PC games that made the Amiga look like Shit

[sokolovic]

Excuse my innocence, but saying that the Amiga Doom version converted in few days by a single lobbyist on a dead platform without any commercial life was optimized for the system and that the PC one made by the very creators of the game wich were professionals (12 peoples !) On a growing worldwide market didn't get as much attention seems a little bit absurd.

Is it an eab thing to always devalue anything made on the Amiga ? Same thing with the post about Slam Tilt above. The game is a technical marvel, full 256 colors hyper smooth with great playability but still it isn't enough impressive.

[Promilus]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Excuse my innocence, but saying that the Amiga Doom version converted in few days by a single lobbyist on a dead platform without any commercial life was optimized for the system and that the PC one made by the very creators of the game wich were professionals (12 peoples !) On a growing worldwide market didn't get as much attention seems a little bit absurd.

Is it an eab thing to always devalue anything made on the Amiga ? Same thing with the post about Slam Tilt above. The game is a technical marvel, full 256 colors hyper smooth with great playability but still it isn't enough impressive.

Just because port came in few days doesn't mean it all ended up there. How many ports you're playing now did stop at version 0.1 or 0.2 - first public release? Hardly any, right? Right. Of course all x86 inline assembly had to be rewritten. Nobody claim it was optimized for 68k in the first day... But it was indeed optimized for 68k execution - including 030 datacache. It's not the same with 386 which had no internal cache and external cache was optional.

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by Promilus

Just because port came in few days doesn't mean it all ended up there. How many ports you're playing now did stop at version 0.1 or 0.2 - first public release? Hardly any, right? Right. Of course all x86 inline assembly had to be rewritten. Nobody claim it was optimized for 68k in the first day... But it was indeed optimized for 68k execution - including 030 datacache. It's not the same with 386 which had no internal cache and external cache was optional.

Sorry but that isn't audible (or readable) to me.
First we have people telling that the Amiga and the AGA chipset are shit in doing Doom style games (or other PC VGA games) because planar gfx etc.
Then it is proven by FACTS that not only the Amiga can do it, but it can do it easily better than more expensive PC setups ar the same time when properly converted.
And then, we cannot compare Amiga ports with PC originals because Amiga ports would be optimized without any of the means, people or budget the PC or other platform had ? Seriously ?
There is a giant and yet recurrent contradiction here.

I'm not always confortable with Bruce argument but there he doesn't seems to be wrong to me. Far from it.
Your exigences for the Amiga gaming universe are just too high. It juste seems that whatever it is done on this platform would'nt satisfy experts anyway.

[Promilus]

First we have people telling that the Amiga and the AGA chipset are shit in doing Doom style games (or other PC VGA games) because planar gfx etc.

Just that they don't offer planar modes doesn't mean they can't do 3D. They do, but not because of the chipset, despite it. Or maybe even that ain't all true. Amiga does not operate on chunky. 3D games like Doom do. Operations are done on CPU anyway (yes, Doom has no 3D acceleration whatsoever - every 3D operation is done by CPU, GFX is just to display scene). So the only difference between VGA and AGA is that AGA requires additional chunky to planar conversion as it can only take as an input planar representation. Other than that it all goes to compute power of CPU and obviously bottlenecks between CPU and GFX. Like e.g. ISA bus. Which AGA of course also have but not nearly as narrow as ISA. And GFX chipset itself was sometimes limiting factor as well.

And then, we cannot compare Amiga ports with PC originals because Amiga ports would be optimized without any of the means, people or budget the PC or other platform had ? Seriously ?
There is a giant and yet recurrent contradiction here

Doom had it's source released in 97. In PC world it is a history already. Basically nobody did proper optimizations for 386 because there hardly was anyone using that configuration anyway. It did come back recently because 286, 386 and 486 retro did boom during covid outbreak...
It's absolutely different story with Amiga. Which was already dead - as a official platform - at that time. It was all hobbyist job to port software and 3rd party hardware add-ons - like Phase 5 or Apollo accelerators. You can't expect me to believe that comparing vanilla doom on 386 with much more recent, hw optimized port (also using newer features like e.g. mouse look and aiming up/down) is ok. It's not comparison of the SAME thing! And to push my point - do you honestly believe should id software release A4k version of doom in 93 it would run much better on 030 than the poor 386? It would obviously run better clock for clock due to integrated data cache - but you honestly believe any numbers like ADoom or DoomAttack would've been attainable? Simple question, yes or no.

[freehand]

Originally Posted by Karlos

If you're going to play the subjectivity card, then that makes my definition just as good as anyone elses.



486 25MHz. I never tried on a 386, so I have no comment. As I've said more than once, it achieved full screen at an estimated 15-20 FPS.

[ Show youtube player ]

Read the description before you assume the two machines are the wrong way around in the video.

I am not playing anything you made a sweeping statement simple.

And both the videos are not good enough for me for play also not sure why you showed a crippled running DX2 66 for comparison.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by freehand

I am not playing anything you made a sweeping statement simple.

I didn't. The sweeping statement is some nonsense that a 486 DX2 was somehow necessary to play the game properly

And both the videos are not good enough for me for play also not sure why you showed a crippled running DX2 66 for comparison.

Maybe you need a faster framerate to play, but back in 1993 me and almost everyone else I knew playing the game (which was basically everyone at university at the time) played it just fine at that performance in both single and multiplayer.

Anyway, the DX2 66 is irrelevant in that video and has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. I just searched for a vide of it running on a 486SX 25 and that was what came up and matched my recollection, performance wise. Obviously on a correctly configured DX2 66 it's going to be significantly more fluid than the SX 25, but I think the claim that you needed a 66MHz 486 DX2 to play the game properly is clearly false.

By the time Doom2 came out, that was much more a standard configuration and yes, it was a bit too much for your basic 25MHz SX.

[freehand]

I like your ninja edits.

If you was happy good for you.

[Promilus]

Originally Posted by Karlos

I didn't. The sweeping statement is some nonsense that a 486 DX2 was somehow necessary to play the game properly

And on vogons I encountered more than once an opinion that 25MHz 486 works great except some more open maps in which case the game noticeably stutters. I did put DX2 66 as a fairly common model which did guarantee good framerate 100% of time, with maxed out details, with decent resolution and full screen. So let me ask you again - does your experience with 25MHz 486 and Doom involve highest settings and absolutely fluid gameplay in each and every map? If not - what the hell is your problem?

[Karlos]

I already told you exactly what it involved. Once again, and with feeling. 320x200, full screen, "High Detail" (not the double width pixels), 15-20 FPS typical frame rate, the shareware release and soon after, the entire game, all three episodes. All on a 25MHz 486SX in the year 1993AD. I completed it absolutely no problem as did most of my contemporaries. I don't remember the frame rate ever being "unplayable", which as we've established is a subjective metric already.

Is that clear enough?

[Karlos]

For comparison, playing AB3D1 on a stock A1200. I also completed that, but the later levels were extremely challenging due to extreme slowdowns. It was a completely different experience on an accelerator card though, extremely fluid.

[VladR]

I had 386DX40 while playing Doom1.


When my friend bought 486SX, I vividly recall that it was smoother, just not cost effective (e.g. too little performance for the price,but 4 months later price dropped,so it was ok then)

But it was smoother. I don't recall if it was 486SX 25 or 33 MHz.

Since I finished Room on 395DX40, I don't see why it would be hard on 486SX...

Even 485DX2-66 had framedrops. Few, but it still wasn't a framedrop-free experience, especially in Doom2...

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Promilus

You don't even understand simple terms. I did challenge your claim that it was optimized for PC (generally) and I did mention 486 machines there. Right? Right

No, you didn't. let's review what you said:-

Originally Posted by Promilus

I'd say that might depend on the port. If we're comparing vanilla DOS Doom with some optimized Amiga port it already introduces distorted results.

And your nitpicking about my saying it was optimized for the PC (generally) is silly. I obviously didn't mean all PCs.

Another thing you didn't bother to consider is that the PC version was compiled with Watcom, which was known to be extremely fast for games (which is why it was used for Tomb Raider etc.) whereas the Amiga version just used whatever C compiler was available.

That means 386 based systems never did receive any particular optimizations. Right? Right.

Nope. There is no evidence that it was optimized specifically for 486, just 386 asm code. If you don't believe it then examine the source code. Translating this to 030 asm code does not mean it was any more optimized for that CPU. Both ADoom and DoomAttack only specify 68020, and AFAIK don't have any code specifically optimized for 030. I tried running both with the data cache turned off and it made practically no difference.

So how's that comparing apples to apples? It is not, that's why I claim such comparison to be ridiculous. Not my fault you're too blind and arrogant to see that.

That's ridiculous. All we are doing is comparing the PC to the Amiga, with the Amiga version having only the essential 'optimization' required to do the port. This argument that it's not apples to apples because a minimal effort was made to duplicate the PC's optimizations is ridiculous. That it works so well is a testament to the Amiga's architecture, not an invalidation of it!

But that's how it goes with Amiga fans. Amiga version not as good? Fault to Amiga! Commodore was useless! Amiga version is as good or better? Not apples to apples! It should have been even better! Commodore was useless!

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Promilus

You can't expect me to believe that comparing vanilla doom on 386 with much more recent, hw optimized port (also using newer features like e.g. mouse look and aiming up/down) is ok.

Mouse look is awesome, and makes the game much more enjoyable to play IMO - almost like playing Tomb Raider (if it had auto aiming too it would be perfect!). After playing it with that feature I realized what was missing from the original.

I don't know whether the PC version could use a mouse but I only played it with the keyboard, which wasn't very accurate and made aiming difficult. I also never got used to side-stepping - to many controls for me!

But this has nothing to do with performance. If anything, using the mouse and having look up/down should make it run slower.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

I don't know whether the PC version could use a mouse but I only played it with the keyboard, which wasn't very accurate and made aiming difficult. I also never got used to side-stepping - to many controls for me!

Even Wolfenstein 3D had mouse support: https://soulsphere.org/apocrypha/keyboard/

The Doom demo files were recorded by John Romero using mouse & keyboard.

[Karlos]

Since we're on the subject, Doom is a PC game that made the Amiga look awesome. I had more fun replaying Doom on doomattack on my 1200 68040 than I did on that original 486SX. Especially on RTG. On OS4 classic, it was playable at 640x400, on that same A1200.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But that's how it goes with Amiga fans. Amiga version not as good? Fault to Amiga! Commodore was useless! Amiga version is as good or better? Not apples to apples! It should have been even better! Commodore was useless!

Umm, no, nobody's saying literally that, it's your projection so you can jump on your favourite high horse and bash the non-believers with it.

I say "non-believers" because that's where these narratives come from - the cult-like obsession with the idea that everything re: Amiga must be ever so perfect, there's zero room for nuance, and if there's a problem it's always outsourced to a third party: a lazy dev, an evil publisher, a competing platform or, best of all, those traitorus fake fans. It's really tiresome to read this BS over and over again. Especially when you realize it's grown-ass men writing it, not some teens bickering in a schoolyard (tbh I think back in the day it was much less obsessive and more tongue-in-cheek than now).

So, squabbling about caches etc is rather irrelevant, since the underlying conclusion - as always predicated with a hefty dose of "ifs" - is that it's Amiga owner's fault that they didn't invest in expensive upgrades for a dead-end platform in order to play a non-existent game.

Which, by the way, wouldn't change Amiga's fortunes anyway, even "if" it did exist. But the cultists (not only in Amiga camp, it's a common theme) always want to believe in "magic bullet" narratives. If only! this or that chip/game was released in time, or a decision made...everything would be different and platform X would be now dominant instead of platform Y.

Meanwhile, Doom did not save Jaguar, 32X, 3DO, nor was a reason for Apple's survival. Because magic bullets only work for monsters in fantasy stories.

In reality, even if Amiga got Doom in 1994 what would it change? Some more people would buy an A1200 and a bunch of expansions (price of which was close to a decent PC with a monitor at the time)? Sure, but these numbers would be still minuscule compared to PC market penetration and would not change the unstoppability of the open-clone concept.

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

In reality, even if Amiga got Doom in 1994 what would it change? Some more people would buy an A1200 and a bunch of expansions (price of which was close to a decent PC with a monitor at the time)? Sure, but these numbers would be still minuscule compared to PC market penetration and would not change the unstoppability of the open-clone concept.

Isn't it precisely what Bruce is writing on every thread he's posting ?

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Isn't it precisely what Bruce is writing on every thread he's posting ?

Did you read my whole post, or just this last paragraph?

[TCD]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Isn't it precisely what Bruce is writing on every thread he's posting ?

Not exactly: https://eab.abime.net/showthread.php...89#post1636889

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Did you read my whole post, or just this last paragraph?

Of course I've read it. That's why I'm asking just for this part because it doesn't seems to be in contradiction with Bruce opinion (that particular part). No sarcasm intended.