PC games that made the Amiga look like Shit

[TCD]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

If the gfx of the PC version are based on the Amiga one, doesn't that makes the Amiga version the original one, contrarly at was is stated in HOL ?

It was developed in parallel for the Amiga and PC. I've changed the entry (visible tomorrow).

@Amigajay
For me the ad implies that the graphics are better on the Amiga. I would guess it's a stab at Sierra for converting the EGA PC graphics 1:1 to the Amiga.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by TCD

It was developed in parallel for the Amiga and PC. I've changed the entry (visible tomorrow).

@Amigajay
For me the ad implies that the graphics are better on the Amiga. I would guess it's a stab at Sierra for converting the EGA PC graphics 1:1 to the Amiga.

Undoubtably a dig at Sierra!

Not sure i agree it implies they are better than on PC per se, just implies they have taken advantage of the Amiga chipset to provide 32 colour graphics, instead of 8-16 colour PC ones.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Amigajay

Not sure i agree it implies they are better than on PC per se, just implies they have taken advantage of the Amiga chipset to provide 32 colour graphics, instead of 8-16 colour PC ones.

And not mentioning that the same graphics are used in the VGA PC version. Which makes the 'No PC graphics here' part of the ad a bit moot.

Either way it's a great example of the short time frame in which US publishers embraced the Amiga.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by TCD

And not mentioning that the same graphics are used in the VGA PC version. Which makes the 'No PC graphics here' part of the ad a bit moot.

Either way it's a great example of the short time frame in which US publishers embraced the Amiga.

Well if those 32 colour graphics were made for the Amiga, likely they were, then the PC version uses Amiga graphics and not the other way around. It's how you interpret it i guess, imo it's fine.

Yes Accolade games were one of the few American publishers (that didn't start out on the Amiga first) that embraced the Amiga and made an effort, i.e enhanced graphics, hdd installing etc).

[rKickrkds]

So Elvira was an Amiga Original, developed first? but Les Manley and Altered Destiny are?

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by TCD

It was developed in parallel for the Amiga and PC. I've changed the entry (visible tomorrow).

@Amigajay
For me the ad implies that the graphics are better on the Amiga. I would guess it's a stab at Sierra for converting the EGA PC graphics 1:1 to the Amiga.

The parallel development thing narrows the concept of what an Amiga original is according to Hol. Lemmings and Worms are presented as "Amiga Originals" (and there is no doubt about that) yet they were developped in parallel in many others platforms.
If the VGA PC version of Elvira use the Amiga gfx while they could use all the 256 colors of the VGA palette than it is a port of the Amiga version. So it is an Amiga original.

[Megalomaniac]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

The parallel development thing narrows the concept of what an Amiga original is according to Hol. Lemmings and Worms are presented as "Amiga Originals" (and there is no doubt about that) yet they were developped in parallel in many others platforms.

Worms mutated into a big multiformat Christmas game once Ocean got involved with Team 17,probably in part because new Amiga weren't in production during its development, but Lemmings definitely led with the Amiga, with other versions following once it was hit. Even the ST version was several months later, let alone the consoles and PC.

I guess the Accolade ad also played on Amiga owners probably paying little attention to the newest pcs at thst time, and still picturing games which were directly converted from the PC as imitations of EGA and Beeper.gsmes designed around VGA and Adlib were only just starting to be converted to the Amiga.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

If the VGA PC version of Elvira use the Amiga gfx while they could use all the 256 colors of the VGA palette than it is a port of the Amiga version. So it is an Amiga original.

No. The point of an 'Amiga original' is that it was developed first for the Amiga and then ported to other platforms. Beneath a Steel Sky is a great example why graphics don't define the development platform:

Gibbons drew the backgrounds in pencil,[7] starting with roughs, which were sent to Revolution to see if they were technically feasible. Once agreed upon, Gibbons would then make the final sketch. The pencil sketches were then colored, mainly by Les Pace. The backgrounds were scanned on a Macintosh as 24-bit, 1000x1000 pixel images with 16 million colors, and then transformed to 8-bit, 320x200 pixel images with 256 colors for the PC version.[17][18] The backgrounds were designed so that the sprites would appear clear on the screen and would not mix with the backgrounds.[9] Gibbons created the sprites using Deluxe Paint on an Amiga.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneat...chnical_design

[oscar_ates]

Joe and Mac Caveman Ninja was better on PC basically because of the VGA colors:

[ Show youtube player ]

[Cris1997XX]

Yeah, but...the adlib audio really sucks. Even I can make better farts than that

[alexh]

Originally Posted by rKickrkds

A couple of older games (pre 1991) I remember playing a lot on both that were clearly better on PC

Laser Squad - 1991 Much better than the already good Amiga version.

Wow this is definitely a great example. The Amiga version and the PC version are like night and day. The Amiga version looks 8-bits in comparison.

I wonder if this was just the amount of effort the developer was allowed? (e.g. timescales). The Amiga version is almost a 1:1 port of the 8-bit ones from a few years earlier whereas the PC version looks like a complete rehash of the gfx.

I still love the Amiga music though. If you're a fan of the Amiga Laser Squad theme, Mark Vera remixed it very sympathetically and it's very good.

[ Show youtube player ]

[Arne]

I did a Laser Squad 32 colour Amiga PAL mockup just to see how it'd look. NTSC/13H is kinda claustrophobic for strategy games and the scant framerate increase is inconsequential. The extra PAL screen space allows for a larger viewport and a less subscreen segmented GUI as most info (e.g. full character stats and a minimap) can now fit in the main panel.

https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@andr...12764224687633

I think the original Amiga version tried to just add a few colours onto the old sprites. This usually doesn't work that well and I prefer the more abstract black background C64 (MSX/ZX) version over the Amiga's in that case. The DOS version changed the fun robot/dalek enemies into generic borgs. I suppose Daleks were generic back then though but now you don't see them much in games.

[rKickrkds]

Originally Posted by oscar_ates

Joe and Mac Caveman Ninja was better on PC basically because of the VGA colors:

[ Show youtube player ]

About the sound, Adlib , you can use Soundblaster for digital and MT32 for music, the MT32 music sounds fuller/richer than arcade version.


Elite Systems did the PC port in 1991 and Motivetime the Amiga and Gameboy version in late 1992 (no ST release).
It's not just VGA colours, completely different GFX assets and the Amiga version is slow with a much lower framerate, lots of frames missing in the animation as well. (it does use up to 32 colors though).


IBM PC DOS



Amiga

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Arne

I did a Laser Squad 32 colour Amiga PAL mockup just to see how it'd look.

That's a million times better, very nice

[TCD]

Originally Posted by rKickrkds

It's not just VGA colours, completely different GFX assets and the Amiga version is slow with a much lower framerate, lots of frames missing in the animation as well. (it does use up to 32 colors though).

Sometimes I wonder how many people actually check the other versions of a game before they form their opinion which one the 'best' version is. Thank you for the posting the comparison screenshots.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by TCD

Sometimes I wonder how many people actually check the other versions of a game before they form their opinion which one the 'best' version is.

Caveman Ninja Amiga reviews

Reviewed by Stuart Campbell for Amiga Power, p.69, Issue 22, February 1993

It would appear the Amiga's palette simply isn't up the task of reproducing the coin-op's subtleties of shading and colouring, but there isn't any excuse for everything being this square and crude...

UPPERS
The waterfalls on level two are quite pretty.

DOWNERS
It looks absolutely awful, it plays like a dead horse, and it smells rather worse.

THE BOTTOM LINE
A bad conversion of an uninspiring game, extra-specially handicapped by ludicrous controls and a horrific front end.

22%

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by TCD

Sometimes I wonder how many people actually check the other versions of a game before they form their opinion which one the 'best' version is. Thank you for the posting the comparison screenshots.

I don't see anyone speaking of a best version though, only a better version

Let's be honest too; we suck at picking the proper terms for things in the spur of the moment. If we would use the word "favorite" more often, we'd have less reason to be up in arms because someone else is wrong on the internet.

[Megalomaniac]

Obviously Stuart is pretty controversial at times, and some reviews of Amiga Caveman Ninja weren't quite that negative, but from a quick play I don't really disagree with him here. The slowdown is a joke, controls are unresponsive and graphics are ugly. We've seen so much better from the Amiga so many times. The PC version appears to (in my opinion) wipe the floor with it, and that shouldn't be happening for a side-scrolling 2D action game, where (colour depth aside) a £300 Amiga could beat a £1500 PC at that time. Flight sims, adventures and strategy games, even a budget PCs was probably better than an A500 by then, but not arcade games....

[TCD]

Originally Posted by gimbal

If we would use the word "favorite" more often, we'd have less reason to be up in arms because someone else is wrong on the internet.

Indeed. I don't really care if somebody describes one version as 'better' or 'best', but I'm curious if they actually tried every version before reaching that conclusion. I'm long past getting 'up in arms' about pretty much anything online

[van_dammesque]

It smacks of a Tiertex style job!