popular parts in OEM machines (my retro PC is an odd one, as it came with a Voodoo3),

 

PowerVR still exists though , only for tablets/phones, not to mention the Dreamcast used a PowerVR2 (which in hindsight was probably better than choosing 3DFX)

Darkman2007

True, the "gamer's choice" back then was 3dfx as their cards had the best performance and support. (Glide)

Games were also being made mainly with 3dfx in mind, some even having 3dfx-exclusive effects and stuff. (which you can see if you use a Glide wrapper)

But 3dfx got lazy on success and was surpassed by the competitors (mostly Nvidia but also ATi) which offered more advanced cards with better performance than the Voodoo 5.

Soon they went bankrupt and the assets were sold of to Nvidia. (which later re-used some of their former technologies such as SLI)

A lot of those companies still exist but they switched to different markets.

The gaming market is now almost completely dominated by Nvidia and AMD and Intel. (who make terrible graphics chips but still they are popular due to being integrated into every Intel-compatible board)

I do wonder, however, why Real3D didn't bring their line of super-performance cards to the PC gaming market.

Their line of Real3D 100/1000 could rival late 90s/early 00s PC graphics cards like Nvidia GeForce, ATi Radeon and 3dfx Voodoo 5 and that was in 1995.

Sega's arcade machines were also based upon the tech (the Model 3 which was "cutting-edge" in every regard in it's time) but there was no home consumer versions. (they later connected with Intel and made the i740 which was trashed by cards like Voodoo 2 and Riva TNT - you can see a pic of the never-released Real3D 100 card here)

Anyway, I think it's funny how Amiga used to "own" the PC:

It took a while for PC to become a viable gaming platform with things like color monitors, VGA graphics standard, Sound Blaster, CD-ROM, attachable controllers, ect.

Anyway, I think it's funny how Amiga used to "own" the PC:

 

 

It took a while for PC to become a viable gaming platform with things like color monitors, VGA graphics standard, Sound Blaster, CD-ROM, attachable controllers, ect.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

yeah there were alot of cards, but honestly it was mostly as 3 horse race by 1997 or so , I don't think I ever saw a PowerVR (which to be fair is a great card) , or an S3 3D card.

 

3DFX had the performance image (no doubt helped by GlQuake and Tomb Raider being associated with it) while Nvidia and ATI were often popular parts in OEM machines (my retro PC is an odd one, as it came with a Voodoo3),

 

PowerVR still exists though , only for tablets/phones, not to mention the Dreamcast used a PowerVR2 (which in hindsight was probably better than choosing 3DFX)

nameless12345

True, the "gamer's choice" back then was 3dfx as their cards had the best performance and support. (Glide)

Games were also being made mainly with 3dfx in mind, some even having 3dfx-exclusive effects and stuff. (which you can see if you use a Glide wrapper)

But 3dfx got lazy on success and was surpassed by the competitors (mostly Nvidia but also ATi) which offered more advanced cards with better performance than the Voodoo 5.

Soon they went bankrupt and the assets were sold of to Nvidia. (which later re-used some of their former technologies such as SLI)

A lot of those companies still exist but they switched to different markets.

The gaming market is now almost completely dominated by Nvidia and AMD and Intel. (who make terrible graphics chips but still they are popular due to being integrated into every Intel-compatible board)

I do wonder, however, why Real3D didn't bring their line of super-performance cards to the PC gaming market.

Their line of Real3D 100/1000 could rival late 90s/early 00s PC graphics cards like Nvidia GeForce, ATi Radeon and 3dfx Voodoo 5 and that was in 1995.

Sega's arcade machines were also based upon the tech (the Model 3 which was "cutting-edge" in every regard in it's time) but there was no home consumer versions. (they later connected with Intel and made the i740 which was trashed by cards like Voodoo 2 and Riva TNT - you can see a pic of the never-released Real3D 100 card here)

Yes, the Real3D Pro-1000 which powered the graphics of the Sega Model 3 arcade system in 1996 was quite easily the most powerful graphics chipset of its time, which, as you may know, is evident with games like Virtua Fighter 3 and SCUD Race. The Real3D 100 was a stripped down version intended for PC, but was cancelled and instead an even more stripped down cheaper version of the R3D 100 was later reelased as the Intel i740, which removed the geometry assist processor (which would have been expensive) and became more CPU-centric like other graphics cards at the time. If the original Real3D 100 had released in 1997 as originally intended, it could have been the best graphics card on the PC, but I believe there were cost issues that prevented it from being an affordable consumer graphics card.

However, the NEC/VideoLogic PowerVR2 used for the Dreamcast in 1998 did eventually surpass the Real3D Pro-1000, hence why Sega chose it as the Model 3's successor over the rival 3dfx-based design. A consumer PC version of the PowerVR2 was later released as the VideoLogic Neon 250 for PC in late 1999, but it was surpassed by the NVIDIA GeForce 256 shortly afterwards.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Anyway, I think it's funny how Amiga used to "own" the PC:

 

 

It took a while for PC to become a viable gaming platform with things like color monitors, VGA graphics standard, Sound Blaster, CD-ROM, attachable controllers, ect.

Darkman2007

yes the Amiga was ahead of the PC for pretty much all of the mid-late 80s, the first game I can think of where there is a better PC version , is Lucasarts' Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Adventure game, which has both an EGA and VGA version (and that game came out in 1989)

what helped the PC was that the machine was being cloned and built by everybody and their grandma, resulting in lower prices, more innovation , demand for better technology, plenty of companies making the components (especially sound cards)

with the Amiga (and Atari ST) , it was one company making the computers, Commodore (or Atari) , they decided what each and every Amiga model had in it, if they made the wrong choice , then you were stuck with an underpowered product.

take the Amiga 1200 for instance, it simply wasn't capable enough to compete with the 486 machines of the time, but its not like you could get a better 1200, you were stuck with that, and with PCs getting cheaper, there was less need for the Amiga.

I'd have to disagree with that last part. The Intel 486 may have had a superior performance compared to the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga 1200, but what made the Amiga 1200 the superior gaming machine in the early 90's was its Advanged Graphics Architecture (AGA) chipset, which was designed to handle 2D sprite graphics much better than the PC. The only home computers at the time with superior graphics chipsets were the Sharp X68000 and Fujitsu FM Towns in Japan, but otherwise, the Amiga was still the home computer graphics king in the Western world at the time.

However, the 486 may have had an advantage over the Amiga 1200 when it came to handling 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on CPU performance rather than dedicated graphics chipsets. This was the same reason why the Mega Drive stock hardware was better than the SNES stock hardware at handling 3D polygon graphics, despite the SNES having a superior graphics chipset for 2D sprite graphics.

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

Anyway, I think it's funny how Amiga used to "own" the PC:

 

 

It took a while for PC to become a viable gaming platform with things like color monitors, VGA graphics standard, Sound Blaster, CD-ROM, attachable controllers, ect.

Jag85

yes the Amiga was ahead of the PC for pretty much all of the mid-late 80s, the first game I can think of where there is a better PC version , is Lucasarts' Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Adventure game, which has both an EGA and VGA version (and that game came out in 1989)

what helped the PC was that the machine was being cloned and built by everybody and their grandma, resulting in lower prices, more innovation , demand for better technology, plenty of companies making the components (especially sound cards)

with the Amiga (and Atari ST) , it was one company making the computers, Commodore (or Atari) , they decided what each and every Amiga model had in it, if they made the wrong choice , then you were stuck with an underpowered product.

take the Amiga 1200 for instance, it simply wasn't capable enough to compete with the 486 machines of the time, but its not like you could get a better 1200, you were stuck with that, and with PCs getting cheaper, there was less need for the Amiga.

I'd have to disagree with that last part. The Intel 486 may have had a superior performance compared to the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga 1200, but what made the Amiga 1200 the superior gaming machine in the early 90's was its Advanged Graphics Architecture (AGA) chipset, which was designed to handle 2D sprite graphics much better than the PC. The only home computers at the time with superior graphics chipsets were the Sharp X68000 and Fujitsu FM Towns in Japan, but otherwise, the Amiga was still the home computer graphics king in the Western world at the time.

However, the 486 may have had an advantage over the Amiga 1200 when it came to handling 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on CPU performance rather than dedicated graphics chipsets. This was the same reason why the Mega Drive stock hardware was better than the SNES stock hardware at handling 3D polygon graphics, despite the SNES having a superior graphics chipset for 2D sprite graphics.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

yes the Amiga was ahead of the PC for pretty much all of the mid-late 80s, the first game I can think of where there is a better PC version , is Lucasarts' Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Adventure game, which has both an EGA and VGA version (and that game came out in 1989)

what helped the PC was that the machine was being cloned and built by everybody and their grandma, resulting in lower prices, more innovation , demand for better technology, plenty of companies making the components (especially sound cards)

with the Amiga (and Atari ST) , it was one company making the computers, Commodore (or Atari) , they decided what each and every Amiga model had in it, if they made the wrong choice , then you were stuck with an underpowered product.

take the Amiga 1200 for instance, it simply wasn't capable enough to compete with the 486 machines of the time, but its not like you could get a better 1200, you were stuck with that, and with PCs getting cheaper, there was less need for the Amiga.NationProtector

I'd have to disagree with that last part. The Intel 486 may have had a superior performance compared to the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga 1200, but what made the Amiga 1200 the superior gaming machine in the early 90's was its Advanged Graphics Architecture (AGA) chipset, which was designed to handle 2D sprite graphics much better than the PC. The only home computers at the time with superior graphics chipsets were the Sharp X68000 and Fujitsu FM Towns in Japan, but otherwise, the Amiga was still the home computer graphics king in the Western world at the time.

However, the 486 may have had an advantage over the Amiga 1200 when it came to handling 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on CPU performance rather than dedicated graphics chipsets. This was the same reason why the Mega Drive stock hardware was better than the SNES stock hardware at handling 3D polygon graphics, despite the SNES having a superior graphics chipset for 2D sprite graphics.

Amiga should have used their advantage much earlier than what they did later with the CD32. If they had done it earlier, or used more modern Amiga hardware at the time, they would have had one heck of a powerful home console, also affordable.

The same goes for Fujitsu, whose FM Towns computer was very powerful for its time in 1989 (second only to the Sharp X68000). Like Commodore with the CD32, Fujitsu waited until 1993 to release the FM Towns Marty in 1993, by which time the next generation was already starting.

I think in both cases, with Commodore and Fujitsu, their computers were expensive, so they were waiting for the right time before they released a more affordable console, but by then it was too late as they started to get overshadowed by next-gen consoles, like the Panasonic 3DO and Atari Jaguar, which in turn got overshadowed by the Saturn and PlayStation the following year.

[QUOTE="NationProtector"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

I'd have to disagree with that last part. The Intel 486 may have had a superior performance compared to the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga 1200, but what made the Amiga 1200 the superior gaming machine in the early 90's was its Advanged Graphics Architecture (AGA) chipset, which was designed to handle 2D sprite graphics much better than the PC. The only home computers at the time with superior graphics chipsets were the Sharp X68000 and Fujitsu FM Towns in Japan, but otherwise, the Amiga was still the home computer graphics king in the Western world at the time.

However, the 486 may have had an advantage over the Amiga 1200 when it came to handling 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on CPU performance rather than dedicated graphics chipsets. This was the same reason why the Mega Drive stock hardware was better than the SNES stock hardware at handling 3D polygon graphics, despite the SNES having a superior graphics chipset for 2D sprite graphics.

Jag85

Amiga should have used their advantage much earlier than what they did later with the CD32. If they had done it earlier, or used more modern Amiga hardware at the time, they would have had one heck of a powerful home console, also affordable.

The same goes for Fujitsu, whose FM Towns computer was very powerful for its time in 1989 (second only to the Sharp X68000). Like Commodore with the CD32, Fujitsu waited until 1993 to release the FM Towns Marty in 1993, by which time the next generation was already starting.

I think in both cases, with Commodore and Fujitsu, their computers were expensive, so they were waiting for the right time before they released a more affordable console, but by then it was too late as they started to get overshadowed by next-gen consoles, like the Panasonic 3DO and Atari Jaguar, which in turn got overshadowed by the Saturn and PlayStation the following year.

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

Anyway, I think it's funny how Amiga used to "own" the PC:

 

 

It took a while for PC to become a viable gaming platform with things like color monitors, VGA graphics standard, Sound Blaster, CD-ROM, attachable controllers, ect.

Jag85

yes the Amiga was ahead of the PC for pretty much all of the mid-late 80s, the first game I can think of where there is a better PC version , is Lucasarts' Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Adventure game, which has both an EGA and VGA version (and that game came out in 1989)

what helped the PC was that the machine was being cloned and built by everybody and their grandma, resulting in lower prices, more innovation , demand for better technology, plenty of companies making the components (especially sound cards)

with the Amiga (and Atari ST) , it was one company making the computers, Commodore (or Atari) , they decided what each and every Amiga model had in it, if they made the wrong choice , then you were stuck with an underpowered product.

take the Amiga 1200 for instance, it simply wasn't capable enough to compete with the 486 machines of the time, but its not like you could get a better 1200, you were stuck with that, and with PCs getting cheaper, there was less need for the Amiga.

I'd have to disagree with that last part. The Intel 486 may have had a superior performance compared to the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga 1200, but what made the Amiga 1200 the superior gaming machine in the early 90's was its Advanged Graphics Architecture (AGA) chipset, which was designed to handle 2D sprite graphics much better than the PC. The only home computers at the time with superior graphics chipsets were the Sharp X68000 and Fujitsu FM Towns in Japan, but otherwise, the Amiga was still the home computer graphics king in the Western world at the time.

However, the 486 may have had an advantage over the Amiga 1200 when it came to handling 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on CPU performance rather than dedicated graphics chipsets. This was the same reason why the Mega Drive stock hardware was better than the SNES stock hardware at handling 3D polygon graphics, despite the SNES having a superior graphics chipset for 2D sprite graphics.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

yes the Amiga was ahead of the PC for pretty much all of the mid-late 80s, the first game I can think of where there is a better PC version , is Lucasarts' Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Adventure game, which has both an EGA and VGA version (and that game came out in 1989)

what helped the PC was that the machine was being cloned and built by everybody and their grandma, resulting in lower prices, more innovation , demand for better technology, plenty of companies making the components (especially sound cards)

with the Amiga (and Atari ST) , it was one company making the computers, Commodore (or Atari) , they decided what each and every Amiga model had in it, if they made the wrong choice , then you were stuck with an underpowered product.

take the Amiga 1200 for instance, it simply wasn't capable enough to compete with the 486 machines of the time, but its not like you could get a better 1200, you were stuck with that, and with PCs getting cheaper, there was less need for the Amiga.Darkman2007

I'd have to disagree with that last part. The Intel 486 may have had a superior performance compared to the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga 1200, but what made the Amiga 1200 the superior gaming machine in the early 90's was its Advanged Graphics Architecture (AGA) chipset, which was designed to handle 2D sprite graphics much better than the PC. The only home computers at the time with superior graphics chipsets were the Sharp X68000 and Fujitsu FM Towns in Japan, but otherwise, the Amiga was still the home computer graphics king in the Western world at the time.

However, the 486 may have had an advantage over the Amiga 1200 when it came to handling 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on CPU performance rather than dedicated graphics chipsets. This was the same reason why the Mega Drive stock hardware was better than the SNES stock hardware at handling 3D polygon graphics, despite the SNES having a superior graphics chipset for 2D sprite graphics.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="NationProtector"]

Amiga should have used their advantage much earlier than what they did later with the CD32. If they had done it earlier, or used more modern Amiga hardware at the time, they would have had one heck of a powerful home console, also affordable.NationProtector

The same goes for Fujitsu, whose FM Towns computer was very powerful for its time in 1989 (second only to the Sharp X68000). Like Commodore with the CD32, Fujitsu waited until 1993 to release the FM Towns Marty in 1993, by which time the next generation was already starting.

I think in both cases, with Commodore and Fujitsu, their computers were expensive, so they were waiting for the right time before they released a more affordable console, but by then it was too late as they started to get overshadowed by next-gen consoles, like the Panasonic 3DO and Atari Jaguar, which in turn got overshadowed by the Saturn and PlayStation the following year.

Well, the 3DO was still doing well (not the hardware makers though) when the Saturn and PSX were out.

However, I don't think it was a price issue, other computer companies used some of their technology in consoles before at affordable prices. The Neo-Geo is 3x weaker or more than the CD32 as it is present, they could have easily had it cost $399 or less, especially with the cheaper parts used for the system itself making manufacturing easy.

Heck, when the CD32 came out, I believe the Neo-geo was still more expensive.

Regarding the Neo Geo comparison, are you referring to the CPU or GPU? While the CD32's Motorola 68020 CPU was superior to the Neo Geo's 68000, that wasn't the reason why the Neo Geo was powerful for its time. What gave the Neo Geo its graphical power was its custom GPU graphics chips, both in the console and on the cartridges, which were more powerful than the CD32's AGA graphics chipset. That's why the Neo Geo was still the more expensive console. In fact, the Neo Geo's 2D sprite capabilities were not surpassed by any other home system until the Sega Saturn.

Anyway, regarding the CD32, it was based on the Amiga 1200, which was released in 1992. The earliest they could have released the CD32 console is 1992, since that's when the computer it's based on was released.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

yes the Amiga was ahead of the PC for pretty much all of the mid-late 80s, the first game I can think of where there is a better PC version , is Lucasarts' Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Adventure game, which has both an EGA and VGA version (and that game came out in 1989)

what helped the PC was that the machine was being cloned and built by everybody and their grandma, resulting in lower prices, more innovation , demand for better technology, plenty of companies making the components (especially sound cards)

with the Amiga (and Atari ST) , it was one company making the computers, Commodore (or Atari) , they decided what each and every Amiga model had in it, if they made the wrong choice , then you were stuck with an underpowered product.

take the Amiga 1200 for instance, it simply wasn't capable enough to compete with the 486 machines of the time, but its not like you could get a better 1200, you were stuck with that, and with PCs getting cheaper, there was less need for the Amiga.Darkman2007

I'd have to disagree with that last part. The Intel 486 may have had a superior performance compared to the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga 1200, but what made the Amiga 1200 the superior gaming machine in the early 90's was its Advanged Graphics Architecture (AGA) chipset, which was designed to handle 2D sprite graphics much better than the PC. The only home computers at the time with superior graphics chipsets were the Sharp X68000 and Fujitsu FM Towns in Japan, but otherwise, the Amiga was still the home computer graphics king in the Western world at the time.

However, the 486 may have had an advantage over the Amiga 1200 when it came to handling 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on CPU performance rather than dedicated graphics chipsets. This was the same reason why the Mega Drive stock hardware was better than the SNES stock hardware at handling 3D polygon graphics, despite the SNES having a superior graphics chipset for 2D sprite graphics.

that's half true, AGA helped, and it was an improvement over the original chipset in the A500, but it wasn't enough to compete with the typical VGA 486 PCs of the early 90s (although admittedly alot of people were still using 386s and even 286s in some cases), it matches it in terms of onscreen colour count, that said there were 2 problems one notices with Amiga games at the time

1) alot of developers just kept on developing for the Amiga 500 as the prime platform.

2) less optimization as the machine got less popular.

I will give the Amiga credit in the sound department though, it outdid the Adlib, the Gameblaster and Soundblaster , it wasn't really until cards like the Gravis Ultrasound or SB AWE32 that the PC sounded at least as good or better.

unless of course you count the MT-32, but that wasn't a PC thing necessarily, as it worked on other computers too.

Again, when it came to 2D graphical capabilities, the Amiga was superior to the PC even into the early 90's. While the PC's VGA standard was indeed able to match the Amiga's on-screen colour count, what VGA lacked is support for hardware sprites or a blitter, both of which the Amiga was capable of. That is why the Amiga was still superior to the PC when it came to 2D sprite graphics in the early 90's.

Just think of it like the Mega Drive vs SNES: the Mega Drive had the faster CPU, whereas the SNES had the superior 2D graphics GPU. Similarly, the PC had the faster CPU, while the Amiga had the superior 2D graphics GPU. However, the faster CPU meant better 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on the CPU rather than dedicated GPU chipsets.

As for the sound, I think the Roland MT-32 should count for the PC. While it wasn't exclusive for PC, the fact that it worked on PC and not Amiga should be a point in favour of PC in the sound department.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

I'd have to disagree with that last part. The Intel 486 may have had a superior performance compared to the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga 1200, but what made the Amiga 1200 the superior gaming machine in the early 90's was its Advanged Graphics Architecture (AGA) chipset, which was designed to handle 2D sprite graphics much better than the PC. The only home computers at the time with superior graphics chipsets were the Sharp X68000 and Fujitsu FM Towns in Japan, but otherwise, the Amiga was still the home computer graphics king in the Western world at the time.

However, the 486 may have had an advantage over the Amiga 1200 when it came to handling 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on CPU performance rather than dedicated graphics chipsets. This was the same reason why the Mega Drive stock hardware was better than the SNES stock hardware at handling 3D polygon graphics, despite the SNES having a superior graphics chipset for 2D sprite graphics.

Jag85

that's half true, AGA helped, and it was an improvement over the original chipset in the A500, but it wasn't enough to compete with the typical VGA 486 PCs of the early 90s (although admittedly alot of people were still using 386s and even 286s in some cases), it matches it in terms of onscreen colour count, that said there were 2 problems one notices with Amiga games at the time

1) alot of developers just kept on developing for the Amiga 500 as the prime platform.

2) less optimization as the machine got less popular.

I will give the Amiga credit in the sound department though, it outdid the Adlib, the Gameblaster and Soundblaster , it wasn't really until cards like the Gravis Ultrasound or SB AWE32 that the PC sounded at least as good or better.

unless of course you count the MT-32, but that wasn't a PC thing necessarily, as it worked on other computers too.

Again, when it came to 2D graphical capabilities, the Amiga was superior to the PC even into the early 90's. While the PC's VGA standard was indeed able to match the Amiga's on-screen colour count, what VGA lacked is support for hardware sprites or a blitter, both of which the Amiga was capable of. That is why the Amiga was still superior to the PC when it came to 2D sprite graphics in the early 90's.

Just think of it like the Mega Drive vs SNES: the Mega Drive had the faster CPU, whereas the SNES had the superior 2D graphics GPU. Similarly, the PC had the faster CPU, while the Amiga had the superior 2D graphics GPU. However, the faster CPU meant better 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on the CPU rather than dedicated GPU chipsets.

As for the sound, I think the Roland MT-32 should count for the PC. While it wasn't exclusive for PC, the fact that it worked on PC and not Amiga should be a point in favour of PC in the sound department.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

that's half true, AGA helped, and it was an improvement over the original chipset in the A500, but it wasn't enough to compete with the typical VGA 486 PCs of the early 90s (although admittedly alot of people were still using 386s and even 286s in some cases), it matches it in terms of onscreen colour count, that said there were 2 problems one notices with Amiga games at the time

1) alot of developers just kept on developing for the Amiga 500 as the prime platform.

2) less optimization as the machine got less popular.

I will give the Amiga credit in the sound department though, it outdid the Adlib, the Gameblaster and Soundblaster , it wasn't really until cards like the Gravis Ultrasound or SB AWE32 that the PC sounded at least as good or better.

unless of course you count the MT-32, but that wasn't a PC thing necessarily, as it worked on other computers too.Darkman2007

Again, when it came to 2D graphical capabilities, the Amiga was superior to the PC even into the early 90's. While the PC's VGA standard was indeed able to match the Amiga's on-screen colour count, what VGA lacked is support for hardware sprites or a blitter, both of which the Amiga was capable of. That is why the Amiga was still superior to the PC when it came to 2D sprite graphics in the early 90's.

Just think of it like the Mega Drive vs SNES: the Mega Drive had the faster CPU, whereas the SNES had the superior 2D graphics GPU. Similarly, the PC had the faster CPU, while the Amiga had the superior 2D graphics GPU. However, the faster CPU meant better 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on the CPU rather than dedicated GPU chipsets.

As for the sound, I think the Roland MT-32 should count for the PC. While it wasn't exclusive for PC, the fact that it worked on PC and not Amiga should be a point in favour of PC in the sound department.

Like I said, VGA did not support hardware sprites, nor did it support a blitter. In comparison, the Amiga had hardware support for up to eight sprites on screen, in addition to a hardware blitter to simulate many more additional sprites. In VGA, sprites had to be simulated through software. This is why the Amiga was superior to PC when it came to 2D sprite graphics in the early 90's.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

Again, when it came to 2D graphical capabilities, the Amiga was superior to the PC even into the early 90's. While the PC's VGA standard was indeed able to match the Amiga's on-screen colour count, what VGA lacked is support for hardware sprites or a blitter, both of which the Amiga was capable of. That is why the Amiga was still superior to the PC when it came to 2D sprite graphics in the early 90's.

Just think of it like the Mega Drive vs SNES: the Mega Drive had the faster CPU, whereas the SNES had the superior 2D graphics GPU. Similarly, the PC had the faster CPU, while the Amiga had the superior 2D graphics GPU. However, the faster CPU meant better 3D polygon graphics, which at the time relied on the CPU rather than dedicated GPU chipsets.

As for the sound, I think the Roland MT-32 should count for the PC. While it wasn't exclusive for PC, the fact that it worked on PC and not Amiga should be a point in favour of PC in the sound department.

Jag85

Like I said, VGA did not support hardware sprites, nor did it support a blitter. In comparison, the Amiga had hardware support for up to eight sprites on screen, in addition to a hardware blitter to simulate many more additional sprites. In VGA, sprites had to be simulated through software. This is why the Amiga was superior to PC when it came to 2D sprite graphics in the early 90's.

Hey, everyone :) Sorry to go off topic a bit, but could any of you recommend Nox over Ultima 8? Or vice versa? Thank you! :DAtelierFan

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] so in what way is the AGA superior to VGA?Darkman2007

Like I said, VGA did not support hardware sprites, nor did it support a blitter. In comparison, the Amiga had hardware support for up to eight sprites on screen, in addition to a hardware blitter to simulate many more additional sprites. In VGA, sprites had to be simulated through software. This is why the Amiga was superior to PC when it came to 2D sprite graphics in the early 90's.

Perhaps. It depends on which games, whether they were intended for the 500 or 1200, and how well they were programmed.

However, I believe there were some SVGA or XGA cards that could display a higher colour count than the AGA. So maybe that could be what you're referring to? Nethertheless, the Amiga was better than PC when it came to displaying and handling 2D sprites.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

Like I said, VGA did not support hardware sprites, nor did it support a blitter. In comparison, the Amiga had hardware support for up to eight sprites on screen, in addition to a hardware blitter to simulate many more additional sprites. In VGA, sprites had to be simulated through software. This is why the Amiga was superior to PC when it came to 2D sprite graphics in the early 90's.

Jag85

Perhaps. It depends on which games, whether they were intended for the 500 or 1200, and how well they were programmed.

However, one advantage the PC had over the Amiga 1200 in the early 90's was a higher colour count, with the arrival of XGA. So maybe that could be what you're referring to? When it came to handling 2D sprites though, the Amiga was better than PC.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] that seems to conflict with most examples Ive seen and played for the Amiga, although that may well be developers keeping the A500 in mind, with only some additional features for the A1200Darkman2007

Perhaps. It depends on which games, whether they were intended for the 500 or 1200, and how well they were programmed.

However, one advantage the PC had over the Amiga 1200 in the early 90's was a higher colour count, with the arrival of XGA. So maybe that could be what you're referring to? When it came to handling 2D sprites though, the Amiga was better than PC.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] that seems to conflict with most examples Ive seen and played for the Amiga, although that may well be developers keeping the A500 in mind, with only some additional features for the A1200Darkman2007

Perhaps. It depends on which games, whether they were intended for the 500 or 1200, and how well they were programmed.

However, one advantage the PC had over the Amiga 1200 in the early 90's was a higher colour count, with the arrival of XGA. So maybe that could be what you're referring to? When it came to handling 2D sprites though, the Amiga was better than PC.

its not necessarily colours , its just the games not impressing me as much, Aladdin for instance was riddled with Slowdown , and the Lion King was just generally worse.

although in the case of Aladdin , I wonder if it was simply a rushed port from the PC (which would make it a port of a port, since the PC is itself a Mega Drive port).

that could also be a factor of course, if a game is multiplatform , the PC would be the prime platform in most cases by that time, at least from any developer not in Europe.

Are you sure about Aladdin? I've checked out online gameplay videos, and the Amiga AGA version doesn't seem to have slowdowns, while the PC version shows some screen tearing (probably because it's relying on CPU power rather than a dedicated GPU). Either way, by the time Aladdin released for PC and Amiga in 1994, the PC had fast enough CPU's to simulate sprites through software just as well as the Amiga's dedicated AGA graphics chipset.

By the way, I don't think the PC became the prime development platform until the rise of 3D gaming. Up until the early 90's, 2D gaming was largely dominated by 68k architecture, which was used in most 2D arcade games, as well as the Mega Drive and Neo Geo consoles, and the Amiga and Sharp X68000 computers. The PC's x86-based architecture was not the standard for 2D gaming at the time.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

Perhaps. It depends on which games, whether they were intended for the 500 or 1200, and how well they were programmed.

However, one advantage the PC had over the Amiga 1200 in the early 90's was a higher colour count, with the arrival of XGA. So maybe that could be what you're referring to? When it came to handling 2D sprites though, the Amiga was better than PC.

Jag85

its not necessarily colours , its just the games not impressing me as much, Aladdin for instance was riddled with Slowdown , and the Lion King was just generally worse.

although in the case of Aladdin , I wonder if it was simply a rushed port from the PC (which would make it a port of a port, since the PC is itself a Mega Drive port).

that could also be a factor of course, if a game is multiplatform , the PC would be the prime platform in most cases by that time, at least from any developer not in Europe.

Are you sure about Aladdin? I've checked out online gameplay videos, and the Amiga AGA version doesn't seem to have slowdowns, while the PC version shows some screen tearing (probably because it's relying on CPU power rather than a dedicated GPU). Either way, by the time Aladdin released for PC and Amiga in 1994, the PC had fast enough CPU's to simulate sprites through software just as well as the Amiga's dedicated AGA graphics chipset.

By the way, I don't think the PC became the prime development platform until the rise of 3D gaming. Up until the early 90's, 2D gaming was largely dominated by 68k architecture, which was used in most 2D arcade games, as well as the Mega Drive and Neo Geo consoles, and the Amiga and Sharp X68000 computers. The PC's x86-based architecture was not the standard for 2D gaming at the time.