TOP 15 Apple IIGS games

[Amiga1992]

There were no IIGS Apple II ports, the IIGS ran Apple II software.
Sorry about Lotus, I thought it was available. That doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

[Nishicorn]

My apologies for resurrecting an old thread - this year seems so be all about bad resurrections (I hope someone got what I mean).

There's just so much wrong here, someone needs to show the light of the truth from time to time so future historians won't lose ALL hope for these people..

Someone said:

I was impressed with the IIGS sound quality, though I'd like to hear it perform something like the Turrican II soundtrack.

Then Castelian replied:

Turrican II was not on the IIGS (I agree, the IIGS could never play something like that)

Ok, so I am not sure if you mean the music or the game (both can be 'played'), but let's assume it's the music.

The original commenter didn't say it couldn't be done, only that they would "like to hear it perform something like [it]".

I actually agree, I think the Apple IIGS's music chip is very interesting, knowing who designed it and all - but from my perspective, it's basically an extended 8580 that can play samples, if I am not incorrect (not sure about its waveforms, it's hard to find information about that, but being a 'wavetable' synthesizer, I assume it waveforms can be modulated and modified pretty freely on-the-fly, so it may not even need to have 'fixed waveforms', and maybe they can still be freely designed instead of just having a small selection, like SID and OPL chips do).

Having 32 channels, supporting samples and having a filter (I think..), it's probably at least as good as maybe 10 x 8580 chips would be, and can probably produced more 'detailed' sound.

This means it shouldn't have TOO much trouble doing Turrican II musics, including the seven-channel title, at least soundwise, if done correctly - but it would require painstaking 'patchwork' (creating the instruments painstakingly).

I have been able to make pretty 'unbelievable' sounds with the old SID chips, by manipulating the samples afterwards or simply using multiple channels and even SIDs to create one sound or instrument.

For example, doing an effect-sound by taking some real-world sound, then playing that sound a couple of octaves lower, then trying to mimic the result with multiple SID chips (or at least channels), until you get something that resembles it quite a lot - then sampling that SID-sound, and then playing it two octaves higher.

It could be considered 'cheating', but I just want to illustrate that it should be POSSIBLE to create the Turrican II-instruments with enough work and tinkering.

In any case, I think a very good-sounding rendition could be made, technically speaking (musically and creatively speaking, it might be a different matter, but look at what they did with the '2nd Reality' demo on the C64 back in the day - at least some kind of good song should be possible).

So I don't really get the comment that there's no way it could play it.. The TFMX song in question only uses seven channels, that Ensoniq chip has 32!

(I realize with Amiga's samples, one channel can be used for chords, thus gaining 'more channels' that way, but Apple IIGS's sound chip can also utilize samples, so..)

Photon said:

(btw, I did not refer to Youtube/Camtasia frameskip in my entire post! May I suggest you take your own suggestion to learn to read?

Err, sorry to inform you of this, but you are in the wrong here.

You said "I concur" to someone that _DID_ refer to EXACTLY those youtube videos and low framerate. This could be, as I indeed did, taken as you 'agreeing with the low framerate'.

How else could this be interpreted?

Look, here's what T_hairy_bootson said:

Is it just the youtube video or was the scrolling and framerate really that horrible on all IIgs games?

Out of this world looks like it is dropping too many frames to be playable. Thexder looks like it is on frameskip 5. Arkanoid looks impossible to play, the ball just seems to teleport across the screen. I always thought the IIgs a capable machine but that video was not impressive at all.

Your reply?

I concur.

Now, HOW else is anyone supposed to interpret this particular reply other than 'I agree about the low framerate'? Maybe you forgot what you had been replying to, but just because YOU don't mention those things specifically, doesn't mean your "I concur" doesn't REFER to someone else's words that _DO_ refer to those things!

So, about learning to read... well, I won't say it, but you can think it.


Castelian said

We're not discussing which system is better (or at least I'm not). Atari ST and IIGS can't compete with Amiga! But I was simply making the observation that the IIGS has equal or better ports for every single game available for multiple systems (except Paperboy)

Fair enough, but I don't think it's so much an 'observation' as it is a 'false opinion not supported by facts'.

There is no game that I can see that is better, better-looking or better-sounding on Apple IIGS than on the Amiga. Except maybe Zany Golf, I don't remember that game.

Your claim is too wild, it doesn't hold true. If you had said something like 'Looks almost as good' or 'Pretty good for Apple IIGS' or EVEN 'as good', I could've let it slide.

By the way, have you seen 'Rocket Ranger'? For some reason, Amiga-version is HANDS DOWN the best-looking version. I don't know what they did to the Apple IIGS-version, but it looks like they removed detail and added contrast and made things look more cartoony for some reason. Atari ST-version is completely messed up, DOS-version is also too contrasty and looks to be low-color.

They also changed the artist, I guess, because the DOS-version artist is guilty of the beginner's mistake of trying to use a pixel for every detail - I mean, every 'grass blade' and 'every leaf' on a tree. It's a very newbie mistake to make, as a true artist would rather IMPLY the large amount than try to DIRECTLY DRAW it. It seems the Amiga-version's artist KNEW this - the trees look like they have lots of leaves, but you can't discern INDIVIDUAL PIXELS depicting an individual leaf.

Well, this was just a sidenote, but yeah - your 'observation' is nothing but hokum - a rose-(or apple?-)tinted glasses-based opinion at best.

Laffer said:

Sadly the music is missing so it's not something I'd play normally, the music is a big part of what makes the LN games so good.

What's the point of saying a game is good, if the music is the thing making it good? Doesn't that just mean that game isn't so good in the first place?

The Last Ninja-games were exactly that; horrible gameplay, clunky controls, super tight precision requirements for jumps, ridiculously tedious to run around back and forth collecting this and that, and the isometric perspective makes things both claustrophobic and tedious - you also have to wait inbetween screens too long. If you go to the wrong place, good luck swallowing your expletives on your slow walk back. It takes too long for this master ninja to take out his weapon, and then this POWERFUL black-garment-in-daytime-genius master ninja dies from a tiny puddle or river! Can't handle water? Yeah, that's a good idea for a NINJA.

But because they had excellent graphics for their time, amazing musics (well, the C64-version of the first game anyway) and most importantly, rich and deep atmosphere that immersed you into the world and made you want to play for hours, people hypnotized themselves to believe that the WHOLE GAME is good, including the absolutely atrocious gameplay.

This is seen in your sentence, you WANT to say the truth, but your hypnotism prevents you to word it correctly, so you can only get half way - a music can't make any game good, or lack of it make a game bad. A game is good or bad SOLELY on the power of the gameplay.

It may be a good EXPERIENCE, just not a good GAME.

Would've been interesting to hear what the 'improved SID' could do with Last Ninja musics, though... a missed opportunity.

It's like wishing Rob Hubbard to fully utilize FM synths the same way he utilized the SID, and then getting the lackluster MIDI crap that doesn't even try to create cool-sounding instrumenrs for AdLib-versionof Budokan.. or listening to Nemesis the Warlock and Zoids, and then going to the PC side to listen to the lackluster 688 Attack Sub.

One can dream, but those dreams don't always come true..

ImmortalA1000 said:

I doubt very much Shadow of the Beast top level 1/Lotus II/Mega Typhoon and Unreal's 3D sections are possible on the IIGS. These are games a SNES with the same CPU could never do without a serious DSP inside the cart.

SNes doesn't have the same CPU as Amiga.

Do you mean 'Lotus Turbo Challenge 2", by the way? It doesn't use roman numerals, by the way.

Why would you think SNes couldn't do those things, the platform's game library is FULL of more impressive games, visually, aurally, and in 3D due to Mode 7. What the heck are you on about?

Are you talking about something like Starfox when you mention a DSP?

SNes does lack raw CPU power, and can't quite cope with 'true 3D' that well, but your statements go a bit overboard.

Just because a port is bad, doesn't mean the platform COULDN'T DO BETTER. As an Amigist, you should know this better than anyone..

Worst thing about the IIGS? The emulators are horrible!

That's like saying the worst thing about Ferrari are the photographers, they never take good pictures of it.

What? How is it the system's fault that some other platform's software doesn't suit to your overly-idealistic demands?

The emulators are NOT horrible, they run the games just fine, they support mouse, etc. Nothing wrong, except they don't allow to tinker with sound settings much.

Joystick via cursor keys in emulation?

Yes, please. Why not? Why would one key combination be better or worse than another, as long as it's not all over the place?

Cursor keys are designed to move things in all directions, what better place to use for joystick emulation? I REALLY don't get your 'criticism' (or opinion), and you don't bother to explain it.. what's the logic of this?

An emulator can be bad or horrible if it doesn't emulate the system properly. Apple IIGS-emulators do a good job in this, so you don't really get to insult them as 'horrible'. Your comment is more horrible than any emulator has ever been.

Based on every SNES 2.5D racing game

I know 'Doom' was called '2.5-Dimensional', because it didn't allow truly three-dimensional maps, because bridges were not possible - a player could never be on two separate heights at the same location, so you could never build a three-dimensional map, only a map you can see ALL of from above, so in that sense, it's two-dimensional. While the game is still projecting a nice three-dimensional view.

All '3D' games are really 2D projections of '3D' view anyway, it's like drawing a 'three-dimensional square' on paper. It's still just paper, and thus two-dimensional.

So "2.5-Dimensional" (how would you even draw HALF a dimension, what would that be?) doesn't really exist, and doesn't really make sense. There's no such thing as half-dimensional.

These 'racing games' are just as three-dimensional as Doom, or just as two-dimensional as Arkanoid, depending on how you view it, but they're not "2.5-Dimensional". What would even make them 'half-a-dimension below 3D' or 'half-a-dimension above 2D' anyway?

They're not Doom, they're giving 'impression of 3D' with some technique, what does it matter -what- that technique is?

I have seen it clearly can not do it. Top Gear is more like Lotus III on A500 really

Maybe you haven't seen them all, and have you ever played F-Zero?

Also, do you happen to mean Lotus III: The Ultimate Challenge by any chance?

There's also a sequel to Top Gear, by the way. That type of racing game wasn't really Super Famicom's best point, as its racing games were much better in Mode 7 and such. Regardless of what you think, Super Mario Kart and F-Zero are superior to all Amiga racing games in any case.

Regardless of if it can or cannot do it (absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence - just because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it CAN'T or COULDN'T be done - it just means that there are BETTER and more interesting ways of generating that kind of stuff on Super Famicom, and I think it's good that a platform's strengths are utilized instead of trying to make it do what it wasn't designed to do, regardless of if it CAN do it or not), it's a better system for playing racing and other action games.

You should've kept this Apple IIGs-only, that way, we wouldn't have to have this little debate. I can't have you unfairly insult Super Famicom without resistance.

After all, it's the Amiga of the consoles.

By the way, you're now saying Super Famicom CAN do the Lotus (Challenge) games, when you were JUST saying it can't..

and has nothing like the roadside objects of Lotus 2 or arcade quality

What the HECK is so special about roadside objects? Are you aware of Mode 7 and other scaling features that Super Famicom could easily fill the screen with that would make Amiga choke? Adding some useless 'roadside objects' would not be a problem for Super Famicom, are you kidding?

'arcade quality'? Err, now we're really sinking DEEP into opinionated bias. This is not a factual statement, this is a very opinion-based statement that can't be verified or nullified - WHO can define 'arcade quality' objectively?

In 3291 years from now, this question will still not have an answer.

By the way, do you mean "Lotus Turbo Challenge 2" by any chance? Why did you change the way you write it, from roman numerals to just a number?

2.5D update speed and smoothness.

There you go again with the '2.5D'. Is this a term you recently discovered that you just wanted to use as much as possbile, even if it makes no sense?

Update speed and smoothness? How do you define these? Super Famicom updates 60 fps. What can be more smooth than that?

How do you define 'smoothness'? That it doesn't 'jerk around'? Look at Amiga's racing games, they're not 100% smooth, either, Lotus (Challenge) games are a horrible letdown after playing something on a modern system - they look pretty jerky to the naked eye, almost like they're 10 or 15 fps.

Also, WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT? Top Gear is perfectly smooth - AT LEAST as smooth as Lotus games can ever dream to be.

Look at F-Zero and there goes your 'Amiga has arcade quality update speed and smoothness' out the window. Maybe I am wasting my time if you don't want to bring more coherence than this.

I would be interested to see a video of it running of course, happy to be proved wrong but there is no record of

Videos don't prove anything. You can't rely on their framerate to display anything correctly.

Lotus on SNES to be found on the internet let alone a youtube of a prototype rom running.

Did anyone claim 'Lotus on SNes' exists? And do you mean Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge, by any chance?

Look, I don't really get your point or what your problem against Super Famicom is. It's more capable than Amiga, even if we talk about AGA Amigas, to an extent. You need a beefed-up AGA Amiga to reach its level, and even still you can't play Chrono Trigger on that Amiga (unless you can somehow get fast-enough SNes emulation working).

NOTHING you have said proves or even hints that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do some 10 or 15fps obsolete Amiga racing game on Super Famicom. It would be useless and redundant, since Super Famicom already has BETTER and more playable racing games with better musics and atmosphere as well. Who cares if Top Gear (or the sequel) fits your weirdly nitpicky specifications, it proves that type of game can easily be done on the system, and I really can't believe you really think it couldn't have 'roadside objects' if someone tweaked it enough, etc.

Since you seem to think it's IMPOSSIBLE to make a Top Gear-game with roadside objects (so basically what already exists, plus a couple of sprites on top), I am curious to know; WHAT do you base this on? Absence of such a game?

Do you know something I don't know? Because to me it seems obvious that such a game would be 100% possible on Super Famicom, it's just that there's no point in making it, because it's not the optimal racing game, and better games already exist for the system. It would simply be a waste of time.

As an Amigist, you should know better anyway, than to proclaim IMPOSSIBILITY.. if a humble A500 can do it, surely a more modern Super Famicom designed specifically for games, can do it.

Amiga SotB has more than the SNES colour palette (which is not VGA style any 256 colours anywhere on screen in any combination either putting aside the inferior palette)

This doesn't even make any sense in english. What are you trying to say?

Amiga NOTHING has more colors than Super Famicom - Amiga's (and we're talking about Amiga 500 here) color amount is limited to exactly 4096, and you can't have a game that utilizes a HAM-mode, which is the only way to get all those colors on the screen, copperslides aside.

VGA is not a STYLE, by the way, it's an architecture.

"any 256 colours anywhere on screen" doesn't make any sense, do you mean 'any _OF_ the 256 colors'? Also, Super Famicom happens to have 32768 colors, which is _EIGHT_ times Amiga's MAXIMUM color amount (HAM-mode), so I REALLY don't know what you're on about.

Plus, Super Famicom can utilize VERY interesting features that you apparently are not familiar with - it can put a lot more than 256 colors on screen at a given time (and remember, those 256 can be selected from 32768 palette, not limited to Amiga's smaller 4096 palette).

Also, palette CAN'T BE _INFERIOR_! It can be bigger or smaller. What is it with you and your 'opinionated' words? Let's keep to facts, shall we? Don't slam, bash or insult, just use factual words, like 'fewer colors' instead of 'INFERIOR PALETTE'.

What's so 'inferior' about larger number of colors (32768), of which, 256 or MORE can be used freely on the screen, compared to smaller number of colors (4096), of which, only 16 or 32 can be used freely on the screen (halfbrite mode was probably never used for games, and its colors are not freely chosen).

I suggest you watch Chrono Trigger intro, and pay CLOSE attention to the enormous FROG spell, and then think how it was done (or even take screenshot and count the colors), and then tell me how to do that on Amiga..

If using emulator, maybe even slow it down so you can see the whole dynamics of a giant frog moving smoothly (your favorite vocabulary, right?) and freely on the screen, bouncing around with a blue-and-red, SMOOOTH 'copperslide' animating inside of it!

It moves as if the copperslide is staying still, so it looks like the copperslide moves in relation to the frog - while everything beautifully drawn in the background and foreground aren't disturbed at all.

How would you even do this on Amiga?

[Nishicorn]

and the sample engine works in a much more restrictive way on the SNES motherboard than Paula even though you feed it 16 bit samples.

How the heck do you turn a 'wild claim about Apple IIGS games compared to Amiga games'-thread into just merciless Super Famicom-bashing?

Please chill out. Restrictive way? Come on, Super Famicom's sound chip has DOUBLE the sound channels, 16-bit ADPCM, 32 kHz (Amiga has 22kHz), 16-bit (Amiga has 8-bit sound chip), inbuilt Gaussian interpolation for frequency scaling and modulation, 'echo', noise generation, etc..

Amiga's Paula is a good chip, I have no problem with it, but why do YOU have such a giant problem with everything Super Famicom?

These technical details don't even matter in the end. It only matters what people have done with them, and can't we appreciate different technologies instead of bashing them?

I love Amiga's sound chip, but in many ways, Super Famicom's sound chip IS more capable. What do you mean by 'more restrictive' anyway, can you give examples? What do you mean by 'feed it 16-bit samples'?

Just say you irrationally hate Super Famicom, and be done with it, you don't have to make everything so convoluted and unclear.

The end result is; Amiga has Turrican II musics, Super Famicom has Chrono Trigger. I think Super Famicom wins by hair, but I have no problem enjoying both. Why do you?

SotB to Amiga 1000 is Rescue on Fractalus to Atari 800. The top level is designed around the Amiga. All other versions look like PD games compared to the subtle elegance of the Amiga version. SNES can do SF2 better yes, SotB 1 no.

Why do you have to try to fight against systems instead of just appreciating both for what they are? No one is even making claims that you would have to refute, you seem to just love bashing the Super Famicom for some reason. And it's a great system with wonderful games, musics, atmospheres, etc., so there's no reason to do that.

There's so much to unpack here, I have to do this quote by quote..

SotB to Amiga 1000 is Rescue on Fractalus to Atari 800.

First of all, why Amiga 1000, when most people had Amiga 500s?

Also, how the heck are you comparing a game to a system? Maybe you mean to say something like 'Rescue on Fractalus was better on Atari 800 than on the C64 the same way Shadow of the Beast is better on the Amiga 500 than on the Super Famicom'?

Look, please realize that a bad port doesn't mean anything about a system's capabilities, it's not PROOF.

Even C64's Rescue on Fractalus could've been done a LOT better, it's even missing the intro and other such elements.

These ports are often quick cashgrabs, they're not carefully being crafted to take full advantage of each platform. They make a 'low port' first, then port from that as quickly as possible to other platforms.

The top level is designed around the Amiga.

"around the Amiga"? You mean 'to take advantage of Amiga's capabilities specifically'?

You mean 'the first level' or 'the ground area'?

So what? Who cares how it was designed. And you seem to be admitting that it matters how people design something, instead of it being the system's fault..right?

All other versions look like PD games compared to the subtle elegance of the Amiga version.

How can your claims be taken seriously when you pepper them with this kind of biased, subjective, opinionated dogma?

PD games can look really good, play really well, and sound amazing. What are you talking about? Some of the best games are PD games. Many good games are released as PD games later.

This kind of removes any validity from your post, because ragging on PD scene is an ignorant thing to do, when it has so many gems in it.

What the heck is 'subtle elegance'? It's a computer game. It has no 'subtle elegance'. Sure, it looks and sounds good, it scrolls well, but it also has a tiny screen and washed-out look when it comes to the graphics, and the sprites look like someone glued cut-outs from a paper to a painting. It looks like someone tried to make 'epic graphics', but then decided to go as pastel as they can, and the end result doesn't quite gel.

It has a nice atmosphere sometimes, cool musics and sounds, but 'subtle elegance' is 100% opinion, biased and subjective. Try something more factual, please.

Or.. are you saying that Super Famicom somehow technically blocks 'subtlety' and 'elegance', and thus it's IMPOSSIBLE to make 'subtle elegance' in Super Famicom?

Have you ever even played any Super Famicom games, because I can tell you, the forest song of Chrono Trigger alone has more 'subtle elegance' than Shadow of the Beast can even dream of (whatever 'subtle elegance' means anyway).

I mean, I could talk on this level, too, but what if we just talk about more factual things instead of your hateful, toxic, unfair tirade against a perfectly good, respectable and fun game system, huh?

My points are as follows, and these have no opinionated bashing involved:

- Amiga is a great machine, but it's best to talk about Amiga 500s, since that was the popular machine

- I love Amiga's sound chip

- Super Famicom's sound chip is technically more advanced and can do more, and larger and more 'epic' things - even if its memory is a bit on the low side, and Amiga can sometimes surpass it in other things

- Shadow of the Beast, including its "top level", is perfectly possible and doable on Super Famicom

- Lotus Turbo Challenge 2 would be completely feasible on Super Famicom, but there's no point, since better racing games exist for it already - the difference would be, it could do music AND audio simultaneously due to more sound channels

- Rescue on Fractalus could've been done better on the C64, which means that Top Gear and Shadow of the Beast could've been done better on Super Famicom

- Let's APPRECIATE these systems instead of bashing or focusing on 'what can't be done' - it's a toxic and childish attitude, frankly, when we could look at WHAT HAS BEEN DONE and appreciate that.

Instead of focusing on whether a game could be done on Super Famicom, why not instead play the AMAZINGLY EXCELLENT games that have already been done for Super Famicom, like Ninja Warriors, Chrono Trigger, F-Zero, Super Mario Kart, Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, Pilot Wings, Super Castlevania IV, Super Bomberman (1-5), Gradius III, Legend of Zelda, Parodius, Kiki Kaikai (1 and 2), Contra III, Megaman games, Starfox, Joe&Mac, Super Aleste or even Desert Strike!

Ok, I know the Amiga version of Desert Strike is better (I hope you feel like a real winner now), but Super Famicom-version is still good, and it's actually slightly faster.

I think it's really weird nitpicking, EVEN if you were correct, to focus SO MUCH on what's 'restrictive' and what 'a system cannot do', when you could rather be actually enjoying what wonderful miracles HAVE been done for the system.

In my opinion, your comments and Super Famicom-bashing does NOT take away these wonderful games and possibilities the Super Famicom offers, so why not rather just ENJOY the Super Famicom experience than bash it?

Enjoying games is better than bashing systems for non-existent games, wouldn't you agree?

(I don't get this platform-based hostility, I love all kinds of different platforms, I love playing Atari 800 games and then hopping to C64 games, I love Atari ST and Amiga, I love Super Famicom and Sega Dreamcast.. why limit yourself and be angry and hateful when you can just ENJOY all these systems? I don't get it, why punish yourself like that?)

P.S. Forgot to mention Magical Drop 2, Uno, Sunset Riders, King of Dragons, Lamborghini: American Challenge (you should like this one), etc..

P.P.S. Forgot to also mention that even the Commodore 64 can do the 'top level' of Shadow of the Beast - saying that C64 can do something Super Famicom can't, is just RIDICULOUS.

P.P.P.S. I should've just said ONE thing against your whole 'Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge' tirade.. "Nigel Mansell's F1- Challenge". Have you ever SEEN that thing? First of all, it looks and sounds SUPERB. Amiga doesn't have a game like that (Maybe 'Vroom' comes the closest?). It's PLAYABILITY, however, is the most wonderful thing about it, and if you are not convinced of Super Famicom's racing game capabilities after playing that, then nothing can ever convince you, but you'd still be wrong.

To add, look! It has the HOLY GRAIL of racing games; ROADSIDE OBJECTS! Besides having a 'better-looking road-effect', better sense of speed, and yet containing all the elements like tunnels and uphills/downhills, it can also play music WHILE also playing sound effects (what "Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge"-game can do that?). It also seems the framerate is higher, but I could be wrong.

Now do you see the ludicrousness of claiming 'Super Famicom can't do roadside objects' (and why would it not be able to do it, and why claim something so ARBITRARY?)

[touko]

For 3D you have silpheed,the 2GS has a chunky display,so it help a lot:
[ Show youtube player ]

Amiga's Paula is a good chip, I have no problem with it, but why do YOU have such a giant problem with everything Super Famicom?

In a chipset point of view, the snes's audio is way better than paula, but, the limited audio RAM(64ko), and the way how the CPU and Audio CPU communicate together, are a big limitating factor and makes paula to have a better sound .

[Foebane]

People forget that Paula is not strictly an 8-bit sound chip, it does have a 14-bit mode, although that's more for non-modular sound WAVs (in stereo or not) than anything else.

But for general abilities for audio, Paula is THE ultimate general 8-bit sound chip, and that's saying a LOT.

[saimon69]

I don't see anything that an A500 could not do there with silpheed

[touko]

Originally Posted by saimon69

I don't see anything that an A500 could not do there with silpheed

Yeah of course, it was not the point, but just to show that the 3D is possible and exists,some weaker computers like C64 or apple2 can do 3d games, so why not the 2 GS,which is more powerfull and helped by a chunky display .

[drHirudo]

The video in the op post is from 2010 in 480p 25 or 30 fps. YouTube never supported 50 or 60 fps in anything lower than 720p. If you want to see some of the shown Apple IIGS games in better light, you can check my longplays of Arkanoid:
[ Show youtube player ]
and Zany Golf:
[ Show youtube player ]

Also I played Defender of the Crown.
[ Show youtube player ]

These games on the Amiga are much better in playability and graphics wise, but still the IIGS is a nice machine that can play most Apple II games and has some unique 16-bit game ports like Wolfenstein 3D, which never got official Amiga port.
The CPU is 16-bit successor of the 6502, which can switch to native 8-bit mode. The same CPU was used in the SNES may be for backwards compatibility reasons.
Regarding the sound chip in the machine, it is a successor of the legendary SID. From Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIGS

The Apple IIGS's sound is provided by an Ensoniq 5503 Digital Oscillator Chip (DOC) wavetable synthesis chip designed by Bob Yannes, creator of the SID synthesizer chip used in the Commodore 64

So it is more like 16-bit SID than Paula competitor. They are in different leagues.

Which reminds me to do some more Apple IIGS longplays, like Rastan, which also didn't got official Amiga port.