What kind of graphical fidelity do you expect from an AGA game?

[no9]

Since Amiga games were distributed on disks it was real problem for publishers. How one can expect to satisfy his eyes with AGA while default storage wasn't upgraded? I feel like OCS machine was much more coherent with all it's features than AGA. And that's probably one of the reasons why we were left with feeling that AGA wasn't pushed to its limits.

From AGA games I expect nothing less than this

[ Show youtube player ]

[dodke]

Originally Posted by Solo Kazuki

That's not the problem IHMO if games had HDD install option. And that should be main concern of not forcing HDD as standard, not floppy format.

True, probably should have had a cheaper 3.5" hard drive as an option.
Still, most publishers only released games that also booted from floppy and even when installing the small capacity would have been a disadvantage compared to PCs at the time.

[rare_j]

Number one requirement for me is that the game fills the screen right into the overscan area.
Second, there should be something going on in the background (of a platformer) that really adds to the artwork, other than a flat colour or copper gradient. And no, throwing in a few lollipops doesn't count (Zool).
Third, you just expect to see better artwork in general with fewer compromises in colour depth, object size, and animation frames.
Basically I was expecting AGA stuff to look less like a master system and more like a snes.

[fxgogo]

I would expect a decent frame rate in gameplay. At least a locked 25 or 30 fps. I would be happy to give up some resolution for that. Smooth gameplay is key for me.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by rare_j

Basically I was expecting AGA stuff to look less like a master system and more like a snes.

You must be really happy with AGA then, as OCS graphics already look much more like SNES graphics than Master System graphics. And AGA games look even better than OCS games

More seriously, I've heard quite a few people talk about the need for graphics to be (full) overscan. I never really got that. No other system on the market actually did that in the 1990's. PC's didn't by default as their screens and video modes where aimed to be useful for work (where overscan is useless considering the curved CRT's of the day). Consoles didn't use it either: both SNES and MD have very clear black borders on the top and bottom of the screen in PAL countries (which is where most of us live and the kind of console almost all of us actually used if we had one) and smaller, but usually still visible ones in NTSC countries.

So an honest question: why is this such a big deal for people when no other hardware actually did it?
To me, it doesn't seem to add much to go from 320x256 to say 352x270. Sometimes it's even a detriment: the TV I used in the past couldn't show all of Alien Breed's screen so I couldn't see if I was about to die or how many keys/ammo I had.

Originally Posted by fxgogo

I would expect a decent frame rate in gameplay. At least a locked 25 or 30 fps. I would be happy to give up some resolution for that. Smooth gameplay is key for me.

I think (can't guarantee though) that almost all AGA 2D games do this. For 3D games you're quite right that more than a few don't manage unless you have some serious CPU grunt to back it up.

[coder76]

Well, some more nice looking games were made for AGA machines in 1997-1999.
T-Zero
[ Show youtube player ]
Napalm
[ Show youtube player ]
OnEscapee
[ Show youtube player ]

Most, if not all of these do require at least a 68030 and lots of fast ram. Would say none of these are really good games, but graphically they at least show what AGA can do.

At least still images and intros in AGA games should go in 640x512/256 colors or HAM. And music either as a whole sample in memory, or then have some 8 channels with CPU mixing. Also 640x256 resolution is an option in-game, but 640x512 noninterlaced requires more expertise to get running properly under AGA even with an accelerator board (Napalm is dead slow in 640x512/256 color mode on AGA).

[Antiriad_UK]

I can't remember but wasn't the 320x256 screen offset to the right on a standard TV? Used to bug the hell out of me (symmetry triggered!!), so it was nice when overscan was used and it looked centred again. Parents/me couldn't afford the 1084 monitor so I couldn't adjust.

[roondar]

There was also The Misadventures of Flink (http://hol.abime.net/577) for the CD32, which I always thought looked very nice. Apparently it's a very nice game to play as well.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Antiriad_UK

I can't remember but wasn't the 320x256 screen offset to the right on a standard TV? Used to bug the hell out of me (symmetry triggered!!), so it was nice when overscan was used and it looked centred again. Parents/me couldn't afford the 1084 monitor so I couldn't adjust.

I think you're actually right. Seems everyone has their own pet peeves then, as it never really bothered me. I was much more bothered with not knowing when I'd die in certain games

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by roondar

I recently discovered that the Atari ST hardware does not support a 2nd fire button

Even more of a piece of shit then I already thought it was... It's like they designed the worst computer they possibly could, really.

[roondar]

On the ST: apparently it was designed at a record pace - mostly using chips and technology that Atari already had in store or could be gotten off the shelves. It's quite amazing how many they managed to sell of them, considering the lack of time spent on the design.

It's similar to the C64 in a way (not custom chip wise or how good a system it was, design philosophy wise). That too was designed in a very rapid fashion using stuff Commodore had basically already lying around. In a way it's sad, as the engineers at Commodore had some cracking ideas for the SID in particular that never came to pass (Bob Yannes wanted to do a 32 voice synth, but ran out of time and so just "copied" the working voice onto silicon three times and had to call it a day - see Commodore: A company on the Edge).

Edit: this is actually very much off-topic. Best to ignore it and move on with the thread

[Tigerskunk]

I'd say design of the ST just had a different market in sight.
They wanted to create a cheap and more capable competitor to the Macintosh.
Which they succeeded in, in my opinion.

Too bad, that most retailers hated Jack Tramiel and so the ST never had a chance.