Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!cseaman From: cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games Subject: Re: IBM a great game machine Message-ID: <46392@sequent.UUCP> Date: 13 Nov 90 22:23:21 GMT References: <9240@aggie.ucdavis.edu> <11479@hubcap.clemson.edu> Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Beaverton, OR Lines: 97 tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes: < v092mgp5@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: < >tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes... < >>Simulators are also faster (of course if one has a fast PC). < > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ < > Sure, a simulator on a 20Mhz IBM might be a bit faster than the Amiga, < >but it had better be! The a machine that fast is running almost 3 times < >faster. I still find it humorous that it takes such a fast IBM to even < >compete with the 8Mhz Amiga. < < I compared Amiga to 20Mhz 386 because I have them both. I wouldn't have enough < experience about 10 to 12 Mhz AT (roughtly as fast as Amiga) to do the < comparation. NOTHING compares to Amiga for games THAT NEEDS superior sounds < and FAST graphics. There are also games, which needs a fast mass memory (HD) < and much computing power (solid vector graphics). In these areas PC is better < (very few amiga multiload games can be run from harddisk). Hmmmm... So if I understand this statement, the PC is a better 'simulation' and 'multi-load' game machine because few amiga 'multi-load' games can be installed on the hard disk? I find this very odd. I had (apparently mistakenly) thought that the fault of hard disk incompatibility was with bad game developers. I think you have missed the point of the previous articles. The fact that you have only a stock 68000 Amiga to compare to a 20MHz 80386 PC is irrelevant. I can assure you that my 2500/20 clearly and admirably outperforms my 16 MHz 80386 PC, INCLUDING 'simulators' and 'multi-load' games, of which, surprisingly enough, I currently have 5 or 6 installed on my hard disk (I would have more installed, but I need the disk space for all those multi-megabyte animations I create). < >>Another problem in Amiga is pirates (it's not Amigas fault, but still), < >>which are now slowing Amiga games production. < < > As if piracy isn't a problem in the IBM community...! Piracy of IBM < >games is AS rampant as piracy of Amiga games in Europe. It's a fact. It's not < >that amiga games production is slowing, it's just that developers are producing < >more games for the PC's than the Amiga. What their logic is behind that < >is beyond me! < < Here in Finland (northern Europe) are _MUCH_ Amiga pirates, but very few on PC. < I think the situation is same in England (where majority of PC games are < produced here in Europe). I don't know why so many people have such a problem understanding the piracy issue. The reason piracy is more of a problem for the Amiga is simple: There are are more MS-DOS machines in the world than there are Amigas. The 'percentages' are surprisingly similar for piracy between the two platforms, but when you consider the market size, there is a difference. If I produce a game for MS-DOS, and (hypothetically) 50% of the potential market pirates my title, I still have MILLIONS of potential sales. Possibly tens of millions. If 50% of the potential Amiga market pirates a title, the resulting market is in the THOUSANDS. This doesn't make it a very lucrative market. Of course, this does not mean that MS-DOS machines are better for games. They simply give a better return on the developers' investment. < > What game DOESN'T use music and graphics? The Amiga is superior in the area < >of games! True, there are a lot of PC games that are not out for the Amiga, < >but this doesn't mean that the PC is better for games! < < Have you ever played HACK, NETHACK, MORIA, LARN, OMEGA, etc. ???? < This are really Games (if you don't think so, look at rec.games.hack, < rec.games.moria etc). < In every game the graphics or sounds aren't the most important thing. Some < games require much memory and/or fast hard disk (my nethack on PC is currently < over 800k). [ Subjective rambling deleted... ] Again, I fail to see any point here. Nethack on my Amiga is around 800K, and it fairly well SCREAMS on my hard disk. Not to mention that it uses my mouse, multitasks, and has a custom font set for better 'graphics'. PC Nethack can't even begin to compare. < You didn't understand me right. I didn't say that PC is better for games in < ALL areas. I only said that PC is more suitable for some games (usually < RPG or solid vector graphics) than Amiga. I also think that it makes no sense < to purchase PC _only_ for games (I didn't), but if one has both PC and Amiga < that doesn't mean that he plays only with Amiga. And you don't apparently understand the Amiga very well. A comparably equipped Amiga will beat a PC in ALL gaming categories. There are no exceptions. < If one has to purchase ONE machine only for games, I would suggest him to < buy Amiga (except if he wants mainly play RPGs or simulators). Oops. You must mean ESPECIALLY if he wants mainly to play RPGs or simulators. :-) Regards, Chris -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | o\ /o See cseaman@gateway.sequent.com | || "Attack of the Killer Smiley"! ...!uunet!sequent!cseaman | \vvvvvv/ Coming Soon | \____/ to a newsgroup near you!