Any game better on C64 than Amiga?

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by gimbal

Interesting. What was missing from Crack Down? I'm racking my brain, but nothing comes to mind that I found particularly missing.

the Amiga version was borked in 3 months, the intro is half missing and also the ending, not even counting the mastering error !

[ransom1122]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

It's a crap game, but yes, ok

Yeah I know it's really bad. But c64 version of vixen looks like it runs smoother.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Cpt. Hindsight

Why did I expect to see this ending in a C64 vs CPC debate beforehand? Well...

Complete with members on both sides of that divide claiming their opinions as unbiased facts (while claiming the other side's facts are just faulty opinion of course)

With that in mind, I've stopped discussing anything CPC vs C64 related.

---
Getting back on topic, I'd (in general) say that the Amiga versions of games usually looked better than their C64 counterparts, though they often ran worse.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that frame rate shouldn't be the only metric of comparison and I would mostly agree with that - but only to a certain point. Poor frame rates can and in fact do negatively impact the gameplay experience quite severely (Outrun anyone? That port would be much better if it ran at 25FPS, even with the otherwise wonky graphics & sound ).

Personally I find action/arcade style games consistently running under 20-25fps to be borderline unplayable (which is part of why I never liked the Amiga version of Blood Money), there is just so much lag you start to really 'feel' it.



However, even if I try to only look at gameplay and try to ignore frame rate and other visual/aural aspects (as far as this is possible of course - we're all biased after all), I still feel that games that were available on both (and were not Arcade ports) tended to play better on the C64.

A few examples of this in action: Creatures, Armalyte, Wizball, The Last Ninja series, Blood Money, Katakis/Denaris.

Looking at Arcade ports, I don't really agree the Amiga did better there than the C64. If I look at ports on both systems I generally find the C64 version to play closer to how the Arcade played. IMHO of course.


Fun fact: there are even some games on the C64 that have more content than their Amiga counterparts, while playing more or less identically. Notably both Amiga Turrican and Turrican II miss some things compared to the C64 version (the former missing more than the latter).

[dlfrsilver]

Getting back on topic, I'd (in general) say that the Amiga versions of games usually looked better than their C64 counterparts, though they often ran worse.

Of course, since a big chunck of them were back ported from the ST.

there's no surprise here.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that frame rate shouldn't be the only metric of comparison and I would mostly agree with that - but only to a certain point. Poor frame rates can and in fact do negatively impact the gameplay experience quite severely (Outrun anyone? That port would be much better if it ran at 25FPS, even with the otherwise wonky graphics & sound ).

The most famous ST port on earth

Personally I find action/arcade style games consistently running under 20-25fps to be borderline unplayable (which is part of why I never liked the Amiga version of Blood Money), there is just so much lag you start to really 'feel' it.

25fps or under are hard to bear with on computer that are fast like the Amiga.

However, even if I try to only look at gameplay and try to ignore frame rate and other visual/aural aspects (as far as this is possible of course - we're all biased after all), I still feel that games that were available on both (and were not Arcade ports) tended to play better on the C64.

It happens on some titles, but there is no absolute rules.

Looking at Arcade ports, I don't really agree the Amiga did better there than the C64.

In quite a number of games hopefully it did the Amiga was the strongest of the western computers..... the C64 is just an 8 bits machine.

If I look at ports on both systems I generally find the C64 version to play closer to how the Arcade played. IMHO of course.

do you have examples ? shadow dancer ? the amiga version matches the arcade more than the C64 version, and by far, alien storm, samey, midnight resistance, as well, Ghosts'n'Goblins, samey, turbo out run, samey.

And then, you always have the exceptions confirming the rules.

Fun fact: there are even some games on the C64 that have more content than their Amiga counterparts, while playing more or less identically. Notably both Amiga Turrican and Turrican II miss some things compared to the C64 version (the former missing more than the latter).

i own turrican I and II on C64, what are the things that the Amiga miss on this title ?

[hansel75]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

In 1989, the ST was the lead platform at Ocean. Sorry
It's not the first time a game on Amiga has some assets missing

If what your saying is true, I guess the extra floppy space that was used for the superior audio on the Amiga versions was the reason a few other assets were cut. In Batman's case, I would rather a better soundtrack/SFX full of sampled sound over a few cutscene pics.

Originally Posted by roondar

Personally I find action/arcade style games consistently running under 20-25fps to be borderline unplayable.

Stay away from CPC action/arcade games then, as 90% of them run at a way lower fps then that.
Now ducks for cover

On topic, Bangkok knights, The Untouchables, Renegade, Shinobi, I think the C64 versions were better then the Amiga versions.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Of course, since a big chunck of them were back ported from the ST.

there's no surprise here.

I'm not just referring to ST ports, though. Plenty of Amiga games after the 'ST port era' ran at 25FPS as well. This just wasn't really a thing on the C64*.

*) apart from '3d' racing games, which usually had abysmal frame rates on the C64.

25fps or under are hard to bear with on computer that are fast like the Amiga.

25FPS is a borderline case, IMHO. It can work, but is definitely not ideal. It gets better with the Amiga 'update player @50Hz using sprites' trick though. At any rate, I personally find anything below 25FPS to be no good for action games - irrespective of what computer it runs on.

It happens on some titles, but there is no absolute rules.

Indeed, which is why it wrote they tended to do so, not that all of them did - though I suspect we'd disagree on what 'some' would mean

In quite a number of games hopefully it did the Amiga was the strongest of the western computers..... the C64 is just an 8 bits machine.

How many bits a machine is has very little to do with it's ability to create playable games or accurate conversions from a gameplay perspective, though.

do you have examples ? shadow dancer ? the amiga version matches the arcade more than the C64 version, and by far, alien storm, samey, midnight resistance, as well, Ghosts'n'Goblins, samey, turbo out run, samey.

Sure, just watch the Retro Core YouTube channel, where lots of Arcade games get compared between systems. The C64 usually 'beats' the Amiga for playability in those comparisons. Now, obviously one man's opinion is not 'undisputed fact', but he seems to do a fairly unbiased overview of each game.

Do note I'm talking about gameplay matching up here, obviously the Amiga will tend to have better graphics & sound.

i own turrican I and II on C64, what are the things that the Amiga miss on this title ?

Here's what I remember of the top of my head:

Turrican I has an extra boss fight on the first vertically scrolling stage that is absent in the Amiga version. I seem to remember the optional boss on level 1-3 being different or even absent on the Amiga, but I'm not 100% on that one. It also has several secret areas that are not in the Amiga version and several other differences in the map. Edit: the C64 version also has a longer speech intro (disk version only).

Turrican II has a number of secret areas missing or different on the Amiga. Some of the bosses are also slightly different. For instance, the spinning head in level 2-1 is much harder and ends up flying around the screen (AFAIR the Amiga version doesn't do this). Obviously, it also has a very different last level (it's vertical shoot em up on C64 and a more 'standard' level on the Amiga).

From a graphics/sound perspective, Turrican I & II also miss a lot of the 'parallax' scrolling the C64 features (as well as the wonderful water effect found in Turrican I levels 2-1/2-1 and the equally brilliant water effect the C64 features in Turrican II level 2-1 "The Great Bath"), though the C64 obviously misses the music on most stages.

[saimon69]

Am pretty surprised nobody mentioned how good Sinbad became on the c64 compared to the Amiga version, that was one of the first games coded on the platform

[DamienD]

Originally Posted by saimon69

Am pretty surprised nobody mentioned how good Sinbad became on the c64 compared to the Amiga version, that was one of the first games coded on the platform

Yup, Sinbad and the Throne of the Falcon on the Amiga is a totally different game and complete rubbish... I have mentioned this sometime ago in other threads.

The Atari ST version though, is apparently exactly like the C64 version but with better graphics

...wish someone would port this version over to the Amiga

[Cpt. Hindsight]

One more game comes to my mind...Pirates!

Who thought it was a good idea to make the map non-scrolling?

I can't count the reefs, I accidentally hit cause of screen flipping. x[

[malko]

Originally Posted by DamienD

Yup, Sinbad and the Throne of the Falcon on the Amiga is a totally different game and complete rubbish... I have mentioned this sometime ago in other threads.

The Atari ST version though, is apparently exactly like the C64 version but with better graphics

...wish someone would port this version over to the Amiga

Far not the best Cinemaware, I agree but... rubbish... you are tough .
I still have the box somewhere I think.

[DamienD]

Definitely the worst Cinemaware game IMHO on the Amiga.

Have you played the C64 version? So different and much more fun

[malko]

No, never played the C64 version.
Had a quick look on youtube and the game presentation differs between the C64 & Amiga. Gfx and music are really nice on the C64 !
With about the same game system, I preferred and played to end "King of Chicago".

[haynor666]

Uridium is worse on Atari ST. C64 version was much better.

[Sgt Jack V]

Turrican has a mini-boss in 3-1 not present in the Amiga version and Turrican 2 has a lot of different stuff seen in this video here:
[ Show youtube player ]

(God, I wish I could actually embed Youtube videos here)

[donnie]

Two things that makes the amiga turrican much supperior imho:

turrican c64 has no music. This is a total deal breaker.

Weird "rubberband" scrolling. It has a to large dead zone before the screen starts to scroll. especially vertically. It becomes really weird when you jump diagonally.