Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.  

While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was like for
comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke as far as gameplay
& graphics, for a 16-bit system.

review and picture of Amiga Ghouls 'n Ghosts
http://www.classicgaming.com/amigareviews/ghoulsng.htm

picture comparasion of Arcade and X68000 Ghouls 'n Ghosts
http://nfg.2y.net/games/X68k/


more pictures of the X68000 Ghouls 'n Ghosts (download it!)
http://www.emulatronia.com/reportajes/x68000/x68-ghouls.htm

Anyone that is familar with the original 1988 Capcom CPS1 coin-op
version would realize from the pictures that the X68000 is CLONE
original. you cannot tell the difference. even the exellent
Megadrive/Genesis and PC Engine SuperGrafx versions were not *that*
good :)

It's disappointing that Ghouls 'n Ghosts on the Amiga is the lesser
game compared to Amiga's Ghosts 'n Goblins, which is the prequel.
Amiga Ghouls 'n Ghosts also less impressive than even the Sega Master
System game of the same name, an 8-bit game even! Aside from the
AWESOME soundtrack, the Amiga version is SO bad, its not even
playable. It has no other redeming qualities. The Master System and
NES could do and did do better. the C64 did better. Even the Atari
7800 could do better, graphics and gameplay-wise.

Shadow Of The Beast and many other A500 games is PROOF the Amiga could
do near-arcade quality graphics and animation. It's not even a contest
between Amiga hardware and X68000 hardware. yeah the X68000 is more
powerful, but not by leaps and bounds. It's the SOFTWARE that was
better by leaps and bounds. It's East vs West.  Japanese coders kick
ASS on a regular basis. I know this sort of post is not what you would
expect to find on Amiga newsgroups and some may find it off-topic, but
really, it isn't all THAT off-topic now is it? It's just a small rant
about one of my favorite games, where I rip into the Amiga version,
that, face it, got butchered by some shoddy codehouse (U.S. Gold) like
dozens of other Arcade-to-Amiga games.

I don't know... people in this newsgroup don't seem convinced yet man. 
Tell us a bit more about X68000. Tell us about your research.

Amiga was good but wrote:

> Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.  
> 
> While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was like for
> comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke as far as gameplay
> & graphics, for a 16-bit system.
> 
> review and picture of Amiga Ghouls 'n Ghosts
> http://www.classicgaming.com/amigareviews/ghoulsng.htm
> 
> picture comparasion of Arcade and X68000 Ghouls 'n Ghosts
> http://nfg.2y.net/games/X68k/
> 
> 
> more pictures of the X68000 Ghouls 'n Ghosts (download it!)
> http://www.emulatronia.com/reportajes/x68000/x68-ghouls.htm
> 
> Anyone that is familar with the original 1988 Capcom CPS1 coin-op
> version would realize from the pictures that the X68000 is CLONE
> original. you cannot tell the difference. even the exellent
> Megadrive/Genesis and PC Engine SuperGrafx versions were not *that*
> good :)
> 
> It's disappointing that Ghouls 'n Ghosts on the Amiga is the lesser
> game compared to Amiga's Ghosts 'n Goblins, which is the prequel.
> Amiga Ghouls 'n Ghosts also less impressive than even the Sega Master
> System game of the same name, an 8-bit game even! Aside from the
> AWESOME soundtrack, the Amiga version is SO bad, its not even
> playable. It has no other redeming qualities. The Master System and
> NES could do and did do better. the C64 did better. Even the Atari
> 7800 could do better, graphics and gameplay-wise.
> 
> Shadow Of The Beast and many other A500 games is PROOF the Amiga could
> do near-arcade quality graphics and animation. It's not even a contest
> between Amiga hardware and X68000 hardware. yeah the X68000 is more
> powerful, but not by leaps and bounds. It's the SOFTWARE that was
> better by leaps and bounds. It's East vs West.  Japanese coders kick
> ASS on a regular basis. I know this sort of post is not what you would
> expect to find on Amiga newsgroups and some may find it off-topic, but
> really, it isn't all THAT off-topic now is it? It's just a small rant
> about one of my favorite games, where I rip into the Amiga version,
> that, face it, got butchered by some shoddy codehouse (U.S. Gold) like
> dozens of other Arcade-to-Amiga games.

"Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fe70445.0310141727.51b7a1f@posting.google.com...
> Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.
>
> While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was like for
> comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke as far as gameplay
> & graphics, for a 16-bit system.

This sums it up quickly : Atari ST port. That is why it sucks. If you want
to see what an old Amiga can really do look for a game called Leander. (Like
SOTB with better graphics) That game even runs on a 1985 A1000!

http://hol.abime.net/?id=850

A version of it exists on the Sega Megdrive called "The Legend of Galahad".
It doesn't even compare to the Amiga version! If the programmer has the
skills and the time, the Amiga can do pretty well.

The only reason Amiga Ghouls and Ghosts was such shite and many other arcade
conversions, was the fact most software houses were too lazy to use the
extra hardware on the Amiga. The problem is also compounded when you get an
arcade conversion. They start by trying to squeeze an arcade game on a
machine which isn't up to the job hardware wise (e.g the ST).
This was the problem with many games from 1985-1987, it probably continued
untill 1990 when the A500 all but killed of the Atari ST as a games
platform.

-Bill.

amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com (Amiga was good but) wrote in
news:1fe70445.0310141727.51b7a1f@posting.google.com: 

> Shadow Of The Beast and many other A500 games is PROOF the Amiga
> could do near-arcade quality graphics and animation. It's not
> even a contest between Amiga hardware and X68000 hardware. yeah
> the X68000 is more powerful, but not by leaps and bounds. It's
> the SOFTWARE that was better by leaps and bounds. It's East vs
> West.  Japanese coders kick ASS on a regular basis. I know this
> sort of post is not what you would expect to find on Amiga
> newsgroups and some may find it off-topic, but really, it isn't
> all THAT off-topic now is it? It's just a small rant about one
> of my favorite games, where I rip into the Amiga version, that,
> face it, got butchered by some shoddy codehouse (U.S. Gold) like 
> dozens of other Arcade-to-Amiga games.

 Well the X68k, according to you, still only sail up as an 
 arcade box with very few titles ever made, so why should
 Amiga people se it as anything but a curiosity? Where are
 the -real- games?  :^)



 Regards...

Bill,

Thanks for letting me know about those games. I'm definitally going to
hunt down Leander for Amiga and The Legend of Galahad for the
Megadrive.

From the pictures on the page you linked to, Leander looks amazing!



"Bill Bertram" <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote in message news:<bmjr0c$nojrj$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1fe70445.0310141727.51b7a1f@posting.google.com...
> > Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.
> >
> > While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was like for
> > comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke as far as gameplay
> > & graphics, for a 16-bit system.
> 
> This sums it up quickly : Atari ST port. That is why it sucks. If you want
> to see what an old Amiga can really do look for a game called Leander. (Like
> SOTB with better graphics) That game even runs on a 1985 A1000!
> 
> http://hol.abime.net/?id=850
> 
> A version of it exists on the Sega Megdrive called "The Legend of Galahad".
> It doesn't even compare to the Amiga version! If the programmer has the
> skills and the time, the Amiga can do pretty well.
> 
> The only reason Amiga Ghouls and Ghosts was such shite and many other arcade
> conversions, was the fact most software houses were too lazy to use the
> extra hardware on the Amiga. The problem is also compounded when you get an
> arcade conversion. They start by trying to squeeze an arcade game on a
> machine which isn't up to the job hardware wise (e.g the ST).
> This was the problem with many games from 1985-1987, it probably continued
> untill 1990 when the A500 all but killed of the Atari ST as a games
> platform.
> 
> -Bill.

amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com (Amiga was good but) wrote in
news:1fe70445.0310151311.599ccdce@posting.google.com: 

> Bill,
> 
> Thanks for letting me know about those games. I'm definitally
> going to hunt down Leander for Amiga and The Legend of Galahad
> for the Megadrive.
> 
> From the pictures on the page you linked to, Leander looks
> amazing! 

 Menace, Hybris, 1943, Obliterator, Sidewinder, Deep Space,
 Interceptor.. :*)


 Regards...






 
> "Bill Bertram" <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<bmjr0c$nojrj$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de>... 
>> "Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> message news:1fe70445.0310141727.51b7a1f@posting.google.com...
>> > Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.
>> >
>> > While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was
>> > like for comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke
>> > as far as gameplay & graphics, for a 16-bit system.
>> 
>> This sums it up quickly : Atari ST port. That is why it sucks.
>> If you want to see what an old Amiga can really do look for a
>> game called Leander. (Like SOTB with better graphics) That game
>> even runs on a 1985 A1000! 
>> 
>> http://hol.abime.net/?id=850
>> 
>> A version of it exists on the Sega Megdrive called "The Legend
>> of Galahad". It doesn't even compare to the Amiga version! If
>> the programmer has the skills and the time, the Amiga can do
>> pretty well. 
>> 
>> The only reason Amiga Ghouls and Ghosts was such shite and many
>> other arcade conversions, was the fact most software houses
>> were too lazy to use the extra hardware on the Amiga. The
>> problem is also compounded when you get an arcade conversion.
>> They start by trying to squeeze an arcade game on a machine
>> which isn't up to the job hardware wise (e.g the ST). This was
>> the problem with many games from 1985-1987, it probably
>> continued untill 1990 when the A500 all but killed of the Atari
>> ST as a games platform.
>> 
>> -Bill.

"Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fe70445.0310151311.599ccdce@posting.google.com...
> Bill,
>
> Thanks for letting me know about those games. I'm definitally going to
> hunt down Leander for Amiga and The Legend of Galahad for the
> Megadrive.
>
> From the pictures on the page you linked to, Leander looks amazing!

Just one thing, if you're going to try Leander out, if you can, please run
it on a real Amiga, it looks awful in UAE...

-Bill.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:08:05 +0000, Bj�rnar Bols�y wrote:


>  Well the X68k, according to you, still only sail up as an 
>  arcade box with very few titles ever made, so why should
>  Amiga people se it as anything but a curiosity? Where are
>  the -real- games?  :^)

Well, as long as we're talking arcade games, let's not forget that actual
real Amiga hardware was used in a few actual real arcade games.  Not
conversions or clones, but the real thing.

So there.  :)

--Eric

On 15 Oct 2003 14:11:41 -0700, amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com (Amiga was good but)
wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> Thanks for letting me know about those games. I'm definitally going to hunt
> down Leander for Amiga and The Legend of Galahad for the Megadrive.
> 
> From the pictures on the page you linked to, Leander looks amazing!

You can buy the game from http://www.amigadeals.fsnet.co.uk/

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:08:47 -0400, Eric Haines
<eahaines@localnet.DOT.com> Typedy Typed:

>Well, as long as we're talking arcade games, let's not forget that actual
>real Amiga hardware was used in a few actual real arcade games.  Not
>conversions or clones, but the real thing.

I heard this yonks back, that the amiga was used for Street fighter 2
in some arcades, but i find that very very very hard to beleive.


-- 
I dont need a sig anyway

NOT@yahoo.com (SjT) wrote in message news:<3f8e50c4.588025109@news.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:08:47 -0400, Eric Haines
> <eahaines@localnet.DOT.com> Typedy Typed:
> 
> >Well, as long as we're talking arcade games, let's not forget that actual
> >real Amiga hardware was used in a few actual real arcade games.  Not
> >conversions or clones, but the real thing.
> 
> I heard this yonks back, that the amiga was used for Street fighter 2
> in some arcades, but i find that very very very hard to beleive.


It is very possible the Amiga was used to play *a* Street Fighter 2
game, in arcades, but it was either illegit, or it was a legal Amiga
coin-op system of some kind (they did exist).  But this SF2 was not
*the* actual 1991 arcade Street Fighter 2 by Capcom that used the
CP-System  (CPS1).

Eric Haines <eahaines@localnet.DOT.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.16.01.08.44.593228@localnet.DOT.com>...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:08:05 +0000, Bj�rnar Bols�y wrote:
> 
> 
> >  Well the X68k, according to you, still only sail up as an 
> >  arcade box with very few titles ever made, so why should
> >  Amiga people se it as anything but a curiosity? Where are
> >  the -real- games?  :^)
> 
> Well, as long as we're talking arcade games, let's not forget that actual
> real Amiga hardware was used in a few actual real arcade games.  Not
> conversions or clones, but the real thing.
> 
> So there.  :)
> 
> --Eric

True. I know there are some original arcade games based on Amiga
hardware. be it A500 or A1200/AGA or what have you.

On 14 Oct 2003 18:27:11 -0700, amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com (Amiga was
good but) wrote:

>It's East vs West.  Japanese coders kick
>ASS on a regular basis. I know this sort of post is not what you would
>expect to find on Amiga newsgroups and some may find it off-topic

It's not fair to judge a platform by one game.  Alot of games on the
amiga were better then any other translation.  Sometimes if a
translation was bad there were clones made for the amiga that were
better than the arcade game (gauntlet is not so good on the amiga, but
alien breed and chaos engine are better for example).

If you think there weren't excellent coders on the Amiga you never had
one.  



kvn

> + On 15-Okt-03 02:27:11
 +Amiga was good but <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote

>Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.  

>While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was like for
>comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke as far as gameplay
>& graphics, for a 16-bit system.

[ CUT ]

Can you PLEASE take this trolling to some X68000 group, or start
an alt.sys.flame.x68000vsamiga group or something ? ..In worst case,
take it in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy *ONLY* , I'm so tired of reading
this shit in the serious Amigagroups.


Go away troll!

"Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fe70445.0310141727.51b7a1f@posting.google.com...
> Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.
>
> While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was like for
> comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke as far as gameplay
> & graphics, for a 16-bit system.
>

Sadly the Amiga version was a direct port of the lame Atari ST version.

Tim

Bill Bertram wrote:

> This sums it up quickly : Atari ST port. That is why it sucks.

Amen to that, and the stuff you wrote about the vast quantity of crap ST 
ports on the Amiga.

> If you
> want to see what an old Amiga can really do look for a game called
> Leander. (Like SOTB with better graphics) That game even runs on a
> 1985 A1000! 

I've not played Leander, so I can't compare gameplay. Personally, I thought 
that Lionheart [http://spong.com/x?vid=11010896] was a much more impressive 
title in terms of graphics. The lead character looked a bit of a wimp, but 
the huge number of colours and the per-pixel parallax on the backdrops was 
just an awesome sight to behold.

IIRC, Lionheart had a bit of a bumpy ride in terms fo a UK release, as I 
managed to get hold of dodgy copy months before I could buy the game.

G.
-- 
Gareth Edwards    �         SPOnG.com         �  Your source for video
                  |                           |  games news, compos,
gareth�spong.com  |  The Internet Computer &  |  product and industry
                  �    Video Games Database   �  info, past and present

"Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fe70445.0310151311.599ccdce@posting.google.com...
> Bill,
>
> Thanks for letting me know about those games. I'm definitally going to
> hunt down Leander for Amiga and The Legend of Galahad for the
> Megadrive.
>
> From the pictures on the page you linked to, Leander looks amazing!

Leander was one of the best games ever produced for the Amiga, and the
original poster is right - the best games were produced specifically for the
Amiga, using its specialized hardware.  Games that were straight ports from
other platforms tended to suck, because they failed to live up to the
potential the Amiga was capable of.

Mike

"Mike Kohary" <spam@be.gone> wrote in
news:bmrm8r$1v2$0@pita.alt.net: 

> "Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:1fe70445.0310151311.599ccdce@posting.google.com...
>> Bill,
>>
>> Thanks for letting me know about those games. I'm definitally
>> going to hunt down Leander for Amiga and The Legend of Galahad
>> for the Megadrive.
>>
>> From the pictures on the page you linked to, Leander looks
>> amazing! 
> 
> Leander was one of the best games ever produced for the Amiga,
> and the original poster is right - the best games were produced
> specifically for the Amiga, using its specialized hardware. 
> Games that were straight ports from other platforms tended to
> suck, because they failed to live up to the potential the Amiga
> was capable of. 

 Copper, Blitter, 4 audio channels and lots of DMA.. :)
 The original Atari 520ST had none of that.



 Regards...

In article <Xns9418C1E89A592bbolsoy@212.83.64.229>,
 "Bj�rnar Bols�y" <bbolsoy@hotmail.nospam> wrote:

> "Mike Kohary" <spam@be.gone> wrote in
> news:bmrm8r$1v2$0@pita.alt.net: 
> > Leander was one of the best games ever produced for the Amiga,
> > and the original poster is right - the best games were produced
> > specifically for the Amiga, using its specialized hardware. 
> > Games that were straight ports from other platforms tended to
> > suck, because they failed to live up to the potential the Amiga
> > was capable of. 
> 
>  Copper, Blitter, 4 audio channels and lots of DMA.. :)
>  The original Atari 520ST had none of that.

Beg to differ.  It had lots of DMA.  :)

The attraction of the 520ST was that it was less than half the price of 
the Amiga 1000, IIRC.  With more memory too.  And in terms of raw 
processor speed, it was the best 68000 system.  True 8 MHz clock rate 
(Amiga was 7.14), and IIRC it ran the memory at 16 MHz with half the 
cycles allocated to the CPU and the other half to DMA (including video 
DMA).  This meant that (unlike Amiga) there was no need to have separate 
"chip RAM" and "fast RAM" -- it was all "chip", and it was all "fast".

-- 
Tim

"Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:tas-5A41C5.17143418102003@corp.supernews.com: 
> In article <Xns9418C1E89A592bbolsoy@212.83.64.229>,
>  "Bj�rnar Bols�y" <bbolsoy@hotmail.nospam> wrote:
> 
>> "Mike Kohary" <spam@be.gone> wrote in
>> news:bmrm8r$1v2$0@pita.alt.net: 
>> > Leander was one of the best games ever produced for the
>> > Amiga, and the original poster is right - the best games were
>> > produced specifically for the Amiga, using its specialized
>> > hardware. Games that were straight ports from other platforms
>> > tended to suck, because they failed to live up to the
>> > potential the Amiga was capable of. 
>> 
>>  Copper, Blitter, 4 audio channels and lots of DMA.. :)
>>  The original Atari 520ST had none of that.
> 
> Beg to differ.  It had lots of DMA.  :)
> 
> The attraction of the 520ST was that it was less than half the
> price of the Amiga 1000, IIRC.  

 Well so was the A5500, wasn't it?

> With more memory too.  

 Indeed.

> And in
> terms of raw processor speed, it was the best 68000 system. 
> True 8 MHz clock rate (Amiga was 7.14), 

 I remember way back in those days someone told me that
 in order to do the stuff that the Copper/Blitter did
 at 7Mhz, an 68k would have to run at something like
 70Mhz.


> and IIRC it ran the
> memory at 16 MHz with half the cycles allocated to the CPU and
> the other half to DMA (including video DMA).  This meant that
> (unlike Amiga) there was no need to have separate "chip RAM" and
> "fast RAM" -- it was all "chip", and it was all "fast". 

 Of course there was no need for "chipram" on the ST, it
 had no "chips".  :^)



 Regards...

In article <Xns94192CD952ADDbbolsoy@212.83.64.229>,
 "Bj�rnar Bols�y" <bbolsoy@hotmail.nospam> wrote:

> "Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:tas-5A41C5.17143418102003@corp.supernews.com: 
> > In article <Xns9418C1E89A592bbolsoy@212.83.64.229>,
> >  "Bj�rnar Bols�y" <bbolsoy@hotmail.nospam> wrote:
> > 
> >> "Mike Kohary" <spam@be.gone> wrote in
> >> news:bmrm8r$1v2$0@pita.alt.net: 
> >> > Leander was one of the best games ever produced for the
> >> > Amiga, and the original poster is right - the best games were
> >> > produced specifically for the Amiga, using its specialized
> >> > hardware. Games that were straight ports from other platforms
> >> > tended to suck, because they failed to live up to the
> >> > potential the Amiga was capable of. 
> >> 
> >>  Copper, Blitter, 4 audio channels and lots of DMA.. :)
> >>  The original Atari 520ST had none of that.
> > 
> > Beg to differ.  It had lots of DMA.  :)
> > 
> > The attraction of the 520ST was that it was less than half the
> > price of the Amiga 1000, IIRC.  
> 
>  Well so was the A5500, wasn't it?

The A500 didn't come till later -- and Atari failed to respond to it in 
any meaningful way.

> > With more memory too.  
> 
>  Indeed.
> 
> > And in
> > terms of raw processor speed, it was the best 68000 system. 
> > True 8 MHz clock rate (Amiga was 7.14), 
> 
>  I remember way back in those days someone told me that
>  in order to do the stuff that the Copper/Blitter did
>  at 7Mhz, an 68k would have to run at something like
>  70Mhz.

That sounds like a questionable number to me -- it's an exact factor of 
10, and that means the person was probably pulling it out of you know 
where.  (Consider that on the Atari, once Atari's blitter chip started 
shipping in later ST models, it turned out to be the case that carefully 
coded assembly could beat the blitter for most of the functions the 
Atari GUI used it for, and no, I don't think that was because the Atari 
blitter was considered to be a bad design.)

But my real point was that if you were looking for the fastest 68K 
system, rather than the best 68K system for games, the ST was it.  The 
blitter and copper don't help when you aren't doing graphics.

> > and IIRC it ran the
> > memory at 16 MHz with half the cycles allocated to the CPU and
> > the other half to DMA (including video DMA).  This meant that
> > (unlike Amiga) there was no need to have separate "chip RAM" and
> > "fast RAM" -- it was all "chip", and it was all "fast". 
> 
>  Of course there was no need for "chipram" on the ST, it
>  had no "chips".  :^)

Bj�rnar, you know better than that.

-- 
Tim

Mike Kohary wrote:

> Leander was one of the best games ever produced for the Amiga, and the
> original poster is right - the best games were produced specifically
> for the Amiga, using its specialized hardware.  Games that were
> straight ports from other platforms tended to suck, because they
> failed to live up to the potential the Amiga was capable of.

This, for some reason, made me recall some of the most abysmal arcade to 
Amiga ports. Join me in retching by sending your own most hated ports.

Power Drift
Loved the arcade game to bits. Spent many a bored Saturday emptying my 
pockets into this classic. The coder did a great job of emulating the 
arcade's whizzy 3D sprite engine (for want of a better name), but I have 
the distinct memory of the karts being much too large for the size of the 
track, and numerous spots where the frame rate dropped and sprites 
vanished. Shame the developer didn't opt for a more modest, but much more 
playable rendition, such as Chris Butler's C64 version, which lacked the 
sprite-based environment, but had plenty of drift-based fun.

Hard Driving + STUN Runner
Unsurprisingly both by the same coder, and both shockingly bad. Chugging 
frames rates. Another example of trying to more than the hardware can 
handle at the expense of gameplay. How the hell this guy went on to get 
teh deal to write Hard Drivin' 2 is beyond me. I guess he must have been 
contracted to supply all three before Domark saw the rotten fruits of his 
labour.

Strider
Another Saturday afternoon favourite. What can I say. How this game 
couldn't be arcade perfect (excepting any rotaty-ness) is beyond me. 
Team17 followed quickly with Assasin to prove it could have been much 
better. Was very glad when it came out on the PS1.

I hate to be a pessimist, though many would disagree, but what are the 
Amiga conversions you love to hate?

G.
-- 
Gareth Edwards    �         SPOnG.com         �  Your source for video
                  |                           |  games news, compos,
gareth�spong.com  |  The Internet Computer &  |  product and industry
                  �    Video Games Database   �  info, past and present

"Tim" <TjLaZer@NOSPAM.Mail.com> wrote in message news:<vp1mhihnauvt82@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1fe70445.0310141727.51b7a1f@posting.google.com...
> > Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.
> >
> > While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was like for
> > comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke as far as gameplay
> > & graphics, for a 16-bit system.
> >
> 
> Sadly the Amiga version was a direct port of the lame Atari ST version.
> 
> Tim

**
In 1986 there were not many profecient Amiga programmers.  How many
multi-tasking, multi-processor, multi-user computers were there
outside of UNIX systems.  The only interrupts I remember on the Amiga
the were the parallel port, serial port, bridgeboard slot, A1000/A500
expansion bus and processor slot.
All of the intra-processor communication on the amigas was DMA, not
that burst fraud, but real DMA.  Autoconfiguration worked.  I had to
use this Mac lab at school, and the Amiga OS is far more intuitive
than the Mac.  My Amiga 3000 tower seems much faster than that Mac
powerpc.  I was possible to mount the AUX: device, connect a dumb
terminal to the serial port and run text based programs concurrent to
the programs run from either the text or workbench (GUI).

The Amiga's Operating System is very unix-ish.  My question is what
happened to the custom chip sets?  The custom chipset is what made the
Amiga The Amiga.

Walt R.

"Walt R" <wmreinemer@tns.net> wrote in message
news:47958aeb.0310292115.69ce3cb1@posting.google.com...
> "Tim" <TjLaZer@NOSPAM.Mail.com> wrote in message
news:<vp1mhihnauvt82@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Amiga was good but" <amigawasgoodbut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1fe70445.0310141727.51b7a1f@posting.google.com...
> > > Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of my favorite games of all time.
> > >
> > > While it was interesting to see what the AMIGA version was like for
> > > comparasion purposes, I found it is a complete joke as far as gameplay
> > > & graphics, for a 16-bit system.
> > >
> >
> > Sadly the Amiga version was a direct port of the lame Atari ST version.
> >
> > Tim
>
> **
> In 1986 there were not many profecient Amiga programmers.  How many
> multi-tasking, multi-processor, multi-user computers were there
> outside of UNIX systems.  The only interrupts I remember on the Amiga
> the were the parallel port, serial port, bridgeboard slot, A1000/A500
> expansion bus and processor slot.
> All of the intra-processor communication on the amigas was DMA, not
> that burst fraud, but real DMA.  Autoconfiguration worked.  I had to
> use this Mac lab at school, and the Amiga OS is far more intuitive
> than the Mac.  My Amiga 3000 tower seems much faster than that Mac
> powerpc.  I was possible to mount the AUX: device, connect a dumb
> terminal to the serial port and run text based programs concurrent to
> the programs run from either the text or workbench (GUI).
>
> The Amiga's Operating System is very unix-ish.  My question is what
> happened to the custom chip sets?  The custom chipset is what made the
> Amiga The Amiga.
>
> Walt R.

I remember the programmer of Paradroid being quoted in a magazine, saying "I
love what the Amiga does, but I hate the way it does it".

"Walt R" <wmreinemer@tns.net> wrote in message
news:47958aeb.0310292115.69ce3cb1@posting.google.com

> The Amiga's Operating System is very unix-ish.  My question is what
> happened to the custom chip sets?  The custom chipset is what made the
> Amiga The Amiga.
>
> Walt R.

The custom chipset became a lodestone around the Amiga's neck, for many
reasons.  Primarily because in a world that was moving to byte-per-pixel
(thanks in no small part to DOOM and other FPS's that were essentially
driving PC sales), the Amiga continued on with planar graphics.  Planar
graphics are great for 16-layer side-scrolling games, but (as evidenced by
the various "tricks" required to create "chunky" style graphics) they are
poor for texture-filled polys.  And that's where the market went.  It didn't
help that graphics cards were prohibitively expensive for Amigas, and that
the system(s) that could use them were also in the considerable minority
versus the less-expandable A500/600/1200.

Additionally, the custom chips became a money soak; the fact that a given PC
manufacturer could, even if they wanted to include sound and graphics on the
motherboard, go to the lowest bidder for a chipset that would still perform
adequately enough meant that those PCs then became commodity priced.  The
premium required to buy a comparable Amiga rig began to look less and less
attractive the further along the road PC technology went.

While what the Amiga could do was impressive (I convinced one non-computer
person and a die-hard PC fan to "go Amiga" in 1989, showing them F18 *and*
DeluxePaint running simultaneously on my "tricked out" 2mb A500, by dragging
the custom screens around), the chipset ultimately caused the system(s) to
stagnate.  That and Commodore spent little if anything on R&D.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.