What Makes The Amiga CD32 The Best Amiga?

[roondar]

The MD does not have any special abilities for moving or scaling/rotating sprites.
In fact, on both machines rotation of sprites is generally done by either pre-rendering (in which case neither really has an advantage) or by using the CPU to rotate the sprite (in which case the much faster CPU of the A1200/CD32 will be an advantage for sure).

It can normally display more sprites though, this is certainly true.

[sokolovic]

Yeah.
And, once again the fact that the Amiga had 8 hardware sprites doesn't means it is limitated to only 8 moving object on screen at once. Of course the MD have many more HW sprites but TFIV isn't a maniac shooter with gazillions of sprites and bullets covering the whole screen at once and neither is particularly colorful nor huge (game rom is 700Kb).

BTW, saying that this game "could maybe" be doable on an AGA Amiga doesn't make it a bad game or reduce its qualities.

[Gilbert]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

How on Earth did you manage to drag Saturn into this? My "such as using SotB port for MD" obviously means Shadow Of The Beast port for MegaDrive, because that was one of your examples. Also, it does not matter what CD32 could do, but what has (not) been done.

It's not a "legitimate" issue, because it was never an issue to start with, not when it mattered most - back then - and not now either. "OMG, SNES has lower res than the other lot, I sure as hell am not buying it!" - said nobody, ever. What matters is the quality of actually released software, not an amount of pixels something theoretically can render.

Using you inane logic of cherrypicking out of context tech specs and factoids, to prove that something was allegedly the greatest leads to amusing conclusions. Eg, surely Jaguar was the greatest console of that time, since it was "64 bit"? And the greatest Amiga was A4000, since it had muh MHz?

Right. Let's forget the handicap of being released 4 years later, it's a tiny detail. Please name 9 CD32 exclusives which "smash MD into pieces". You'd struggle to do this even using the original Amiga library, but since you're trying to prove CD32 is the greatest, you're only allowed to use its native games (and because for the 399USD launch money I'm pretty sure I could buy an A500 and Megadrive, thus rendering CD32 backward compatibility irrelevant)

I'm sure you can conjure some more "arguments" and we'll finally see the light. Keep on keeping on, it's quite entertaining

Ah ok I think you meant Gunstar Heroes (you said Guardian Heroes) and MD Castlevania. I don't remember either game being popular at the time tbh. I have played a little of Gunstar Heroes (i didn't get much past the first boss) and although I liked it I found it a bit too unrelenting/intense. I like the Contra or Metal Slug style of run n gun. Watching a video now, I don't see anything in Gunstar Heroes that the CD32 couldn't do though. Which part of the game were you thinking of?

My point about Shadow of the Beast and Rainbow Islands was purely technical - is that if the Megadrive can't beat those old A500 games - how can it beat a machine 3-4 times as powerful with 32 bit power, 4096 color FMV and CD quality music? The Megadrive might as well give up and bury itself in the desert next to those ET carts...

I think we actually agree here- that the Megadrive and SNES have better games but that the CD32 is technically superior. I have NEVER said the CD32 has better games than the Megadrive or SNES. All my points have been technical. The CD32 never got started - so there is no way it could have better games than any successful system. It is worth noting it is the only Amiga that can play every Amiga game (without expansion) because of it's powerful Akiko chip and CD Drive

As for the Jaguar it would have been easily outclassed by the CD64. It's a good system though if you like Amiga because a lot of the 3D games (Cybermorph, Iron Soldier) play like enhanced versions of Amiga-style 3D games. This style of gameplay was lost on Playstation and Saturn.

Originally Posted by DamienD

OMG, you are sooooo deluded

Not a chance in hell could the CD32 do ThunderForce IV.

We are not dealing with "what ifs" here... get back to reality.

Games on the CD32 were exactly as you've said, A500 / A1200 games with audio... Wow!!! Nothing special at all.

There's already a homebrew game on this forum Boss Machine that isn't too far away... (this is just an early demo)

[ Show youtube player ]

I don't see anything in Thunderforce 4 that the CD32 can't do. What do you see that I don't? You are coming across like a CD32-hater here dude.

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Well, in Gilbert defense...
I'd choose CD32 over Genesis anytime, simply because I can attach keyboard, mouse, HD, and get nice A1200 with CD Rom.
That way I could play games like Civilization, and other strategy games, or flight sims, or any gender that was lacking on consoles.
Hell, I could start Lightwave, Real 3D, create and render animations, or paint in Deluxe Paint.

What other console can do that?

Yes agreed! - as a productivity console/computer the CD32 beats all consoles, and you can play the deeper style game on it like you say. And even play your chart CDs too!

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

I think we actually agree here- that the Megadrive and SNES have better games but that the CD32 is technically superior.

Now, I'm not dreadnought. But I'm still quite sure that was not what he meant.

[DamienD]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

There's already a homebrew game on this forum Boss Machine that isn't too far away... (this is just an early demo)

[ Show youtube player ]

Yes, I know Boss Machine. It will definitely be good but can't see it getting near the level of Thunderforce IV.

I'm sure the guys will try though

Originally Posted by Gilbert

I don't see anything in Thunderforce 4 that the CD32 can't do. What do you see that I don't?

I don't have time to go into this, but it should be obvious.

Originally Posted by Gilbert

You are coming across like a CD32-hater here dude.

No, I'm just a realist, not a fanboy and love the A500 or A1200 much more than the mediocre, flimsy, lack of original / good games CD32.

There are a handful, maybe 10 if lucky games that are ok... but nothing like anything on a MD or SNES.

[Gilbert]

Originally Posted by DamienD

I don't have time to go into this, but it should be obvious.

Is it the part where all the music and sound effects stop so it can play speech samples?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from CD32 Developer Manual from Commodore and shows comparison with MegaCD. Don't forget CD32 has 128 sprites really. The MegaCD + Megadrive may be more powerful in some areas but the standard Megadrive would get crushed.

[DamienD]

Here you go again with silly stats... stats don't really the show the capabilities of systems

I'm sooooo bored of this stupid / pointless thread and your overwhelming fanboyism for the worst, cheapest Amiga of all time.

I'm out

[str0m]

I love Amiga's and have 25+ different consoles, the CD32 is just not as good as you think Gilbert

Next you will say that going by your post above, it has better texture mapped 3D than the 3DO

I'm sure more could have been done with it but there's a reason the MD and SNES sold so many.....

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

That spec comparison is ludicrously misleading. It's plainly wrong in many areas.

So just to help you out (and others who might think it's correct), here's a small list of the inaccuracies in the spec sheet above. It's a bit harsh perhaps, but I think it's long overdue to add some truth and accuracy to this discussion rather than keeping up wishful thinking. Understand, this is not meant to be personal. It's just that these kind of nonsense spec sheets are a pet peeve of mine.

• The CD32 does not display 256.000 colours in games at all. You're lucky if the games actually manage to use 256 colours (most CD32 games run in 64 colours or less). Meanwhile, the statistics mentioned for the Sega regarding colours on screen is actually what you really get in games. Highly misleading.
• The Processor comparison is similarly misleading, the 68020 in the CD32 does not manage 3.5MIPS unless you also add fast memory to the system (which is not how the system was sold so it's basically a lie), otherwise it's closer to 1.5-1.7MIPS. The Sega CD's 68000's both do about 0.5-0.7 MIPS, so combined they're closer to 1.0-1.4MIPS.
• The CD32 does not normally draw "7 million pixels per second" and certainly doesn't get anywhere near that in 256 colours. That statistic really is complete nonsense. It's clearly based on the theoretical performance of the Blitter assuming the screen is running in very few colours (like between 2 and 8 max) and it's only copying data. In the real world, the figure is much lower. It's even lower if you want to draw anything useful like bobs.
• The amount of pixels the Sega CD can draw per frame is not all that relevant to begin with as the graphics system of the Sega works very differently. What's relevant is that the CD32 will not be able to update all the pixels on the screen every single frame if it runs in anything over about 8 colours on screen, whereas the Sega system usually can - thanks to it's tile based approach. This is also a key reason for why so many Sega games feature animating background elements, while that is much rarer on the CD32.
• The Sprites being 32 or 64 bit is not really relevant, what is far more relevant is the amount of them. Bobs are nice, but you'll struggle to display more than 15-20 or so of any reasonable size (say 32x32). Sprites on the CD32 won't be enough to make up the difference in all but outliers.
• The claims about resolution are also misleading. Almost all Amiga games run at or below 320x256. The Amiga's hires mode (640x512) is not usable in games unless you have a flicker fixer or like headaches. The Sega CD isn't actually limited to 320x224 to begin with, as just like the Amiga it too supports interlace (though, just like the Amiga it's rarely used because well, headaches).
• Even the part about video playback is wrong. The CD32 can actually do better here than Commodore claims (it's not limited to 4096 colours), but then again the Mega CD can also do better than what Commodore claims.

Oh and by the way, I love the Amiga in all of it's forms. This is not intended as a "I hate the CD32" post in any way.

I program the Amiga for fun and try out all kinds of hardware banging stuff. It's a really rewarding environment to code for. But please, don't make all these weird claims. It's not the 1990's any more, we know what the CD32 can and can't do and these spec sheets are frankly not accurate. They're clearly meant to make uninformed individuals/consumers think their system is better than it actually is.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

I don't see anything in Gunstar Heroes that the CD32 couldn't do though. Which part of the game were you thinking of?

Sigh.... Boss, it's really not about what CD32 could or couldn't do (nevermind that you not seeing it does not mean it could). It's about what it actually has done, and it really ain't much. Comparably, Megadrive has done a lot.

Originally Posted by Gilbert

My point about Shadow of the Beast and Rainbow Islands was purely technical - is that if the Megadrive can't beat those old A500 games - how can it beat a machine 3-4 times as powerful with 32 bit power, 4096 color FMV and CD quality music? The Megadrive might as well give up and bury itself in the desert next to those ET carts...

I don't mind people being fanboys, I also could be described as such in regard to few things. The problem appears when they start using unfair or made up arguments to support the fanboyism. Here we have the former: a) you seem to think some ports are fair representation of a system strength b) you think it's fair to compare machines released within 4 years of each other (back then it was actually much bigger gap regarding tech progress than now).

Following your logic, Xbox X "crushes" PS4. Who'd've thunk?

But even disregarding these absurdisms, I think MD holds up fairly well against A1200/CD32 (and whatever it was allegedly capable of...*eyeroll*)
It is well known A1200 wasn't exactly cutting edge at the time of release, so that probably helped.

And to cap it off, CD32 was/is not a best Amiga. It takes much more than a dry spec sheet to take this crown, which, as somebody pointed out many pages ago, belongs to A500.

Originally Posted by roondar

Now, I'm not dreadnought. But I'm still quite sure that was not what he meant.

Tbh, I don't actually know about the tech side - this is your and the other experts territory

I know MD/ SNES were superior when you consider all the factors, and that includes price, ergonomics, software library, release year etc. Specs -wise, relevant to gamedev? Over to you.

Perhaps it'd make more sense/fairness to compare CD32 to some of its contemporaries, such as Neo Geo CD or Jaguar. SNES...okay, but MD? It's a machine from previous decade.

I think if this thread was started as "What CD32 was really capable of?", without the fallacious title and desperate neediness, it'd be much more interesting, as were some of the more technical posts so far.

[sokolovic]

Love the DSP "planned" for the CD32

Also it doesn't have 8kb of non volatile RAM

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Tbh, I don't actually know about the tech side - this is your and the other experts territory

I know MD/ SNES were superior when you consider all the factors, and that includes price, ergonomics, software library, release year etc. Specs -wise, relevant to gamedev? Over to you.

Well, you can easily argue that the AGA Amiga's should be better at games that rely less on raw graphics speed and more on either tricks/effects/wider palettes or on slower paced gameplay that doesn't suit consoles much (though the CD32 will need a mouse/keyboard for that to be workable). I'd say you could actually hold that view quite well and be accurate in doing so. But most of these comparisons centre around action games or raw graphical speed and the Sega/Nintendo hardware is just much better suited for that stuff.

Perhaps it'd make more sense/fairness to compare CD32 to some of its contemporaries, such as Neo Geo CD or Jaguar. SNES...okay, but MD? It's a machine from previous decade.

That'd be a short discussion
Even the SNES has better specs for gaming in almost all areas that are relevant. I suppose the Sega MDCD would be viable though, as it's from the same year.

It kind of echoes how I've always felt that comparing the OCS Amiga to the MD/SNES wasn't really fair as those machines were released much later and crucially came after some technologies that the Amiga lacks (mainly dual port VRAM, which makes a huge difference) had become feasible for use in the home market.

I think if this thread was started as "What CD32 was really capable of?", without the fallacious title and desperate neediness, it'd be much more interesting, as were some of the more technical posts so far.

Oh yes indeed, that could be quite interesting. Not just from a tech perspective, but also in a wider discussion about the difference between what is possible and what we actually got (and why this difference exists, which is to say - it has a lot less to do with the technology/hardware of the system and a lot more to do with how games were made for the consoles vs the home computers).

As is, this thread is a bit too much for me to be comfortable with (hence my 'rant' just now ). I'd prefer an honest look at systems and not one that is fanboy based. Which, incidentally, goes both ways so I'm often not too keen on posts/threads that seemingly go out of their way to make the Amiga seem as bad as they possible can.

[EAUniW]

The CD32 is a stunted 1200, fight me.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by roondar

It kind of echoes how I've always felt that comparing the OCS Amiga to the MD/SNES wasn't really fair as those machines were released much later and crucially came after some technologies that the Amiga lacks

Indeed, it isn't fair.
But shows how OCS's Amigas are awesome.

I think it's because you get to choose any of 32 colors, from the impressive palette of 4096 colors. This is HUUUGEEEEEE.
Correct me if I am wrong but Sega and Snes had much more colors (number on screen), but they are all predefined. You don't get to choose from wider palette. Right?
So, a very skilled artist can use this to advantage, and with carefully color planning, can make awesome designs and look.
Very unique, and very different look, in every new project.

In the eyes of someone who uses 8-bit machines before (me included), difference between A500, Sega or Snes was not drastic in terms of what you see on the screen. They all were very colorful and nice.
I said it before, and I'll say this again. The likes of Ruff'n'Tumble would be (and should be), if done for Sega or SNES considered as top title, that both consoles could be proud of.

So, "it's not fair comparison", I'll change to a: "OCS Amiga deserves comparison, because how awesome it is".

[roondar]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

ICorrect me if I am wrong but Sega and Snes had much more colors (number on screen), but they are all predefined. You don't get to choose from wider palette. Right?

No, this is wrong. The colours are not predefined on MD/SNES.

The Mega Drive has a 512 colour palette, just like the Atari ST it allows you to select colours using a 9 bits palette (= 3 bits per channel = R,G,B range between 0 and 7). The OCS Amiga has a 4096 colour palette, this is a 12 bit palette (=4 bits per channel = R,G,B range between 0 and 15).

The SNES has a 32768 colour palette. This is a 15 bit palette (=5 bits per channel = R,G,B range between 0 and 31).

So the OCS Amiga's can display more shades of colours than the MD, which allows for more subtle grades of colours. But the SNES can display more shades of colours than OCS Amiga's, so it allows for even more subtle grades of colours.

[d4rk3lf]

Thanks for clarification.

Snes is so more advanced then MD, yet, you don't see visually that much on screen.
Probably on gradient scenes is most noticeable, but on everything else, they look similar.

I feel OCS is right there on the edge... 32 colors (16+16) are barely enough to show powerful palette. But it shows often. But with double the colors on screen (64), I guess it would be much more closer to Aga looks.
I don't think you can see much difference between 64VS128, or even less 128VS256, as you can see in 32VS64, or even more extremely 16vs32.

So.. 32 colors are right there... on the very edge

[Gilbert]

I don't have time to write a proper reply tonight but feel everyone is skirting round the fact that Megadrive and SNES both have a 16 color limit per tile.... so the specs about how many colors both machines can display onscreen are very misleading. Because you can't put those colors where you want.

Why only pick on the CD32?

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

Why only pick on the CD32?

LOL.
As mentioned million times already - nobody is picking on CD32, and many people (including me) love that console as an Amiga part, and legacy.
It's just, we can't claim is the best stuff ever invented, or best Amiga, 'cos it isn't.

Now I really think you're just trolling us.
Joking with us.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by roondar

The SNES has a 32768 colour palette. This is a 15 bit palette (=5 bits per channel = R,G,B range between 0 and 31).

So the OCS Amiga's can display more shades of colours than the MD, which allows for more subtle grades of colours. But the SNES can display more shades of colours than OCS Amiga's, so it allows for even more subtle grades of colours.

And AGA has 8 bits per channel, so it's even better than the SNES. With AGA you can display 256 shades of gray, the others can't. Even VGA can't can't do it (only 6 bits per channel).

AGA can display photorealistic images in Hires Ham8. The consoles can't. So of course you never saw such imagery in Megadrive games, both because it couldn't do it and the images would take up too much ROM space. Add a MegaCD and you had the storage capacity, but then you had to spend another £270 (almost the the price of a CD32) on top of the console itself.

But of course areas where the CD32 is better will be dismissed because the standard is defined as what the consoles are best at - moving lots of sprites and tiles around quickly - and the games are defined as best when they are tuned to that hardware. Only problem is, some us don't think that is what makes good games. I got to play with the Megadrive when we sold them in my shop, but quickly got bored with it. I never would have bought one for myself as it was far too limiting and the games were boring.

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Perhaps it'd make more sense/fairness to compare CD32 to some of its contemporaries, such as Neo Geo CD or Jaguar. SNES...okay, but MD? It's a machine from previous decade.

The CD32 competed directly against The Megadrive with CD. The MegaCD was introduced in the UK on April 2, 1993. The CD32 was released in Sept 1993. Neo Go CD was released in Europe on December 3, 1994, over a year later. Jaguar CD was released in September 1995. SNES-CD was never released.

[Foebane]

What gets me is why would the CD32 be considered the best Amiga by Gilbert and others if even the physical design feels cheap and even rushed?

Unlike consoles like the NES, SNES and MegaDrive, the CD32 has its power switch on the back. It's a step-up from the Amiga computers like the A500 and A1200 that don't even HAVE power switches on the machines themselves, but they sill could've put the button on the top or otherwise easily accessible like the consoles mentioned.

The CD32 CD tray mechanism is another problem: The base and the LID clamp onto the disc and enable it to spin, which is not very reliable compared to the original PlayStation that lets the user clip the disc onto the base, and shut the lid afterwards, and the lid has no physical contact with the disc. Fine if the lid on the CD32 fits well, but is prone to slipping, resulting in users having to place a fairly heavy object on top of the CD32 lid to allow for better grip of the disc, as demonstrated by the Angry Video Game Nerd with a paint can. Humiliating for a cheap option.

There are probably other problems, too, like how reliable is the edge connector for the FMV expansion module or other expansion modules?