When you first bought an Amiga, what games were you looking to play?

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by Lilura

My definition is as follows: If the objects and actors are rendered in polygonal 3D on-the-fly as per floors, ceilings, walls and terrain; if the 3D objects and actors seamlessly adhere to the 3D world-space -- that's a 3D game.

You realise that makes Minecraft (or anything else Voxel based) "not a 3D game"? Heck it would make Resident Evil not a 3D game. I'm not sure many people would agree with your definition.

Originally Posted by Lilura

Knight Lore employs 2D images and image-masking, not polygons. You cannot even flip around its isometric perspective like in Ant Attack of 1983, which also isn't a 3D game.

Those are implementation details. It maintains a 3D world (albeit with restrictions) and deals with movement/collision etc in 3D space. It's not polygonal 3D, but it is 3D.

Games like Outrun or Marble Madness might deserve the label "2.5D" (although that's fairly meaningless) because they are very much faking the idea of a 3D perspective and actually dealing with everything in 2D.

Originally Posted by Lilura

Knight Lore doesn't have a camera. It is a fixed-screen, flip-screen 2D isometric game, not a 3D game.

Of course it has a camera, just as all 2D games have a camera.

[Lilura]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Back in the day, every company wanted 3D in their name.
I think you could find barbershop, and their advertising will tell you that they are doing a 3D haircut
(witch is true in reality.. it's actually 4D with time included).

Turbo - Mega - Giga - 3D

Ahh.. good ol' times.

Yeah, everyone wanted to be like David Braben of Elite and Zarch fame. Every game is 3D now, even though we can't code 3D.

And note how the above poster tries to devalue Indianapolis 500 of 1989... one of the most technically impressive 3D games ever made relative to hardware specs.

And then tries to tell me that 3D tank games were not popular... Armor sims were arguably the King of 1989, and M1 Tank Platoon is a GOAT-contender.

Yet he argues that Knight Lore is 3D by comparing it to Manic Miner.

[Megalomaniac]

At least quote me accurately.

Indianapolis 500 is superb at what it does, I wasn't disputing that. I was only pointing out that it's relatively limited due to only being a single oval circuit, and disputing whether that many people outside America were that interested in what it was doing, because Indycar racing itself wasn't a mainstream motorsport, let alone a mainstream sport overall. Did Jimmy White's Whirlwind Snooker sell in America, despite its quality?

Likewise, I said 3D tank games weren't popular in Europe. On what evidence is this untrue? And on what evidence were "Armor sims arguably the King of 1989, and M1 Tank Platoon is a GOAT-contender"? According to who? Biggest selling at the time, best reviewed at the time, recognised system-sellers, most acclaimed by retrospective accounts? I'm not sure this is true even if you narrow it down to PC-only and US-only, but I await being proven wrong.

I didn't actually say Knight Lore was 3D, I said it was 2.5D, but closer to a fully 3D game like Elite than a fully 2D game like Manic Minder (2.6recurring-D, if there is such a thing?)

It seems like there's a lot of "megahit Game X is shit and less-well-known less-acclaimed Game Y is better, because I say it is and everybody else is an idiot, and I know more than everyone else put together" type 'logic' from you, which is exhausting to read. Why are your 3000 articles more important than someone else's? Should everyone simply take your word for it? I'll carry on citing multiple sources, from then and now, for evidence

The thread on when people in Europe first wanted PCs suggests that Wing Commander didn't lead many people to buy PCs - though it could be that the people who did simply never had enough nostalgia for the Amiga to join Amiga forums, as they would have left the Amiga scene relatively early (what would people say if we posed this question at Lemon64 or World of Spectrum?) Doom clearly was a big factor, maybe the single game mentioned by the most people, but by no means the only one - it seems like many people who could afford to buy a PC, and had any interest in games beyond 2D action, already had jumped ship before Doom.

In most cases though, the driver for people moving from Amiga to PC was games that weren't available on Amiga, rather than games that were better on the PC. Yes, Civilization (and indeed most PC-led sims / strategy / adventure games, especially if non-Amiga-specialist coders did the Amiga version) were better on a £2000 PC than a £400 Amiga by 1992, if not earlier. How could they not be? Compare them on a 1987 £2000 PC to a 1987 £500 Amiga (with a £100-at-the-most memory expansion added) and the results would be rather different. Plus, adding a hard drive and/or accelerator to an Amiga would at least partially offset this for many of them though.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

...it seems like many people who could afford to buy a PC, and had any interest in games beyond 2D action, already had jumped ship before Doom.

LucasArts adventures were quite big here in Germany in 1992 and when Day of the Tentacle was released in 1993 and the only way to play it was on PC that really had an impact on some people I knew back then. Same goes for X-Wing or Strike Commander. Some people got a PC because they wanted to play exactly those games and unlike before they simply weren't available on the Amiga or ST.

[grond]

I always thought Wing Commander with its scaled 2D sprites was a very shitty game. I can't understand how anyone would prefer it over Elite+ or Frontier, it didn't give me any feeling of space. When the PC started to show a lot of muscle in the games department (I mean, when you could hardly ignore it any more no matter how much you were into the Amiga), there was Wing Commander 3. I still think it was also a comparatively weak game compared to the likes of Frontier or X-Wing but it made clear that gaming was ready for the prime time and going to become a huge industry. And anything like this wouldn't happen on any fringe computer system but only on the PC. So yes, WC3 certainly sold a lot of PCs and even more CD-ROM drives. But the first Wing Commander? I have a hard time believing that.

[Lilura]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

Indianapolis 500 is superb at what it does, I wasn't disputing that. I was only pointing out that it's relatively limited due to only being a single oval circuit, and disputing whether that many people outside America were that interested in what it was doing, because Indycar racing itself wasn't a mainstream motorsport, let alone a mainstream sport overall. Did Jimmy White's Whirlwind Snooker sell in America, despite its quality?

Let me be frank with you -- and I did say this before -- my commentary is not interested in what was popular and where it was popular.

I am unconcerned with the price of things and their popularity in this or that country. And by things, I mean Western computer game machines and their games.

I am only interested in the machines and the games themselves: tech-specs, gameplay and game technical merits in comparison to what else was available.

I don't care if an Englishman was uninterested in Indianapolis 500 or if an American was uninterested in Jimmy White's Whirlwind Snooker -- because that says nothing about the games themselves.

If an Englishman did not play Indy 500 when it came out, they missed out big-time. Same goes for an American who didn't play Jimmy White's Whirlwind Snooker.

Why are your 3000 articles more important than someone else's? Should everyone simply take your word for it?

You appealed to the authority of ONE article in support of your argument. A low-effort fave 50 article. For half of the games we have mentioned in the past few threads, I could have cited my own article on each one. But instead, I at least make the argument on EAB without external references.

£2000 PC than a £400 Amiga by 1992, if not earlier. How could they not be? Compare them on a 1987 £2000 PC to a 1987 £500 Amiga

Again, I am focused on tech-specs, gameplay and game technical merits in comparison to what else was available.

I don't care that an IBM PC was more expensive than an Amiga. If a game was better on IBM PC, it was better (Civilization of 1991). If the game wasn't available on a cheaper Amiga, it wasn't (Falcon 3.0 of 1991).

Originally Posted by TCD

Strike Commander

If this was released in 1991 as projected instead of 1993, it would have been even more amazing than it nevertheless was.

[Lilura]

Originally Posted by grond

I always thought Wing Commander with its scaled 2D sprites was a very shitty game. I can't understand how anyone would prefer it over Elite+ or Frontier, it didn't give me any feeling of space. When the PC started to show a lot of muscle in the games department (I mean, when you could hardly ignore it any more no matter how much you were into the Amiga), there was Wing Commander 3. I still think it was also a comparatively weak game compared to the likes of Frontier or X-Wing but it made clear that gaming was ready for the prime time and going to become a huge industry. And anything like this wouldn't happen on any fringe computer system but only on the PC. So yes, WC3 certainly sold a lot of PCs and even more CD-ROM drives. But the first Wing Commander? I have a hard time believing that.

Yes, the original Wing commander of 1990 is one of the most overrated games in computer game history. And Privateer and Frontier: Elite 2 were both released in 1993, yet the 286 assembly-coded Frontier: Elite 2 demolished Privateer.

WC wasn't 3D until Wing Commander 3 of 1994, which ran in 256-color VESA 640x480. And it was heavily cinematized with 1.5 gigs of useless FMVs.

Horrible franchise. One of the worst.

[haps]

I like trains!

[Torti-the-Smurf]

Originally Posted by Lilura

Privateer and Frontier: Elite 2 were both released in 1993, yet the 286 assembly-coded Frontier: Elite 2 demolished Privateer.

Elite 2 Frontier just blew my Mind ....
The Scale and Freedom was out of this World ! ; all on one Floppy ...

It was also released around the same time as DOOM. (and i love Doom)


Always though it was WAY more impressive then Doom AND
Wing Commander (and i love WC1)


Great Video btw. about Frontier.

[ Show youtube player ]


But back on Topic.


The first game i saw was:
Silkworm ; and i was hoocked. (so i needed a Amiga; no question )



(Plug and Play, Color, real SoundFx & Music, Mouse & Joystick, Arcade Action;
sounds crazy i know, but our very expensive PC was Monocrome Beeepp Beeep stuff )



And then pretty much every Game and Demo i could get my Hands on.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by grond

I always thought Wing Commander with its scaled 2D sprites was a very shitty game. I can't understand how anyone would prefer it over Elite+ or Frontier, it didn't give me any feeling of space. When the PC started to show a lot of muscle in the games department (I mean, when you could hardly ignore it any more no matter how much you were into the Amiga), there was Wing Commander 3. I still think it was also a comparatively weak game compared to the likes of Frontier or X-Wing but it made clear that gaming was ready for the prime time and going to become a huge industry. And anything like this wouldn't happen on any fringe computer system but only on the PC. So yes, WC3 certainly sold a lot of PCs and even more CD-ROM drives. But the first Wing Commander? I have a hard time believing that.

Well, I am the person who played all 3 games to death (Elite on my C64, Frontier and Wing Commander on my A1200), and First Encounter on my first PC.. I can tell you that WC1 is a true AAA title.
I never really liked Elite, Frontier, or Elder Scrolls games, to the full extend... where are you supposed to do... what? Get stronger? Alright.. you get that.. but lack of any story driven mission in all three (Elite, Frontier, and First Encounter), is what brought my whole appreciation of the titles like WC.
Sure, in WC you can not freely (and pointlessly) search the galaxy, but whatever you do in the mission is somewhat recognized by the game.
It's not freaking silent like Elite.
In Elite you could be a master of disaster.. no one cares.. neither game.. nor you.. nor your mother...
I mean.. I love the game.. I played it so much.. but is it really a game?
Game should have a goal.
What is the goal of Elite? Having this 8.. basically scripted missions.
What are Frontier "Main missions", is there any?

[Lilura]

Originally Posted by Torti-the-Smurf

Elite 2 Frontier just blew my Mind ....
The Scale and Freedom was out of this World ! ; all on one Floppy ...

It was also released around the same time as DOOM. (and i love Doom)


Always though it was WAY more impressive then Doom AND
Wing Commander (and i love WC1)

That was almost my exact sentiment in my formal review of both WC and Frontier. Well, except for the "I love WC" part.

As d4rk3lf said, WC is nevertheless a true AAA game. And WC3 is historically significant as well due to being one of the first big games to display in square-pixel VESA 640x480. And I suppose 1.5 gigs of FMV is also notable because it helped usher in the CD-ROM market, along with the likes of The 7th Guest of 1993.

So even though I hate WC with a passion, I acknowledge its historical importance.

As an aside, I realize that my tone can be harsh. And I am very opinionated. I have toned myself down quite a bit in order to post here. Over the past decade my formal writings have been polemical and raging hard against mainstream mutts (wikipedia, moby games, wikis, youtube vidslop, reddit, ranking sites etc.)

[Lilura]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Well, I am the person who played all 3 games to death (Elite on my C64, Frontier and Wing Commander on my A1200), and First Encounter on my first PC.. I can tell you that WC1 is a true AAA title.
I never really liked Elite, Frontier, or Elder Scrolls games, to the full extend... where are you supposed to do... what? Get stronger? Alright.. you get that.. but lack of any story driven mission in all three (Elite, Frontier, and First Encounter), is what brought my whole appreciation of the titles like WC.
Sure, in WC you can not freely (and pointlessly) search the galaxy, but whatever you do in the mission is somewhat recognized by the game.
It's not freaking silent like Elite.
In Elite you could be a master of disaster.. no one cares.. neither game.. nor you.. nor your mother...
I mean.. I love the game.. I played it so much.. but is it really a game?
Game should have a goal.
What is the goal of Elite? Having this 8.. basically scripted missions.
What are Frontier "Main missions", is there any?

I'm big on computer games that educate, not just entertain. Games like Civilization and Frontier are the Kings in my estimation. I can't think of any games that sparked my imagination more than them. Frontier especially, because it is also technically supreme, hiercarchically designed and evokes the galactic scope of Asimov's Foundation.

[Megalomaniac]

I can't help but interpret calling Wing Commander "a true AAA game", in the context of so much criticism of not only the game but of people daring to praise it, as damning with faint praise. There's no escaping its historical importance and influence, although I can see that the emphasis on story cutscenes does reduce the amount of time actually shooting things or making strategic decisions, and that's not going to please everyone. Comparing it to Frontier almost indicates the two directions games could go in as technology grew, probably the two distinct types of games people might've hoped for when they bought an Amiga in 1986 to an extent - immersion versus vastness, increased cinematicness versus wide gameplay range, fantasy versus education, detailed-but-narrow versus expansive-but-demanding. Personally I'm glad we had both philosophies.

Worth saying that the WC's European distributor felt that "the game helped to revolutionise the sale of PCs. People bought better sound cards, bigger hard drives, even new PCs - JUST to play Wing Commander" (https://amr.abime.net/issue_19_pages - page 84). though it may not, in itself, have made non-PC owners buy PCs - it was probably that wave of 1992-1993 games, which may have happened due to people having upgraded when Wing Commander came out, which did that. It's debatable whether this 'arms race' of having to upgrade so regularly, when PCs were so expensive relative to home computers or consoles to start with, is a good thing though.

And, some reviewers at the time believed they were looking at 3D, see https://archive.org/details/1991-02-...p?view=theater (a US PC mag, not some neophyte European Amiga types).

Silkworm is an interesting pick - not only is it a conceptually fairly standard (aside from the two-different-vehicles-with-distinct-gameplay-elements aspect) shooter that could (and was) perfectly implemented on the 8-bit computers, I wouldn't say the audiovisuals are especially strong - although, compared to most other systems, even relatively mediocre Amiga visuals were still an advance. Good game all the same.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

It's debatable whether this 'arms race' of having to upgrade so regularly, when PCs were so expensive relative to home computers or consoles to start with, is a good thing though.

In the recent 30th anniversary of Doom interview with John Carmack and John Romero one of them was asked why id didn't implement for example an EGA mode into Wolfenstein 3D to make it accessible to more people. The answer was that it was mainly people who bought a new PC who bought id's games to see how well they would run on it, so it adding a 'lo fi' mode to games didn't make much sense. People don't buy the newest iPhone because they have to, but because it is the newest iPhone. So the 'arms race' is created by those that always want the 'cutting edge'. There are plenty of examples when that didn't work *cough* CDTV *cough*, so there is something about that symbiosis of PC hardware and games that just seems to work (for over 30 years now).