Nobody wants his Famitsu collection

More
2 months 1 week ago - 2 months 1 week ago #2379 by kitsunebi
Yes, again, I'm not talking about the market or sales. Consoles have always dominated because they're cheap and because children have the most available time/desire to play games. I'm strictly speaking of the games being developed at the time. The only games developed in America in the 80s/early 90s that are thought of highly today were all developed for PCs. Console gaming was strictly for Japanese games and low quality cash-grabs by Western companies looking to fool some kid or their parents into parting with their money. But PC game sales were still secondary to console sales by a long shot, I'd imagine. I don't know how many copies Pool of Radiance on the PC sold, but it's an astronomically more deep and complex RPG than Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy, despite those games outselling it by the millions. The NES had some strategy titles like Koei's output, but even those were watered-down ports of computer titles, and none of them were Civilization-level quality. And the most serious genres like wargames and realistic sims never even existed on consoles.

And again, I'm strictly speaking of the US market. In the UK, lots of developers were working on games for the microcomputers, many of which were somewhat console-like in their action/arcade roots in simplicity. In the USA, the PC was frankly not an ideal platform for such games technologically, but it DID allow for more sophisticated designs of a slower-paced variety in genres separate from those on consoles. Combined with the prohibitive costs of PCs at the time, the majority of people who could afford and be interested in the types of games that flourished on the PC were adults.

As for your magazine comment, I'm assuming it is in regards to the NZ market?
Last edit: 2 months 1 week ago by kitsunebi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago #2380 by Kiwi
Well, when it comes to "deep" games on the PC I missed that boat completely I am afraid so my experience with early PC gaming was flight sim war games, ports of Amiga games and Ultima Underworld. Then on it was Command & Conquer, Duke Nukem 3D and all the first person shooters so it sounds like you had your PC for a whole different style of gaming to that which I had any interest in. The "deepest" game I think I had was UFO: Enemy Unknown.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago - 2 months 1 week ago #2381 by kitsunebi
Sounds like. Every single game you mention has a console port (albeit a crappy console port). As I said, I played on a PC and consoles concurrently, but I appreciated my PC for all of the games that didn't and couldn't exist on a console. I loved console games at the time, as well - please don't think I'm suggesting console games had no worth. They just aren't what holds my attention anymore these days.

EDIT: That said, all of the games you mentioned, while having lackluster console versions, are first and foremost PC games, and will always be thought of as such. They were developed with the PC's capabilities in mind, which is one reason why they simply don't work very well on the consoles of the time. Nowadays the gap has shrunk so much, there isn't much difference in console/PC ports aside from possible resolution/framerate differences. PC games nowadays rarely even make use of all of the options a keyboard provides since they want the controls/UI to be equally applicable to consoles.
Last edit: 2 months 1 week ago by kitsunebi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago - 2 months 1 week ago #2382 by Kiwi
Me neither mate!!

The ONLY chance Microsoft or Sony have of selling me a new Xbox/PS10 is if it comes out in a version where you can run it as a PC, e.g, it has a full blown Windows version that allows me to plug in my scanner, portable HDD's etc. I'm done with console gaming now. All they, the current generations, are is a PC with TPM mechanisms added to prevent them being used as a PC. Much like Sega's Lindbergh arcade hardware which ran a custom Windows version.

I liked the console games in the day but truthfully speaking, I probably play some of them more now on my PC via emulator than I ever did when I had the hardware. It may sound like heresy but the controllers are better nowadays, emulation is better nowadays and offer higher resolutions for the games than the original hardware and then there's the speed of changing from one game to the other without having to plug in a new cartridge or CD-Rom etc.

You are correct though. Duke Nukem 64 on the PC is a completely different and way better animal to the console ports I tried.
Last edit: 2 months 1 week ago by Kiwi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago - 2 months 1 week ago #2383 by modgeezer
In the 90's there was definitely a niche import market. Die Hard Game Fan magazine started out as game/system importers advertising in Electronic Gaming Monthly. There were a couple of shops in San Diego that specialized in imports (I was able to try out the Super Famicom long before Nintendo got around to releasing the Super Nes in the US) and there were import stores in NYC when I moved there in 96.
Until Windows 95 I never met anyone who used a PC for gaming. My first PC was a pentium 133 and even with that gaming was still a major pain in the ass especially on the sound card front with dos, at least for me as I was a novice at the time.
Last edit: 2 months 1 week ago by modgeezer. Reason: added something

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago #2384 by kitsunebi
Perhaps you're right. I never lived in a metropolitan area that might have such shops. So perhaps I should say "there were no import gaming shops in small town suburbia."

Goodness, a Pentium 133? Sounds like I started gaming on a PC about 8 years before you. My first PC was a Tandy 1000 SX with a 7.16 MHz processor and 384k of memory! :lol:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago - 2 months 1 week ago #2385 by Kiwi
80386DX-33 here!! For those of you from today who measure things in gigahertz thats a 33 megahertz processor!! Or should that be megahurts? Seriously though, that was a fast one at the time. And DX meant it had a math coprocessor. My mate could only afford a 80286SX-16 so a fair bit slower and minus the math coprocessor. And I had 4MB RAM vs his 2MB RAM. Ohh ahh!!! Serious numbers those!!

It all sounds crap nowadays but it skunked my Amiga 2000 at the time. Flight sims on that thing were terrible. It was a breath of fresh air when I got the 386. It was just way, way faster for the games I liked.
Last edit: 2 months 1 week ago by Kiwi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago #2386 by modgeezer
Oh yea I was not an early adopter PCs were way out of my budget went from Atari-Colecovison-Vic20-Commodore 64/Atari 800-Nes-Genesis/Snes/PC Engine-Playstation/Saturn and then finally bought my first PC. Even my high school was cheap and didn't have PCs we had Tandy TRS-80s for our computer class (pascal)

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 1 week ago - 2 months 1 week ago #2387 by kitsunebi
Yeah, I had to save all of my sheckles to buy a memory upgrade to boost the memory to 640k when Hero's Quest was released so I could play it (the game now known as Quest For Glory I). And who remembers disk-swapping? No hard drives back then. Some of my games came on TEN 5.25'' disks. :pinch:

Here's a giant enlarge-able poster of a bunch of games that some of us were playing before the arrival of Windows95 (which was not actually an accepted platform for game development at first.)
I actually learned quite a bit about computers from having to study the giant instruction tomes that came with MS-DOS. To this day, I refuse to use the wonky (and almost always incorrect) pre-loaded settings on DOS games sold at GOG and configure the games myself in DOSBox they way we used to have to do.



edited to fix link
Last edit: 2 months 1 week ago by kitsunebi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: modgeezer

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 4 days ago #2415 by slider1983
I feel that consoles were more popular to computers because computer games were more fiddly and required more thought. The computer community was after all geared more towards the hobbyist.

With computer games I really steered clear of what DOS had in the 80s and 90s. Amiga games always looked and played better than PC games. It wasn't until 1993 with the release of Doom that developers started to push what the typical PC could do at that time so PC ended up overtaking Amiga. Up until 1993 Amiga really was the best way to go for computer games until Doom changed everything. The arrival of Windows 95 is what finally killed Amiga interest.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
2 months 4 days ago #2416 by Kiwi
I agree with the statement that Amiga games looked better than the PC in the mid 80's. PC versions were CGA/EGA at that time but in the late 80's when VGA arrived with 256 colors compared to 32 colors for the Amiga gaming mode it was the turning point. Then SVGA stuck the knife into the Amiga. Commodore dropped the ball with AGA really not adding all that much simply because system memory was just too slow, much as onboard video on todays PC cannot hold a candle to dedicated video cards with their pipelined memory dedicated to the video task solely. Factor in an 8mhtz processor for the A500 and really there was no chance of it getting better. Even if they had adopted Jay Miner's VRAM solution the fate of Commodore sealed its doom anyway. I have owned A1200's and nothing about them felt like they could compete with the PC's of the day. Too little AND too late.

For me flight sim gaming pushed me to the PC long before Doom arrived. Personally I think Wolfenstein 3D which came out a year earlier was the game that made Amiga users wake up and take note. I certainly did as it stopped my flight sim gaming dead in its tracks. But 1996 was the year the PC reigned supreme thanks to two games. One was Duke Nukem 3D and the other was a title called Quake. They cemented the PC as THE machine to play first person shooters on and consoles have never, and likely will never, take that crown away from it. It was also the year Commodore bellied up and all production stopped. Coincidence?

Now, if Microsoft decided to release an Xbox that could run a full blooded Windows 10 O/S on it so you could use it as a real PC I might have to eat my words but there's realistically no chance of them doing that so I think I am pretty safe.
The following user(s) said Thank You: slider1983

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 month 3 weeks ago #2442 by slider1983

Kiwi wrote: I agree with the statement that Amiga games looked better than the PC in the mid 80's. PC versions were CGA/EGA at that time but in the late 80's when VGA arrived with 256 colors compared to 32 colors for the Amiga gaming mode it was the turning point. Then SVGA stuck the knife into the Amiga. Commodore dropped the ball with AGA really not adding all that much simply because system memory was just too slow, much as onboard video on todays PC cannot hold a candle to dedicated video cards with their pipelined memory dedicated to the video task solely. Factor in an 8mhtz processor for the A500 and really there was no chance of it getting better. Even if they had adopted Jay Miner's VRAM solution the fate of Commodore sealed its doom anyway. I have owned A1200's and nothing about them felt like they could compete with the PC's of the day. Too little AND too late.

Yep, 1200 was too late and apart from slightly improved graphics wasn't a massive leap forward. I really do feel if Commodore hadn't put out so many Amigas variants and instead put money towards development they could have had something to compete with Microsoft. The CD32 had potential to do some cool stuff but again being a 1200 as a console felt underpowered. It also didn't help they had a games console without any first party game development, that really hurt Commodore. It was actually 1993/94 when Commodore made the announcement they were shutting down which is when software started to dry up.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 month 3 weeks ago #2445 by Kiwi
Right from the get go I really don't think Commodore knew what to do with the Amiga. They bought it to beat Jack Tramiel and Atari to the 16 bit scene after Miner and co didn't like what they heard from the Atari camp about what they wanted to do with it, e.g, just make a games machine, so Miner sold the bigger picture to Commodore who bought them instead but then they didn't know how to market such a machine.

The A1000 was too pricey and never got a PAL version and was stillborn in Europe so the A500 was created to provide a cheaper machine. Good move!!

Then they also wanted an even beefier machine to beat IBM, got the German team to make the A2000 but then decided they wanted the A500 chipset instead when the revision A model was made off the A1000 chipset and caused all sorts of angst with that. I know, I bought the Rev.A version unknowingly only to find my Digiview output was totally crap due to signal interference. Had to threaten to take the dealer to court before I got the Rev.B version which worked fine.

That was about the time Jay Miner and the Los Gatos boys all got the chop. He had been working on a video chipset using dedicated VRAM which would have been totally competitive with VGA/SVGA of the day. I read about it in an article in a magazine where he talked about it. Commodore didn't want the expense of it. BAD move!!

Any talk about the Amiga gets me a little sad. It was a truly marvelous computer and streets ahead of EVERYTHING else when it came out. It was the spiritual successor to the Atari 800 and one can only wonder if it had of stayed with Atari whether it would have become more than it ended up as with the A1200/600/CD32 which were, in my mind anyway, pretend Amiga's.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 month 2 weeks ago #2462 by slider1983
Really they should have just launched with the Amiga 500+ and stopped with all the variants bar the 4000 and CD32. There were skilled and intelligent people at Commodore but not in the top positions of authority. David Pleasance did a huge amount to make Amiga something people wanted to buy. Medhi Ali who was the one pulling the strings did everything he could to destroy the Amiga image. Had Pleasance been able to take his position we might still have Amiga computers today.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.257 seconds