Is there any real use for 128MB on classic Amiga?

[Linde]

An interesting thing to note about Doom 3 (since it was suddenly brought into discussion although the Doom in question was quite obviously the original one) is that it doesn't require more than 256 MB RAM.

I can see how more RAM could be an asset, but I'll go ahead and say that there are a lot of games that look better than TC: AGA that run on a stock A500 and some even on C64 (not that it looks bad in any way; I'd love to give it a try if it ran on my wedge). Mostly superior in style and visual coherence, but that only goes to show that hi-res graphics maximalism isn't necessarily the "right" approach to better looking games.

[Linde]

I don't think anyone cares about the filesize of the Original Doom in 1993.  It is 2012.  By my reckoning that makes it 19 years ago.

If you want to compare archive sizes of 1993 games then in 1993 TC was either at the 5MB level or 16MB level.  I don't remember which.  Toooo long ago.   If I had to pick I would say 5MB.

For those who are obsessed with archive sizes:
Why can't we compare the archive size that today's Doom sequel is?



You mean for the PS3 version?

So translated into English: Doom 3 requires 100% of all the ram available to the hardware, correct?

Doom 3 on PS3 ties up all the hardware resources and a player may not type a letter to grandma while the game is paused.  Is that correct?

You have a really annoying habit of extrapolating people's arguments to make the most ridiculous assumptions whenever you see fit. You're flailing at a strawman here; no, I don't mean the PS3 version of Doom 3.

Regarding being "allowed" to use 256 MB RAM, don't think for a second that anyone is trying to stop you. Use how much RAM you see fit, just don't be surprised that no 2 GB accelerators exist or when only a few people are interested in frankensteining their Amigas to play your game because of its requirements. I'm content with my 8 MB expansion, it allows me to play most of the games that made Amiga matter, and lets me use all the tools where Amiga still seems to have a definite edge over current hardware to me.

[Linde]

Well tell me what you do mean.  I can't read your mind.

Are you saying PS3 version of Doom 3 uses more than 256MB?
Are you saying PS3 version of Doom 3 uses less than 256MB?

Are you saying PC version (which is a port of the PS3 or XBOX version) uses 256MB?

Or are you saying we should just drop this whole discussion since it doesn't actually matter how much ram DOOM3 uses?

No, I am saying that Doom 3, which is not a port of any PS3 or XBOX game, only needs 256 MB system RAM to run. It doesn't matter which system you run it (the official release) on. You don't have to read my mind because I wrote exactly what I meant.

To be perfectly fair, that's only a half-truth, since it also requires 64 MB of VRAM.

You are the one who brought up Doom 3 in the first place to compare apples to oranges, remember? When the comparison stops being in your favor you suddenly decide that it doesn't matter.

[Linde]

Commodore John brought up Doom first.  CommodoreJohn compared apples to oranges.  He compred a game for a different genre (FPS vs TBS), made for a different platform, using a different engine, using a different type of gfx and produced in a different century.

Commodorejohn never compared Doom to anything. He used it as an example of a game having high quality assets under quite heavy constraints. I'm not sure where he compares it to any other game, so maybe you can point it out.

If you want to compare 2 games then you need to compare the latest versions don't you?

Sure, but since when is Doom 3 a version of Doom? It's a sequel, for sure, but "3" is not a version number.

Or at least versions from the same century?

Yeah, let's see if that is favorable to you.

Doom 3 came up because 1. he provided no size.  2. its the first thing in the list when I looked for Doom.  None of that is my fault.

Right, so the fact that you didn't bother to look anything up before answering with an utterly invalid argument is not your fault. Fair enough, at least you agree that it was uninformed.

Either you are just playing dumb while painting yourself into a corner, or you didn't really read commodorejohn's post. Do you think the hundred-pixel tall sprites he wrote about was in a less than ten years old AAA title? It's 2012, not 1993.

[Linde]

Wow, I can't believe I've just read this thread through and more than once someone has stated that making Amiga games that don't run on an 80's spec Amiga is "leaving people out" or some other such comment.

Is that for real?

Own an original Amiga so can legally use the ROMs or have purchased them by buying Amiga Forever? Check!

Own a PC that can run UAE? Check!

Can download UAE for your OS for free or have purchased Amiga Forever? Check!

Then how the hell can you be left out? I just don't get that logic at all.
Plenty of us have 80's spec Amigas for classic stuff and a UAE install (or NG 'miggy of some type) for more needy software. No one is left out, let's be honest, that sort of comment is borderline troll food.

Yeah, what's the point in having an Amiga at all, really? I dismissed UAE for gaming a while ago on the basis that it has some slight issues with I/O delay. Sound is quite obviously delayed (and for obvious reasons, too!), and either graphics or HID input is also slightly delayed. The effect is minimal, but it detracts from the full experience in a way that I prefer to avoid.

I don't mean to say that UAE is bad. For all I know, this behavior might be inherent to emulators of this kind.

[Linde]

To imply that UAE is a real Amiga is an insult to people like me who ACTUALLY spending fortune on outdated hardware FOR THEIR REAL AMIGA to get their best experience.

Where exactly was the implication that UAE is a real Amiga?

[Linde]

ChaosLord was getting stick for his stance of making high spec games that required an upgraded machine on the grounds that he should aim at a lower spec, I was just pointing out that if you haven't got the spec another choice exists.

Personally I'm neither against the idea of a lot of RAM or games for high-spec Amigas. What I can't stand is ChaosLord's arrogant demeanor, fallacious reasoning and his idea that more RAM is somehow necessary to make better games. I'll gladly argue against anyone who plays dumb in order to try to make a fool of another member, and applies the same reasoning to 2000s PC games to games that need to run on machines with MIPS in the 2-digit range.

Thorham puts it nicely; a 60 frame animation won't somehow magically make a game look good if your collection of assets has no real coherence or follow any sort of style guidelines. Looking at videos of TC: AGA, I think it's not a bad example of a game that could use some coherence in its assets. It looks fun, but in my opinion the graphics could use some work on the existing frames of animation instead of adding more. If this is bashing, so be it, but I hope it is taken as constructive critique, as it was meant.