Amiga compatiblity. (An oxymoron?) :)
Nathan Wain
On -1 xxx -1, it was written:
> >oh man.. i just upgraded to the 040/40.. is the 060 really more
> >compatible?? [snip]
>
> I think the 040 is slightly more compatible than an 040,
:) Cool Angus. My Miggy is now more compatible than itself.
...Oh, strangely, my last paragraph confirms that. Spooky? :)
> but there's probably very little in it. I think the A4000 archi-
> tecture is the likely culprit in some incompatibility cases. Nathan?
No, I'm _not_ the likely culprit. Just the a4000. :)
Well, I get the impression I don't have the most compatible 040 board
in the world either. But in my a1200 I seemed to have one of the few
models of 030 board that hated SuperStardust too, so maybe I'm just
'lucky', eh?
Basically the Amiga is a rather complex beastie when it comes to
compatibility issues. And since a _very_ small percentage of Amigan's
had an a4000, combined with it being the 'last' Amiga, I'm sure many
titles were never tested on it to see if there were any issues with
them. (Recall the numbers of AGA games which were labelled as "a1200
version" or "cd32 version" rather than "AGA." ...I think the software
makers were well aware of what incompatibilites there could be between
models of Amiga... or same models with different CPU's.)
Basically, any hardware change is gonna give you trouble. No use
stressing about it. This is the Amiga. Ya either live with it, keep
the old Amiga, get an emulator on a PeeCee, or work up to a PPC board
to emulate Amiga on Amiga to get around it. There's something sure
to fail on _any_ of the above 'Amigas'.
As for CPU's. A whole swag of stuff will stop working when you go
from a 68000 to 020 or 030. A few more will stop working when you
go up to an 040 or 060. But there is very very little difference
in compatibility of the 020 and 030, or the 040 and 060. Most of
the differences are purely differences in speed rather than the
architecture of them... the difference in timing issues of differnet
_brands_ of CPU board can be as much of an issue as the CPU itself
when you're comparing the 020 and 030 and 040 and 060.
Just my humble opintion with _many_ games with my history of Amigas
and upgrades: a500, a1200, a1200/2+4Meg, a1200/030/882/50,
a4000/030/25, a4000/040/40, a4000/040/40/PicassoIV/VLab. <--- A good
example of how fickle the Amiga architecture is. Putting in two
Zorro cards suddenly made "Banshee", "SlamTilt" - table4, "4d Boxing"
and "Just Yer Basic Missile Command" work flawlessly. :/ They
hadn't worked properly in the a4000 in any of its previous two
configurations. Go figure.
And, to balance out the cracked versions of games that are '040 / 060
/ fastram / banana-in-disk-drive / etc. fixed, there's an even higher
number that won't work purely because of the hardware-hitting hackers
intro. ...Almost always, the original will like any Amiga far better.
(Why I love those WHD/JST guys... ADF's often are no cure for bitrot.)
Nathan.
--
nat...@caverock.net homepages.caverock.net.nz/~nathan
A4000 Apollo 040/40MHz SCSI, Picasso IV, 2+112Meg, VLab, Viewsonic E70,
1.2 Gig HDD, 24xCD and a *big* stereo. Online at 14.4k with Term. :)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Angus Manwaring
>On -1 xxx -1, it was written:
>> >oh man.. i just upgraded to the 040/40.. is the 060 really more
>> >compatible?? [snip]
>>
>> I think the 040 is slightly more compatible than an 040,
>:) Cool Angus. My Miggy is now more compatible than itself.
>...Oh, strangely, my last paragraph confirms that. Spooky? :)
Oops, sorry. I meant:
I think the 040 is slightly more compatible than an 060.
>> but there's probably very little in it. I think the A4000 archi-
>> tecture is the likely culprit in some incompatibility cases. Nathan?
>No, I'm _not_ the likely culprit. Just the a4000. :)
I suppose there's that possibility. :)
>Just my humble opintion
"opintion"? Hmmmmmm...... Optintion, opintion, opint, opint, opint....
pinty, pinty, pinty?
Tosser! :)
with _many_ games with my history of Amigas
>and upgrades: a500, a1200, a1200/2+4Meg, a1200/030/882/50,
>a4000/030/25, a4000/040/40, a4000/040/40/PicassoIV/VLab. <--- A good
>example of how fickle the Amiga architecture is.
I don't think it's all that bleak, Nathan. With Tude and Relokick etc (as
you have skilfully demonstrated to me on more than one occasion) most of
the buggers can be got to work, although there's always a few. A10
Tankbuster for example, I have very few compatibility probs with my 060,
that I wouldn't have with an 020, and being a Blizzard board I can
fortunately disable it with a keystroke. Agreed though, JST and WHDLoad
are two of the best things that ever happened to Amiga games.
All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Ralf Huvendiek
>
> seems to cause lots of problems. Anyway I've seen people with 040s
> complain about "incompatible games" that do run on my 060. But maybe
> there are more 060 incompatibility problems I haven't heard of. My
> experience is that different OS versions are a worse source of
> problems than CPU versions.
The 040 should be more compatible though, e.g. the 060 lacks the
MOVEP instruction which must be emulated in a way that the game/demo
/app cannot change it {not sure if TUDE etc can do this, but I doubt
it as most of the softare that failes will 'correct' those changes
done}.
Bye
Ralf
Colin Seddon
the list of system requirements on the side of a PC game box
recently? It's about twice the size of the list you need for
FreeCiv...
I'm SERIOUS.
Just to help you compare, here's requirements for a game which
has PC + Ami versions...
*AMIGA*
Any Amiga
2MB
A CD32 joypad, mouse or joystick
A CD-rom drive
*PC*
386 DX-16 or faster IBM compatible system
7MB Ram
VGA graphics capability
300MB free HD space
A 100% Micro$oft-compatible mouse
DirectX v6 or later
8x speed CD-Rom drive
Point taken?
--
Colin Seddon - Co...@cwas.freeserve.co.uk
Presenting the new Amiga Special netmag - go to
http://www.egroups.com/group/amigaspecial or ask me. First you
need to join the mailing list. Users join with an e-mail to
amigaspecia...@egroups.com : young or old, new or
experienced, you will be made welcome.
Amiga Special needs contributors! Reviews, letters... Anything is
welcome!
Or that WAS right. Recently, AS went the same way as AP, CU and
now AF (*sniff*)
*
> If you think Amiga compatibility is an oxymoron, have you seen
> the list of system requirements on the side of a PC game box
> recently?
yeah, but the joke is for an Amiga it's in reverse..
Amiga 500, 1000, 2000
Workbench 1.3
512k RAM
doesn't sound like much, but try playing it on an ECS or AGA system..
y'r pal -kK
Angus Manwaring
>Colin Seddon wrote:
FreeCiv? Surely you jest old pal? :)
Matthias Puch
>I'm SERIOUS.
>
>Just to help you compare, here's requirements for a game which
>has PC + Ami versions...
>
>*AMIGA*
>Any Amiga
A BS statement in 99% of the cases I encountered it; replace it with
"Any vanilla, unexpanded Amiga" and it would hit the spot.
Add a "fast" CPU to your Amiga => 30-40% of the games refuse to run.
Adda GFX board to your Amiga => about 90% of the games refuse to run.
You call this compatible?
Nathan Wain
> >I'm SERIOUS.
> >Just to help you compare, here's requirements for a game which
> >has PC + Ami versions...
I'm curious to know if you know how this title behaves on both Amigas
and PCs of varying descriptions.
I hadn't intended to be drawing comparisons with the PC on the issue
of compatibility. But I guess with so many dyed-in-the-wool Amigans
here (good on ya chaps), it was unavoidable.
The simple fact is that the 68k CPU was never designed to be backward
compatible to the point of working with _any_ badly programmed 68k app.
If it was programmed according to Motorola guidelines, sure. ...But
we all know that not many Amiga programmers based their programming on
such documentation.
Also, most Amiga's had no MMU, and most sofware threw the operating
system out the window as its firt act, so a software fix for 'bad' code
wasn't really possible either.
There was also the issues that most Amigas were very much 'the-same.'
The first generation of Amigas were almost all a 7.something MHz 68000
with 0.5 to 1 Meg of RAM (none of it true fast RAM.) The Copper,
Blitter and other custom hardware were guaranteed to be exactly the
same too. The (bad) way may of us had learned to code on the c64 and
other 8bit machines didn't need to change to work in this environment.
We could assume all the timing issues (CPU, Copper, Blitter speed etc.)
to be constant and it'd work on almost every Amiga out there. (Except
the hugely expande Toasters and Video-work machines. But they were
never used for games, were they.) :) And it did work. ...And promptly
fell over in a big way when the AGA Amigas came out.
But even then, that just introduced another 'class' of Amiga. The
68020 of the a1200 and CD32 and 68030 of (most of the) a4000's are
almost identical in behaviour. Etc etc... And so the same hardware
hitting way of making games went on.
In the short term it was great. We had some kisk-ass software. And
the strength of the Amiga emulation community is testament to that.
In the long term, for me, it sucks. Because at present there is still
no single machine that can play all of my software. (Even if I could
be arsed to drag out my a500 from its storage spot right behind me and
plug it into the old Thompson monitor above the Viewsonic (which is a
great TV these days.) More hassle than it's worth. Besides, I would
have to move the SX-64 off the desk. ...Ain't gonna happen.) :)
Where does this rambling lead? I dunno. I just wish you could run
Amiga stuff on Amiga stuff. Just like I wish Plug and Play stuff would
Plug and Play. ...Seems the trend is to get farther and farther from
'simple' computing. Simple computing is the realm of the console.
> >*AMIGA*
> >Any Amiga
>
> A BS statement in 99% of the cases I encountered it; replace it with
> "Any vanilla, unexpanded Amiga" and it would hit the spot.
That's right. There are some absolute *gems* of software out there
that will live up to that statement ("Fire and Ice", "Gauntlet 2", "The
Settlers", "Indy 500", "Hired Guns") but for every one of them there are
tons ("Ghosts 'n' Goblins", "Zeewolf", "Virus", "IK+", "Action Fighter",
"Driller", "Sim City", "Lotus" (any of them), "Pinball Dreams") that
don't. And even the good ones I wouldn't be willing to bet will work on
_any_ Amiga.
And as for the numbers that'll take advantage of a HDD, extra RAM or
even and extra floppy-drive for gods sake. ...No, lets not even go
there. I've dealt with it enough already in the past.
> Add a "fast" CPU to your Amiga => 30-40% of the games refuse to run.
> Adda GFX board to your Amiga => about 90% of the games refuse to run.
CPU, agreed. The AGA chipset presents huge problems with ECS software
too of course. And the Kickstart version was a larger factor than it
ever should have been.
Strangely, the addition of a Picasso GFX card made this Amiga _more_
compatible. But people who bought ones where 15kHz modes weren't
carried through in a scan-doubled manner - instantly cuts them out of
over 95% of the software. (Unless you can play by 'ear', or don't
mind the space of another monitor.)
> You call this compatible?
Maybe it was a different definition of compatible that involved
particular bits of software working entirely well on one specific Amiga
only? :)
Joachim Froholt
Colin Seddon wrote:
>
> Just to help you compare, here's requirements for a game which
> has PC + Ami versions...
>
> *AMIGA*
> Any Amiga
> 2MB
> A CD32 joypad, mouse or joystick
> A CD-rom drive
>
> *PC*
> 386 DX-16 or faster IBM compatible system
> 7MB Ram
> VGA graphics capability
> 300MB free HD space
> A 100% Micro$oft-compatible mouse
> DirectX v6 or later
> 8x speed CD-Rom drive
Out of curiosity: Which game is this? It seems like a fairly recent
game, since the PC version needs DirectX v6, but yet the system
requirements on both PC and Amiga seems low (except that the PC version
uses way too much hd-space - but PC games tend to do that, so...). Is it
Ultra Violent Worlds (and if so, is it any good)?
Joachim
Angus Manwaring
>The simple fact is that the 68k CPU was never designed to be backward
>compatible to the point of working with _any_ badly programmed 68k app.
>If it was programmed according to Motorola guidelines, sure. ...But
>we all know that not many Amiga programmers based their programming on
>such documentation.
But dude, it was part of the magic (then atleast) that talented
individuals were throwing away the rule book, hitting the metal and
producing kick-ass games that pushed the 500 beyond reasonable
expectations.
(A vaguely related point) later when the 1200 was released Commodore
almost kept the hardware technical specs a total secret. I've read this
several times from proven programmers that Commodore should have been
bending over backwards to work _with_.
>But even then, that just introduced another 'class' of Amiga. The
>68020 of the a1200 and CD32 and 68030 of (most of the) a4000's are
>almost identical in behaviour. Etc etc... And so the same hardware
>hitting way of making games went on.
To a far lesser extent, surely? I mean with the 1200 came the (soon to be
cheap) IDE hard drives, and that helped to improve things.
>In the short term it was great. We had some kisk-ass software. And
>the strength of the Amiga emulation community is testament to that.
Agreed, but this advantage is the other side of the coin to the coding
that produced some stunning but incompatible games in the Amiga's early
years, IYSWIM. A rugged Amigan individualist attempting to break some
coding barriers and excelling. It's related, IMHO.
>Where does this rambling lead? I dunno. I just wish you could run
>Amiga stuff on Amiga stuff. Just like I wish Plug and Play stuff would
>Plug and Play. ...Seems the trend is to get farther and farther from
>'simple' computing. Simple computing is the realm of the console.
In my view there some (a few) marvelous console games, but you can't
escape the general viewpoint that console software producers assume that
their customers are terrified of depth. The early console games were
largely very similar, platform games, now they tend to be beat-em-ups,
first person shooters or racing games. As stated there are some notable
exceptions, but if you consider how long the Amiga has been around, I
think it compares favourably to any console in terms of variety and
compatability. After all, you don't hear complaints of "This SNES game
won't work on my N64!!!!" :)
If you hang out in alt.fan.elite you'll see a lot of PC guys posting about
compatibility problems not just with Elite, which I recall being
unplayable on PCs 10 years (ish) ago, but also complaints about getting
Frontier and FFE to work. In comparison I feel very lucky. I'm sure Virus
will work from the original floppy on my 060, hang on a minute.......
Yup, all you need to do is disable the caches in the early start-up menu
and bingo, having said that I'd sooner use the hd patch which as I say is
all part of the deal with the Amiga.
>That's right. There are some absolute *gems* of software out there
>that will live up to that statement ("Fire and Ice", "Gauntlet 2", "The
>Settlers", "Indy 500", "Hired Guns") but for every one of them there are
>tons ("Ghosts 'n' Goblins", "Zeewolf", "Virus", "IK+", "Action Fighter",
>"Driller", "Sim City", "Lotus" (any of them), "Pinball Dreams") that
>don't. And even the good ones I wouldn't be willing to bet will work on
>_any_ Amiga.
Well, as staed Virus works here, as does Zeewolf, I don't know about the
others but I thought Sim City used the Amiga OS? Pinball Illusions works
okay from CD here...... don't know about the rest.
>> Add a "fast" CPU to your Amiga => 30-40% of the games refuse to run.
Not here, dude! :)
>> Adda GFX board to your Amiga => about 90% of the games refuse to run.
Or is it that they just refuse to be seen, but whether a third party
graphics card can display your Amiga games is for me a separate issue to
Amiga compatibility, if you see what I mean?
*
> >The simple fact is that the 68k CPU was never designed to be backward
> >compatible to the point of working with _any_ badly programmed 68k app.
> >If it was programmed according to Motorola guidelines, sure. ...But
> >we all know that not many Amiga programmers based their programming on
> >such documentation.
>
> But dude
oh dear..
> , it was part of the magic (then atleast) that talented
> individuals were throwing away the rule book, hitting the metal and
> producing kick-ass games that pushed the 500 beyond reasonable
> expectations.
tremendous point.. hurrah for Angus.. compatibility but at what price?? the
68k Amiga was doing at 7 x 16bit MHz what 25 x 32bit MHz 386s where choking
on.. granted a lot of the computing load was being born by the custom chips
which presented whole new compatibility issues..
> (A vaguely related point) later when the 1200 was released Commodore
> almost kept the hardware technical specs a total secret. I've read this
> several times from proven programmers that Commodore should have been
> bending over backwards to work _with_.
hurrah for Commodore.. whose Karma was so bad the Amiga was sacrificed so they
could justifiably burn in hell forever.. keep burning..
> >But even then, that just introduced another 'class' of Amiga. The
> >68020 of the a1200 and CD32 and 68030 of (most of the) a4000's are
> >almost identical in behaviour. Etc etc... And so the same hardware
> >hitting way of making games went on.
>
> To a far lesser extent, surely? I mean with the 1200 came the (soon to be
> cheap) IDE hard drives, and that helped to improve things.
compatibily-wise?? or just spec-wise??
> >Where does this rambling lead? I dunno. I just wish you could run
> >Amiga stuff on Amiga stuff. Just like I wish Plug and Play stuff would
> >Plug and Play. ...Seems the trend is to get farther and farther from
> >'simple' computing. Simple computing is the realm of the console.
>
> In my view there some (a few) marvelous console games, but you can't
> escape the general viewpoint that console software producers assume that
> their customers are terrified of depth. The early console games were
> largely very similar, platform games, now they tend to be beat-em-ups,
> first person shooters or racing games. As stated there are some notable
> exceptions, but if you consider how long the Amiga has been around, I
> think it compares favourably to any console in terms of variety and
> compatability. After all, you don't hear complaints of "This SNES game
> won't work on my N64!!!!" :)
another stonking point Angus!! although to be honest i've had an equal amount
of compatibility issues with every genre of game on my Amiga.. and the PS2
including full-backwards compatibility with the PSX is a HUGE plus - it almost
guarantees further gains in market-share.. and on another level, the
difference between the games on NES, SNES and N64 are tremendous advancements
that would probably cure any nostalgic urge to play an earlier version.. on
the Amiga (at least the consolesque games in my opinion) between the A500,
A1200 and CD32 were too often re-releases just to cure compatibility problems
(or with an added cinematic intro and CD-quality sound in the case of the
CD32) rather than whole new games..
> If you hang out in alt.fan.elite you'll see a lot of PC guys posting about
> compatibility problems not just with Elite, which I recall being
> unplayable on PCs 10 years (ish) ago, but also complaints about getting
> Frontier and FFE to work. In comparison I feel very lucky. I'm sure Virus
> will work from the original floppy on my 060, hang on a minute.......
again, since there are soooo many new PC Games - to the point where even if
you weeded out all the boring and uninspired ones, you couldn't even possibly
play a fraction of the ones that were left to a satisfying end before the next
generation of even better ones arrived - there is not so much of an urge to
dig up your old crap sounding, crap looking King's Quest I - when, after all,
it was crap..
> Well, as staed Virus works here, as does Zeewolf, I don't know about the
> others but I thought Sim City used the Amiga OS? Pinball Illusions works
> okay from CD here...... don't know about the rest.
for me (games i have searched for; located; bought; waited patiently to
arrive; then cried mightily when they failed to work..) and some i have not
tested since i upgraded to 040: Middle Earth, Vengeance of Excalibur, Awesome,
Obitus, Infestation, Krusty's Fun House, Second Samurai (A1200 version ha!!),
and more i can't remember.. and there are for sure others too i simply haven't
played at all since i bought my A1200.. and those that do work usually require
any of a combination of booting in OCS/ECS, PAL, NO CPU CACHE which i can only
determine through tedious trial and error.. bleh..
> >> Add a "fast" CPU to your Amiga => 30-40% of the games refuse to run.
>
> Not here, dude! :)
i'd say his was accurate..
> >> Adda GFX board to your Amiga => about 90% of the games refuse to run.
>
> Or is it that they just refuse to be seen, but whether a third party
> graphics card can display your Amiga games is for me a separate issue to
> Amiga compatibility, if you see what I mean?
i agree with you here though.. and even more with Mr. Stuart Campbell when he
wrote in his usual scintillating fashion "..the kind of people who refuse to
accept that the Amiga is dead, instead spending thousands of pounds upgrading
their machines to PC-beating specifications.." indeed Mr. Campbell..
as i see it Amiga games occupy 3 categories: OCS, AGA and CD32.. alright CD32
is kinda a dead giveaway because you need a CD ROM and a 32, whatever that
is.. and CDTV and ECS don't really count because they only exist in our
heads.. the main conflict here was getting OCS games - all those A500 classics
- working on our A1200's, which we purchased to enjoy, well, all the A1200
classics (a lot of which worked best with HDs and Fast RAM which only further
complicated things) and of course not the other way around because, well,
backwards-compatibility only goes well, back - although a mighty hurrah to
Adobe for enabling their applications to predict the future and work
painlessly with files created in newer versions only with the new features
disabled - unfortunately this impressive future-telling only works with say,
Photoshop files, and not say, with lottery numbers, as one might hope.. ok, so
we have this great A500 game that we want to get to work on our A1200.. what
are the hurdles?? processor that runs twice as fast - that might cause some
problems, and oddly it rarely ever actually makes the game play twice as fast
as you'd think (and hope) - oh and in a full 32bits as opposed to that awkward
16/32bit realm in which the 68000 existed - that i'd imagine would cause a lot
more trouble than just the speed.. 4 times the CHIP RAM - god it causes
problems when you'd think it shouldn't.. and FAST RAM?? why couldn't more OCS
(and frankly AGA) games support this?? there is no excuse.. the custom chips??
this was strictly a fault of CBM and not Motorola.. i'd say at least half of
your incompatibilities happen here (randomly pulling numbers from my head
because, well, it makes sense..) after all the custom chips and not the CPU
was where most of the shady-programming and hardware-hacking was going on,
no?? in my own experience if the game worked on my A1200 there was a 90%
chance it would work as well or better on an 030/040 or i'd imagine 060..
those who shell for PPC and graphic cards really, deservedly, shouldn't expect
much.. so what have i said in all?? not much more than has been said before,
repeatedly.. yep, this whole compatibility thing is a bit less like beating a
dead horse than like beating a clod of dirt that used to be a dead horse.. but
all in good fun of course..
coarsely, y'r pal -kK
Daithi O'Cuinn
>in my own experience if the game worked on my A1200 there was a 90%
>chance it would work as well or better on an 030/040 or i'd imagine
>060.. those who shell for PPC and graphic cards really, deservedly,
>shouldn't expect much..
This may be true, but all of Phase 5's accelerators can be disabled at
bootup, but holding down the '2' key, leaving you with a stock 1200. So
you don't lose anything by upgrading your system. In fact, many games
have been patched to run on high-end systems (e.g. the WHDLoad stuff)
from hard drives, so often you are gaining something.
There is also a PPC version of UAE, so you can run old ECS/OCS games this
way.
So it isn't as bleak as you suggest!
Angus Manwaring
>Angus Manwaring wrote:
>> But dude
>oh dear..
Its okay, it a Nathan/Angus thing. :)
>> , it was part of the magic (then atleast) that talented
>> individuals were throwing away the rule book, hitting the metal and
>> producing kick-ass games that pushed the 500 beyond reasonable
>> expectations.
>tremendous point.. hurrah for Angus..
Who says Americans don't appreciate irony? :)
>> >But even then, that just introduced another 'class' of Amiga. The
>> >68020 of the a1200 and CD32 and 68030 of (most of the) a4000's are
>> >almost identical in behaviour. Etc etc... And so the same hardware
>> >hitting way of making games went on.
>>
>> To a far lesser extent, surely? I mean with the 1200 came the (soon to be
>> cheap) IDE hard drives, and that helped to improve things.
>compatibily-wise?? or just spec-wise??
Sorry, I meant compatibility wise, in that generally if a game is hd
installable there's atleast some respect for the OS in there.
>>
>> In my view there some (a few) marvelous console games, but you can't
>> escape the general viewpoint that console software producers assume that
>> their customers are terrified of depth. The early console games were
>> largely very similar, platform games, now they tend to be beat-em-ups,
>> first person shooters or racing games. As stated there are some notable
>> exceptions, but if you consider how long the Amiga has been around, I
>> think it compares favourably to any console in terms of variety and
>> compatability. After all, you don't hear complaints of "This SNES game
>> won't work on my N64!!!!" :)
>another stonking point Angus!! although to be honest i've had an equal amount
>of compatibility issues with every genre of game on my Amiga.. and the PS2
>including full-backwards compatibility with the PSX is a HUGE plus
I gather that although this was a perceived selling point, it has turned
out that compatibility is not 100%. Personally, I'm in a minority here
because I think making the PS2 compatible with the PS is daft. Commodore
didn't feel the need to make the Amiga compatible with the 64, (one of
their wiser decisions) and I think there are similarites in principle with
the PS situation. If you make the PS2 compatible that's a fair chunk of
your design compromise committed at a stroke. I've got a PS, if I need
another I can buy one for 50UKP. The reason I would buy a PS2, infact the
reason I bought an Amiga, was because I'd seen what the old machine could
do and it no longer blew me away. I wanted a new machine to blow me away.
I'm not knocking the older machine, if I want to I can still use it, but
please don't waste budget and space on my new dream machine so that it can
play the old games instead of my old machine. Oops, sorry. Off-topic. :)
- it
>almost guarantees further gains in market-share.. and on another level, the
>difference between the games on NES, SNES and N64 are tremendous advancements
>that would probably cure any nostalgic urge to play an earlier version.. on
>the Amiga (at least the consolesque games in my opinion) between the A500,
>A1200 and CD32 were too often re-releases just to cure compatibility problems
>(or with an added cinematic intro and CD-quality sound in the case of the
>CD32) rather than whole new games..
There's something in that, but the Amiga is basically still an Amiga, its
not like Commodore released an entirely new machine called something else.
The console world is certainly not innocent of having repackaged old game
ideas with new graphics, and generally, in my view, the games have less depth.
On the Amiga the changes have been over sometime and were perhaps more
subtle, but remember the revolution of games moving to 1 Mb only, bringing
cooler sound, more graphics and Dungeon Master? A hard drive still gives
us a huge benefit, yet in the early days they weren't available, a second
disk drive was the privilege of a "power user". :) All the favourite 3D
games on the Amiga like AB3D, Star Crusader, Doom, Gloom, Breathless and
Guardian weren't an option before the 1200, and indeed became a far better
option with additional ram, and ideally an 030 or better. We have come a
long way, as much as we might miss Archon. :)
Where my current Amiga scores over my old 500 is that you can do so much
more with it, I mean I'm sure you could get an A500 connected to the
internet, but....
>> If you hang out in alt.fan.elite you'll see a lot of PC guys posting about
>> compatibility problems not just with Elite, which I recall being
>> unplayable on PCs 10 years (ish) ago, but also complaints about getting
>> Frontier and FFE to work. In comparison I feel very lucky. I'm sure Virus
>> will work from the original floppy on my 060, hang on a minute.......
>again, since there are soooo many new PC Games - to the point where even if
>you weeded out all the boring and uninspired ones, you couldn't even possibly
>play a fraction of the ones that were left to a satisfying end before the
>next generation of even better ones arrived - there is not so much of an urge
>to dig up your old crap sounding, crap looking King's Quest I - when, after
>all, it was crap..
Fair comment, so why should I have bought a PC to buy that kind of game?
:)
But these people WANT to play Elite, many of the excting new games, be it
X Beyond the Frontier or whatever get slagged off.
>for me (games i have searched for; located; bought; waited patiently to
>arrive; then cried mightily when they failed to work..) and some i have not
>tested since i upgraded to 040: Middle Earth, Vengeance of Excalibur,
>Awesome, Obitus, Infestation, Krusty's Fun House, Second Samurai (A1200
>version ha!!), and more i can't remember.. and there are for sure others too
>i simply haven't played at all since i bought my A1200.. and those that do
>work usually require any of a combination of booting in OCS/ECS, PAL, NO CPU
>CACHE which i can only determine through tedious trial and error.. bleh..
I can understand your frustation, and quite apart from the discussion I
earnestly advise you to get in touch with Bert about WHDLoad. It provides
many of us with trouble free gaming. Jean-Françoise Fabre's JST does the
same. Don't give up old buddy. I'm sure we can get some of these games
working, but you may need to persevere until it's sorted. I honestly
believe you'll find it worth the effort.
>> >> Add a "fast" CPU to your Amiga => 30-40% of the games refuse to run.
>>
>> Not here, dude! :)
>i'd say his was accurate..
So would I, Nathan is always reliable, but _here_ its not the case.
>> >> Adda GFX board to your Amiga => about 90% of the games refuse to run.
>>
>> Or is it that they just refuse to be seen, but whether a third party
>> graphics card can display your Amiga games is for me a separate issue to
>> Amiga compatibility, if you see what I mean?
>i agree with you here though.. and even more with Mr. Stuart Campbell when he
>wrote in his usual scintillating fashion "..the kind of people who refuse to
>accept that the Amiga is dead, instead spending thousands of pounds upgrading
>their machines to PC-beating specifications.." indeed Mr. Campbell..
I've no idea what Stuart was on about there, but I suspect he was making
a completely different point to mine. I'd love to have a graphics card.
>as i see it Amiga games occupy 3 categories: OCS, AGA and CD32.. alright CD32
>is kinda a dead giveaway because you need a CD ROM and a 32, whatever that
>is..
Well no, most of the time you need a CD32 or an AGA Amiga with a CD. I've
got a lot of CD32 games, but I've never owned the machine.
>so we have this great A500 game that we want to get to work on our A1200..
Which game in particular?
>what are the hurdles?? processor that runs twice as fast - that might cause
>some problems, and oddly it rarely ever actually makes the game play twice as
>fast as you'd think (and hope) -
Usually it does with 3D type games. The 2D ones are quite fast enough for
me already. :)
>on, no?? in my own experience if the game worked on my A1200 there was a 90%
>chance it would work as well or better on an 030/040 or i'd imagine 060..
I always think that the bigger dividing line is once you go above the 030.
>those who shell for PPC and graphic cards really, deservedly, shouldn't
>expect much.. so what have i said in all??
Well, the PPC as yet does not come as a sole processor, so with existing
cards there will always be an 040 or 060 to use. The crunch will come with
the hopefully soon to be released AmiJoe PPC only card.
>not much more than has been said
>before, repeatedly.. yep, this whole compatibility thing is a bit less like
>beating a dead horse than like beating a clod of dirt that used to be a dead
>horse.. but all in good fun of course..
You must go to the planet WHDload. There you must study under the master,
Bert, and complete your compatibility training. It is your destiny.
Seriously, ask him about Infestation for example giving him your machine's
spec etc.
Nathan Wain
On 7 Jul 2000, Daithi O'Cuinn wrote:
> This may be true, but all of Phase 5's accelerators can be disabled at
> bootup, but holding down the '2' key, leaving you with a stock 1200. So
> you don't lose anything by upgrading your system. In fact, many games
> have been patched to run on high-end systems (e.g. the WHDLoad stuff)
> from hard drives, so often you are gaining something.
>
> There is also a PPC version of UAE, so you can run old ECS/OCS games
> this way.
>
> So it isn't as bleak as you suggest!
Except, of course, for those of us stuck in limbo between those hallowed
areas of compatibility that are the stock a500, stock a1200 (assuming you
don't want to run much OCS stuff) and (*fast*) PPC Amiga running UAE.
(Hey, I just realised, I created a Modula-2 comment. Cool!) (* :-) *)
As someone who owns an A4000/040/40, previously was a4000/030/25, before
that an a1200/030/50 (DKB brand), before that a1200+4Meg Fast, before
that stock a1200, and before that 1Meg Kick 1.2 a500 ...Life is bleak,
very bleak when it comes to compatibility; and has been for a long long
time. Even the simple jump from a500 to a1200 hurt with the sheer
numbers of things that feiled to work.
But Kk is right. This is one of those grand old debates that long since
moved on from the heavily flogged dead horse, now very much dead and
buried, sprung up as a fresh bunch of petunia's, and probably destined
for a rather violent death upon the surface of Magrathea with nothing more
than a highly-ambiguous thought recorded for posterity.
</obscure-reference> :)
The Amiga certainly isn't compatible as it could have been. ...We got
some cool memories of hardware-hitting demoes and games as recompence.
And we can probably feel sorta secure in the knowledge that at least
commodores incompetence only made it a little incompatible - god knows,
they were capable of much worse. :)
*
> >Angus Manwaring wrote:
>
> >> But dude
>
> >oh dear..
>
> Its okay, it a Nathan/Angus thing. :)
oh dear..
> I gather that although this was a perceived selling point, it has turned
> out that compatibility is not 100%. Personally, I'm in a minority here
> because I think making the PS2 compatible with the PS is daft. Commodore
> didn't feel the need to make the Amiga compatible with the 64, (one of
> their wiser decisions) and I think there are similarites in principle with
well, it makes much more sense when the machines in question use compatible forms
of media - as in PS2 and PSX.. not in C64 and Amiga.. not when the consoles where
changing media with each generation.. but look at that Turbo Graphix-16 handheld
- same games as the console - how handy is that?? no one's complaining that DVD
supports VCD or CD or CD+G or whatever..
> the PS situation. If you make the PS2 compatible that's a fair chunk of
> your design compromise committed at a stroke. I've got a PS, if I need
well not necessarily when done right - as with the PS2 - where they include
basically a cut-down PSX as a kinda daughterboard on the unit.. kills excess
stock at the same time too!!
> another I can buy one for 50UKP. The reason I would buy a PS2, infact the
> reason I bought an Amiga, was because I'd seen what the old machine could
> do and it no longer blew me away. I wanted a new machine to blow me away.
erm.. and why are you still playing your Amiga again?? :)
> I'm not knocking the older machine, if I want to I can still use it, but
> please don't waste budget and space on my new dream machine so that it can
no, what you say makes sense.. personally though, when i eventually pick up a PS2
(the only other console i will have ever owned after my CD32) i'll look forward
to the ability to play all my friends old PSX games for starters..
> >that would probably cure any nostalgic urge to play an earlier version.. on
> >the Amiga (at least the consolesque games in my opinion) between the A500,
> >A1200 and CD32 were too often re-releases just to cure compatibility problems
> >(or with an added cinematic intro and CD-quality sound in the case of the
> >CD32) rather than whole new games..
>
> There's something in that, but the Amiga is basically still an Amiga, its
> not like Commodore released an entirely new machine called something else.
(imagine your own retort and put it in here)
> The console world is certainly not innocent of having repackaged old game
> ideas with new graphics, and generally, in my view, the games have less depth.
(imagine your own retort and put it in here)
> >again, since there are soooo many new PC Games - to the point where even if
> >you weeded out all the boring and uninspired ones, you couldn't even possibly
> >play a fraction of the ones that were left to a satisfying end before the
> >next generation of even better ones arrived - there is not so much of an urge
> >to dig up your old crap sounding, crap looking King's Quest I - when, after
> >all, it was crap..
>
> Fair comment, so why should I have bought a PC to buy that kind of game? :)
may god save your soul.. :)
> But these people WANT to play Elite, many of the excting new games, be it
> X Beyond the Frontier or whatever get slagged off.
i wish they would all slag off.. no, wait, that's not right.. i don't know, it's
hard to feel pity for the PCers that want to play their old games when they at
least have the option of playing so many new and better ones.. of course that has
nothing to do with your point - which was well taken by the way - and followed
with a thick shot of vodka to keep it down..
> >i simply haven't played at all since i bought my A1200.. and those that do
> >work usually require any of a combination of booting in OCS/ECS, PAL, NO CPU
> >CACHE which i can only determine through tedious trial and error.. bleh..
>
> I can understand your frustation, and quite apart from the discussion I
> earnestly advise you to get in touch with Bert about WHDLoad. It provides
> many of us with trouble free gaming. Jean-Françoise Fabre's JST does the
> same. Don't give up old buddy. I'm sure we can get some of these games
> working, but you may need to persevere until it's sorted. I honestly
> believe you'll find it worth the effort.
if i didn't believe so myself i wouldn't be here..
> >i agree with you here though.. and even more with Mr. Stuart Campbell when he
> >wrote in his usual scintillating fashion "..the kind of people who refuse to
> >accept that the Amiga is dead, instead spending thousands of pounds upgrading
> >their machines to PC-beating specifications.." indeed Mr. Campbell..
>
> I've no idea what Stuart was on about there, but I suspect he was making
> a completely different point to mine. I'd love to have a graphics card.
wouldn't you need to move your A1200 into a tower for that?? i really can't see
it justifying itself is all.. anyway, yes - i agreed with your point.. only Stu's
even more..
> Well no, most of the time you need a CD32 or an AGA Amiga with a CD. I've
> got a lot of CD32 games, but I've never owned the machine.
i thought quite a lot of CD32 games don't play on a A1200 with a CD?? don't you
also need some kind of emulator??
> >so we have this great A500 game that we want to get to work on our A1200..
>
> Which game in particular?
this GREAT one.. sheesh..
> >on, no?? in my own experience if the game worked on my A1200 there was a 90%
> >chance it would work as well or better on an 030/040 or i'd imagine 060..
>
> I always think that the bigger dividing line is once you go above the 030.
right.. 030 is basically 020 running at higher speed.. i can't say though many of
my games that ran on my 030 don't run on my 040 - and those that do certainly run
better.. but yes, it's more moving from the 16bit 68000 to the 32bit 020+ with
the exception being the 010, which i believe was a 68000 running a few (million)
cycles faster..
> >those who shell for PPC and graphic cards really, deservedly, shouldn't
> >expect much.. so what have i said in all??
>
> Well, the PPC as yet does not come as a sole processor, so with existing
> cards there will always be an 040 or 060 to use. The crunch will come with
> the hopefully soon to be released AmiJoe PPC only card.
oh.. to be honest i don't know much about graphic cards or PPC cards on the Amiga
- only that the number of games that support them are really few in number and
mostly the odd port from the PC.. when i last used my Amiga seriously, the 060
was the height of fashion.. that's why when i just recently upgraded to 040 i
imagined myself entering into the Amiga elite - erm, at least in my mind anyway..
> You must go to the planet WHDload. There you must study under the master,
> Bert, and complete your compatibility training. It is your destiny.
ahh yes, Bert Kenobi, didn't he also teach that other lad?? Darth Guru
#8000000224 (for i knew him well).. turned to the Dark Side in the end though
didn't he?? Dark Side with a Red Flashing Box if i recall.. last i heard ol'Bert
Wan fled in shame to sector 216.87.218.103 somewhere in that great vast greatly
vast supersingularinformationclusteringuniversinet.. forward light speed then
young master Luke?? tally-ho..
y'r pal -kK
Joachim Froholt
Angus Manwaring wrote:
I disagree with you here, Angus. In my view, backwards compatibility is a Good
Thing (tm) for the PS2. Not only will this ensure that everyone who's not bought a
PSX will be able to play PSX loads of extra games, but it will also mean that the
games will "live longer", which will make it easier to separate the classics from
the rest.
>
> - it
> >almost guarantees further gains in market-share.. and on another level, the
> >difference between the games on NES, SNES and N64 are tremendous advancements
> >that would probably cure any nostalgic urge to play an earlier version.. on
> >the Amiga (at least the consolesque games in my opinion) between the A500,
> >A1200 and CD32 were too often re-releases just to cure compatibility problems
> >(or with an added cinematic intro and CD-quality sound in the case of the
> >CD32) rather than whole new games..
>
> There's something in that, but the Amiga is basically still an Amiga, its
> not like Commodore released an entirely new machine called something else.
> The console world is certainly not innocent of having repackaged old game
> ideas with new graphics, and generally, in my view, the games have less depth.
Yeah, although this was much clearer before, when (almost) all console games were
platform games.
>
> On the Amiga the changes have been over sometime and were perhaps more
> subtle, but remember the revolution of games moving to 1 Mb only, bringing
> cooler sound, more graphics and Dungeon Master? A hard drive still gives
> us a huge benefit, yet in the early days they weren't available, a second
> disk drive was the privilege of a "power user". :) All the favourite 3D
> games on the Amiga like AB3D, Star Crusader, Doom, Gloom, Breathless and
> Guardian weren't an option before the 1200, and indeed became a far better
> option with additional ram, and ideally an 030 or better. We have come a
> long way, as much as we might miss Archon. :)
>
> Where my current Amiga scores over my old 500 is that you can do so much
> more with it, I mean I'm sure you could get an A500 connected to the
> internet, but....
>
> >> If you hang out in alt.fan.elite you'll see a lot of PC guys posting about
> >> compatibility problems not just with Elite, which I recall being
> >> unplayable on PCs 10 years (ish) ago, but also complaints about getting
> >> Frontier and FFE to work. In comparison I feel very lucky. I'm sure Virus
> >> will work from the original floppy on my 060, hang on a minute.......
>
> >again, since there are soooo many new PC Games - to the point where even if
> >you weeded out all the boring and uninspired ones, you couldn't even possibly
> >play a fraction of the ones that were left to a satisfying end before the
> >next generation of even better ones arrived - there is not so much of an urge
> >to dig up your old crap sounding, crap looking King's Quest I - when, after
> >all, it was crap..
Ah, I disagree. Not about Kings Quest being.. ahem.. poor, but with your main
point. PC's are really crap at running old games. Not only does the massive speed
differences mess up a huge number of the older titles, but there's also the mess
with EMS/XMS memory and all those different standards they used to have. (and this
is speaking from my personal experience. I'm using a really old PC (pentium 133,
Win 95), and I have nowhere near as many problems with old games as my friend who
recently bought a new machine - he can hardly play anything!).
And this is bad, no matter how many PC games they release nowadays. Maybe you can
get hundreds of new first person shooters, but what if you're interested in older
adventure games. Not neccesarily as old as KQ I, but here's an example. My friend
who owns a really great PC asked me about a couple of titles and if I knew if they
were worth getting. One of the titles was Flight of the Amazon Queen. Ofcourse, I
said. Amazon Queen is an excellent game, even if there's no 3d shooting sections
in it. So he got the game.. only to discover that it's pretty much incompatible
with his PC.
>
> Fair comment, so why should I have bought a PC to buy that kind of game?
> :)
Because the PC's are so much better with these games than the Amiga. I mean, it
had beeper sound and several colours on the same screen! :)
>
> But these people WANT to play Elite, many of the excting new games, be it
> X Beyond the Frontier or whatever get slagged off.
Yeah. It isn't fair to say that they should just forget about the old classics
because they've got loads of new bor.. er, exciting titles to play.
Joachim
Angus Manwaring
>Angus Manwaring wrote:
>> I gather that although this was a perceived selling point, it has turned
>> out that compatibility is not 100%. Personally, I'm in a minority here
>> because I think making the PS2 compatible with the PS is daft. Commodore
>> didn't feel the need to make the Amiga compatible with the 64, (one of
>> their wiser decisions) and I think there are similarites in principle with
>well, it makes much more sense when the machines in question use compatible
>forms of media - as in PS2 and PSX.. not in C64 and Amiga..
Yes, it would make more sense for them the manufacturers, but not for this
particular consumer.
>> the PS situation. If you make the PS2 compatible that's a fair chunk of
>> your design compromise committed at a stroke. I've got a PS, if I need
>well not necessarily when done right -
It really is you know.
>as with the PS2 - where they include
>basically a cut-down PSX as a kinda daughterboard on the unit.. kills excess
>stock at the same time too!!
A PS compatible daughterboard could have been something else, a high speed
modem would have appealed more to me.
>> another I can buy one for 50UKP. The reason I would buy a PS2, infact the
>> reason I bought an Amiga, was because I'd seen what the old machine could
>> do and it no longer blew me away. I wanted a new machine to blow me away.
>erm.. and why are you still playing your Amiga again?? :)
Fair point.
Partly because I've not run out of software on the Amiga that I'm
still discovering. There's also loads of stuff I _have_ discovered that I
think is still great. But also - I bought a Playstation, even created a
newsgroup, but I just kept coming back to the Amiga, because I had more fun
(generally) with the games. My son has an N64 and has recently bought
Perfect Dark, which we agree is an excellent game. He still wants to play
Moonstone and Genesia (the two latest games I've introduced him to) on the
Amiga though.
>> I'm not knocking the older machine, if I want to I can still use it, but
>> please don't waste budget and space on my new dream machine so that it can
>no, what you say makes sense.. personally though, when i eventually pick up a
>PS2
>(the only other console i will have ever owned after my CD32) i'll look
>forward to the ability to play all my friends old PSX games for starters..
That makes a lot of sense too.
>> >that would probably cure any nostalgic urge to play an earlier version..
>> >on the Amiga (at least the consolesque games in my opinion) between the
>> >A500, A1200 and CD32 were too often re-releases just to cure compatibility
>> >problems
>> >(or with an added cinematic intro and CD-quality sound in the case of the
>> >CD32) rather than whole new games..
>>
>> There's something in that, but the Amiga is basically still an Amiga, its
>> not like Commodore released an entirely new machine called something else.
>(imagine your own retort and put it in here)
Why, Angus, you're so right! Why didn't I think of that?!
>> The console world is certainly not innocent of having repackaged old game
>> ideas with new graphics, and generally, in my view, the games have less
>> depth.
>(imagine your own retort and put it in here)
Why, Angus, you're so right! Why didn't I think of that?!
>>
>> I can understand your frustation, and quite apart from the discussion I
>> earnestly advise you to get in touch with Bert about WHDLoad. It provides
>> many of us with trouble free gaming. Jean-Françoise Fabre's JST does the
>> same. Don't give up old buddy. I'm sure we can get some of these games
>> working, but you may need to persevere until it's sorted. I honestly
>> believe you'll find it worth the effort.
>if i didn't believe so myself i wouldn't be here..
Okay, well how about we target things specifically? Infestation, for
example, you say it's writing to your C directory?
>> >i agree with you here though.. and even more with Mr. Stuart Campbell when
>> >he wrote in his usual scintillating fashion "..the kind of people who
>> >refuse to accept that the Amiga is dead, instead spending thousands of
>> >pounds upgrading their machines to PC-beating specifications.." indeed Mr.
>> >Campbell..
>>
>> I've no idea what Stuart was on about there, but I suspect he was making
>> a completely different point to mine. I'd love to have a graphics card.
>wouldn't you need to move your A1200 into a tower for that??
I've done that already. It didn't cost much and it's not it a PC beating
spec. In my eyes it was that already. :)
>
>i thought quite a lot of CD32 games don't play on a A1200 with a CD?? don't
>you also need some kind of emulator??
Some need an emulator, I think there a free one included with IDEFix
software.
Angus Manwaring
>Angus Manwaring wrote:
>>
>> I gather that although this was a perceived selling point, it has turned
>> out that compatibility is not 100%. Personally, I'm in a minority here
>> because I think making the PS2 compatible with the PS is daft. Commodore
>> didn't feel the need to make the Amiga compatible with the 64, (one of
>> their wiser decisions) and I think there are similarites in principle with
>> the PS situation. If you make the PS2 compatible that's a fair chunk of
>> your design compromise committed at a stroke. I've got a PS, if I need
>> another I can buy one for 50UKP. The reason I would buy a PS2, infact the
>> reason I bought an Amiga, was because I'd seen what the old machine could
>> do and it no longer blew me away. I wanted a new machine to blow me away.
>> I'm not knocking the older machine, if I want to I can still use it, but
>> please don't waste budget and space on my new dream machine so that it can
>> play the old games instead of my old machine. Oops, sorry. Off-topic. :)
>I disagree with you here, Angus. In my view, backwards compatibility is a
>Good Thing (tm) for the PS2. Not only will this ensure that everyone who's
>not bought a PSX will be able to play PSX loads of extra games, but it will
>also mean that the games will "live longer", which will make it easier to
>separate the classics from the rest.
Fair enough, as I said I'm sure I'm in a minority, but I'd just sooner
they spent the money on something I haven't already got or can easily get
if I need. It's obviously a ppersonal taste thing though, I wasn't trying
to state it as a FACT (tm). :)
Rick Jones
>
> I gather that although this was a perceived selling point, it has turned
> out that compatibility is not 100%. Personally, I'm in a minority here
> because I think making the PS2 compatible with the PS is daft. Commodore
> didn't feel the need to make the Amiga compatible with the 64, (one of
> their wiser decisions) and I think there are similarites in principle with
> the PS situation.
However, CBM did try to make our Amigas partially PC compatible which
I something I really could have done without. Those PC slots in the
2000, 3000 and 4000 were just wasted expense and space. I wouldn't have
minded eliminating those and saving me the added costs, even if it was
just $20-30.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
I am Mensa of Borg. You don't qualify for assimilation.
Hans Guijt
>Except, of course, for those of us stuck in limbo between those hallowed
>areas of compatibility that are the stock a500, stock a1200 (assuming you
>don't want to run much OCS stuff) and (*fast*) PPC Amiga running UAE.
>(Hey, I just realised, I created a Modula-2 comment. Cool!) (* :-) *)
Could you please take the programming stuff to csa.programmer. This is a games
newsgroup! Grrr! ;-)
Hans Guijt
*
> I disagree with you here, Angus. In my view, backwards compatibility is a Good
> Thing (tm) for the PS2. Not only will this ensure that everyone who's not bought a
> PSX will be able to play PSX loads of extra games, but it will also mean that the
> games will "live longer", which will make it easier to separate the classics from
> the rest.
even more so, what usually ensures the success of a new console is not how its specs
sompare with its competitors, but rather the quality and quantity of games that are
available for it at its release.. by enabling PS2 to play PSX games SONY has
effectively eliminated that as a factor for its success.. and - speaking on a
personal level - anyone that missed out on the PSX (me) and are thinking that now its
too late to get into the game (so to speak) because the next gen consoles are
imminent (like they say in that game Awesome) no longer have to worry; because after
all, why buy the next Nintendo or Microsoft (hnnngh) console when you can get TWO for
the price of ONE (and a half) with the PS2?? (you may be seated..)
> > There's something in that, but the Amiga is basically still an Amiga, its
> > not like Commodore released an entirely new machine called something else.
> > The console world is certainly not innocent of having repackaged old game
> > ideas with new graphics, and generally, in my view, the games have less depth.
>
> Yeah, although this was much clearer before, when (almost) all console games were
> platform games.
i like Joachim's retort better Angus, thank you very much..
> > >again, since there are soooo many new PC Games - to the point where even if
> > >you weeded out all the boring and uninspired ones, you couldn't even possibly
> > >play a fraction of the ones that were left to a satisfying end before the
> > >next generation of even better ones arrived - there is not so much of an urge
> > >to dig up your old crap sounding, crap looking King's Quest I - when, after
> > >all, it was crap..
>
> Ah, I disagree. Not about Kings Quest being.. ahem.. poor, but with your main
> point. PC's are really crap at running old games. Not only does the massive speed
> differences mess up a huge number of the older titles, but there's also the mess
> with EMS/XMS memory and all those different standards they used to have. (and this
> is speaking from my personal experience. I'm using a really old PC (pentium 133,
> Win 95), and I have nowhere near as many problems with old games as my friend who
> recently bought a new machine - he can hardly play anything!).
well that proves it then; if PC's can't run old games then i guess they really DO
suck at everything..
> And this is bad, no matter how many PC games they release nowadays. Maybe you can
> get hundreds of new first person shooters, but what if you're interested in older
> adventure games. Not neccesarily as old as KQ I, but here's an example.
Sierra still does the Quest series as far as im aware.. and saying there are only FPS
is really a gross mis-statement.. strategy - see that new Shogun?? wow; rpg/adventure
- Diablo II and it's infinite clones; simulation - that War 2250 or something that
our good fellow Olafson actually did a shining review of in the NYTimes last week..
how about Thief II - very different approach to using the FPS engine.. and these are
only the ones i've heard of from the PC people i pass everyday on the street (why
don't they just shut up??) i mean, what with me not owning a PC or playing new games
or what..
> My friend
> who owns a really great PC asked me about a couple of titles and if I knew if they
> were worth getting. One of the titles was Flight of the Amazon Queen. Ofcourse, I
> said. Amazon Queen is an excellent game, even if there's no 3d shooting sections
> in it. So he got the game.. only to discover that it's pretty much incompatible
> with his PC.
and yet, somehow, i feel no pity..
> > Fair comment, so why should I have bought a PC to buy that kind of game?
> > :)
>
> Because the PC's are so much better with these games than the Amiga. I mean, it
> had beeper sound and several colours on the same screen! :)
god save your souls - both of you..
> > But these people WANT to play Elite, many of the excting new games, be it
> > X Beyond the Frontier or whatever get slagged off.
>
> Yeah. It isn't fair to say that they should just forget about the old classics
> because they've got loads of new bor.. er, exciting titles to play.
oh yeah right - like Elite wasn't boring.. you're not fooling anyone Joachim..
y'r pal -kK
*
> >as with the PS2 - where they include
> >basically a cut-down PSX as a kinda daughterboard on the unit.. kills excess
> >stock at the same time too!!
>
> A PS compatible daughterboard could have been something else, a high speed
> modem would have appealed more to me.
do you know if the PS2 has S-Video??
> >> another I can buy one for 50UKP. The reason I would buy a PS2, infact the
> >> reason I bought an Amiga, was because I'd seen what the old machine could
> >> do and it no longer blew me away. I wanted a new machine to blow me away.
>
> >erm.. and why are you still playing your Amiga again?? :)
>
> Fair point.
>
> Partly because I've not run out of software on the Amiga that I'm
> still discovering. There's also loads of stuff I _have_ discovered that I
> think is still great. But also - I bought a Playstation, even created a
yes, but you realize by now that you could "discover" great software on the PC,
that was best-selling from, say, 1996-1998 but considered archaic by today's
standards - although beyond cutting-edge on the Amiga - and you wouldn't even
need to shell for a PPC or graphics card and thus jeopardize your Amiga's
compatibility even more.. all you would need is a cheapo PC, and how much are
they these days - free isn't it??
> newsgroup, but I just kept coming back to the Amiga, because I had more fun
> (generally) with the games. My son has an N64 and has recently bought
> Perfect Dark, which we agree is an excellent game. He still wants to play
> Moonstone and Genesia (the two latest games I've introduced him to) on the
> Amiga though.
it may sound silly, but i'm really looking forward to introducing my children -
erm, if i have any - to the great games and movies and such i enjoyed in my life
only in a (chrono) logical fashion of course, because:
they have no choice (..muahahaha)
and AND also because i remember how much i enjoyed being introduced to my pop's
favorite movies and stuff (alright da ill watch the stupid thing, just don't hit
me again..)
i mean, if you start them off with like the Matrix on DVD there's no way they'll
appreciate obscure grainy French cinema.. likewise if you start them off with
Tomb Raider 4 on PS2 they'll never understand and enjoy the minutia of detail in,
say, a blob of putty on an Amiga.. but i have it all worked out:
age 0-6: locked in a room with only a Atari 2600 and VCR and 13inch TV with WITH
only black-and-white movies..
age 6-10: locked in a room with only an Amiga 500 and VCR with 27inch TV and full
selection of foreign movies in color - no subtitles..
age 10-12: locked in a room with only Amiga 1200 and CD32 (with mpeg) and LCD
Projector and Dolby Surround - VCD movies now have subtitles (good luck reading
them.. muahahaha) some are even in english..
age 13: damn bastard picked the lock and got away - and took my Amiga.. that
savage..
> >> I'm not knocking the older machine, if I want to I can still use it, but
> >> please don't waste budget and space on my new dream machine so that it can
>
> >no, what you say makes sense.. personally though, when i eventually pick up a
> >PS2
> >(the only other console i will have ever owned after my CD32) i'll look
> >forward to the ability to play all my friends old PSX games for starters..
>
> That makes a lot of sense too.
but wait.. we can't both make sense.. one of us HAS! TO! DIE!
> >> The console world is certainly not innocent of having repackaged old game
> >> ideas with new graphics, and generally, in my view, the games have less
> >> depth.
>
> >(imagine your own retort and put it in here)
>
> Why, Angus, you're so right! Why didn't I think of that?!
im imagining Angus in a pit of fire ants while i'm dripping honey on his head..
retort that!!
> >> same. Don't give up old buddy. I'm sure we can get some of these games
> >> working, but you may need to persevere until it's sorted. I honestly
> >> believe you'll find it worth the effort.
>
> >if i didn't believe so myself i wouldn't be here..
>
> Okay, well how about we target things specifically? Infestation, for
> example, you say it's writing to your C directory?
i tried booting without startup but changing the tooltype from WHDLoad to
HD0:C/WHDLoad so it would run (setting the Path didn't seem to work), and it ran
(hurrah) but then crashed at that part it always crashes at in the intro even
when i run just from disk without using WHDLoad but with a relokick, except now
when it crashes it crashes writing something to my hardrive - although to be more
precise it doesn't actually "crash" as in flashing power light and GURU, but just
in exiting the programming and writing endlessly to my harddrive - which when i
restart causes all kinds of nasty checksum and validation errors that takes
disksalv a LONG time to repair given the (manly) size of the drives.. bleh.. i
haven't tried Krusty's again because frankly when it all goes wrong its a real
pain.. i need to come up with something better.. i might install just a shell of
the workbench on my second partition to boot from and try that.. i may not have
formatted it as "bootable" which would mean having to reformat the entire drive
which would be a bad thing.. i'll have to see..
> >> I've no idea what Stuart was on about there, but I suspect he was making
> >> a completely different point to mine. I'd love to have a graphics card.
>
> >wouldn't you need to move your A1200 into a tower for that??
>
> I've done that already. It didn't cost much and it's not it a PC beating
> spec. In my eyes it was that already. :)
personally i LIKE my A1200 as small as it is.. if i wanted something bigger i
just would've bought an A4000.. i like that its so unassuming.. a little keyboard
that houses an accelerator and ram, superfast harddrive and modem card (not to
mention the graphics and sound chipset that most people picture as bulky audio
and video cards).. even the power supply's of the new Amiga Tech A1200 are
smaller and sleeker than the old CBM ones.. when you put it in a tower all of a
sudden you can't help but compare it to new model PC's - except i bet your tower
isn't nearly as cool looking as the PC ones - and anyway, anything you add to it,
hacks away a little bit more at your overall compatibility, right?? i mean i
could understand if you used it for hardcore multimedia, but then, as i said, why
not just get an A4000?? (or a Mac or SGI)
y'r pal -kK
Joachim Froholt
Angus Manwaring wrote:
> On 08-Jul-00 09:35:15, Joachim Froholt said
> >Angus Manwaring wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I gather that although this was a perceived selling point, it has turned
> >> out that compatibility is not 100%. Personally, I'm in a minority here
> >> because I think making the PS2 compatible with the PS is daft. Commodore
> >> didn't feel the need to make the Amiga compatible with the 64, (one of
> >> their wiser decisions) and I think there are similarites in principle with
> >> the PS situation. If you make the PS2 compatible that's a fair chunk of
> >> your design compromise committed at a stroke. I've got a PS, if I need
> >> another I can buy one for 50UKP. The reason I would buy a PS2, infact the
> >> reason I bought an Amiga, was because I'd seen what the old machine could
> >> do and it no longer blew me away. I wanted a new machine to blow me away.
> >> I'm not knocking the older machine, if I want to I can still use it, but
> >> please don't waste budget and space on my new dream machine so that it can
> >> play the old games instead of my old machine. Oops, sorry. Off-topic. :)
>
> >I disagree with you here, Angus. In my view, backwards compatibility is a
> >Good Thing (tm) for the PS2. Not only will this ensure that everyone who's
> >not bought a PSX will be able to play PSX loads of extra games, but it will
> >also mean that the games will "live longer", which will make it easier to
> >separate the classics from the rest.
>
> Fair enough, as I said I'm sure I'm in a minority, but I'd just sooner
> they spent the money on something I haven't already got or can easily get
> if I need. It's obviously a ppersonal taste thing though, I wasn't trying
> to state it as a FACT (tm). :)
Hey! Are you making fun (tm) of my annoying (tm) use of trademarks (tm)???
Joachim (tm)
Joachim Froholt
* wrote:
> Joachim Froholt wrote:
>
> > I disagree with you here, Angus. In my view, backwards compatibility is a Good
> > Thing (tm) for the PS2. Not only will this ensure that everyone who's not bought a
> > PSX will be able to play PSX loads of extra games, but it will also mean that the
> > games will "live longer", which will make it easier to separate the classics from
> > the rest.
>
> even more so, what usually ensures the success of a new console is not how its specs
> sompare with its competitors, but rather the quality and quantity of games that are
> available for it at its release.. by enabling PS2 to play PSX games SONY has
> effectively eliminated that as a factor for its success.. and - speaking on a
> personal level - anyone that missed out on the PSX (me) and are thinking that now its
> too late to get into the game (so to speak) because the next gen consoles are
> imminent (like they say in that game Awesome) no longer have to worry; because after
> all, why buy the next Nintendo or Microsoft (hnnngh) console when you can get TWO for
> the price of ONE (and a half) with the PS2?? (you may be seated..)
My feelings excactly.
>
> > > There's something in that, but the Amiga is basically still an Amiga, its
> > > not like Commodore released an entirely new machine called something else.
> > > The console world is certainly not innocent of having repackaged old game
> > > ideas with new graphics, and generally, in my view, the games have less depth.
> >
> > Yeah, although this was much clearer before, when (almost) all console games were
> > platform games.
>
> i like Joachim's retort better Angus, thank you very much..
>
> > > >again, since there are soooo many new PC Games - to the point where even if
> > > >you weeded out all the boring and uninspired ones, you couldn't even possibly
> > > >play a fraction of the ones that were left to a satisfying end before the
> > > >next generation of even better ones arrived - there is not so much of an urge
> > > >to dig up your old crap sounding, crap looking King's Quest I - when, after
> > > >all, it was crap..
> >
> > Ah, I disagree. Not about Kings Quest being.. ahem.. poor, but with your main
> > point. PC's are really crap at running old games. Not only does the massive speed
> > differences mess up a huge number of the older titles, but there's also the mess
> > with EMS/XMS memory and all those different standards they used to have. (and this
> > is speaking from my personal experience. I'm using a really old PC (pentium 133,
> > Win 95), and I have nowhere near as many problems with old games as my friend who
> > recently bought a new machine - he can hardly play anything!).
>
> well that proves it then; if PC's can't run old games then i guess they really DO
> suck at everything..
I wouldn't go that far.. but, hey! If you say so..
My point was never that (not in this thread, anyway) PC's suck, but I recon that if one
uses the limited backwards compatibillity of the miggy against it, then one can do the
same for the PC, as the situation is just the same there.
>
> > And this is bad, no matter how many PC games they release nowadays. Maybe you can
> > get hundreds of new first person shooters, but what if you're interested in older
> > adventure games. Not neccesarily as old as KQ I, but here's an example.
>
> Sierra still does the Quest series as far as im aware..
The only Quest games really worth playing are their Quest for Glory titles. And, btw, I
think an adventure game looses some of the flair when you have to shoot / slice people.
> and saying there are only FPS
> is really a gross mis-statement.. strategy - see that new Shogun?? wow; rpg/adventure
> - Diablo II and it's infinite clones; simulation - that War 2250 or something that
> our good fellow Olafson actually did a shining review of in the NYTimes last week..
> how about Thief II - very different approach to using the FPS engine.. and these are
> only the ones i've heard of from the PC people i pass everyday on the street (why
> don't they just shut up??) i mean, what with me not owning a PC or playing new games
> or what..
This isn't really all that relevant to the point. Yes, there are new PC games coming, but
if you want to play an older game, you should get to do that, too. A brilliant game from
1993 is just as good as a brilliant game from 1999, IMHO. I'd like to be able to play
both.
>
> > My friend
> > who owns a really great PC asked me about a couple of titles and if I knew if they
> > were worth getting. One of the titles was Flight of the Amazon Queen. Ofcourse, I
> > said. Amazon Queen is an excellent game, even if there's no 3d shooting sections
> > in it. So he got the game.. only to discover that it's pretty much incompatible
> > with his PC.
>
> and yet, somehow, i feel no pity..
Well, I do.
>
> > > Fair comment, so why should I have bought a PC to buy that kind of game?
> > > :)
> >
> > Because the PC's are so much better with these games than the Amiga. I mean, it
> > had beeper sound and several colours on the same screen! :)
>
> god save your souls - both of you..
You're not referring to Bill Gates as a god, are you??
>
> > > But these people WANT to play Elite, many of the excting new games, be it
> > > X Beyond the Frontier or whatever get slagged off.
> >
> > Yeah. It isn't fair to say that they should just forget about the old classics
> > because they've got loads of new bor.. er, exciting titles to play.
>
> oh yeah right - like Elite wasn't boring.. you're not fooling anyone Joachim..
This comment should really have been placed in your reply to Angus... :)
Joachim
Angus Manwaring
>Angus Manwaring wrote:
>>
>> >erm.. and why are you still playing your Amiga again?? :)
>>
>> Fair point.
>>
>> Partly because I've not run out of software on the Amiga that I'm
>> still discovering. There's also loads of stuff I _have_ discovered that I
>> think is still great. But also - I bought a Playstation, even created a
>yes, but you realize by now that you could "discover" great software on the
>PC, that was best-selling from, say, 1996-1998 but considered archaic by
>today's standards - although beyond cutting-edge on the Amiga - and you
>wouldn't even need to shell for a PPC or graphics card and thus jeopardize
>your Amiga's compatibility even more.. all you would need is a cheapo PC, and
>how much are they these days - free isn't it??
But if I did the PC thing we'd stop having these great Amiga based
conversations! Are there lots of classic PC games that I'd love? I don't
know. But I'm happy with the Amiga's back catalogue without getting into
the back catalogue of a machine that I already have zero enthusiasm for.
>> newsgroup, but I just kept coming back to the Amiga, because I had more fun
>> (generally) with the games. My son has an N64 and has recently bought
>> Perfect Dark, which we agree is an excellent game. He still wants to play
>> Moonstone and Genesia (the two latest games I've introduced him to) on the
>> Amiga though.
>it may sound silly, but i'm really looking forward to introducing my children
>- erm, if i have any - to the great games and movies and such i enjoyed in my
>life only in a (chrono) logical fashion of course, because:
>they have no choice (..muahahaha)
I admire your plan, but I think there maybe complications.
>>
>> >no, what you say makes sense.. personally though, when i eventually pick
>> >up a PS2
>> >(the only other console i will have ever owned after my CD32) i'll look
>> >forward to the ability to play all my friends old PSX games for starters..
>>
>> That makes a lot of sense too.
>but wait.. we can't both make sense.. one of us HAS! TO! DIE!
You're drunk again, arent you.
>>
>> Why, Angus, you're so right! Why didn't I think of that?!
>im imagining Angus in a pit of fire ants while i'm dripping honey on his
>head.. retort that!!
Acacia honey?
>personally i LIKE my A1200 as small as it is.. if i wanted something bigger i
>just would've bought an A4000.. i like that its so unassuming.. a little
>keyboard that houses an accelerator and ram, superfast harddrive and modem
>card (not to mention the graphics and sound chipset that most people picture
>as bulky audio and video cards).. even the power supply's of the new Amiga
>Tech A1200 are smaller and sleeker than the old CBM ones.. when you put it in
>a tower all of a sudden you can't help but compare it to new model PC's -
>except i bet your tower isn't nearly as cool looking as the PC ones - and
>anyway, anything you add to it, hacks away a little bit more at your overall
>compatibility, right?? i mean i could understand if you used it for hardcore
>multimedia, but then, as i said, why not just get an A4000?? (or a Mac or
>SGI)
Well, I'm not knocking it, but you obviously attach more importance to
form than I do. With me, it's all about functionality. Putting your 1200
motherboard in a tower won't affect compatibility. It also looks a lot
neater than a 1200 with squirrel lead, a CD, extra floppy drive etc
scattered all over my desk. But I gather there are some extra
compatibility problems with an A4000. Having said that, I would love to
have one, along with a Picasso graphics card. I'm not sure I've seen a
4000, and buying one would be tricky in terms of raising the cash.
eha...@mint.dot.net
> - only that the number of games that support them are really few in number and
> mostly the odd port from the PC..
Unless you get a graphics card like the Picasso IV, which has a
built-in scandoubler. So I get to use the graphics card stuff
AND the ECS/AGA only stuff. As for the PPC, it's really just a
co-processor, so it has no negative effect on compatibility. And yes,
the marvelous WHDLoad/JST programmers do wonders for getting old games
compatible again. The only problem here is whether your 10 year
old disks have gone bad. (Like my Midwinter disk...sob...)
--Eric
Angus Manwaring
>On 8 Jul 2000, Angus Manwaring wrote:
>> Fair enough, as I said I'm sure I'm in a minority,
>Yeah, you probably are old chum. :)
>> but I'd just sooner they spent the money on something I haven't
>> already got or can easily get if I need.
>If you're meaning the money spent on the PSX1 compatible hardware in
>the PSX2, you'll be happy to know (or maybe not) :) that that
>hardware is relegated to a simple IO controller of sorts when in PSX2
>mode. So it performs a useful function without adding technological
>baggage to the main processing units, or unnecessary cost.
>(...Besides, it's a console - the hardware's usually sold at a loss,
>and it's the software where they fleece you. Which they do so well) :)
That doesnt detract from my viewpoint though. The hardware is still an
expense that they have to recoup. You maybe right that PS compatibility
was an absolutely trivial addition to the hardware. I don't know. But if
it was, are you saying that (legal aspects aside) it would be a similarly
trivial addition to make a Dreamcast PS1 compatible?
If not, because the PS2 has been designed along similar lines as the PS,
then I'm still disatisfied; Sony have aimed too low at producing a
should-be dream machine. Actually, what I've seen of it, didn't gobsmack
me at all. :(
I do it find it difficult to accept that the design compromise for PS1
compatibility -and its NOT 100%- is as trivial as you say. It seems to me
that it is definitely a diversion of resources in any case, and from my
point of view, a wasted one. :p
*
> > oh.. to be honest i don't know much about graphic cards or PPC cards on the Amiga
> > - only that the number of games that support them are really few in number and
> > mostly the odd port from the PC..
>
> Unless you get a graphics card like the Picasso IV, which has a
> built-in scandoubler. So I get to use the graphics card stuff
> AND the ECS/AGA only stuff. As for the PPC, it's really just a
> co-processor, so it has no negative effect on compatibility. And yes,
> the marvelous WHDLoad/JST programmers do wonders for getting old games
> compatible again. The only problem here is whether your 10 year
> old disks have gone bad. (Like my Midwinter disk...sob...)
is that Flames of Freedom?? or is that Midwinter II?? if it's Flames of Freedom i
think i have that in like new condition that i would just give you the whole thing if
you wanted..
i read in i think AP 52 that some programmer house (i think the creators of Spheris
Legacy) would get any old game to work with your A1200 for about £3.95 per game or
something if you sent them the disks.. this was 1994 though - but was it sorta like
the roots of WHDLoad and JST?? i wonder..
y'r pal -kK
*
> But if I did the PC thing we'd stop having these great Amiga based
> conversations! Are there lots of classic PC games that I'd love? I don't
> know. But I'm happy with the Amiga's back catalogue without getting into
> the back catalogue of a machine that I already have zero enthusiasm for.
true, i'm not sure what my point was since i already agree with you on just about
everything..
> >> newsgroup, but I just kept coming back to the Amiga, because I had more fun
> >> (generally) with the games. My son has an N64 and has recently bought
> >> Perfect Dark, which we agree is an excellent game. He still wants to play
> >> Moonstone and Genesia (the two latest games I've introduced him to) on the
> >> Amiga though.
>
> >it may sound silly, but i'm really looking forward to introducing my children
>
> I admire your plan, but I think there maybe complications.
i was just joking of course.. but there is something to that.. it's kinda why in
art education of something, they never jump right into contemporary or modern..
they always start from the beginning, and rightly so.. otherwise you just can't
appreciate what was achieved, and how it came about, to the fullest.. does that
make sense?? the foundation is important.. what's funny is that even knowing that
i still wouldn't want to have to be put through it just to get to the good stuff
- so to speak..
> >> >no, what you say makes sense.. personally though, when i eventually pick
> >> >up a PS2
> >> >(the only other console i will have ever owned after my CD32) i'll look
> >> >forward to the ability to play all my friends old PSX games for starters..
> >>
> >> That makes a lot of sense too.
>
> >but wait.. we can't both make sense.. one of us HAS! TO! DIE!
>
> You're drunk again, arent you.
god i wish that were true..
> >personally i LIKE my A1200 as small as it is.. if i wanted something bigger i
> >just would've bought an A4000.. i like that its so unassuming.. a little
>
> Well, I'm not knocking it, but you obviously attach more importance to
> form than I do. With me, it's all about functionality. Putting your 1200
i don't believe you should ever give more importance to one over the other..
that's why im such a big fan of the turn-of-the-century art movements, like Art
Nouveau and the Belle Epoque.. they believed that if anything was going to be
seen by the public eye, it should be beautiful.. and the truth is that very often
it doesn't take much, or add to the cost, to make something both functional and
aesthetic.. just a little more effort.. i hope im explaining this right..
> motherboard in a tower won't affect compatibility. It also looks a lot
> neater than a 1200 with squirrel lead, a CD, extra floppy drive etc
> scattered all over my desk. But I gather there are some extra
that's true.. but if you have a harddrive there really isn't much call for an
extra diskdrive.. i guess a CD is a choice you have to make.. i know i sold my
CD32 only a little while ago because there never really was that much good
software for it.. it was in practically new condition even after owning it for 5
years because it got so little use.. again i don't use my Amiga for serious
computing.. but if i did i guess i'd get a PCMCIA CD..
> compatibility problems with an A4000. Having said that, I would love to
> have one, along with a Picasso graphics card. I'm not sure I've seen a
> 4000, and buying one would be tricky in terms of raising the cash.
i would definately take an A4000 over putting my A1200 in a tower.. from
everything i've seen the A4000 is a great machine..
y'r pal -kK
*
> There always is, of course, the possibility that the XBox or Dolphin
Dolphin?? do i even want to know??
y'r pal -kK
*
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, * wrote:
>
> > > A PS compatible daughterboard could have been something else, a
> > > high speed modem would have appealed more to me.
> >
> > do you know if the PS2 has S-Video??
>
> Not sure. I *think* so. But it has an SVGA port, so pretty much any
> kind of crisp picture could be derived from that.
is that like RGB?? that would be very cool..
salivating already, y'r pal -kK
*
> > Sierra still does the Quest series as far as im aware..
>
> The only Quest games really worth playing are their Quest for Glory titles. And, btw, I
> think an adventure game looses some of the flair when you have to shoot / slice people.
i thought i remember seeing like King's Quest IX or something - they use a polygon engine
now of course - who'd have thought..
> > is really a gross mis-statement.. strategy - see that new Shogun?? wow; rpg/adventure
> > - Diablo II and it's infinite clones; simulation - that War 2250 or something that
> > our good fellow Olafson actually did a shining review of in the NYTimes last week..
> > how about Thief II - very different approach to using the FPS engine.. and these are
>
> This isn't really all that relevant to the point. Yes, there are new PC games coming, but
> if you want to play an older game, you should get to do that, too. A brilliant game from
> 1993 is just as good as a brilliant game from 1999, IMHO. I'd like to be able to play
> both.
yes true.. i suppose it's mostly sour grapes on my part..
> > > said. Amazon Queen is an excellent game, even if there's no 3d shooting sections
> > > in it. So he got the game.. only to discover that it's pretty much incompatible
> > > with his PC.
> >
> > and yet, somehow, i feel no pity..
>
> Well, I do.
again.. erm, sour grapes.. y'know you can take lemons and make lemonade, but sour grapes
will only ever give you vinegar.. i think there's a lesson to be learned in here somewhere..
then again, those balsamic reductions are all the rage these days..
y'r pal -kK
Nathan Wain
On 8 Jul 2000, Angus Manwaring wrote:
> Fair enough, as I said I'm sure I'm in a minority,
Yeah, you probably are old chum. :)
> but I'd just sooner they spent the money on something I haven't
> already got or can easily get if I need.
If you're meaning the money spent on the PSX1 compatible hardware in
the PSX2, you'll be happy to know (or maybe not) :) that that
hardware is relegated to a simple IO controller of sorts when in PSX2
mode. So it performs a useful function without adding technological
baggage to the main processing units, or unnecessary cost.
(...Besides, it's a console - the hardware's usually sold at a loss,
and it's the software where they fleece you. Which they do so well) :)
> It's obviously a ppersonal taste thing though, I wasn't trying to
> state it as a FACT (tm). :)
That's okay... I never believed you anyway. :)
As a point of interest - Sony have not bent over backwards to make the
PSX2 110% compatible with its predecessor. They have already stated
that software that did not follow Sony guidelines (or something - my
memory is hazy on this) will not work in the PSX2. ...There was a bit
of a stink about all this on www.vintagegaming.com last month, but I
never bothered to look at the (in)compatibility lists.
So it's quite possible that the Playstation2 will have issues just
like AGA did with OCS. But since 1) These will issues will hopefully
be to a *much* lesser degree than the whole AGA/OCS thing 2) The PSX1
is massively primitive in comparison to its successor, so the punters
will probably want the PSX2 versions 3) There's always the emulate-
it-on-a-PC/Mac/PPC-Amiga/Dreamcast option (in some cases, in an
enhanced manner.) ...so probably no-one will care much.
There always is, of course, the possibility that the XBox or Dolphin
will not play such an insignificant role this time round the block
either. ...I wouldn't bet on it, but it's a possibility. I'm just
gonna sit back and enjoy the show, whatever happens. (Coz I have no
particular love for any of the three respective companies.) :)
Nathan Wain
On 8 Jul 2000, Angus Manwaring wrote:
> >> the PS situation. If you make the PS2 compatible that's a fair
> >> chunk of your design compromise committed at a stroke. I've got
> >> a PS, if I need
>
> >well not necessarily when done right -
>
> It really is you know.
Well, I have to argue:
When the technological jump is smallish, say OCS to AGA - and OCS
capability is still a formidable thing to build into the hardware -
the issues involved have a significant impact on what AGA can do.
(As, indeed, they did.)
When the jump is big, say PSX1 to PSX2 - and the hardware so advanced
that it can really do PSX1 stuff without blinking, and probably even
in software if need be, the design team can design it in this sequence:
1) Lets build this massively cool bit of hardware. 2) What other
tweaks do we need to make to let it do this basic PSX1 functionality?
I very much doubt that hardware compromises in the main IC's of the
PSX2 needed to be made. ...I believe this is illustrated by the fact
that the main GPU of the PSX1 is nothing more than an IO processor in
the PSX2 in PSX2 mode, and only plays a bit role when the machine is
forced into PSX1 mode.
...To use an analogy, and waffle at further length :), Commodore,
with the Amgia, could have made compromises to the keyboard processor
to add 'c64 compatibility' since the the keyboard IC on the a500/2000
was from the 6502 family - the CPU of the c64. Probably this would
have required a more sophisticated IC instead, and certainly the
bandwidth between the keyboard and the Amiga would have needed to be
increased. The GFX and sound chipsets are already more than capable
of emulating the c64 GFX and sound without change, so they remain
untouched. And 1541's are usable through a parrallel port adapter
in the same manner as Amiga and PC emulators later design.
Now (although I've undoubtably exaggerated the simplicity of doing
this) all that I've compromised to make the Amiga compatible with the
c64 is the keyboard processor. In this case I have, in fact, made it
more powerful than it needed to be - and probably demo-makers will
find a way to make it act like a CPU in 'amiga' mode to give some stuff
a boost. :) But the GFX and Sound hardware remain untouched.
(Personally, I would also alter the Amiga's simple filter to be a
dynamic one of similar capability to the SID-chip, saving much CPU
wellie in the sound emulation. ...But note again, that this has not
made the Amiga less-capable in any manner. It's actually made it a bit
*more* capable.)
Back then, this compromise would, quite possibly, have been far too
expensive to be practical. But now, with the PSX2, where the sales
volume is high, hardware and memory is cheap, and all the money is
made from the software anyway; it's quite feasable to build in this
compatibility in at no significant cost to the punter.
By contrast, with the PeeCee world, and specifically the i86 CPU, where
many little compromises have been made at each small technological jump:
You end up with an whole ton of technological baggage in the Processor
design - and unnecessarily complex CPU, compromising CPU speed both
through transister-count and lack of RISC-ability.
But I've already rambled enough... No point going there. No point
really going on to my other points, I'm sure I've given enough rough
arguments to invite debate or flames. :)
Must make a quick comment here though:
> A PS compatible daughterboard could have been something else, a high
> speed modem would have appealed more to me.
I think Sony were wise to not put a modem in there. ...We're already
hit the maximum baud-rate phone-lines can handle. (And it's still so
dependent on line conditions.) We're at that point where companies are
already pushing alternatives into the market. The PSX is just a new
machine - I see little point in adding hardware that might already be
dead before while the PSX is still 'new.'
The machine has expansion-ports (like USB) that can easily be used for
networking of any variety. To put any specific network hardware in the
beast when no clear long-term method has emerged yet would just be
risky.
Then again, maybe it'll all turn out to be a screwed up machine and
we'll get Dolphin's instead? :)
Nathan Wain
On 8 Jul 2000, Hans Guijt wrote:
> Nathan Wain (nat...@caverock.net.nz) wrote:
> > ...and (*fast*) PPC Amiga running UAE. (Hey, I just realised,
> > I created a Modula-2 comment. Cool!) (* :-) *)
>
> Could you please take the programming stuff to csa.programmer. This
> is a games newsgroup! Grrr! ;-)
I did, but I just got flamed for the bad form of not putting spacing
between comment markers and the enclosing comment, and told that it's
better practice a custom null symbol-type of smiley, and reference
that as a part of the program-code rather than commenting it out. :/
Nathan.
--
nat...@caverock.net homepages.caverock.net.nz/~nathan
"I have a degree in architecture, but I've never used it except as a
bookmark or a drink coaster." -- "Weird Al" Yankovic.
Nathan Wain
On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, * wrote:
> > A PS compatible daughterboard could have been something else, a
> > high speed modem would have appealed more to me.
>
> do you know if the PS2 has S-Video??
Not sure. I *think* so. But it has an SVGA port, so pretty much any
kind of crisp picture could be derived from that.
Nathan.
Nathan Wain
> >That's right. There are some absolute *gems* of software out there
> >that will live up to that statement ("Fire and Ice", "Gauntlet 2", "The
> >Settlers", "Indy 500", "Hired Guns") but for every one of them there are
> >tons ("Ghosts 'n' Goblins", "Zeewolf", "Virus", "IK+", "Action Fighter",
> >"Driller", "Sim City", "Lotus" (any of them), "Pinball Dreams") that
> >don't. And even the good ones I wouldn't be willing to bet will work on
> >_any_ Amiga.
>
> Well, as staed Virus works here, as does Zeewolf, I don't know about the
> others but I thought Sim City used the Amiga OS? Pinball Illusions works
> okay from CD here...... don't know about the rest.
I was careful to use examples that I have first-hand knowledge of. :)
Virus had speed issues (seemed hard wired for processor speed. But
fortunately it doesn't use FastRAM, so the speed is throttled somewhat
by the ChipRAM), Zeewolf has a *terribly* coded floppy-disk loading
routine, so will work fine on any Amiga if you have it installed with
WHDLoad - a real shame because the game itself has no issues. SimCity
would guru on my 50MHz 030 - seemed okay with the 25MHz 030, and
strangely seems fine with the 40MHz 040 too. The keyboard-reading
routines of Pinball Dreams (the first DI pinball game) would lock up
on fast processors. The rest of the game was fine though. :/
(Annoying when you *need* the keyboard for that one. But again the
excellent WHDLoad fixes that.)
IK+ - guru's on some >68000 machines. Has problems with NTSC too.
Driller - assumes a500 CPU speeds. (Very fast on the a4000.) :)
Lotus (1,2,3) - hates >68000 machines, guru's. (Patchable tho.)
Ghosts'n'Goblins - hates >68000 machines.
Such a shame, because these are all brilliant pieces of software.
Just badly written.
Nathan.
--
nat...@caverock.net homepages.caverock.net.nz/~nathan
A4000 Apollo 040/40MHz SCSI, Picasso IV, 2+112Meg, VLab, Viewsonic E70,
1.2 Gig HDD, 24xCD and a *big* stereo. Online at 14.4k with Term. :)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
we...@my-deja.com
"Eric Haines" <eha...@mint.DOT.net> wrote:
> > Oops, sorry. I meant:
> >
> > I think the 040 is slightly more compatible than an 060.
>
> I dunno...the 040 has a copyback mode that the 060 doesn't have, which
> seems to cause lots of problems. Anyway I've seen people with 040s
> complain about "incompatible games" that do run on my 060. But maybe
> there are more 060 incompatibility problems I haven't heard of. My
> experience is that different OS versions are a worse source of
> problems than CPU versions.
the 060 has copyback too and some extra specials. the internal design of 040
and 060 is very different, which for example leads into different speed
optimizations for both processors. also the 040 has more hardware bugs and
the board design (which has a great impact on compatibility and speed) is
more difficult.
bye bert
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joachim Froholt
* wrote:
> Joachim Froholt wrote:
>
> > > Sierra still does the Quest series as far as im aware..
> >
> > The only Quest games really worth playing are their Quest for Glory titles.
I must change this to Quest for Glory + the original Police Quest game :)
> > And, btw, I
> > think an adventure game looses some of the flair when you have to shoot / slice people.
>
> i thought i remember seeing like King's Quest IX or something - they use a polygon engine
> now of course - who'd have thought..
Yeah. I think it is a problem for the adventure genre that so many new "adventure" games really
are 3d shooters with extra puzzles. Oohh... I suddenly thought of a great title for Hyperion to
convert to the Amiga.... How about The Longest Journey? This is apparently one of the best real
adventure games that have been released lately, and the graphics are absolutely gorgeous. I
think there's been some problems with the distribution of this game in the US, because there's
lots of cursing in some sections, and there's apparently some hints of the main character being
lesbian or something..., but anyway, this should mean that the developers & publishers are keen
on a little extra money, since they spent several years creating the game. I think the game was
developed by a norwegian company called Funcom.
Joachim
ehaines
>> The only problem here is whether your 10 year
>> old disks have gone bad. (Like my Midwinter disk...sob...)
>
>is that Flames of Freedom?? or is that Midwinter II?? if it's
Flames of Freedom i
>think i have that in like new condition that i would just give
you the whole thing if
>you wanted..
Yeah, Flames of Freedom is Midwinter II...that one works OK I
think...but thanks anyway. :)
--Eric
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
*
i guess a Blizzard 060 would've been a much better bet then - especially with
that disable-key.. it was over twice the price of my 040 though - but then
again, you get what you pay for.. to be honest, except for these installs i'm
rather pleased with my Apollo, at least spec-wise.. much faster than the
A4000/040 (though that may have been a 25..)
> bye bert
wow the famous Bert of Planet WHDLoad!! Bert please help me with my installs..
i have installs for Infestation and Krusty's Fun House that crash WHDLoad and
write endlessly to my hardrive causing all sorts of horrible checksum errors..
i have an install for Second Samurai that won't work at all.. i have an Amiga
Tech brand A1200 (latest version) with OS 3.1 and an Apollo 040/40 with 16megs
FAST - only software on boot drive is MUI and FTPMount.. all games are original
version sealed in box (except for SS which is A1200 version..) i will gladly
register WHDLoad tomorrow, for working installs today!! thanks again Bert!!
y'r pal -kK
Angus Manwaring
>On 6 Jul 2000, Angus Manwaring wrote:
>>
>> Well, as staed Virus works here, as does Zeewolf, I don't know about the
>> others but I thought Sim City used the Amiga OS? Pinball Illusions works
>> okay from CD here...... don't know about the rest.
>I was careful to use examples that I have first-hand knowledge of. :)
>Virus had speed issues (seemed hard wired for processor speed. But
>fortunately it doesn't use FastRAM, so the speed is throttled somewhat
>by the ChipRAM),
It's fine on my 060, it just needs the caches off to load. But I found
another more dubious version which runs faster and smoother - its
different but great fun. :)
>Zeewolf has a *terribly* coded floppy-disk loading
>routine, so will work fine on any Amiga if you have it installed with
>WHDLoad - a real shame because the game itself has no issues.
Again, no problems on the 060 providing I lose the caches. :-/
>IK+ - guru's on some >68000 machines. Has problems with NTSC too.
>Driller - assumes a500 CPU speeds. (Very fast on the a4000.) :)
But not that fast is it? I tried the AF cover disk of the 3D Construction
kit 2 and was a bit disappointed with the lack of speed.
>Such a shame, because these are all brilliant pieces of software.
>Just badly written.
They were pre AGA though weren't they(?) so "badly written" is perhaps a
tad harsh.
Nathan Wain
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, * wrote:
> Nathan Wain wrote:
> > There always is, of course, the possibility that the XBox or Dolphin
>
> Dolphin?? do i even want to know??
Dunno. :) The latest generation of consoles I know of:
Dreamcast - The one that sits awkwardly between the PSX/N64 and
PSX2/Dolphin generations. Is selling well in America,
but not Japan or Australasia (Who probably waited for...)
Playstation2 - Successor to the playstation. (duh!) :) Unique in
consoles for being backward compatible.
XBox - Another one of Microsofts "this market is popular, we must lever
ouselves into it" concepts. Essentially a console PC. (I won't
even state my opinion here - y'all can probably guess.)
Dolphin - Successor to the N64. Specifications and release dates aren't
quite static yet. Whether it'll capitalise on the teething
troubles of the PSX2, or just be eternally late like the N64
remains to be seen.
we...@my-deja.com
> Angus Manwaring wrote:
> > Okay, well how about we target things specifically? Infestation, for
> > example, you say it's writing to your C directory?
>
> i tried booting without startup but changing the tooltype from WHDLoad
to
> HD0:C/WHDLoad so it would run (setting the Path didn't seem to work),
and it ran
if you are unable to set the Path properly, you should reinstall the os,
if whdload cannot be found from the wb when started from a Project icon
(using "whdload") it has nothing to do with whdload...
> (hurrah) but then crashed at that part it always crashes at in the
intro even
> when i run just from disk without using WHDLoad but with a relokick,
except now
> when it crashes it crashes writing something to my hardrive - although
to be more
> precise it doesn't actually "crash" as in flashing power light and
GURU, but just
> in exiting the programming and writing endlessly to my harddrive -
which when i
whdload itself does not write anything to the disk (except if the
installed program does). maybe you are using a cracked whdload or a
cracked keyfile, it that case of course the results are unpredictable.
> restart causes all kinds of nasty checksum and validation errors that
takes
> disksalv a LONG time to repair given the (manly) size of the drives..
bleh.. i
independed from the above, when using FFS the values of the
options ReadDelay and WriteDelay (recommend to set in the global config)
should not be decreased (the defaults should be well) or maybe
increased on problems. if rightly configured whdload should never
corrupt any disks...
Robert Karlsen
Only 1-5% of current PSX 1 games will work on PSX 2, so it's not very
backwards compatible.
PSX 2 was a unfinished rush console that Sony released because they had to
be ahead of Nintendo and M$.
Nathan Wain <nat...@caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100071...@shell.caverock.net.nz...
*
> > i tried booting without startup but changing the tooltype from WHDLoad
> to
> > HD0:C/WHDLoad so it would run (setting the Path didn't seem to work),
> and it ran
>
> if you are unable to set the Path properly, you should reinstall the os,
> if whdload cannot be found from the wb when started from a Project icon
> (using "whdload") it has nothing to do with whdload...
it was only when booting with no startup.. anyway it works now.. i did re
install the wb matter of fact.. i really don't think that's it though..
> > (hurrah) but then crashed at that part it always crashes at in the
> intro even
> > when i run just from disk without using WHDLoad but with a relokick,
> except now
> > when it crashes it crashes writing something to my hardrive - although
> to be more
> > precise it doesn't actually "crash" as in flashing power light and
> GURU, but just
> > in exiting the programming and writing endlessly to my harddrive -
> which when i
>
> whdload itself does not write anything to the disk (except if the
> installed program does). maybe you are using a cracked whdload or a
> cracked keyfile, it that case of course the results are unpredictable.
erm, why would i do that?? this version of WHDLoad and installs are all
direct from your site.. and all 3 installs i tried write 3 files to the C:
directory starting with ".whdl_" i think and then the filename.. i think
one is ".whdl_dump" another might be ".whdl_keyfile" im not sure..
> > restart causes all kinds of nasty checksum and validation errors that
> takes
> > disksalv a LONG time to repair given the (manly) size of the drives..
> bleh.. i
>
> independed from the above, when using FFS the values of the
> options ReadDelay and WriteDelay (recommend to set in the global config)
> should not be decreased (the defaults should be well) or maybe
> increased on problems. if rightly configured whdload should never
> corrupt any disks..
from what i understand, the corruption does not come from WHDLoad but from
my having to eventually restart my machine while it is writing to the
drive.. it never stops writing to the drive.. ever.. i never modified any
ReadDelay or WriteDelay values.. i never modifed anything - compared to
every other Amiga i've ever own this one is like a virgin..
incidentally, i found out why the Second Samurai install wasn't working -
the NoMMU tooltype.. i disabled that and now it crashes same as the
others.. actually i don't think DiskSalv really does fix the checksums -
well.. in the course of trying any and all combinations of the tooltypes my
hardrive is now quite wrecked.. nothing short of a decent format is going
to set it right.. unless i can get these things working right, i'm thinking
of shelving these problematic titles and WHDLoad until i can spring for a
decent accel like the Blizzard 060 with the hardware disable key..
thanks anyway - y'r pal -kK
Hans Guijt
>> > The only Quest games really worth playing are their Quest for Glory
>> > titles.
>I must change this to Quest for Glory + the original Police Quest game :)
The original Space Quest 1+2, and Police Quest 1 were brilliant. The later
games looked better (if you had a PC) but drifted further and further from
being fun to play.
Leisure Suit Larry 1 was also worth playing.
The Kings Quest series was always a bunch of unrelated unobvious problems that
happened to happen in the woods... Crap, in a word.
Anyway, just MHO.
Hans Guijt
cve...@specdata.com
"Robert Karlsen" <rob...@online.no> wrote:
> 1 Correction:
>
> Only 1-5% of current PSX 1 games will work on PSX 2, so it's not very
> backwards compatible.
> PSX 2 was a unfinished rush console that Sony released because they had to
> be ahead of Nintendo and M$.
Where did you get this BULLSHIT information? I know for a FACT that the PSX 2
is about 90% compatible with PSX 1 games. You better check your source again
or better yet get a different source for your information.
IMHO, only the Xbox will give Sony some competition. We all know that its the
SOFTWARE not the HARDWARE that makes a console and Sony have the BEST and
MOST developers developing for the PSX 2. Forget about NINTENDO, NINTENDO has
always associated itself as a CHILDRENS console and NINTENDO will never have
enough developers. Even with some minor problems (and many have been fixed or
addressed) the PSX 2 should win the console war.
> > Playstation2 - Successor to the playstation. (duh!) :) Unique in
> > consoles for being backward compatible.
> > XBox - Another one of Microsofts "this market is popular, we must lever
> > ouselves into it" concepts. Essentially a console PC. (I won't
> > even state my opinion here - y'all can probably guess.)
> > Dolphin - Successor to the N64. Specifications and release dates aren't
> > quite static yet. Whether it'll capitalise on the teething
> > troubles of the PSX2, or just be eternally late like the N64
> > remains to be seen.
> >
--
Chris Vella
Nathan Wain
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Robert Karlsen wrote:
> 1 Correction:
>
> Only 1-5% of current PSX 1 games will work on PSX 2, so it's not very
> backwards compatible.
> PSX 2 was a unfinished rush console that Sony released because they had to
> be ahead of Nintendo and M$.
Ah... I was aware that the compatibility wasn't 'great'... But I wasn't
aware it was just that bad. :/ On top of that developers seem to think
it's not an easy machine to program (so I hear.) Maybe Sony have just
become too complacent with their dominance, eh?
Looks like this a good opportunity for the bleem team to jump on in there
and port their PSX1 emulator to it. (Which would be so supremely ironic
that I would just die laughing.)
Hans Guijt
>Playstation2 - Successor to the playstation. (duh!) :) Unique in
> consoles for being backward compatible.
I've heard it uses an emulator. And now there's Bleem for the Dreamcast,
making that one Playstation compatible as well...
Hans Guijt
Nathan Wain
I'm pretty sure PSX2's emulation is hardware assisted. ...I see
no reason why a full-software emulator won't make an appearance
soon enough. The console is certainly capable of it.
I suspect, it there's any possible for it to happen without Sony
preventing it, Bleem will also appear for the Playstation2. (One
of bleem's strong points is that its resolution is higher than a
real PSX - on the PC it suffers in compatibility for this. (But
there's always Virtual Game Station for compatiblity without
enhancement.) On the dreamcast, they just release bleem with
presets for 25 games on each bleem CD (since, as we all know,
console users are too dumb to experiment.)) :)
Bleem for the Dreamcast certainly makes that console appealing in
the short term. (Actually, I might just get one - when they start
turning up cheap when people 'upgrade' their consoles soon.) :)
Robert Karlsen
with several gfx glitches...
BTW: There are more Children games on PSX that it will ever be on Nintendo.
Namco was irritated on Sony since it was much harder to develop for than
Dolphin, and lacks Bilienar filtering, low on GFX mem. Dreamcast has much
more balanced hardware than PSX 2.
I will NEVER buy a Micro$oft Console crap since it is only a PC-in-a-Box
without keyboard and M$ hasn't any exclusive games near that Nintendo and
Sega have.
Bob
> "Robert Karlsen" <rob...@online.no> wrote:
> > 1 Correction:
> >
> > Only 1-5% of current PSX 1 games will work on PSX 2, so it's not very
> > backwards compatible.
> > PSX 2 was a unfinished rush console that Sony released because they had
to
> > be ahead of Nintendo and M$.
>
>
> Where did you get this BULLSHIT information? I know for a FACT that the
PSX 2
> is about 90% compatible with PSX 1 games. You better check your source
again
> or better yet get a different source for your information.
>
> IMHO, only the Xbox will give Sony some competition. We all know that its
the
> SOFTWARE not the HARDWARE that makes a console and Sony have the BEST and
> MOST developers developing for the PSX 2. Forget about NINTENDO, NINTENDO
has
> always associated itself as a CHILDRENS console and NINTENDO will never
have
> enough developers. Even with some minor problems (and many have been fixed
or
> addressed) the PSX 2 should win the console war.
>
>
> > > Playstation2 - Successor to the playstation. (duh!) :) Unique in
> > > consoles for being backward compatible.
Robert Karlsen
> >
> > Only 1-5% of current PSX 1 games will work on PSX 2, so it's not very
> > backwards compatible.
> > PSX 2 was a unfinished rush console that Sony released because they had
to
> > be ahead of Nintendo and M$.
>
> aware it was just that bad. :/ On top of that developers seem to think
> it's not an easy machine to program (so I hear.) Maybe Sony have just
> become too complacent with their dominance, eh?
>
> Looks like this a good opportunity for the bleem team to jump on in there
> and port their PSX1 emulator to it. (Which would be so supremely ironic
> that I would just die laughing.)
>
> Nathan.
Bleem on PSX 2 that already should be backwards compatible..hehe
Sony would have shitten in their pants!
It will probably come a PSX and N64 emu for Dolphin.
BTW: We are discussing this in a wrong group.
Rob
Steffen Haeuser
nat...@caverock.net.nz wrote :
Hi!
na> I'm pretty sure PSX2's emulation is hardware assisted. ...I see
na> no reason why a full-software emulator won't make an appearance
na> soon enough. The console is certainly capable of it.
As to the CPU: The IO-Chip of the PSX2 is the Main-CPU of the PSX1. In case a
PSX 1 Game is played, the IO-Chip overtakes control over the Console :)
Of course the GFX-Hardware and such still need to be emulated... But that's
not too beefy hardware anymore, I guess... and could still be
hardware-assisted, I don't know...
Steffen
Angus Manwaring
>we...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> whdload itself does not write anything to the disk (except if the
>> installed program does). maybe you are using a cracked whdload or a
>> cracked keyfile, it that case of course the results are unpredictable.
>erm, why would i do that?? this version of WHDLoad and installs are all
>direct from your site.. and all 3 installs i tried write 3 files to the C:
>directory starting with ".whdl_" i think and then the filename.. i think
>one is ".whdl_dump" another might be ".whdl_keyfile" im not sure..
Surely this must be the key to the problem guys? If you've got a legit
WHDLoad, which I'm sure you have, and these files are being created in the
C directory, which Bert say can't happen, then surely we atleast no where
to start looking. What the hell _is_ creating these files?
Can you run Snoopdos when you attempt to start Infestation, or would you
not be able to see it, or save the log anyway?
> unless i can get these things working right, i'm thinking
>of shelving these problematic titles and WHDLoad until i can spring for a
>decent accel like the Blizzard 060 with the hardware disable key..
I can understand your frustration, but I'd urge you to stick with it.
You've atleast got Bert involved (and he is a great bloke). If you're
patient and you stick with it, I would expect us to be able to resolve
these difficulties.
Angus Manwaring
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Robert Karlsen wrote:
>> 1 Correction:
>>
>> Only 1-5% of current PSX 1 games will work on PSX 2, so it's not very
>> backwards compatible.
>> PSX 2 was a unfinished rush console that Sony released because they had to
>> be ahead of Nintendo and M$.
>Ah... I was aware that the compatibility wasn't 'great'... But I wasn't
>aware it was just that bad. :/ On top of that developers seem to think
>it's not an easy machine to program (so I hear.) Maybe Sony have just
>become too complacent with their dominance, eh?
Apparently in the UK you are not going to be able to purchase a PS2
directly from a shop this year. Sony have introduced a scheme where the
customer is supposed to place an order with a shop, and the receive the
PS2 later. Sounds daft to me, but what do I know? :-/
*
> >erm, why would i do that?? this version of WHDLoad and installs are all
> >direct from your site.. and all 3 installs i tried write 3 files to the C:
> >directory starting with ".whdl_" i think and then the filename.. i think
> >one is ".whdl_dump" another might be ".whdl_keyfile" im not sure..
>
> Surely this must be the key to the problem guys? If you've got a legit
while im sure it is key to the problem of my harddrive getting checksum's, i
don't think it has much to do with why WHDLoad is crashing in the first
place..
> WHDLoad, which I'm sure you have, and these files are being created in the
> C directory, which Bert say can't happen, then surely we atleast no where
didn't Nathan also say that WHDLoad creates these files?? have you checked
your C: directory to see if those files exist there for you??
> to start looking. What the hell _is_ creating these files?
>
> Can you run Snoopdos when you attempt to start Infestation, or would you
> not be able to see it, or save the log anyway?
i can still use my computer fine after WHDLoad crashes, it's just REALLY slow
to do anything because the hardrive is constantly writing those 3 files to the
C: directory.. but i can run programs or read/write other data if need be.. i
tried actually deleting those 3 files at one point to see if that would get
them to stop being written, but as soon as they were deleted they were
rewritten so that's how i know it is those 3 files that are um.. wait, what
was i saying again??
> > unless i can get these things working right, i'm thinking
> >of shelving these problematic titles and WHDLoad until i can spring for a
> >decent accel like the Blizzard 060 with the hardware disable key..
>
> I can understand your frustration, but I'd urge you to stick with it.
> You've atleast got Bert involved (and he is a great bloke). If you're
> patient and you stick with it, I would expect us to be able to resolve
> these difficulties.
well fine.. i mean when you put it like that and all..
hurrah -kK
Robert Karlsen
Angus Manwaring <angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1110.228T2859T10746138angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk...
> On 12-Jul-00 04:33:19, Nathan Wain said
> >On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Robert Karlsen wrote:
>
> >> 1 Correction:
> >>
> >> Only 1-5% of current PSX 1 games will work on PSX 2, so it's not very
> >> backwards compatible.
> >> PSX 2 was a unfinished rush console that Sony released because they had
to
> >> be ahead of Nintendo and M$.
>
> >Ah... I was aware that the compatibility wasn't 'great'... But I wasn't
> >aware it was just that bad. :/ On top of that developers seem to think
> >it's not an easy machine to program (so I hear.) Maybe Sony have just
> >become too complacent with their dominance, eh?
>
>
> Apparently in the UK you are not going to be able to purchase a PS2
> directly from a shop this year. Sony have introduced a scheme where the
> customer is supposed to place an order with a shop, and the receive the
> PS2 later. Sounds daft to me, but what do I know? :-/
I'm getting PSX 2 for free as soon it is released in Europe along with all
future PSX 2 games since i begin in a new fulltime job as a PSX 2 and DVD
tester in September..:)
Bob
*
> Joachim Froholt (jfro...@c2i.net) wrote:
> >> > The only Quest games really worth playing are their Quest for Glory
> >> > titles.
>
> >I must change this to Quest for Glory + the original Police Quest game :)
>
> The original Space Quest 1+2, and Police Quest 1 were brilliant. The later
> games looked better (if you had a PC) but drifted further and further from
> being fun to play.
see, for me, when i was playing Leander and SOB II my friends were all playing
Space Quest IV and King's Quest V and one called Martian Memorandum (i think) - i
thought SQIV was pretty cool, that whole game-within-a-game with that chicken
arcade bit was pretty neat.. and that part with an operating sytem at the end
where you drag icons into a toilet (instead of a trash can) and it makes a
flushing sound when it empties - that was pretty hilarious too.. i don't know..
but none of them were ever any fun to WATCH for long.. the Amiga was always much
better at entertaining - i hate to say it - but like a console.. games like
Gauntlet on the Nintendo, Sonic on Sega and that one on Turbo Graphix-16 (y'know
where you had a sword and suit and stuff.. y'know) were always fun when you had a
bunch of friends over.. frankly the PC stuff always was - and is - pretty boring
just to WATCH.. 2 player PC games are so nonexistant - unless it's over the net
or something.. that's part of the reason i hang onto my Amiga - the good
memories.. and there's no denying that some Amiga games were out-and-out classics
(like Pacman on the Atari 2600) and are no doubt still fun to play today - with
friends..
y'r pal -kK
Angus Manwaring
>Angus Manwaring wrote:
>> >erm, why would i do that?? this version of WHDLoad and installs are all
>> >direct from your site.. and all 3 installs i tried write 3 files to the C:
>> >directory starting with ".whdl_" i think and then the filename.. i think
>> >one is ".whdl_dump" another might be ".whdl_keyfile" im not sure..
>>
>> Surely this must be the key to the problem guys? If you've got a legit
>while im sure it is key to the problem of my harddrive getting checksum's, i
>don't think it has much to do with why WHDLoad is crashing in the first
>place..
Why not? With names like whdl_dump etc there's something going on between
your computer and the WHD Infestation installation that shouldn't be
happening. These files don't exist in my C directory, infact here is what
happens when I run Infestation:
Snoopdos.log
Count Process Name Action Target Name Options Res.
----- ------------ ------ ----------- ------- ----
1 ramlib Load LIBS:expansions.library Fail
2 WHDLoad Open S:whdload.prefs Read Fail
3 WHDLoad ChangeDir QDH1:Infestation
4 WHDLoad LockScreen Workbench OK
5 WHDLoad ToolType DEFAULTIMAGE Fail
6 WHDLoad ToolType Slave OK
7 WHDLoad ToolType NoAutovec Fail
8 WHDLoad ToolType NoTrapHandler Fail
9 WHDLoad ToolType Preload OK
10 WHDLoad ToolType Cache Fail
11 WHDLoad ToolType NoCache OK
12 WHDLoad ToolType DCache Fail
13 WHDLoad ToolType NTSC Fail
14 WHDLoad ToolType PAL Fail
15 WHDLoad ToolType FileLog Fail
16 WHDLoad ToolType WriteDelay Fail
17 WHDLoad ToolType NoVBRMove Fail
18 WHDLoad ToolType CoreDump Fail
19 WHDLoad ToolType QuitKey Fail
20 WHDLoad ToolType DebugKey Fail
21 WHDLoad ToolType FreezeKey Fail
22 WHDLoad ToolType MMU Fail
23 WHDLoad ToolType NoMMU Fail
24 WHDLoad ToolType SnoopOCS Fail
25 WHDLoad ToolType SnoopECS Fail
26 WHDLoad ToolType SnoopAGA Fail
27 WHDLoad ToolType ButtonWait Fail
28 WHDLoad ToolType Custom1 Fail
29 WHDLoad ToolType Custom2 Fail
30 WHDLoad ToolType Custom3 Fail
31 WHDLoad ToolType Custom4 Fail
32 WHDLoad ToolType Custom5 Fail
33 WHDLoad ToolType DBLNTSC Fail
34 WHDLoad ToolType DBLPAL Fail
35 WHDLoad ToolType D Fail
36 WHDLoad ToolType NoFilter Fail
37 WHDLoad ToolType BlitMin Fail
38 WHDLoad ChangeDir SYS:
39 WHDLoad ChangeDir QDH1:Infestation
40 WHDLoad Open S:WHDLoad.key Read Fail
41 WHDLoad Open L:WHDLoad.key Read OK
42 WHDLoad Open InfestationHD.slave Read OK
43 WHDLoad ChangeDir QDH1:Infestation/data
44 WHDLoad Open Infestation.islave Read OK
45 WHDLoad Open intro Read OK
46 WHDLoad Open game Read OK
47 WHDLoad ChangeDir QDH1:Infestation
>didn't Nathan also say that WHDLoad creates these files?? have you checked
>your C: directory to see if those files exist there for you??
Yup, and they're not there.
>>
>> Can you run Snoopdos when you attempt to start Infestation, or would you
>> not be able to see it, or save the log anyway?
>i can still use my computer fine after WHDLoad crashes, it's just REALLY slow
>to do anything because the hardrive is constantly writing those 3 files to
>the C: directory.. but i can run programs or read/write other data if need
>be.. i tried actually deleting those 3 files at one point to see if that
>would get them to stop being written, but as soon as they were deleted they
>were rewritten so that's how i know it is those 3 files that are um.. wait,
>what was i saying again??
Probably worth getting Snoopdos and running it next time you try
Infestation.
we...@my-deja.com
ke...@ulster.net wrote:
> we...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > (hurrah) but then crashed at that part it always crashes at in the
> > intro even
> > > when i run just from disk without using WHDLoad but with a
relokick,
> > except now
> > > when it crashes it crashes writing something to my hardrive -
although
> > to be more
> > > precise it doesn't actually "crash" as in flashing power light and
> > GURU, but just
> > > in exiting the programming and writing endlessly to my harddrive -
> > which when i
> >
> > installed program does). maybe you are using a cracked whdload or a
> > cracked keyfile, it that case of course the results are
unpredictable.
>
all
> direct from your site.. and all 3 installs i tried write 3 files to
the C:
> directory starting with ".whdl_" i think and then the filename.. i
think
> one is ".whdl_dump" another might be ".whdl_keyfile" im not sure..
hmm, these files are only written by whdload on request, either by
pressing the DebugKey (you need also set Expert in the global config) or
by hitting the CoreDump button on the requester which whdloads displays
when an error occured.
i doubt that the first thing matches your problem, so do you have any
autoanswer to reqs (mcp or similar) or any req patches running?
> > > restart causes all kinds of nasty checksum and validation errors
that
> > takes
> > > disksalv a LONG time to repair given the (manly) size of the
drives..
> > bleh.. i
> >
> > independed from the above, when using FFS the values of the
> > options ReadDelay and WriteDelay (recommend to set in the global
config)
> > should not be decreased (the defaults should be well) or maybe
> > increased on problems. if rightly configured whdload should never
> > corrupt any disks..
>
> from what i understand, the corruption does not come from WHDLoad but
from
> my having to eventually restart my machine while it is writing to the
> drive.. it never stops writing to the drive.. ever.. i never modified
any
it never stops? very strange! how large are the files?
bye bert
*
> >while im sure it is key to the problem of my harddrive getting checksum's, i
> >don't think it has much to do with why WHDLoad is crashing in the first
> >place..
>
> Why not? With names like whdl_dump etc there's something going on between
> your computer and the WHD Infestation installation that shouldn't be
> happening. These files don't exist in my C directory, infact here is what
> happens when I run Infestation:
interesting.. i think the .whdl_dump, .whdl_memory and .whdl_register are a
result of the install crashing.. i downloaded snoopdos and that helped me solve a
huge problem - although none of the installs still work.. building on what you
started, here's how mine read:
Snoopdos.log
Count Process Name Action Target Name Options Res.
----- ------------ ------ ----------- ------- ----
1 WHDLoad Open S:whdload.prefs Read Fail
2 WHDLoad ChangeDir QDH1:Infestation
3 WHDLoad ToolType DEFAULTIMAGE Fail
4 WHDLoad ToolType Slave OK
5 WHDLoad ToolType NoAutovec Fail
6 WHDLoad ToolType NoTrapHandler Fail
7 WHDLoad ToolType Preload OK
8 WHDLoad ToolType Cache Fail
9 WHDLoad ToolType NoCache OK
10 WHDLoad ToolType DCache Fail
11 WHDLoad ToolType NTSC Fail
12 WHDLoad ToolType PAL Fail
13 WHDLoad ToolType FileLog Fail
14 WHDLoad ToolType WriteDelay Fail
15 WHDLoad ToolType NoVBRMove Fail
16 WHDLoad ToolType CoreDump Fail
17 WHDLoad ToolType QuitKey Fail
18 WHDLoad ToolType DebugKey Fail
19 WHDLoad ToolType FreezeKey Fail
20 WHDLoad ToolType MMU Fail
21 WHDLoad ToolType NoMMU Fail
22 WHDLoad ToolType SnoopOCS Fail
23 WHDLoad ToolType SnoopECS Fail
24 WHDLoad ToolType SnoopAGA Fail
25 WHDLoad ToolType ButtonWait Fail
26 WHDLoad ToolType Custom1 Fail
27 WHDLoad ToolType Custom2 Fail
28 WHDLoad ToolType Custom3 Fail
29 WHDLoad ToolType Custom4 Fail
30 WHDLoad ToolType Custom5 Fail
31 WHDLoad ToolType DBLNTSC Fail
32 WHDLoad ToolType DBLPAL Fail
33 WHDLoad ToolType D Fail
34 WHDLoad ToolType NoFilter Fail
35 WHDLoad ToolType BlitMin Fail
36 WHDLoad ChangeDir SYS:
37 WHDLoad ChangeDir QDH1:Infestation
38 WHDLoad Open S:WHDLoad.key Read Fail
39 WHDLoad Open L:WHDLoad.key Read Fail
40 WHDLoad Open DEVS:WHDLoad.key Read Fail
41 WHDLoad Open LIBS:WHDLoad.key Read Fail
42 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:WHDLoad.key Read Fail
43 WHDLoad Open InfestationHD.slave Read OK
44 WHDLoad ChangeDir QDH1:Infestation/data
45 WHDLoad Open Infestation.islave Read OK
46 ramlib Load LIBS:reqtools.library Fail
47 ramlib Load reqtools.library Fail
48 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_dump Write OK
49 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_memory Write OK
50 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_register Write OK
51 WHDLoad Open InfestationHD.slave Read OK
52 ramlib Load LIBS:asl.library OK
53 ramlib Load LIBS:reqtools.library Fail
54 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_dump Write OK
55 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_memory Write OK
56 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_register Write OK
57 WHDLoad Open InfestationHD.slave Read OK
58 ramlib Load LIBS:asl.library OK
59 ramlib Load LIBS:reqtools.library Fail
60 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_dump Write OK
61 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_memory Write OK
62 WHDLoad Open PROGDIR:.whdl_register Write OK
63 WHDLoad Open InfestationHD.slave Read OK
64 ramlib Load LIBS:asl.library OK
65 ramlib Load LIBS:reqtools.library Fail
and etc.. but you get the idea.. so do you see what's wrong?? im missing the
stupid reqtools.library.. i swear it didn't install with wb.. anyway i downloaded
it from aminet and now instead of writing endlessly it just brings up an error
message - i've detailed them in my post to Bert..
> >didn't Nathan also say that WHDLoad creates these files?? have you checked
> >your C: directory to see if those files exist there for you??
>
> Yup, and they're not there.
i'm guessing they are only written when the install fails..
> Probably worth getting Snoopdos and running it next time you try
> Infestation.
snoopdos is really fun - thanks Angus!!
y'r pal -kK
*
> > direct from your site.. and all 3 installs i tried write 3 files to the
> C:
> > directory starting with ".whdl_" i think and then the filename.. i
> think
> > one is ".whdl_dump" another might be ".whdl_keyfile" im not sure..
>
> hmm, these files are only written by whdload on request, either by
> pressing the DebugKey (you need also set Expert in the global config) or
> by hitting the CoreDump button on the requester which whdloads displays
> when an error occured.
> i doubt that the first thing matches your problem, so do you have any
> autoanswer to reqs (mcp or similar) or any req patches running?
no.. it turns out i was missing the reqtools.library.. but i think those
files were being written because the install was failing and reqtools
interprets them into a requester - explaining the error - i am of course
talking as one who knows nothing about inner system workings.. but i'm
pretty sure those files are still being written even with retools.library
installed when the install error's out..
> > from what i understand, the corruption does not come from WHDLoad but
> from
> > my having to eventually restart my machine while it is writing to the
> > drive.. it never stops writing to the drive.. ever.. i never modified
> any
>
> it never stops? very strange! how large are the files?
im not sure if they got any bigger - i just think it was waiting for
reqtools and when that was failing it was looping and writing them again..
reqtools.library solves that problem, as did pressing pause on snoopdos -
which stopped the writing so i could restart my machine without damaging my
harddrive.. the error message that the three installs now bring up - with
reqtools installed - are:
Infestation:
Exception "Access Fault" ($7008)
PC = $1568
Locked Instruction Stream Fault on $BEFFBFF7
Krusty's Fun House:
Exception "Line 1010 Emulator" ($28)
At $5002 Occurred
Second Samurai A1200:
Exception "Access Fault" ($7008)
PC = $DFEFAC
Long Write to $DFEFA8
what do these mean Bert?? is there anything i can do about them?? thanks
alot!!
y'r pal -kK
Hans Guijt
>see, for me, when i was playing Leander and SOB II my friends were all
>playing Space Quest IV and King's Quest V and one called Martian Memorandum
That's that Origin game, isn't it? It was called something else: Martian
<somethingorother>... Darn!
>(i think) - i thought SQIV was pretty cool, that whole game-within-a-game
>with that chicken arcade bit was pretty neat..
Sheer frustration though! ;-)
Hans Guijt
Hans Guijt
>I'm getting PSX 2 for free as soon it is released in Europe along with all
>future PSX 2 games since i begin in a new fulltime job as a PSX 2 and DVD
>tester in September..:)
And they are going to *pay* you for that!?
Hans Guijt
we...@my-deja.com
whdload uses reqtools if available, if not available it uses standard
requesters - so it does not depend on reqtools.
i have checked the source, it seems that there is problem if the
requester cannot be opened at all, maybe this leads into writing the
dump endless. will be fixed in the next version...
try tooltype nocache, else contact authors of the installs
Joachim Froholt
Hans Guijt wrote:
> * (ke...@ulster.net) wrote:
> >see, for me, when i was playing Leander and SOB II my friends were all
> >playing Space Quest IV and King's Quest V and one called Martian Memorandum
>
> That's that Origin game, isn't it? It was called something else: Martian
> <somethingorother>... Darn!
I think there's more than one game called Martian <somethingorother>, and I seem
to remember a rpg from Origin with the word Martian in it's name.
Martian Memorandum was by Access Software, and it was in the same series as
their Under a Killing Moon. Both games starred Tex Murphy, a hopeless detective
in a future world (after a kind of nuclear holocaust).
Joachim
Mika Yrjola
> * (ke...@ulster.net) wrote:
> >see, for me, when i was playing Leander and SOB II my friends were all
> >playing Space Quest IV and King's Quest V and one called Martian Memorandum
>
> That's that Origin game, isn't it? It was called something else: Martian
> <somethingorother>... Darn!
Martian dreams?
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
I Fantasy, Sci-fi, Linux, Amiga, Telecommunications, Oldfield, Vangelis I
I Seti@Home, Steady relationship, more at http://www.lut.fi/%7emyrjola/ I
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Andreas Eibach
> flushing sound when it empties - that was pretty hilarious too..
No you're wrong. :)
This is Space Quest _III_, not IV.
I can prove that because I played this game to death. :)
andreas
Matthias Puch
>> i thought SQIV was pretty cool, that whole game-within-a-game
>> with that chicken arcade bit was pretty neat.. and that part
>> with an operating sytem at the end where you drag icons into a
>> toilet (instead of a trash can) and it makes a flushing sound
>> when it empties - that was pretty hilarious too..
>
> No you're wrong. :)
>
> This is Space Quest _III_, not IV.
He's right. The semi-computer-desktop-ending was indeed in SQIV,
not in SQ3. You had, for example, drag the KingsQuestXV-Icon into
the toilet to free up some (5000MB or so *g*) disk space. Which was
also a reference to "Kings Quest XV - Quest for disk space", a game
you found in a bargain box in a software store in the very same
game.
> I can prove that because I played this game to death. :)
It seems you should play it some more, then. ;-)
Andreas Eibach
> >> i thought SQIV was pretty cool, that whole game-within-a-game
> >> with that chicken arcade bit was pretty neat.. and that part
> >> with an operating sytem at the end where you drag icons into a
> >> toilet (instead of a trash can) and it makes a flushing sound
> >> when it empties - that was pretty hilarious too..
> >
> > No you're wrong. :)
> >
> > This is Space Quest _III_, not IV.
>
> He's right. The semi-computer-desktop-ending was indeed in SQIV,
> not in SQ3.
I think we are both right!!
I can manifest that this "chicken arcade" bit was in this outaspace
'McDonalds' restaurant and this restaurant WAS IN SQ _III_. For sure.
I mean this weird burger bar in the middle of nowhere with all those
alien creatures eating their space junk food. ;)
Just focus on this "chicken" stuff.
(It can be the chicken was "taken over" into the next episode as well, I
can't tell because I never played SQ IV 'til the end, but I did SQ I, II
and of course III.
cheers
andreas
Matthias Puch
>I can manifest that this "chicken arcade" bit was in this
>outaspace 'McDonalds' restaurant and this restaurant WAS IN SQ
>_III_. For sure. I mean this weird burger bar in the middle of
I know. Monolith Burgers, with the USS Enterprise leaving just as
Wilco docks in. The game-in-the-game is Astro Chicken, in which you
try to land a chicken on a landing pad. If you succeed a dozen of
times, you will be presented with a encoded plea for help from the
Two guys from Andromeda who are held captive by Scummsoft, which you
can decode with the decoder ring you found in your "Surprise meal"
before.
I *know* the game, believe me. ;-)
>nowhere with all those alien creatures eating their space junk
>food. ;)
And the "employee of the month", featuring hypnotic ability.
"Do you want something to drink with this?" - "Yes" or "Yes"? :-)
>Just focus on this "chicken" stuff.
But he wrote about the combination of the chicken game and the semi
desktop, and this most surely only occured in SQ4.
>(It can be the chicken was "taken over" into the next episode as
>well, I can't tell because I never played SQ IV 'til the end, but
You should. It's nice, although not as good as SQ3 or SQ2.
One of the highlights of the game IMHO is the bargain box in the
software store, where you can find classic games like "It came for
dessert", "Sim sim", "Where in the world is Hymie Lipschitz and who
really cares" and a Space Quest 4 hintbook (!), to name but a few.
:-)
>I did SQ I, II and of course III.
Me too. I love Sierra adventures. At least the older ones, the more
"recent" ones Amiga conversions were done very badly.
*
> > i thought SQIV was pretty cool, that whole game-within-a-game with that
> > chicken arcade bit was pretty neat.. and that part with an operating sytem
> > at the end where you drag icons into a toilet (instead of a trash can) and it makes a
> > flushing sound when it empties - that was pretty hilarious too..
>
> No you're wrong. :)
>
> This is Space Quest _III_, not IV.
> I can prove that because I played this game to death. :)
well go on and prove it already then..
y'r pal -kK
*
> Andreas...@de.bosch.com (Andreas Eibach) wrote:
>
> >I can manifest that this "chicken arcade" bit was in this
> >outaspace 'McDonalds' restaurant and this restaurant WAS IN SQ
> >_III_. For sure. I mean this weird burger bar in the middle of
>
> I know. Monolith Burgers, with the USS Enterprise leaving just as
> Wilco docks in. The game-in-the-game is Astro Chicken, in which you
> try to land a chicken on a landing pad.
the one in SQIV you fly a chicken that can drop eggs on hunters and
their dogs.. i remember, because i think if you got it just right you
could get one egg to hit both a hunter AND his dog.. i think it ended
when you flew over the cuckoo's nest.. we played this game a lot because
it was about as close to arcade-style games as you got on the PC.. the
game-within-a-game was just ironic..
> >I did SQ I, II and of course III.
>
> Me too. I love Sierra adventures. At least the older ones, the more
> "recent" ones Amiga conversions were done very badly.
thank you.. and the graphics were hack compared to the 256c PC ones..
take that Joachim :)
y'r pal -kK
Matthias Puch
>the one in SQIV you fly a chicken that can drop eggs on hunters and
>their dogs.. i remember, because i think if you got it just right you
Exactly. I didn't play it too much, though, as there are more
interesting horizontal scrolling SEU games for the Amiga.
I liked the game in SQ3 quite a bit, though.
Exploding chicken are always cool, aren't they? ;-)
>thank you.. and the graphics were hack compared to the 256c PC ones..
Exactly what I meant with "bad conversion".
I mean, I have the Amiga SQ4 box sitting on a shelf here, and it has
some PC screenshots on it. Some of them are from the VGA 256 version,
very beautiful. Some are from the 16 color EGA version, still quite
pleasing. So I thought that the Amiga version should be somewhere
between very beautiful and quite pleasing. But in fact the Amiga
graphics are crap.
Take a few screenshots of the Amiga GFX, load the picture with DPaint
or a similar program and you will find that the GFX use a fixed
palette. So, it seems that the Amiga GFX were "created" by batch
remapping the VGA ones to fixed mapped bitmaps without dithering.
Really ugly. I once took some pictures of the VGA version and batch
remapped them to a optimized fixed palette with dithering using NetPBM,
and the result actually looked much better than the "official" one.
The same goes for PQ3 and SQ1 and LSL1 enhanced.
And Sierra really made the rubber burn by putting the original
16-color PQ1 (which was a amazing game at its time, BTW) disk into
the "Amiga version" of the enhanced VGA rerelease package.
Of course, knowing the Sierra conversion quality at this time, I
didn't expect to get even remotely VGA-quality, but I didn't
really expect to get the very same game I purchased 6 years
before, either. :-/
While they did some really good Amiga versions which took advantage
of the Amigas superior graphics and sound capabilites
(PQ2,SQ3,KQ4,LSL2+3,CB,QfG1), they seem to have used a dos batch
script with some freeware GFX and Sound conversion tools for their
later Amiga ports ("convert.bat amiga PQ3").
So, enough ranting, but the name "Sierra" in combination with the
Amiga sometimes can really make my blood boil.
The only highlight in the later Sierra conversion was Kings Quest VI,
which of course wasn't done by Sierra, but by Revolution Software.
Joachim Froholt
Matthias Puch wrote:
> ke...@ulster.net (*) wrote:
>
> >the one in SQIV you fly a chicken that can drop eggs on hunters and
> >their dogs.. i remember, because i think if you got it just right you
>
> Exactly. I didn't play it too much, though, as there are more
> interesting horizontal scrolling SEU games for the Amiga.
>
> I liked the game in SQ3 quite a bit, though.
> Exploding chicken are always cool, aren't they? ;-)
Hmm.. that gave me an idea for my all-text adventure, "The Great Moon
Escape"... ;-)
>
> >thank you.. and the graphics were hack compared to the 256c PC ones..
>
> Exactly what I meant with "bad conversion".
> I mean, I have the Amiga SQ4 box sitting on a shelf here, and it has
> some PC screenshots on it. Some of them are from the VGA 256 version,
> very beautiful. Some are from the 16 color EGA version, still quite
> pleasing. So I thought that the Amiga version should be somewhere
> between very beautiful and quite pleasing. But in fact the Amiga
> graphics are crap.
>
> Take a few screenshots of the Amiga GFX, load the picture with DPaint
> or a similar program and you will find that the GFX use a fixed
> palette. So, it seems that the Amiga GFX were "created" by batch
> remapping the VGA ones to fixed mapped bitmaps without dithering.
> Really ugly. I once took some pictures of the VGA version and batch
> remapped them to a optimized fixed palette with dithering using NetPBM,
> and the result actually looked much better than the "official" one.
>
> The same goes for PQ3 and SQ1 and LSL1 enhanced.
> And Sierra really made the rubber burn by putting the original
> 16-color PQ1 (which was a amazing game at its time, BTW) disk into
> the "Amiga version" of the enhanced VGA rerelease package.
> Of course, knowing the Sierra conversion quality at this time, I
> didn't expect to get even remotely VGA-quality, but I didn't
> really expect to get the very same game I purchased 6 years
> before, either. :-/
Oops.. The original PQ game is quite good, though, even with EGA graphics.
It would have been nice if the parser was a bit more advanced, though.
>
> While they did some really good Amiga versions which took advantage
> of the Amigas superior graphics and sound capabilites
> (PQ2,SQ3,KQ4,LSL2+3,CB,QfG1), they seem to have used a dos batch
> script with some freeware GFX and Sound conversion tools for their
> later Amiga ports ("convert.bat amiga PQ3").
>
All those conversions you named seems to be from approx. the same time.
Perhaps they used to employ an Amiga user... The Quest for Glory conversion
is truly great - wandering outside at night was quite scary due to the
sound effects, and the town was "alive" at the daytime. It's a pity that
the conversion of QfG II isn't like this (it's pretty identical to the PC
version). Quest for Glory I and II are some of my all-time favourite games.
Have you tried the AGA version of Space Quest I? I own the Kixx rerelease
version of this one - it looks pretty nice, but it's incredibly slow
(although I don't think I've played it _once_ since I got my 030/50, so I
don't know how well it runs now). I remember being quite impressed by a
huge dino skeleton on a desert planet (incidentally, that's where I'm stuck
- there's a troll thing who.. er.. puts me into my helmet and use me as a
basketball..).
>
> So, enough ranting, but the name "Sierra" in combination with the
> Amiga sometimes can really make my blood boil.
>
> The only highlight in the later Sierra conversion was Kings Quest VI,
> which of course wasn't done by Sierra, but by Revolution Software.
That and Space Quest I AGA are the only "late" Sierra conversions I've
played. Both of them looks quite nice, I think.
Joachim
Andreas Eibach
Matthias Puch schrieb:
>
> Andreas...@de.bosch.com (Andreas Eibach) wrote:
>
> >I can manifest that this "chicken arcade" bit was in this
> >outaspace 'McDonalds' restaurant and this restaurant WAS IN SQ
> >_III_. For sure. I mean this weird burger bar in the middle of
>
> I know. Monolith Burgers [...]
> The game-in-the-game is Astro Chicken, in which you
> try to land a chicken on a landing pad. If you succeed a dozen of
> times, you will be presented with a encoded plea for help from the
> Two guys from Andromeda [...]
> I *know* the game, believe me. ;-)
Errrm ... should I really? ;) OK. ;) <g>
> And the "employee of the month", featuring hypnotic ability.
> "Do you want something to drink with this?" - "Yes" or "Yes"? :-)
I remember. Well that seemed to be a bug, though.
> > I can't tell because I never played SQ IV 'til the end, but
>
> You should. It's nice, although not as good as SQ3 or SQ2.
> One of the highlights of the game IMHO is the bargain box in the
> software store, where you can find classic games like "It came for
> dessert", "Sim sim", "Where in the world is Hymie Lipschitz and who
> really cares" and a Space Quest 4 hintbook (!), to name but a few.
> :-)
Cool. Yeah, you never *really* played it completely when it came out,
and 10 years later you get a flash of "I-must-play-it-right-now" rushing
into your brain all of a sudden. ;)
WEIRD! :)
Well, I confess _you've_ _pushed_ _me_. Yes you did.
G U I L T Y Y Y Y !!!!
;o)
Well, seriously, I think I'm going to make another attempt, even if I
have to start over again from the beginning - so what? :-)
> I love Sierra adventures. At least the older ones, the more
> "recent" ones Amiga conversions were done very badly.
ACK. :)
cheers
Andreas
Matthias Puch
>> Exploding chicken are always cool, aren't they? ;-)
>
> Hmm.. that gave me an idea for my all-text adventure, "The Great Moon
> Escape"... ;-)
Never heard of it. Is it on Aminet? :-)
> Oops.. The original PQ game is quite good, though, even with EGA graphics.
I agree. But the problem is that there was an enhanced VGA version of PQ1,
as was of LSL1 and SQ1. And me being a Sierra fan (yes, even though
they screwed some Amiga ports up), I bought the Amiga versions of those
remakes. And while they were quite slow to play with any Amiga hardware
and didn't look as good as their VGA counterparts, they were indeed
reworked in the Amiga version as well.
And so, when PQ1-VGA hit the shops and there also was a Amiga version of
it (with the "Enhanced version" sticker on it), I also bought this one,
expecting the same reworks on the Amiga version as well.
But it was simply the plain old PQ1. :-/
> All those conversions you named seems to be from approx. the same time.
Yes. For sierra, there were three "eras of Amiga conversions":
Phase 1: SQ1+2, KQ1-3, PQ1, LSL1 and some other games.
1:1 conversions of the original IBM-PC ports, with squeaky sound and
EGA graphics.
Phase 2: SQ3, KQ4, PQ2, LSL2+3, QfG1+2, CB and mayby other games
1:1 conversions of the original IBM graphics, but very enhanced
sound which gave you samples and a kind of "midi emulation", resulting
in better sound quality which PC dudes only got if they bought a sound
card which would have been twice as expansive than a complete Amiga.
Phase 3: SQ4, KQ5, PQ3, LSL5 and others.
While still quite good in the music department, those conversions
really had ugly GFX, resulting from the very sloppy conversion of the
original VGA 256 color graphics.
The rest is history, as Sierra never did an Amiga port again after those
games. And I am not even sure if I should be pity about it, Sierra is
still known of writing good but buggy resp. sloppy programmed games in the
PC and Mac world.
> Perhaps they used to employ an Amiga user... The Quest for Glory conversion
> is truly great - wandering outside at night was quite scary due to the
> sound effects, and the town was "alive" at the daytime. It's a pity that
> the conversion of QfG II isn't like this (it's pretty identical to the PC
> version). Quest for Glory I and II are some of my all-time favourite games.
I never really fell for this combination of RPG and adventure elements,
although I've played both QfGs.
> Have you tried the AGA version of Space Quest I? I own the Kixx rerelease
No, because there isn't any. :-)
What you mean is the Amiga version of the VGA version, which doesn't use
AGA, but only ECS.
But it is the only Sierra adventure for the Amiga that uses flexible palettes
for each screen, so that it looks *much* better than the other fixed-palettes
versions.
> version of this one - it looks pretty nice, but it's incredibly slow
> (although I don't think I've played it _once_ since I got my 030/50, so I
> don't know how well it runs now). I remember being quite impressed by a
I guess there really isn't any Amiga system where it is playable.
The last time I've tried it on a A4000-040/40 and it was still dog slow
sometimes, even with all detail switched off.
Perhaps in a few years time, mainstream CPUs will be fast enough to make the
Amiga version of PQ1-VGA actually playable via emulation. ;-)
> huge dino skeleton on a desert planet (incidentally, that's where I'm stuck
> - there's a troll thing who.. er.. puts me into my helmet and use me as a
> basketball..).
Yes, the cute orat. Give him a can of dehydrated water to swallow.
> That and Space Quest I AGA are the only "late" Sierra conversions I've
> played. Both of them looks quite nice, I think.
Yes, SQ1 is indeed an exception to the rule.
But if you don't believe me how utterly ugly the Amiga version of, for
example, SQ4 looks, I am more than willing to provide you with a few examples
in form of PC and Amiga screenshots of the same scene. ;-)
Matthias Puch
>
>> And the "employee of the month", featuring hypnotic ability.
>> "Do you want something to drink with this?" - "Yes" or "Yes"?
>> :-)
>
> I remember. Well that seemed to be a bug, though.
No no, not at all. You remember how in each "Do you want this and
that with your meal" requester, the picture of the guy is zoomed in
with focus on his eyes? He's hypnotic and doesn't really leave you a
choice other than to order everything he wants you to. :-)
That`s why he is employee of the month, after all.
> Cool. Yeah, you never *really* played it completely when it came
> out, and 10 years later you get a flash of>
Might have something to do with the fact that the hardware needed to
play it when it came out wasn't exactly that common as it is now. ;-)
> Well, I confess _you've_ _pushed_ _me_. Yes you did.
> G U I L T Y Y Y Y !!!!
And your plea? :-)
> Well, seriously, I think I'm going to make another attempt, even
> if I have to start over again from the beginning - so what? :-)
If you have a fast enough Amiga (anything above 30/50 will do),
completing SQ4 is a question of a few hours work.
Joachim Froholt
Matthias Puch wrote:
> jfro...@c2i.net (Joachim Froholt) wrote:
>
> >> Exploding chicken are always cool, aren't they? ;-)
> >
> > Hmm.. that gave me an idea for my all-text adventure, "The Great Moon
> > Escape"... ;-)
>
> Never heard of it. Is it on Aminet? :-)
Not yet, at least. I'm still working on it. I don't think it will be very good,
but the process of building it is very fun. There is a chicken in it allready, so
now I only need to think of a way to make it explode.. :-)
>
> > Oops.. The original PQ game is quite good, though, even with EGA graphics.
>
> I agree. But the problem is that there was an enhanced VGA version of PQ1,
> as was of LSL1 and SQ1. And me being a Sierra fan (yes, even though
> they screwed some Amiga ports up), I bought the Amiga versions of those
> remakes. And while they were quite slow to play with any Amiga hardware
> and didn't look as good as their VGA counterparts, they were indeed
> reworked in the Amiga version as well.
> And so, when PQ1-VGA hit the shops and there also was a Amiga version of
> it (with the "Enhanced version" sticker on it), I also bought this one,
> expecting the same reworks on the Amiga version as well.
> But it was simply the plain old PQ1. :-/
Rotten, if you ask me..
>
> > All those conversions you named seems to be from approx. the same time.
>
> Yes. For sierra, there were three "eras of Amiga conversions":
>
> Phase 1: SQ1+2, KQ1-3, PQ1, LSL1 and some other games.
> 1:1 conversions of the original IBM-PC ports, with squeaky sound and
> EGA graphics.
> Phase 2: SQ3, KQ4, PQ2, LSL2+3, QfG1+2, CB and mayby other games
> 1:1 conversions of the original IBM graphics, but very enhanced
> sound which gave you samples and a kind of "midi emulation", resulting
> in better sound quality which PC dudes only got if they bought a sound
> card which would have been twice as expansive than a complete Amiga.
> Phase 3: SQ4, KQ5, PQ3, LSL5 and others.
> While still quite good in the music department, those conversions
> really had ugly GFX, resulting from the very sloppy conversion of the
> original VGA 256 color graphics.
>
> The rest is history, as Sierra never did an Amiga port again after those
> games. And I am not even sure if I should be pity about it, Sierra is
> still known of writing good but buggy resp. sloppy programmed games in the
> PC and Mac world.
Yeah, that's the impression I got too.
>
> > Perhaps they used to employ an Amiga user... The Quest for Glory conversion
> > is truly great - wandering outside at night was quite scary due to the
> > sound effects, and the town was "alive" at the daytime. It's a pity that
> > the conversion of QfG II isn't like this (it's pretty identical to the PC
> > version). Quest for Glory I and II are some of my all-time favourite games.
>
> I never really fell for this combination of RPG and adventure elements,
> although I've played both QfGs.
This was exactly what I fell for :-) It made me identify with my character.
But, IMO, the best thing about these games is the conversations. I really like
the ASK ABOUT way of organizing communication. It's more typing, yes, but it
makes the conversations so much more lifelike (for me). It's me who asks the
questions, I don't select them from a premade list (which would probably list
things I wasn't going to ask about either).
>
> > Have you tried the AGA version of Space Quest I? I own the Kixx rerelease
>
> No, because there isn't any. :-)
> What you mean is the Amiga version of the VGA version, which doesn't use
> AGA, but only ECS.
Eek! You're right! I don't know why, but for the last couple of years, I've
thought that that was an AGA game - but I checked the box (I was completely sure
that you were wrong, and I was just going to get the proof..) - and you're right!
>
> But it is the only Sierra adventure for the Amiga that uses flexible palettes
> for each screen, so that it looks *much* better than the other fixed-palettes
> versions.
Phew..
>
> > version of this one - it looks pretty nice, but it's incredibly slow
> > (although I don't think I've played it _once_ since I got my 030/50, so I
> > don't know how well it runs now). I remember being quite impressed by a
>
> I guess there really isn't any Amiga system where it is playable.
> The last time I've tried it on a A4000-040/40 and it was still dog slow
> sometimes, even with all detail switched off.
> Perhaps in a few years time, mainstream CPUs will be fast enough to make the
> Amiga version of PQ1-VGA actually playable via emulation. ;-)
>
> > huge dino skeleton on a desert planet (incidentally, that's where I'm stuck
> > - there's a troll thing who.. er.. puts me into my helmet and use me as a
> > basketball..).
>
> Yes, the cute orat. Give him a can of dehydrated water to swallow.
Thanks, I'll try that.
>
> > That and Space Quest I AGA are the only "late" Sierra conversions I've
> > played. Both of them looks quite nice, I think.
>
> Yes, SQ1 is indeed an exception to the rule.
> But if you don't believe me how utterly ugly the Amiga version of, for
> example, SQ4 looks, I am more than willing to provide you with a few examples
> in form of PC and Amiga screenshots of the same scene. ;-)
I believe you :-)
Joachim
Angus Manwaring
>jfro...@c2i.net (Joachim Froholt) wrote:
>And so, when PQ1-VGA hit the shops and there also was a Amiga version of
>it (with the "Enhanced version" sticker on it), I also bought this one,
>expecting the same reworks on the Amiga version as well.
>But it was simply the plain old PQ1. :-/
Atleast the Sierra Dynamix ehanced version of A-10 Tank Killer really was
enhanced. :)
>Yes. For sierra, there were three "eras of Amiga conversions":
>Phase 1: SQ1+2, KQ1-3, PQ1, LSL1 and some other games.
> 1:1 conversions of the original IBM-PC ports, with squeaky sound and
> EGA graphics.
>Phase 2: SQ3, KQ4, PQ2, LSL2+3, QfG1+2, CB and mayby other games
> 1:1 conversions of the original IBM graphics, but very enhanced
> sound which gave you samples and a kind of "midi emulation", resulting
> in better sound quality which PC dudes only got if they bought a sound
> card which would have been twice as expansive than a complete Amiga.
>Phase 3: SQ4, KQ5, PQ3, LSL5 and others.
> While still quite good in the music department, those conversions
> really had ugly GFX, resulting from the very sloppy conversion of the
> original VGA 256 color graphics.
Matthias, this is very useful info IMHO, and I'd like to see it archived
somewhere. I've never got to know these games but intend to at some point.
Where would games like Heart of China fit into the above? (or don't
they?) I'm not familiar with the PC graphics but I thought the Amiga ones
for HoC were really nice, my disks are dated 11.11.91. The packaging and
documentation is also scrummy. There's a catalogue included that mentions
Rise of the Dragon, as well as the flight-sims Red Baron and A-10, and the
3D arcade game Stellar 7.
I thought it was odd that after releasing A-10 they would then release
A-10 Enhanced. It would be interesting to speak to soembody that was
familiar with the Sierra decision making processes of this time.
Matthias Puch
>> Never heard of it. Is it on Aminet? :-)
>
> Not yet, at least. I'm still working on it. I don't think it will
> be very good, but the process of building it is very fun. There is
> a chicken in it allready, so now I only need to think of a way to
> make it explode.. :-)
Take the "Dig dug" approach. :-)
> This was exactly what I fell for :-) It made me identify with my
> character.
I prefer a real RPG over QfG anytime. :-)
> But, IMO, the best thing about these games is the conversations. I
> really like the ASK ABOUT way of organizing communication. It's
> more typing, yes, but it makes the conversations so much more
> lifelike (for me). It's me who asks the questions, I don't select
> them from a premade list (which would probably list things I
> wasn't going to ask about either).
Yeah, okay, these are the essential advantages of parser based
games over "point'n'click" adventures.
Matthias Puch
> Atleast the Sierra Dynamix ehanced version of A-10 Tank Killer really was
> enhanced. :)
I didn't know there was one at all. What are the enhancements?
I always thought that A10 was one of the better (yet widely underestimated)
simulations for the miggy, and while I am quite content with the feel and look
of the "plain" version I have, it would be nice to know about updated versions.
>> Yes. For sierra, there were three "eras of Amiga conversions":
[...]
> Matthias, this is very useful info IMHO, and I'd like to see it archived
My, please don't exaggerate. :-)
This is just some superficial summary which anybody who played some sierra
games could have written.
> somewhere. I've never got to know these games but intend to at some point.
I can only recommend playing as many Sierra games as you can possibly can get
your hands on. :-)
> Where would games like Heart of China fit into the above? (or don't
> they?) I'm not familiar with the PC graphics but I thought the Amiga ones
They don't. Although Dynamix belonged (and still belongs) to Sierra, Dynamix
didn't use Sierras SCI (Sierra creative interpreter). Therefore, you can't
really compare Dynamix' games (which had really good Amiga versions, combining
the mentioned semi-midi and sampled sound with actually very well adapted GFX)
with Sierra's.
And having tried out the PC versions of HoC and RotD recently, I was really
surprised how small the difference between the Amiga 32 color gfx and the
original VGA gfx is.
Generally, I would give a buy recommendation on any given Dynamix game for the
Amiga. While I don't know every game they made, I know and like Rise of the
Dragon, Heart of China, A10 Tank Killer and Red Baron, all of which are well
done on the Amiga side. They had to cope with quite higher-than-the-mainstream
hardware requirements back at their release time, though, so that they didn't
become as popular as they deserved to.
But the hardware problem should be solved by now, as there are not that many
Amiga users left who don't own at least a 68030/50 and a HD.
> for HoC were really nice, my disks are dated 11.11.91. The packaging and
> documentation is also scrummy. There's a catalogue included that mentions
> Rise of the Dragon, as well as the flight-sims Red Baron and A-10, and the
> 3D arcade game Stellar 7.
Hmm. There was a game called Stellar 7 for the C64, but I don't think that it
has anything to do with the Dynamix game. :-)
Angus Manwaring
>angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk (Angus Manwaring) wrote:
>> Atleast the Sierra Dynamix ehanced version of A-10 Tank Killer really was
>> enhanced. :)
>I didn't know there was one at all. What are the enhancements?
7 Gulf missions!
Improved Flight model (dual joystick and rudder pedal support)!
Floating view camera!
New music and sound effects!
There are 2 splendid reviews of the different versions on the AGDB.
>I always thought that A10 was one of the better (yet widely underestimated)
>simulations for the miggy, and while I am quite content with the feel and
>look of the "plain" version I have, it would be nice to know about updated
>versions.
I think A-10 is unusual in that it has improved with age. By that I mean
that it was too ambitious for the standard machines when it was released,
which in turn makes it a preferred flight-sim now. The only problem is
that on some systems (mine included) the game (like Red Baron) causes
weird problems with keyboard inputs. I'm hopeful that a friend may be able
to fix this at some point though.
>>> Yes. For sierra, there were three "eras of Amiga conversions":
>[...]
>> Matthias, this is very useful info IMHO, and I'd like to see it archived
>My, please don't exaggerate. :-)
No, I'm serious. It's just the sort of info that I needed.
>This is just some superficial summary which anybody who played some sierra
>games could have written.
I doubt it, and anyway they didn't! :) Anyway, if Joachim reckons you're
summary is accurate, that's good enough for me.
>> Where would games like Heart of China fit into the above? (or don't
>> they?) I'm not familiar with the PC graphics but I thought the Amiga ones
>They don't. Although Dynamix belonged (and still belongs) to Sierra, Dynamix
>didn't use Sierras SCI (Sierra creative interpreter). Therefore, you can't
>really compare Dynamix' games
Fair enough.
>Generally, I would give a buy recommendation on any given Dynamix game for
>the Amiga. While I don't know every game they made, I know and like Rise of
>the Dragon, Heart of China, A10 Tank Killer and Red Baron, all of which are
>well done on the Amiga side.
Nova 9 anybody? Adventure of Willy Beamish?
>> for HoC were really nice, my disks are dated 11.11.91. The packaging and
>> documentation is also scrummy. There's a catalogue included that mentions
>> Rise of the Dragon, as well as the flight-sims Red Baron and A-10, and the
>> 3D arcade game Stellar 7.
>Hmm. There was a game called Stellar 7 for the C64, but I don't think that it
> has anything to do with the Dynamix game. :-)
Don't remember that one .........Nathan? ;)
Other Sierra games I can see listed are:
Code name: Iceman
Colonel's Bequest
Conquest's of Camelot
Gold Rush
Hoyle Book of Games vol 1
Hoyle Book of Games vol 2
Manhunter 1 New York
Manhunter 2 San Francisco
Mixed-up Mother Goose
Any unmissable one's there?
Andreas Eibach
Matthias Puch schrieb:
> If you have a fast enough Amiga (anything above 30/50 will do),
> completing SQ4 is a question of a few hours work.
No I don't think so. ;)
(note the ';)' )
That's here because it's a cheeky assumption of *you* to get through
that adventure *so* *quickly*. :-)
You didn't consider any of the riddles not solvable at _first_ glance,
did you?
Well you won't believe I'm sitting there playing with the walkthrough
next to me, will you? :-D -- NO WAY. :-)
I'd be very surprised if you tried to tell me you could do this at one
sitting. I would call you 'God of Adventuring', then.
Sierra riddles are *somewhat* tricky, oh whee.
andreas
Joachim Froholt
Matthias Puch wrote:
> jfro...@c2i.net (Joachim Froholt) wrote:
>
> >> Never heard of it. Is it on Aminet? :-)
> >
> > Not yet, at least. I'm still working on it. I don't think it will
> > be very good, but the process of building it is very fun. There is
> > a chicken in it allready, so now I only need to think of a way to
> > make it explode.. :-)
>
> Take the "Dig dug" approach. :-)
:-)
>
> > This was exactly what I fell for :-) It made me identify with my
> > character.
>
> I prefer a real RPG over QfG anytime. :-)
Perhaps that's the main reason our opinions about this game differ. I
usually don't play RPG's (although I love Adom, one of the most detailed
rpg's I've ever come across), but I like the way some rpg elements have
been included in QfG.
>
> > But, IMO, the best thing about these games is the conversations. I
> > really like the ASK ABOUT way of organizing communication. It's
> > more typing, yes, but it makes the conversations so much more
> > lifelike (for me). It's me who asks the questions, I don't select
> > them from a premade list (which would probably list things I
> > wasn't going to ask about either).
>
> Yeah, okay, these are the essential advantages of parser based
> games over "point'n'click" adventures.
Yes. I've played all the QfG games except the last one, and the ones I
liked the best were the two first, which used a text parser. I found the
next two games a lot simpler and less memorable. QfG 4 is quite good as
an adventure game, but it's not very good compared to QfG 1 and 2.
The third game is too short, and the plot gets really thin towards the
end.
Joachim
Matthias Puch
>>I didn't know there was one at all. What are the enhancements?
>
>7 Gulf missions!
Ouch.
>Improved Flight model (dual joystick and rudder pedal support)!
Interesting idea, playing a sim with two joysticks.
>There are 2 splendid reviews of the different versions on the AGDB.
I'll check these. Thanks.
>I think A-10 is unusual in that it has improved with age. By that I mean
Like most hardware hungry games.
Ambermoon, for example, was near to unplayable (at least it didn't make
that much fun) on a 68000 A500 with two floppies, it played well on my
A1200 with hd, 8 megs of RAM and a 68020/14 and is brilliant on
my 68040 Amiga 4000 with 50 megs.
>that it was too ambitious for the standard machines when it was released,
>which in turn makes it a preferred flight-sim now. The only problem is
>that on some systems (mine included) the game (like Red Baron) causes
>weird problems with keyboard inputs. I'm hopeful that a friend may be able
>to fix this at some point though.
No problem here, with none of both games.
>No, I'm serious. It's just the sort of info that I needed.
Okay, then I am glad I could be of assistance. :-)
>Nova 9 anybody? Adventure of Willy Beamish?
Willy Beamish also is well done, technically. But it stays the same stupid
game it was in the PC version. ;-)
>Other Sierra games I can see listed are:
>
>Code name: Iceman
Era 2 (see my oh-so-useful list *g*), a "James Bond light" adventure by the
"father" of Police Quest, Jim Walls or however the guy was called. Only for
die-hard fans, as the game is quite average regarding gfx, sound, story and
puzzles.
>Colonel's Bequest
Era 2, a Agatha Christie style criminal screenplay taking place in a remote
english manor. Devided into several "acts" (each time you perform a "key
action", the game time progresses).
Recommended, although there are some ugly dead-ends included if you
miss some details in a act.
Comparable to Cruise for a Corpse, which I would prefer over CB.
>Conquest's of Camelot
Don't know this one.
>Gold Rush
Era 1. Great, one of the moodiest Sierra game ever.
You play a Brooklyn newspaper reporter who is caught by the goldfever, leaves
home and trecks toward the west.
Three different travel routes, so you can complete the game three times and
get to see something new with every new try.
A must-buy. Also a hard-to-buy, I am afraid, as the game is very old.
>Hoyle Book of Games vol 1
Era 2. A collection of popular card games (Cribbage, Hearts, Poker and more)
in which you compete with popular sierra games characters (Larry, Roger Wilco
etc), Sierra staff and their relatives.
Quite fun, due to the competitors comments.
>Hoyle Book of Games vol 2
Don't know this one, but I guess it should be quite similar to HBoG1.
>Manhunter 1 New York
>Manhunter 2 San Francisco
Both Era 1.
Two strange, very bloody and violent games in which you play a manhunter
tracking down and killing criminals, IIRC.
Several IMHO unfair action sequences made me only taking a short look onto
those games.
There are people who love these games, others hate them. I never heard an
opinion like "Could be better, but I like them" about them, they seem to
polarize quite a bit. ;-)
>Any unmissable one's there?
Goldrush, perhaps Colonels Bequest (if you like these kind of stories)
Matthias Puch
>That's here because it's a cheeky assumption of *you* to get
>through that adventure *so* *quickly*. :-)
>You didn't consider any of the riddles not solvable at _first_
>glance, did you?
No, I didn't. While I agree with you that, generally, Sierra
adventures can be quite tricky, I must say that SQ4 is really
simple, there are very few riddles which even deserve this name.
Could have something to do that it was one of the first Sierra
games with the point'n'click interface, and Sierra had a hard time
adjusting the puzzle layout to the renewed user interface. There
are no real "Hmm, how can I overcome this obstacle" situation in
which you have to think clever and need some creative idea. Most
puzzles of SQ4 are a matter of "click the right button on the right
object at the right time".
The only time-consuming part of the game is the stupid
robot-labyrinth at the end of the game.
>Well you won't believe I'm sitting there playing with the
>walkthrough next to me, will you? :-D -- NO WAY. :-)
No, of course not.
>I'd be very surprised if you tried to tell me you could do this at
>one sitting. I would call you 'God of Adventuring', then.
No, I couldn't. Because when I played SQ4 for the first time, I
only had a quite vanilla A500 with two floppies and some expanded
mem. On this machine, it was technically impossible to complete SQ4
in one run. ;-)
Andreas Eibach
Matthias Puch schrieb:
>
> No, I didn't. While I agree with you that, generally, Sierra
> adventures can be quite tricky, I must say that SQ4 is really
> simple, there are very few riddles which even deserve this name.
So we might consider SQ3 much more tricky? At least it was for me.
(The thing that pissed me a lot ;) was that I forgot the "Metal Pole".
So I had to restore a stone-old savegame because I couldn't pole-vault
over the chasm without it....!!)
I admit I needed the walkthrough 2 times just to look up some things.
(->compu' magazine)
BUT...regarding the rest, I tried hard to do it without.
Moreover, since we have the internet nowadays it takes much more
insistence to force yourself to NOT go into the net and snatch a
document where you can read the solution bit by bit.<grin>
[SQ4]
> There are no real "Hmm, how can I overcome this obstacle" situation in
> which you have to think clever and need some creative idea.
but SQ3 : YES, there are. :-)
Reading this, I admit I never thought that point'n-click interfaces
could influence the difficulty level of an adventure. Now, I BELIEVE
THEY COULD.
You've convinced me in some way.
Obvious, actually. Every time when you have a *limited* set of words the
game *helps* you with this because you don't have to think over "what do
I need to type" and you only need to go through the combinations 'til
you made it.
Nevertheless, "Future Wars" is different, though. This game *is* a
point'n click adventure, but it's damn hard to solve some puzzles
because the difficulty is the hidden cracks and holes you must find to
make use of your items. It's absolutely fruitless trying every
combination and hoping it'll work eventually. But this wasn't Sierra ...
:-)
andreas