View Single Post
Old 07 April 2017, 00:26   #14
Gilbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody View Post
Yes it was too underpowered to compete with Megadrive and SNES. Piece of cake for the consoles to destroy the Amiga. I think Commodore thought the CPU was enough to compensate with gpu weakness and the 1986 sprite engine. And they didn't have people like RJ.Mical or Dave Needle to upgrade the system, I guess they were working on 3DO at the time.
Totally agree. Actually tbh even 8 sprites on the A500 was a bit low. Didn't the C64 have 8 sprites? Nevertheless the Amiga 500 was an amazing machine. I just wanted the same for the next big massmarket Amiga. It should have had at least 32 sprites and a kickass blitter, maybe some 3D hardware support too (for mathematics functions) and a 6 channel sound chip and a good chunk of memory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
Disappointed with the A1200? No, absolutely not. Best Amiga ever, made even better by the Blizzard 1230MK4 that I bought for it. Don't care if consoles from that time had more sprites/layers/etc. Try programming on those consoles

Peecees? Peecees of that time still sucked major donkey butt, of course, even if they were faster.

If I had to do it all over, I'd still choose an A1200 over a Pentium 90, even if given away for free
I know developers preferred programming on the consoles It was much easier for them. But yes obviously the Amiga had all the advantages of being a flexible computer and users could program it themselves. But how much better would it have been for users to be programming for a more successful/powerful machine with a larger installed base? Gaming was a huge reason people got into the original Amiga. Some of us later got into programming/graphics etc. But gaming and the amazing looking games were what tempted most of us into buying an Amiga in the first place.

I have to say I don't get the accelerator/gfx card thing? That seems to make it less like an Amiga to me and more like a PC. I'd rather have a powerful base Amiga (that everyone and my friends also own) with a standard shared-spec. Any machine can be made faster by adding extra chips (32X anyone? and at least that was an *attempt* at a massmarket solution)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrz View Post
nope
What was killing the Amigas were the PCs not the consoles
and the Commodore enhanced to AGA to make possible 256 colors on the screen , not for the sprites
this was to compete with the PC point and click adventures and RPG games which the Amiga versions were far inferior due the lack of colors
Those type of games were the most sold on the market in the era and forced the way the Commodore proceeded

Of course there was nothing to do because the PC hardware became cheaper every year and some of the best games of the era were exclusive PC titles

The SNES have 8 audio channels not 6, of course is better for games because can mix music + sound fx in a best way, but the AMiga music chip was still superior having only 4 channels
Hmm maybe, were point and click adventures really driving sales of computers? They were popular back then I do remember. I think Doom did that more whenever that came out. PCs still sucked back then though. Installation was a nightmare and all the different graphics and audio standards...

I stand corrected on the SNES sound chip and I agree Amiga had better sound quality but a lot of games really suffer on the Amiga trying to manage sound effects and music with just 4 channels. You often get awesome title screen music and then a much-reduced soundtrack when playing the game. Sometimes I wonder if the SNES sound chip was so bad though?I think samples were compressed. (a lot) to save cartridge space. I'm sure the first SNES games like F-Zero and Final Fight came on 4 meg (512k) carts for cost reasons. F-Zero has great music actually but maybe not the sample quality you got on the Amiga.
Gilbert is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05614 seconds with 9 queries