"Limitations" are actually real limitations.
Dude, the limitations of the Atari ST are NOT the same as the Amiga, ergo, if the game was written for the Amiga only without consideration for the ST, so it goes that it wouldn't be written in the same way as if the ST existed.
Yeah but that is true for any Atari ST game as well. So in general the Atari ST port is just a software only solution which wouldn't look different on the Amiga without having a "competitor". In fact, the Atari ST was never developed as a games machine but a low cost challenger of the Apple Macintosh.
All irrelevant. The ST could only have a software solution because there was very little in the way of hardware to do it better, although the sync scroll method that was discovered was at least something.
The Amiga didn't ever have to be a software only solution, i'm sure you know this.
This is actually not an Atari ST problem.
Sorry, but it is. The Hardware reference manual was available in time for the release of the A500, there is simply no excuse for not using that information to get the best out of a machine, unless you're given carte blanche to simply not bother, because the publisher will accept an ST conversion with very little difference.
It's simply the result of a straight forward software approach. Especially in the early days it was obviously hard to master the hardware of both machines. The fact that code was finally shared between platforms was the reason why I said that it was "mostly a minor damage" due to the programmers laziness but nothing more.
You're just so wrong its actually laughable.
The Amiga for the most part from English developers got ST ports for at LEAST 3 years.
Its got nothing to do with programmers laziness either, its is entirely down to the publisher to say whether or not a conversion to the Amiga should have effort put into it and be treated as a different version, or that a version closely resembling the ST version is enough to ensure that release dates are kept.
If Teque says to Ocean "We can do both ST and Amiga versions, but we won't have time other than samples and music to make Chase HQ significantly better on the Amiga, is that acceptable?"
Its down to Ocean whether that in their view is acceptable.
Another point is that choosing 16 colours is not a Atari ST relict but a wise choice to lower performance and memory requirements which is in fact a real limitation of the Amiga. Just think about why Ronald Pieket Weeserik preferred the 16 colours mode for SWIV.
You selectively choosing one game over hundreds does not a point make.
But its explained quite eloquently why SWIV on Amiga was only 16 colours, because of problems with sprites and memory to ensure that a 512K chip version was still possible.
But regardless of that, if you read the article properly, you would also have noted that the Amiga version has extensive copper colour reloading of the palette to give the game more than 16 colours.
The fact is, SWIV was lead version on Amiga and it was programmed around the Amigas strengths, not on what the ST could reasonably be expected to cope with.
David Broadhurst did mention that implementing a scrolling playfield on the Amiga is quite a difficult task. However, he was mainly blaming the missing tile/character based graphics system for this. It seems that he was forced to say something about the Atari ST because of the suggestive kind of questions.
Sorry thats just bollocks. If it was so difficult, why were Factor 5 barely 6 months later able to do Turrican with perfectly smooth 8 way scrolling, and a significantly larger screen with a considerable amount more action?
Shadow of the Beast was released the same year as Ghouls n Ghosts, that too had 8 way scrolling in the underground sections.
The difference being that Psygnosis LEAD on Amiga and converted DOWN to the Atari ST at a later date.
Whether Psygnosis' games were playable is an aside, but they showed very early on that programming with the Amiga in mind with NO considerations for how it might work on the ST seemed to work very well for them.
Don't get me wrong: I still think the Amiga is more capable than the Atari ST in the games domain but I'm afraid it isn't "a hell lot" better in general.
I'm sorry, but you're just monumentally wrong.
Theres just too many examples of games where programmers that did make the effort showed what the Amiga could do when the ST wasn't a consideration, people changed completely how they programmed.
Jim Power on the ST is a valiant effort, but its literally a mere shadow in comparison to the Amiga version.
If programmers followed your example of a "software solution", Jim Power on Amiga as it looks today would have been impossible.
So in conclusion the Atari ST cannot be blamed for not having a proper port of your favorite arcade game for the Amiga.
Sorry you're again wrong. I never claimed that the Amiga could do all arcade conversions 1:1, but if there was no consideration given to the ST, the versions we got for Amiga would have been better.
Pretend the ST didn't exist.
There would have been fewer 16 colour games, there might still have been some 16 colour games for the more technical ones or memory hungry ones, but the design brief would have started off as 32 colour because there would have been no need to have cut down graphics for a lower machine.
game engines would have been written around the strengths of the Amiga, not what worked on the ST.
History has shown that you have to design a game with the Amiga limitations in mind to get a satisfying result but everything else is only fairly better than a software solution.
Just not true. Most of the arcade conversions were designed with the ST limitations, because its a whole lot easier to write for the lowest machine, and convert directly across, than it is to start on the Amiga, and then have to cut down graphics and programming techniques.
The first example works for both machines quickly, the second example adds lots of development headaches for the team hitting a deadline.