Thread: Amiga Vs ST
View Single Post
Old 08 September 2014, 16:22   #446
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 40
Posts: 7,063
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Quote:
Originally Posted by hansel75 View Post
For the first few years the Amiga could match most arcade stuff when in the hands of a decent coder.
Yes that's true, if you look at Toki, or snow bros for example, yep.

Quote:
But once arcade games like Outrun and Streetfighter 2 started coming out, the Amiga could not keep up with them anymore.
He could not because the coders hired were not up to the task, were not given access to the source code or source graphics most of the time (commercials were not doing their job correctly there, as taito gave the source materials, as well as jaleco).

a game like SF2 was written by top level japanese engineers, just look how incredible the AI is on that game, no play looks like the other one, it's almost like fighting a real opponent.

Second, they should have tried to get in touch with capcom to get the source code and the graphics, and this was not done by US GOLD commercials/directors.

The amiga needed a lot of RAM to get music + characters + animations.
This was not the case. SF2 needs 2mb at min on X68000 to run correctly.

Outrun was really so badly done, with ST in mind.... look Lotus 2, it's on par and as good as Outrun !

Quote:
From then on we always had watered down versions of arcade games, although a lot of the ports were still very respectable games on there own.
Yes watered, but look, most companies had no real graphist to retouch the arcade graphics, i'm thinking about Aplin with Final fight, excellent coder, but he had no graphist, and look how crap the graphics were ?

Quote:
This also applies to every computer system at the time, and if certain arcade ports looked weak on the Amiga, then they generally looked even weaker on all the other mainstream computers at the time.
(Apart from lame st ports to amiga).
Many arcade ports were done on ST then amiga, the result was most of the time a catastrophy, because coin-op games mostly runs at 50 fps per sec, which the ST can't cope with. They tought they could economize money by doing them first on ST, then porting on amiga, it was a technological mistake, because once they did the software routines on ST, they had then to port those on amiga, and it was a heavy job.

When a game like Black tiger was released, and i remember it well, we were mostly happy on the fact that we got the possibility to play the game out of the coin-op rooms. But now, all we see is that the game has a flawed mechanic, while being faithfull to the coin-op, which is a shame.
And look how slow the game is on the ST 68000 when you know this is an 8 bits coin-op based on z80 !

Quote:
As for the ST, the way i see it is that the ST is an A500 but with all the cool bits taken out!!!
the ST is like the macintosh, not made at all for gaming at the start, but used as such when the amiga was more adequate for the job.

Quote:
I also see other system comparisons like the speccy/cpc464 vs c64 in the same way as i view the amiga vs st.
It's not that simple. the C64 was almost inexistant in my country because the CPC killed it (professionnally and gaming wise). The ZX spectrum was seen here as a joke. the ZX spectrum had no success in France and worse, amstrad which had to distribute and sell them said to Sugar that they didn't want too many unit of ZX because those were not selling.

Quote:
The speccy/cpc haven't got all the cool custom chips the c64 has like the sid and vic chips, to make gaming superior and smoother.
You don't know well the CPC nor its abilities. The CPC has indeed no hardware sprite support, but it has hardware scrolling, and it's not an accidental feat like the one on atari ST for instance. It was available from the start. It has the CRTC (cathodic ray tube controller) which allows hardware functions, and works like the amiga's copper. The CPC main problem is the lack of RAM. The CPC seems to be a computer working like a 16 bits computer, but using a z80 8 bits micro-processor, which is quite not enough. the ST is the contrary, it's a 16 bits machine who has a 16 bits 68000 processor, but with less abilities than an amstrad CPC (yes, the ST has limitations the CPC doesn't have video wise!). The C64 was seen as an expensive toy for rich family boys, whatever the sound chip, and whatever the hardware sprites and scrolls. But to say that every CPC games are software driven is plainly wrong. Many games use mode 0 display with more than 16 colors (yes thanks to the CRTC which allows rasters and palettes change, like the copper is doing on amiga !), and on top of that they use hardware double buffer for display !

In many ways the CPC share some things with the amiga (CRTC/hardware scroll/palette change - Copper/Blitter/hardware scroll/Palette change), will the ST and CPC mainly share is the 320x200 screen mode in 4 colors for the CPC and 16 for the ST. but what you can in hardware on CPC, can't be done on ST other than with software routines driven by the 68000. Most CPC coders were not trying to surpass ZX, ST, or C64 coders, they wanted to reach as best as they could the amiga games ! There is no reference at all to the C64 in most cracked games on CPC, but you can find many references to the ST and quite a lot about the amiga.

Quote:
Just like the st hasn't got the custom chips the amiga has for better gaming capabilities!
They share the 68000, but the 2 architectures in hardware were in fact so different....
dlfrsilver is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06155 seconds with 9 queries