View Single Post
Old 07 November 2009, 03:53   #165
Galahad/FLT
Going nowhere

Galahad/FLT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Locke View Post
Because it does, in the same way that the Amiga's graphics are better than the ST's because they have more colors and faster scrolling.

Bollocks, utter bollocks. So, how does Stunt Car Racer benefit from more colours and faster scrolling? If the music is shit in the first place, an extra 4 channels suddenly makes a shit tune sould great? Maybe in your world!I guess the C64 with only 3 channels sounds shit because it only has 3 channels... yeah, that makes a tonne of sense! More channels means the POTENTIAL to produce better tunes, that does NOT equate to WILL be better!

You're confusing me. I can't make head or tail of that sentence. Paula was used to play samples because Paula was a sample-based chip rather than a waveform-based chip. It's not like the 8-bit computers that used the CPU to help the PSG.

But thats the point, you stated that because the SNES was 16bit, its automatically a better sounding end result.... clearly not, because the Amiga was never limited to whatever could be programmed from the chip. Didn't ever have to program a drum sound, or pan pipes, just grab a sample, and damn, it sounds like its supposed to be. Consider this EASY salient fact. Are you honestly telling me that Xenon 2 Megablast title music would sound REMOTELY as good as the Amiga version?


MegaBYTE. Converted from 48 megaBITS. I frankly don't know why "megabit" even exists as a term, but that's what I found.

Its a console throwback to making out the games were bigger than they actually were, kids lapped it up.

What did you counter, and with what? Which "example" did I give of what?

I suggest you read what was written. Remember your utterly ludicrous "well they could have filled the cartridge up with music" as some postulating proposal on how the SNES could have sounded better? See, I countered, and did it with aplomb.


You know, I'm glad that you asked. I just did some research, and apparently the SNES uses DMA to transfer data from the cartridge ROM to the onboard VRAM. So, while it may not run things directly from ROM, the transition is so fast and seamless that it makes no difference! And that is why the SNES's 128 KB of onboard RAM is not comparable to the Amiga's 1 MB!

Fraid you're a little mixed up there mucker, because that 128kb of ram isn't so great for storing lots of nice sounding samples, which ironically, a SNES with enough VRAM would have sounded bloody fantastic. And there is still the issue with ROM size on the cartridge, as samples don't compress very well, especially 16bit samples, and ROM space is at a premium on cartridges (i.e. an extra 512k ROM space bumps up the costs for the publishers quite a bit!), so as you can see, price and hardware hampered the SNES. They had to make a choice, either using the sound processor to do generated sound and have lots more graphics, or use lots of cartridge sapping space samples and have less graphics and cost more. See how my V8 Cadillac analogy actually works, unlike your response?


Which has nothing to do with the fact that the SNES was a console, right? Right?

Oh, wait, it does.

Your assertion was that the Amiga had to have a lot of skilled musicians to pull off the feat of nice sounding music, I simply pointed out why it was so, and why the games industry had a plethora of people to choose from, of course if you read between the lines, you'd have figured that out without me having to point it out to you! Sigh


Well, of course the machine with people who do nothing on it BUT music is going to have better music from an AESTHETIC point of view than the machine with BETTER HARDWARE but far less emphasis on the music MADE WITH IT. I said that it had better sound hardware, not better music. Do you know how often I listen to SNES music? Never.

But hang on, the SNES has 16bit sound and 4 extra channels, you told me the music would automatically be better..... why ever wouldn't you want to listen to SNES music? You need to make up your mind.


I bet that it doesn't lump in TT sales, and it wouldn't make much of a difference if it did, seeing as it was so unpopular. But I wasn't comparing the sales of the 500 and 520STFM; I was comparing the sales of the Amiga RANGE to the ST RANGE. I suppose that you could make the case that Macs outsell PCs because the MacBook outsells the HP Blackhawk.

Largely semantics really, the STE was quite a bit different to the STFM. Remind me, how many Falcons were sold versus the A1200? Bearing in mind the ST series pretty much died on its arse come late 1992


But I wasn't making a point about their lifespans. I was talking about how developers INTERPRETED those lifespans.

There was nothing to interpret! It was quicker to develop on Amiga, or do you think they sat on their arses when they finished a game? No, they would be swiftly moving onto another project. Turnaround was quicker, none of this evaluation that publishers had to do with Sega and Nintendo, just like publishers have to do with Sony and Microsoft today. All of that stuff completely passed the Amiga by, once the game was done, it was released.


Then don't mention anyone else!
Er, I haven't!


I have been.


Only the kind that pertains to the topic at hand. You said that the consoles' platforming library was no better than the Amiga's, I said that it is, you said that you didn't care because 40 good platformers is enough, and then I said that it doesn't change the fact that the consoles have more high-quality platformers than the Amiga does. Got it?

I didn't state anything of the sort with regards to consoles having a better library of platformers or not, what I did state was that in the great scheme of things, I simply don't care. 40 is more than enough derivatives for me, that consoles have 200 or 500 better platformers still doesn't alter that there are just simply more of the same thing, because lets face it, when it comes to originality and 'wow', well you're not going to get it in a platformer!


I actually like adventure games (of both point-and-click and text-based varieties), flight simulators, and puzzle games (real puzzle games, not this match-3 garbage that's clogging the casual market these days). I can't stand RPGs at all.

Well thats good to know, and like I stated before, this is the Amigas strength, jack of all trades, master of some, if I want to play a flight sim, I won't be doing it on a SNES!


My mind is quite "broad" enough, thank you very much. I know that game engines were recycled (look at Earthworm Jim and Doom Troopers for a prime example), but you're acting like every console game uses the same engine as every other console game.

You'd be surprised just how often the same game engines are reused over and over again with just minor tweaking for different things, but once the first game is out the door, the development time is halved for the next one, because they sure as hell do not recode it all from scratch. Actua Soccer, Actua Tennis, Actua Pool, Actua Ice Hockey, Actua Golf..... all used the same game engine, all completely different games.


No, it "makes the suggestion" that, while the console developers were sometimes terrible, they still were better on average than the Amiga's developers - which, considering that the Amiga was a far more accessible platform, is just what you'd expect. I'm not knocking the Amiga (it's my favorite system of all time), just some of its developers. There are plenty of Amiga games that I absolutely love (Flashback especially), but not as many as there are on the consoles. Conversely, the consoles have fewer absolutely horrible games than the Amiga does (though Awesome Possum proves that they still have them).

For someone thats not knocking the Amiga, you've done a bang up job for the last two pages proving otherwise!
...
Galahad/FLT is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.07245 seconds with 9 queries