Ever much of a difference between Amiga/Atari/or IBM PC ports?

[Soviet Conscript]

usually when i go to get a cross platform game i'll go out of my way to grab the most "definitive" version. takeing any enhanced graphics, added content and glitches (and there fixes) and just plain playability into account. generally i find hardcore gaming 101 to be an excellent resource for me on this matter

but i've been getting back into older computer games lately, especially RPG's and i was just wondering if in general there were major diffrences in games between the Amiga 500, Atari ST and PC IBM's that took advantage of the superiority of any system.

i'm not counting atari 8-bits or C64 ports because they are almost always inferior versions considering the more limited hardware

so were multipal ports of games like Bloodwych or Champions of Krynn better overall on any one system or where they all basicly the same on those systems?

[Jorpho]

I can't imagine the PC coming out on top very often for games of that era.

You can see for yourself at Mobygames (http://www.mobygames.com/game/champions-of-krynn/screenshots) - the Amiga version's color palette is just so much more vivid.

[kedawa]

Amiga was always the high end for computer games back in its heyday, with the Atari ST coming a close second. The IBM PC versions of games were usually a significant downgrade in sound quality and color pallette.

[Bojay1997]

The PC ports usually had to be dumbed down a little to account for the fact that there wasn't any clear average PC configuration (sound card, graphics card, memory, hard drive) as opposed to the Amiga and ST which both had standard configurations at least in the 1985-1991 period. Obviously, toward the end of their run, both Atari and Commodore added faster processors and more memory, but few games took advantage of these advances.

[otoko]

That's why I hug my Amiga 2000. Old and awesome.

[tom]

Back in the days, the PC only won where 'installing it on HDD' was concerned, 520 and 500 usually omitted this.

[Jorpho]

Come to think of it, those PC Roland MT-32 sound cards are often cited as producing some of the most superior music at the time. I'm guessing music wasn't used much in those old RPGs, though.

[blue lander]

Even though the Amiga was more graphically powerful than the ST or PC in its heyday, developers often wrote a game for the lowest common denominator. Nothing seemed to piss off Amiga owners more than getting a straight port of a PC or ST game without any enhancements.

And since the Amiga 500 is actually slightly slower than the ST (because of additional interrupt, apparently), the Amiga version could actually be inferior than the ST version.

[108Stars]

Most games were best on Amiga; the PC was not even close back then. It was more like "hey, for a lowly IBM-compatible it looks pretty good".

[Flack]

http://www.robohara.com/pix/junk/dotc-cga.jpg
Defender of the Crown (DOS, CGA)

http://www.robohara.com/pix/junk/dotc-ega.jpg
Defender of the Crown (DOS, EGA)

http://www.robohara.com/pix/junk/dotc-c64.jpg
Defender of the Crown (Commodore 64)

http://www.robohara.com/pix/junk/dotc-atarist.jpg
Defender of the Crown (Atari ST)

http://www.robohara.com/pix/junk/dotc-amiga.jpg
Defender of the Crown (Amiga)

[James8BitStar]

That's a pretty convincing arguement right there, Flack.

[boatofcar]

Wow Flack, great comparison. I had no idea there was that much difference, or that the Atari ST could output such great graphics.

[Soviet Conscript]

huh...thanks guys

so i guess my dad wasn't all full of it when he was so happy and bragging about the Amiga 500 he bought back in the day.

[Jorpho]

Given that the aspect ratio is mangled for everything there except the Amiga, it's pretty clear what the original platform was.

[Ze_ro]

Most games were best on Amiga; the PC was not even close back then. It was more like "hey, for a lowly IBM-compatible it looks pretty good".
One nice thing about the PC side of things was that everyone had a hard drive. I'm not sure how hard things were on the ST, but even if you were lucky enough to own a hard drive for your Amiga, very few of the games had an install option (sometimes you could "fake" an install on the Amiga by clever use of the AmigaDOS "assign" command, but then plenty of games came on copy-protected disks with goofy formats which you couldn't use. Thank god we have WHDLoad now). Not only did you have to play from disk, but you had to play using low-density disks because neither platform really progressed to high-density... so you get both slow-loading AND disk-swapping.

Another plus is that PC hardware is super easy to find nowadays. Any $5 second-hand computer can easily be turned into a DOS machine to run some Duke Nukem, while high-quality Amiga and ST setups can run you a pretty penny. The games are much easier to find these days too.

So yeah, the Amiga had better graphics and sound and all, but PC certainly was more convenient at times. Soon enough, VGA cards and Sound Blasters became common, and the the advantages of the Amiga and ST mostly disappeared.

--Zero

[Flack]

One nice thing about the PC side of things was that everyone had a hard drive.

I had a PC for many years without a hard drive. :)

[blue lander]

Same here. I had an original IBM PC until the late 80's, with just two 5.25" floppy drives. Supposedly you couldn't even add a hard drive to that model because the power supply was too wimpy.

[OldSchoolGamer]

In those days I was an AMIGA fan all the way, it sure impressed anyone I had over! Thought I admit looking at the above shots I may investigate the ATARI ST's, back in the day the Amiga/Atari fans were usually in seperate camps like
PC/Mac today LOL! But now as far as collecting goes the I may discover the ATARI fun I missed out on initially.................

[Bojay1997]

One nice thing about the PC side of things was that everyone had a hard drive. I'm not sure how hard things were on the ST, but even if you were lucky enough to own a hard drive for your Amiga, very few of the games had an install option (sometimes you could "fake" an install on the Amiga by clever use of the AmigaDOS "assign" command, but then plenty of games came on copy-protected disks with goofy formats which you couldn't use. Thank god we have WHDLoad now). Not only did you have to play from disk, but you had to play using low-density disks because neither platform really progressed to high-density... so you get both slow-loading AND disk-swapping.

Another plus is that PC hardware is super easy to find nowadays. Any $5 second-hand computer can easily be turned into a DOS machine to run some Duke Nukem, while high-quality Amiga and ST setups can run you a pretty penny. The games are much easier to find these days too.

So yeah, the Amiga had better graphics and sound and all, but PC certainly was more convenient at times. Soon enough, VGA cards and Sound Blasters became common, and the the advantages of the Amiga and ST mostly disappeared.

--Zero

I think you are mixing up the history and era in question here. The heyday of the Amiga and ST was the period from about 1986 through maybe 1991 or 1992. During that time period, very few PCs had hard drives or sound cards. I believe the Sound Blaster didn't even come out until 1987 and my recollection is that it took 2-3 years before prices and software support made it a must buy accessory for gamers. By the early 90s, I would agree that the PC had caught up, but still at a much higher price than a similar ST or Amiga.

I'm assuming you are talking about Duke Nuke'em 3D which was released in 1996 and not the earlier platform games which the Amiga or ST could've handled very easily. Both the ST and Amiga were basically out of the running before that particular game came out.

[blue lander]

I think virtually all PCs had hard drives by 1989 or so, albeit they were usually like 20 megabytes. I'd bet most post-PC/AT clones had hard drives. In fact, the PC/XT, which was introduced in 1983, had a 10 megabyte hard drive standard.

[Bojay1997]

I think virtually all PCs had hard drives by 1989 or so, albeit they were usually like 20 megabytes. I'd bet most post-PC/AT clones had hard drives. In fact, the PC/XT, which was introduced in 1983, had a 10 megabyte hard drive standard.

True, but I'd say that it wasn't until late 1990 when the MPC standard came into being that game developers really started making HD installability a standard feature in most PC games. I can even recall owning several early CD-Rom games by Sierra that basically loaded right off the CD-Rom rather than installing anywhere on my PC and that was in 1991.

[Jorpho]

Another plus is that PC hardware is super easy to find nowadays. Any $5 second-hand computer can easily be turned into a DOS machine to run some Duke Nukem, while high-quality Amiga and ST setups can run you a pretty penny. The games are much easier to find these days too.
I'm assuming you are talking about Duke Nuke'em 3D which was released in 1996 and not the earlier platform games which the Amiga or ST could've handled very easily. Both the ST and Amiga were basically out of the running before that particular game came out.
I think the point is that although the Amiga or ST undoubtedly had platform games that were equal to or better than the original Duke Nukem 2D platformers, right now in 2008 you can expect to pay substantially more for an Amiga or an ST than you would for a PC that could run Duke Nukem 2D - even an ancient PC from 1992.

[Flack]

Maybe I got the deal of the century, but I paid $25 for my Amiga 1200 from the B&S forum here a few years ago. In fact, I replaced my Amiga 500 with it.

[James8BitStar]

While we're talking old computer systems here:

Is the Apple IIGS backwards compatible with the Apple IIe and previous models?

[blue lander]

True, but I'd say that it wasn't until late 1990 when the MPC standard came into being that game developers really started making HD installability a standard feature in most PC games. I can even recall owning several early CD-Rom games by Sierra that basically loaded right off the CD-Rom rather than installing anywhere on my PC and that was in 1991.

That's because they were on CD, and too large to fit the average hard drive. And they always had the option to install the program on the hard drive but stream the audio or video off the CD drive.

If you look at Sierra's floppy based games, they've all had the option of installing to the hard disk since the days of Space Quest 3 in the mid 80's.



I think the point is that although the Amiga or ST undoubtedly had platform games that were equal to or better than the original Duke Nukem 2D platformers,

Graphic wise, hell yes. But gameplay wise, most Amiga platformers are crap. Excluding stuff like Superfrog, most Amiga platformers play no better than your average Apogee shareware platformer.



Is the Apple IIGS backwards compatible with the Apple IIe and previous models?

For the most part yes. Some poorly behaved IIe games that use undocumented instructions on the 65c02 that weren't implemented on the 65816 probably won't run.

[Ze_ro]

I think you are mixing up the history and era in question here. The heyday of the Amiga and ST was the period from about 1986 through maybe 1991 or 1992. During that time period, very few PCs had hard drives or sound cards. I believe the Sound Blaster didn't even come out until 1987 and my recollection is that it took 2-3 years before prices and software support made it a must buy accessory for gamers. By the early 90s, I would agree that the PC had caught up, but still at a much higher price than a similar ST or Amiga.
I had an old 8088 that had a 10 MB hard drive, and as far as I'm concerned, once 286's were common, hard drives were pretty standard. True, not everyone had them, but certainly by the late 80's, it was far more likely to see a PC with a hard drive than an Amiga or ST. Most games took advantage of this too. Adding a hard drive to a PC later was also generally easier and cheaper. I have an Atari SH-204 hard drive... the giant case has an MFM hard drive hooked to an MFM-to-SCSI adapter, which is in turn hooked to a SCSI-to-ACSI adapter so it can talk to the ST... was it even possible for Atari to fuck this up any harder?

According to Wikipedia, the original Sound Blaster was released in late 1987, and this page (http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=VGA&i=53801,00.asp) claims that VGA was introduced in 1987 as well. The Atari ST and Amiga 1000 were released in 1985, though I'd say the Amiga scene really kicked off with the release of the Amiga 500 in 1987. Obviously, it would take years before VGA graphics and Sound Blaster effects were widely used, so the Amiga and ST definitely had a few years where they greatly outperformed the PC's.

So, your point is taken... but still, we're talking about around 3-4 years worth of games that are better (graphically and aurally) on the 68k machines... a relatively short time in my opinion.


I'm assuming you are talking about Duke Nuke'em 3D which was released in 1996 and not the earlier platform games which the Amiga or ST could've handled very easily. Both the ST and Amiga were basically out of the running before that particular game came out.
The point was that putting together a high-quality, MS-DOS based PC is easy and cheap, while putting together a high-quality Amiga or Atari ST system is much harder and more expensive. I'd say anything that can run Duke Nukem 3D well counts as a high-quality, MS-DOS based PC... it wasn't meant as a direct comparison to any Amiga or ST game.


Maybe I got the deal of the century, but I paid $25 for my Amiga 1200 from the B&S forum here a few years ago. In fact, I replaced my Amiga 500 with it.
I got mine for $12 from a local thrift store... but it's not in the best shape, and the hard drive was dead (80MB is nothing anyways, so would have had to replace it anyways). I still haven't really gotten my 1200 set up nicely, as it just doesn't have enough base RAM for my likings. I've been wanting to get myself a nice accelerator card (maybe an '030) in order to solve the RAM problems, but the prices are just a touch higher than I'd like at the moment (I suppose I could get a cheap, RAM-only expansion, but if I'm going to fill that trapdoor slot, I might as well go all the way rather than buying a stop-gap solution that will be useless when I eventually get a real accelerator). In the mean time, I have a nice Amiga 3000 setup that serves me well, with 14MB of RAM, network card, '030, etc. Only thing it lacks is AGA graphics, and it's of course much larger than the 1200.


Graphic wise, hell yes. But gameplay wise, most Amiga platformers are crap. Excluding stuff like Superfrog, most Amiga platformers play no better than your average Apogee shareware platformer.
Honestly, 95% of PC platformers were terrible as well. Commander Keen was the first one worth playing, and Apogee was pretty much the only company that managed to do the job well (Dangerous Dave, Bio-Menace, and the original Duke Nukem are all excellent).

--Zero

[blue lander]

Epic Megagames had it's fair share of decent platformers as well. I remember enjoying Jill of the Jungle and Jazz Jackrabbit quite a bit. It's been years since I've played either, though, so it could be rose tinted glasses.

[jb143]

Jazz Jackrabbit and Duke Nukem were actually 2 of the only PC platform games that I thought were any good. Most of the others all seemed really...clunky. And I was never sure why.

[Bojay1997]

I had an old 8088 that had a 10 MB hard drive, and as far as I'm concerned, once 286's were common, hard drives were pretty standard. True, not everyone had them, but certainly by the late 80's, it was far more likely to see a PC with a hard drive than an Amiga or ST. Most games took advantage of this too. Adding a hard drive to a PC later was also generally easier and cheaper. I have an Atari SH-204 hard drive... the giant case has an MFM hard drive hooked to an MFM-to-SCSI adapter, which is in turn hooked to a SCSI-to-ACSI adapter so it can talk to the ST... was it even possible for Atari to fuck this up any harder?

According to Wikipedia, the original Sound Blaster was released in late 1987, and this page (http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=VGA&i=53801,00.asp) claims that VGA was introduced in 1987 as well. The Atari ST and Amiga 1000 were released in 1985, though I'd say the Amiga scene really kicked off with the release of the Amiga 500 in 1987. Obviously, it would take years before VGA graphics and Sound Blaster effects were widely used, so the Amiga and ST definitely had a few years where they greatly outperformed the PC's.

So, your point is taken... but still, we're talking about around 3-4 years worth of games that are better (graphically and aurally) on the 68k machines... a relatively short time in my opinion.


The point was that putting together a high-quality, MS-DOS based PC is easy and cheap, while putting together a high-quality Amiga or Atari ST system is much harder and more expensive. I'd say anything that can run Duke Nukem 3D well counts as a high-quality, MS-DOS based PC... it wasn't meant as a direct comparison to any Amiga or ST game.


I got mine for $12 from a local thrift store... but it's not in the best shape, and the hard drive was dead (80MB is nothing anyways, so would have had to replace it anyways). I still haven't really gotten my 1200 set up nicely, as it just doesn't have enough base RAM for my likings. I've been wanting to get myself a nice accelerator card (maybe an '030) in order to solve the RAM problems, but the prices are just a touch higher than I'd like at the moment (I suppose I could get a cheap, RAM-only expansion, but if I'm going to fill that trapdoor slot, I might as well go all the way rather than buying a stop-gap solution that will be useless when I eventually get a real accelerator). In the mean time, I have a nice Amiga 3000 setup that serves me well, with 14MB of RAM, network card, '030, etc. Only thing it lacks is AGA graphics, and it's of course much larger than the 1200.


Honestly, 95% of PC platformers were terrible as well. Commander Keen was the first one worth playing, and Apogee was pretty much the only company that managed to do the job well (Dangerous Dave, Bio-Menace, and the original Duke Nukem are all excellent).

--Zero

Again, you are remembering history different than it actually was. I recall having some friends over in 1991 and them being blown away by some of my Psygnosis games on the Amiga 500. My friend had a PC with Wing Commander at the time and compared to the graphics on my Amiga, he was disappointed that his dad had purchased a high end PC for I believe almost $2K at the time. I also specifically recall his father telling us that he didn't want the hard drive filled with games, especially since many of them were multiple high density discs and would have filled a large portion of it.

Unlike today where people buy new graphics cards fairly soon after they come out, back in that era, people waited and as a result, developers continued to program for the lowest common denominator. As such, I don't believe the PC was doing Amiga or ST quality games until maybe 1992 or 1993.

Putting together a "high quality" Amiga is cheap. I don't know of any pre-1994 games that took advantage of acceleration or RAM above 1 Meg. As such, you are fine with just an Amiga 500 or 2000 with the minimum configuration.

Even assuming you are correct with the 3-4 year estimate, literally hundreds of games came out in that period. As a collector and gamer, that's more than enough to justify owning an Amiga.

[BydoEmpire]

While we're talking old computer systems here:

Is the Apple IIGS backwards compatible with the Apple IIe and previous models?Yes it is.

[robotriot]

I'm not sure if Defender of the Crown is the best example here though. The graphics are certainly the best on the Amiga, since it was the original version, but they also rushed this one and didn't include a couple of features that made it in the PC version for example from what I remember. Also, I think actually the Amiga screenshot is the one with the wrong proportions, see http://hol.abime.net/305/screenshot


I had no idea there was that much difference, or that the Atari ST could output such great graphics.

It actually isn't that much of a hardware issue, but rather one of the artist doing the graphics. If you've got great pixel artists like James Sachs or Henk Nieborg working on a game for a specific system, the graphics will always look great considering the hardware's limitations. You just have to master the technique.