Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Amiga vs console vs PC  (Read 13475 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline psxphill

Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2014, 10:14:10 AM »
Quote from: Duce;773834
Once Doom came out on the PC the final nail went into the Amiga as a gaming platform, imo.

Doom is commonly given as the reason. I started playing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_X-Wing at work, which predates Doom by a long way.

There were still c64, Amiga & arcade games I would play, but there was nothing like x-wing. Wing commander was as close as it got and the Amiga version of that was too slow.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 10:18:10 AM by psxphill »
 

Offline Thorham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 1150
    • Show only replies by Thorham
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2014, 10:34:47 AM »
Yeah, I saw Doom as well... and didn't care. I certainly wasn't going to abandon my favorite platform for a game.
 

Offline Linde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2004
  • Posts: 457
    • Show only replies by Linde
    • http://hata.zor.org/
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2014, 03:48:32 PM »
Quote from: kickstart;773833
Are you saying anythin bad os the amiga sound? If you like the FM sounds of console game i can understand it but no way.


I love the Paula sound but in some senses it's a lot more limited than e.g. SNES or Sega MD.

Let's start with polyphony, where Amiga was still stuck with 4 channels in 1992 while Sega MD had 10 channels of sound and SNES had 8. These leave a lot of sound channels available for both music and sound effects.

Sound on Sega/SNES is also potentially very dynamic. SNES comes with a crude DSP for reverb/chorus, and the MD has a full fledged 4 operator FM synth. To achieve the same with Amiga you will either need big samples or a really nifty play routine like AHX. Of course, ingenious composers never cease to amaze me in this area, but the MD affords a very good level of dynamic control of the timbre that isn't as trivial with short samples. The MD also has a Z80 that is practically mostly dedicated to sound.

Most importantly, by A1200, seven years had already passed since the A1000, and there were no changes to the sound hardware. SB16 had already been released and consumers were expecting more from computer sound, especially from a line of computers that had been known to excel in that area.
 

Offline slaapliedje

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 843
  • Country: 00
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • Show only replies by slaapliedje
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2014, 04:59:37 PM »
I find it kind of odd that people in this thread are saying the A1200 was too expensive compared to the Sega MD (or Genesis for us USA people).  The Genesis had more or less the same specs as an Atari ST.  I think it even had very similar sound chips (though more like the STe's sound than the original ST.)

The SNES was released only a year before the A1200, and really for general use, the A1200 has better graphics capabilities, it's only for specific game use that the SNES is a bit better at things.

I have read multiple times that the CD32 was the nail in the coffin for Commodore.  Both them and Atari could/should have just kept to selling computers, but they both did an an all or nothing into video game consoles.  Apple kept on selling Macs.. then iPod came along and pretty much saved their butts.  That's really all Commodore or Atari needed, some sort of device that was brilliant and everyone wanted.

slaapliedje
A4000D: Mediator 4000Di; Voodoo 3, ZorRAM 128MB, 10/100mb Ethernet, Spider 2. Cyberstorm PPC 060/50 604e/420.
 

Offline Duce

  • Off to greener pastures
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 1699
    • Show only replies by Duce
    • http://amigabbs.blogspot.com/
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #33 on: September 25, 2014, 05:24:42 PM »
No one had an A1200 sitting in their living room for the family entertainment device.

No one looking at buying a console considered an A1200, or any other computer.  It was an ease of use thing.  The perks of the console is I could throw in a disc or cartridge, turn it on and go.  It's like comparing a hand cranked Model A to a '78 Civic - no one wanted the pain in the ass factor.

The concept of someone buying an A1200 and going out and buying a boxed game with floppies vs. picking up the latest Nintendo Games Pak with included game, it's not even comparable.

The A1200 was twice the price of a SNES or Sega in my parts.  And the games were worse, and harder to find in retail stores.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 05:26:47 PM by Duce »
 

Offline Linde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2004
  • Posts: 457
    • Show only replies by Linde
    • http://hata.zor.org/
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #34 on: September 25, 2014, 07:08:53 PM »
Quote from: slaapliedje;773874
I find it kind of odd that people in this thread are saying the A1200 was too expensive compared to the Sega MD (or Genesis for us USA people).  The Genesis had more or less the same specs as an Atari ST.

No. The MD has much less RAM and a slightly slower main CPU. It also has a pretty advanced graphics chip compared to the Atari ST. They are entirely different beasts.

Quote from: slaapliedje;773874
I think it even had very similar sound chips (though more like the STe's sound than the original ST.)

No. The MD had two sound chips, none of which are particularly similar to that of the Atari ST (YM2149). The first was a four operator FM chip of six channels (YM2612) and the second was a simple PSG that wasn't as advanced as that of the ST (less frequency resolution and range I believe). The MD also had a secondary Z80 CPU for sound and backwards compatibility with the Master System.

Quote from: slaapliedje;773874
The SNES was released only a year before the A1200, and really for general use, the A1200 has better graphics capabilities, it's only for specific game use that the SNES is a bit better at things.

"For general use" is the key phrase here. The SNES was designed to be a cheap game machine, and as such it didn't have a lot of RAM (game data is instead in mapped ROM, and graphics is usually managed on a per-tile/per-sprite basis), so unlike on Amiga, linear bitmap graphics were unviable. It was never meant for "general use", but the point is that it excelled at what it did, at a lower price, earlier than the A1200, with a much slower CPU and much less RAM. Platform games, shooters, RPGs etc. still most look, play and sound better on the SNES in my opinion.
 

Offline warpdesign

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Posts: 256
    • Show only replies by warpdesign
    • http://www.warpdesign.fr
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #35 on: September 25, 2014, 07:52:38 PM »
Quote

The SNES was released only a year before the A1200

You mean 2 years before I guess ?
 

Offline ElPolloDiablTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 1702
    • Show only replies by ElPolloDiabl
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #36 on: September 25, 2014, 07:59:17 PM »
@above
You just made me feel ill when you mentioned floppies. 6 or even 10 on some games. Not a good games console.
Go Go Gadget Signature!
 

Offline paul1981

Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #37 on: September 25, 2014, 08:51:02 PM »
Quote from: ElPolloDiabl;773892
@above
You just made me feel ill when you mentioned floppies. 6 or even 10 on some games. Not a good games console.

Are we forgetting the Amiga CDTV here?

Also, remember that the Amiga is a computer, not a games console. Luckily those huge multiple disk adventure games were hard drive installable. PC games came on 10 or more floppy disks as well you know, so the Amiga wasn't alone in that respect.
 

Offline Duce

  • Off to greener pastures
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 1699
    • Show only replies by Duce
    • http://amigabbs.blogspot.com/
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #38 on: September 25, 2014, 09:26:45 PM »
The CDTV and CD32 were both stillborn in the larger scheme of the console wars the moment they launched.  Non starters over here in North America, in my experience.

I remember when they launched here - they were on the shelves for 2 months tops before retailers realized consumers had no use for them and after that you couldn't even find games on the shelves to buy for the things, esp. the CDTV.  The mainstream consoles ran and sold circles around the both of them combined.  Even my local Amiga only shop couldn't sell them at list/wholesale price.

Us Amiga guys, we dug them cause you could expand them into something approaching a "real" computer.  Add an expansion box, a floppy, a keyboard and mouse, etc. - but for the market they were in, no one cared about that in the least.  It'd cost you 4x to expand a CDTV or CD32 to remotely compare to their bigger, full fledged siblings, the A500 or A1200.  They were a half baked console, and on the computer side of things who would spend that kind of money expanding them when a used A500 or A1200 could be had for a few hundred bucks tops.
 

Offline Oldsmobile_Mike

Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #39 on: September 25, 2014, 09:28:44 PM »
Amiga always seemed to have much more mediocre hard drive support, compared to PC games.  Both because hard drives were more expensive (so fewer people had them), and of course the piracy issue.  *sigh*  If every game had been hard drive installable from day one, and if hard drives had been cheaper...  if wishes were fishes!  :(
Amiga 500: 2MB Chip|16MB Fast|30MHz 68030+68882|3.9|Indivision ECS|GVP A500HD+|Mechware card reader + 8GB CF|Cocolino|SCSI DVD-RAM
Amiga 2000: 2MB Chip|136MB Fast|50MHz 68060|3.9|Indivision ECS + GVP Spectrum|Mechware card reader + 8GB CF|AD516|X-Surf 100|RapidRoad|Cocolino|SCSI CD-RW
 Amiga videos and other misc. stuff at https://www.youtube.com/CompTechMike/videos
 

Offline Fizza

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 39
    • Show only replies by Fizza
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2014, 11:38:02 PM »
Lots of good points...

AGA Sound - I read/watched recently where, I think it was Dave Haynie who said that a DSP and extra channels were originally planned for AGA, a deal with a sound chip maker who had no idea of how the Commodore engineers were going to use it in the system, but when the deal fell through, used that information to pitch it to Apple, who quickly introduced it into their Mac systems.. But count me as one who was disappointed to still be at 4channel 8bit, even with that lovely distinctive crunch that was a semi-secret music production trick.

One Button Joysticks - A hold over from the 8bit/C64 days unfortunately I would imagine, everyone who went from an 8bit system to the Amiga had a joystick that worked, it became the lowest common denominator and I think that's why it partly stuck. Commodore should have done better with pushing three buttons at the very least and then introducing a few more for ECS etc... Three buttons as standard would still have been sufficient even if extra buttons never became popular enough to be supported by default.

Sprites - Again, AGA maybe should have done better, but between 3D capabilities and improved sprites, I'd choose the former, it wasn't lack of sprite power that killed the Amiga as a games machine.

Amiga as a games machine pt1. - Moreso in the UK/Europe, the Amiga was, initially and up till around '93ish, regarded highly as a games machine that could also do serious stuff. In the UK, the Amiga did well in the semi-professional video market, even into the mid-late 90s so it did have a serious side to it too that many people don't really talk about these days, but in the US, it is my understanding that the Amiga was viewed as a serious machine almost exclusively, especially due to the Video Toaster.

I don't think the A500 had the same impact in the US as a games machine because the NES had gotten a much greater foothold of the games market, by some accounts badly wounding the C64 games market from around '86, so it wasn't as much of a logical step to get an Amiga to upgrade your NES, which was still at it's peak in '87/'88, unlike in UK/Europe where the C64/Spectrum/Amstrad market was still dominant around that time, and continued even into the 90s, the consoles only started taking hold from the Genesis onwards, so everyone looked at the Amiga/Atari ST as a super C64/Spectrum in '87/'88 and viewed from a home computer market standpoint, which was the games market too, as a natural progression. By this time Amiga's also looked better than NES/Master System, so probably was a reason for their lack of success at that time too.

Pt2. - Many people, including me, balked at the idea of spending £50.00 on a game even if it was plug and play and didn't mind at all loading a game from disk, I guess we all still remembered how long it took to load from tape in the 8bit days and still thought it fast.. Again, by this time, in the US with the dominance of the NES, I guess games players got used to instant loading so probably would look at the disk based Amiga as slow.

A1200 w/030 & RAM - Yes it would have been more expensive, but it would have been cheaper than paying for an 020 and then an 030, in hindsight Apple got it right, keep the price the same and keep upgrading RAM/CPU when they can be incorporated for the same price.. But 1Mb fast ram onboard would have been a great start at the very least..

If you finished reading all that, thanks :)
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 11:41:31 PM by Fizza »
 

Offline saimon69

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 83
    • Show only replies by saimon69
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2014, 12:14:22 AM »
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;773907
Amiga always seemed to have much more mediocre hard drive support, compared to PC games.  Both because hard drives were more expensive (so fewer people had them), and of course the piracy issue.  *sigh*  If every game had been hard drive installable from day one, and if hard drives had been cheaper...  if wishes were fishes!  :(


But even if only C= would came out a couple years earlier with the A570 CD player! Imagine CD sized games in your 500, at the same level of PC-Engine ones :(

Offline warpdesign

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Posts: 256
    • Show only replies by warpdesign
    • http://www.warpdesign.fr
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2014, 09:43:52 AM »
4 channels was too litle: lots of games had music *or* sound effects because of that. Or had to temporarily disable one channel from music while playing sound effects (eg. Aladdin).

Amiga either needed more channels (or dedicated music/FM) or faster CPU (to use the CPU to mix sound effects & music). It had neither. Of course, in 1985 this was revolutionnary, but a few years later this was lagging.
 

Offline psxphill

Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2014, 12:09:39 PM »
Quote from: Fizza;773911
A1200 w/030 & RAM - Yes it would have been more expensive, but it would have been cheaper than paying for an 020 and then an 030, in hindsight Apple got it right, keep the price the same and keep upgrading RAM/CPU when they can be incorporated for the same price..

The 030 was unlikely to get much cheaper by the time the A1200 was launched and commodore didn't survive much longer in any case.
 
 With the A1200 they were relying more on outside manufacturers to build the chips etc, so their cut of the price was squeezed. They sold less because most people had moved on.
 
 Rumour has it they sat on AGA, if that is true then releasing it earlier might have helped them. But they needed to get it out in 1990 for the A3000 when people still cared.
 

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Amiga vs console vs PC
« Reply #44 from previous page: September 26, 2014, 06:37:14 PM »
The Amiga was 'underpowered' because it's market was too small to justify investing in quality software/arcade ports. Still, I prefer some games that were on the Amiga over the Sega ones (like Out of This World) as the music is so much better.
Besides, I always found the consoles to be totally lacking some 'unrestricted game feeling' the Amiga and other home computers (including PC) had - more variety in games thanks to k/b and mouse, plus the possibility of saving your games, and therefore enabling more complex gaming we're used to today.
And who doesn't remember all those awful fmv games of the mid-90s? That sure made me  realise good graphics is something to be very wary of. :D
« Last Edit: September 26, 2014, 06:42:26 PM by Speelgoedmannetje »
And the canary said: \'chirp\'