DOS-era PC games compared to their Amiga counterparts

[R.Bear]

I'm just wondering if anybody on here knows of any DOS-era PC games which actually are on par or better than the Amiga versions?

 

From what I've seen, for the majority of games the Amiga almost always wins. So far Desert Strike and Jungle Strike are the only games that I can think of where the PC versions actually run as well as the Amiga versions.

 

Just something that I've been curious about for awhile.

 

Out Run is possibly one of the worst PC ports that I have ever seen, even the Sega Master System version is better.

Edited January 31, 2015 by R.Bear

[Austin]

The DOS versions of Lemmings were pretty good.

[CatPix]

Maybe you should set up an era?

There are huge differences between a 1986 PC and a 1990 PC... and also between an Amiga 500 and a 1200.

I would guess early Amiga titles are better on every point versus their PC counterparts, but by 1990, with SVGA and a Sound Blaster card, there was less of a difference to be seen.

[BillyHW]

My PC experience comes a bit later. With Civilization, Wolfenstein, Doom, Privateer etc.

 

I would like to know how the PC version of Civ compares with Amiga.

Edited February 1, 2015 by BillyHW

[82-T/A]

I agree with CatPix here... once the 1990s came around, or more specifically, when most people had 386 computers... almost everyone VGA by that point. When I look at most of the games from say 1992 and newer, the PC games are all vastly better than the Amiga. The graphics have more depth, full 256 colors from a 16.7 million pallet... etc.

[+save2600]

My PC experience comes a bit later. With Civilization, Wolfenstein, Doom, Privateer etc.

 

I would like to know how the PC version of Civ compares with Amiga.

 

Similar. In fact, there are two versions of Civ for the Amiga… one is OCS/ECS compatible with lower res screens, while the AGA version features more colors and slightly higher-res screens.

[+save2600]

Re: DOS era games vs. Amiga and without going through an *entire* early home computer history lesson here, gotta take a look at the hardware and architecture differences. IBM PC's were never designed to play games. It's as simple as that. Memory constraints, CPU processors used, no real state of the art native color graphics/sound, game ports, etc. When they started introducing color graphics cards (ha!), joystick ports and sound cards to the PC, now you had to deal with a different type of memory management that included you to putz around with DMA's and IRQ's. Think that worked very well or at all sometimes?

 

Slow embrace and evolution of graphics/sound (up until a while anyway - late 80's/early 90's) within the PC world, software companies mostly relied on the good old "least common denominator" of the basic PC config - which is probably the easiest explanation as to why DOS era games are the way they are.

 

Too easy to say the PeeCee platform sucked/sucks. There, I just did.

[Austin]

Yeah, by the time the PC was able to display 256 colors or more and we started seeing that being used in games, the Amiga had already been doing it for many years. Not a really fair comparison up to a certain point, but the fact is that the PC wasn't geared towards gaming (and they were ridiculously expensive too), they were meant for office productivity (word processing, number crunching, drafting, etc). It took a little while for PC hardware to catch up to what was already being done on opposing platforms from a gaming perspective (Amiga, ST, etc).

Edited February 1, 2015 by Austin

[Kurt_Woloch]

One title that comes to mind here is Arkanoid II: Revenge of Doh. While the original Arkanoid was a masterpiece of a port on the Amiga, the sequel lacked severely (probably having been taken over from the Atari ST version) while the PC version had much better graphics, a smooth framerate and no drawbacks compared to the arcade original.

[82-T/A]

Re: DOS era games vs. Amiga and without going through an *entire* early home computer history lesson here, gotta take a look at the hardware and architecture differences. IBM PC's were never designed to play games. It's as simple as that. Memory constraints, CPU processors used, no real state of the art native color graphics/sound, game ports, etc. When they started introducing color graphics cards (ha!), joystick ports and sound cards to the PC, now you had to deal with a different type of memory management that included you to putz around with DMA's and IRQ's. Think that worked very well or at all sometimes?

 

Slow embrace and evolution of graphics/sound (up until a while anyway - late 80's/early 90's) within the PC world, software companies mostly relied on the good old "least common denominator" of the basic PC config - which is probably the easiest explanation as to why DOS era games are the way they are.

 

Too easy to say the PeeCee platform sucked/sucks. There, I just did.

 

 

With all due respect, I think you're comparing IBM PCs of the early 80s, to other computers of the late 80s. I had a Logitech SVGA display (800x640) and 512k Genoa Systems graphics card on my 8088 Kay Pro back in 1986.

 

The processors offered in the IBM compatibles were always more powerful, but certainly more expensive.

 

By the late 1980s and certainly by the early 1990s... your basic IBM PC had better graphics, more ram, and a faster processor than any Amiga or Atari... and you typically paid less for it too.

 

By say... 1992-1993... all PC games supported multiple sound cards for those who had them.

 

 

I love the old systems, but when you compare games of the late 80s and newer between the systems... the IBM PC had better graphics support. Sound was always an issue because no one wanted to spend the money. But Sound Blasters were becoming standard by the mid 90s.

[high voltage]

should be moved to 'Classic Computing'

[+remowilliams]

Rule of thumb - Amiga was better until PC hit '386 / VGA / Soundblaster. That marked PCs surpassing the Amiga and the ST in gaming in a way that could never be matched.

[Keatah]

Once The Doom era came upon the PC, just about everything was better.

 

Whether the Eary PC environment was conducive to gaming of not made little difference, that it was evolving was a key point. And the PC processors were better than anything the Amiga could ever have.

[Rybags]

I remember playing Leaderboard, might have been one of the later ones. It had good graphics (256 colour?) and decent effects + speech through the PC speaker.

[BillyHW]

I remember playing Leaderboard, might have been one of the later ones. It had good graphics (256 colour?) and decent effects + speech through the PC speaker.

 

Speech and good music through that PC speaker sure was something to behold back then.

[+save2600]

With all due respect, I think you're comparing IBM PCs of the early 80s, to other computers of the late 80s. I had a Logitech SVGA display (800x640) and 512k Genoa Systems graphics card on my 8088 Kay Pro back in 1986.

 

I just Remember what most people had and what was available back then. Up until the mid 80's, nearly everyone I knew (including school) had monochrome graphics cards and no sound in their PC's. Wasn't until a little after then that I started to see CGA/EGA color adapters (whee!) being used. SVGA wasn't available until at least '87 and was expensive as hell. Didnt really start seeing VGA/SVGA being used until late 80's really.

 

 

The processors offered in the IBM compatibles were always more powerful, but certainly more expensive.

 

By the late 1980s and certainly by the early 1990s... your basic IBM PC had better graphics, more ram, and a faster processor than any Amiga or Atari... and you typically paid less for it too.

 

 

Re: price in the late 80's, No way Jose!

 

PC's with "better" CPU's and accelerated graphics were several thousand dollars. Cheapest option typically 3-4x the price of an Amiga 500 at least. This is why said computers were such a great value for gamers and remained so into the early 90's and arguably mid 90's. By the mid 90's though, I do agree that the Amiga was losing/lost its competitive edge that way because nicer PC's were *finally* just starting to come down.

 

Was a commission salesperson at the time the very first so-called "multimedia pc's" hit the market. There was even an 8088 (8086 maybe?) model - least expensive option, that ran $2k and was a total POS. Only sold a few and I believe every single one of them was returned. haha

 

Talking '89-'91 here... then there was the 286 ($3k-$4k) and 386 ($6k) models... distinctively remember those price points for a couple of reasons: they paid between 5-8% commission (couple of models actually paid around 10% 486 at $8k iirc) and couldn't believe how expensive they were for what you got and how they performed.

 

Wasn't until the mid 90's before el cheapo Packard Bells, etc. sporting 386 and 486's and bundled with nicer options. SVGA, CD-ROM, Soundblaster compatible cards - all for around $600-$1200. That's when it became clear the Amiga's fate was sealed IMO. Even I ditched my A1200 after spending a small fortune upgrading the RAM, processor and hard drive in favor of a Windows 3.1 386 running at 25mhz. Bought it on close-out for around $400 in '94. Got rid of it shortly after as all the games I wanted to play required faster and faster processors.

[Torr]

 

Speech and good music through that PC speaker sure was something to behold back then.

 

I remember playing a game, Last Half of Darkness, that only had PC Speaker sounds, but still pulled off some great voices.

My first PC, a 486, didn't come with a sound card, and I remember wondering why Last Half of Darkness pulled off such great sounds with the PC Speaker, yet Doom sounded like an Atari VCS coming through the same thing.

Playing Doom at friends house who DID have a SoundBlaster was what clinched my want for a sound card, which ended up being my first upgrade.

[82-T/A]

I just Remember what most people had and what was available back then. Up until the mid 80's, nearly everyone I knew (including school) had monochrome graphics cards and no sound in their PC's. Wasn't until a little after then that I started to see CGA/EGA color adapters (whee!) being used. SVGA wasn't available until at least '87 and was expensive as hell. Didnt really start seeing VGA/SVGA being used until late 80's really.

 

 

VGA and SVGA were both available well into the mid 80s. I'm assuming you might be referring to the mention of the IBM PS/2 in Wikipedia (which is wrong). I know... because I had Super VGA on my 8088. It did come standard with a CGA / HERC card that supported 720x400 green / black monochrome, but we upgraded that a year later in 1986.

 

But yes... late 80s, EGA was pretty standard by the late 80s. But by 1990, every new packaged computer came standard with SVGA or Grey-Scale VGA.

 

 

 

PC's with "better" CPU's and accelerated graphics were several thousand dollars. Cheapest option typically 3-4x the price of an Amiga 500 at least. This is why said computers were such a great value for gamers and remained so into the early 90's and arguably mid 90's. By the mid 90's though, I do agree that the Amiga was losing/lost its competitive edge that way because nicer PC's were *finally* just starting to come down.

 

Was a commission salesperson at the time the very first so-called "multimedia pc's" hit the market. There was even an 8088 (8086 maybe?) model - least expensive option, that ran $2k and was a total POS. Only sold a few and I believe every single one of them was returned. haha

 

Talking '89-'91 here... then there was the 286 ($3k-$4k) and 386 ($6k) models... distinctively remember those price points for a couple of reasons: they paid between 5-8% commission (couple of models actually paid around 10% 486 at $8k iirc) and couldn't believe how expensive they were for what you got and how they performed.

 

Wasn't until the mid 90's before el cheapo Packard Bells, etc. sporting 386 and 486's and bundled with nicer options. SVGA, CD-ROM, Soundblaster compatible cards - all for around $600-$1200. That's when it became clear the Amiga's fate was sealed IMO. Even I ditched my A1200 after spending a small fortune upgrading the RAM, processor and hard drive in favor of a Windows 3.1 386 running at 25mhz. Bought it on close-out for around $400 in '94. Got rid of it shortly after as all the games I wanted to play required faster and faster processors.

 

So... I really think you're about 5 years behind with most of your IBM PC experience / exposure. The 286 computer was commonly available in the mid 80s, but it was SUPER expensive. The 80286 processor actually came out in 1982... but by the mid 80s was pretty common. The 386 processor was actually available in the mid 80s (1985). By 1990/1991... you could easily get cheap 386 computers, typically with 1 meg of ram, 40mb hard drive, and a 5.25" 1.2mb drive and a 3.5" 1.44mb drive, WITH VGA monitor, and DOS 5.0 with GeoWorks or Windows 3.0 standard, for $1,500 bucks all day. Packard Bell, Leading Edge, Compaq, etc.

 

Here's a little example:

 

 

 

That's a computer advertisement from 1989.

 

 

And with respect to 486s... they were common by 1992. And by 1995, everyone was buying Pentium computers.

 

I worked at CompUSA from 1994-1995... we didn't sell a single 386 back then. Everything we sold was some flavor of DX4 (laptops), or a Pentium 60, 66, 75, or 90. I very much remember it because Intel was doing the free swap for the Pentium 60 chip. In 1994, I bought the store's old mail server, which was an Acer Altos 9000 Server with dual Pentium 60 processors. I got it for $325.

 

[Austin]

Rule of thumb - Amiga was better until PC hit '386 / VGA / Soundblaster. That marked PCs surpassing the Amiga and the ST in gaming in a way that could never be matched.

 

This basically sums it up better (and shorter) than anything else here.

[82-T/A]

 

Speech and good music through that PC speaker sure was something to behold back then.

 

 

Hahah... true... there was ONE game that I had back in the day where the PC speaker sound was probably better than anything I'd ever heard before on the PC speaker:

 

 

 

 

And this is what it sounded like on the Tandy 3-Voice PC Speaker:

 

[R.Bear]

Yeah since I posted this I have been looking at some of the later PC games and can see massive improvements with them.

 

Earlier Graphics and Audio hardware (Plus the lack of standardization i.e Drivers) really looks like it took its toll on the developers at the time, looks like it really must have been a pain to get a PC to do anything up to the Amiga's standard (If even possible) in the 80s.

 

Ugh the PC games that use the built-in speaker I find really horrible. It actually makes me want to pysically disconnect the speaker from the motherboard lol.

 

Some games that use the Adlib or Sound Blaster don't sound too bad though. Graphically I agree with what a lot of posters on here say, once VGA because widely used, the PC gaming scene became a lot better.

 

I have been playing a lot of older PC games again lately, I'm really getting in to it.

 

Also oops yes, my bad this should have gone in classic computing.

[FastRobPlus]

I remember playing Leaderboard, might have been one of the later ones. It had good graphics (256 colour?) and decent effects + speech through the PC speaker.

 

You are thinking of Links, the predecessor to LeaderBoard. Bruce Carver's son did a port of the game to the Amiga, and it was a 4,096-color HAM mode game(!)

It didn't sell well at all (when I managed the transition of assets from Access to Microsoft I took a look at their sell-through for various titles)

 

The Amiga version was very, very slow and somewhat rough. You needed almost at minimum an Amiga 3000 (68030 processor) to get playable speed from it. It may even have been hard disk playable only, which was the first real limiting factor for Amiga games...

I've probably written about this before, but there was a lot of good will toward Amiga in the late 80's/early '90s and many companies wanted to release games for it if possible. Many dev houses like EA still used Amiga for a lot of the creative work and already had a deep toolbox and lots of best practices for porting stuff to Amiga.

 

But again, hard drives were the big limit. Amiga generally needed a custom host controller and often a more expensive SCSI drive, and worse yet, the 500 and 1000 needed external enclosures.

 

New World Computing made Might and Magic III: Isles of Tera for the Amiga and it would have been fairly trivial to release the sequels as they used the same engine. The issue was that these new PC games all required hard disk installation, and this was the one thing that the PC world had that the typical Amiga user did not.

 

Several companies (like Dynamix) went as far as to release revised game engines that used the Amiga's 64-halfbrite mode to reasonably emulate VGA. While VGA was 256-color, you will find that a typical Sierra/Dynamix game like Longbow uses only around 50-90 colors on any screen. It was pretty easy to use an image processor to cut those screens down below 64-color and have a game that looked identical to VGA, if just a bit washed out in places.

 

The final nail in the coffin was the shift from walkabout adventure games to real-time 3D Doom clones, since those games really played to the PC's chunky-graphics strengths and were tough to pull of on the Amiga planar graphic architecture.