Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt. Hindsight
Why did I expect to see this ending in a C64 vs CPC debate beforehand? Well...
|
Complete with members on both sides of that divide claiming their opinions as unbiased facts (while claiming the other side's facts are just faulty opinion of course)
With that in mind, I've stopped discussing anything CPC vs C64 related.
---
Getting back on topic, I'd (in general) say that the Amiga versions of games usually looked better than their C64 counterparts, though they often ran worse.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread that frame rate shouldn't be the only metric of comparison and I would mostly agree with that - but only to a certain point. Poor frame rates can and in fact do negatively impact the gameplay experience quite severely (Outrun anyone? That port would be much better if it ran at 25FPS, even with the otherwise wonky graphics & sound
).
Personally I find action/arcade style games consistently running under 20-25fps to be borderline unplayable (which is part of why I never liked the Amiga version of Blood Money), there is just so much lag you start to really 'feel' it.
However, even if I try to only look at gameplay and try to ignore frame rate and other visual/aural aspects (as far as this is possible of course - we're all biased after all), I still feel that games that were available on both (and were not Arcade ports) tended to play better on the C64.
A few examples of this in action: Creatures, Armalyte, Wizball, The Last Ninja series, Blood Money, Katakis/Denaris.
Looking at Arcade ports, I don't really agree the Amiga did better there than the C64. If I look at ports on both systems I generally find the C64 version to play closer to how the Arcade played. IMHO of course.
Fun fact: there are even some games on the C64 that have more content than their Amiga counterparts, while playing more or less identically. Notably both Amiga Turrican and Turrican II miss some things compared to the C64 version (the former missing more than the latter).