PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
Non-NEC Console Related Discussion => Console Chat => Topic started by: Gogan on September 24, 2010, 04:45:09 AM
Title: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Gogan on September 24, 2010, 04:45:09 AM
Can the Commodore Amiga be hooked up to a normal CRT television? I was on Shmups.com and this seems like a sweet little system, but seems to have a monitor as well.
Was it sold as a computer, or as a home gaming console?
Also, there seems to be different model numbers for them as well, are all "Amiga" games compatible with any model? I'd like to pick one up.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Vecanti on September 24, 2010, 05:22:40 AM
You can hook any of them up to a CRT, though with most models you need an A520 adapter. (Gives you video out and RF out many A500s came with the adapter in the box).
There are 2 different graphic chipsets. The A500, A1000, A2000 use "OCS" or Original Chip Set. That is what 95% of the games use.
Later the new chipset came out "AGA" which had more colors. These were mainly the A1200 and A4000. There are some AGA games, but not a lot of good ones. An A1200 will play most "OCS" games though you often need some software to "degrade" it down to "OCS". (degrading is easy, it's just a floppy you boot and it's temporary, just lasts until you power it off.)
A500 or A1200 would probably be the best system to go for. The A1200 has color video out and RF out so you don't need the adapter to hook it to your TV. Plus with the A1200 you can play the few AGA games out there, it has more ram and things like the that.
The only problem I ran into when I used some Amiga's again after all these years is that a lot of games are in PAL. (I live in an NTSC country). Like the with the PCE where most of the games are from Japan, with the Amiga most of the games come from Europe where they use PAL.
None of the TVs in my house would do PAL so I basically couldn't play very many games. In the old days TVs use to have a manual "Vsync" knob and you just adjusted that and they did PAL fine (50hz instead of 60hz). But none of the TVs I have (even 7 to 8 years old) have a way to adjust Vsync.
There is also always, WinUAE. An excellent emulator that emulates pretty much all Amiga hardware that ever came out.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Tatsujin on September 24, 2010, 06:02:16 AM
if your crt supports true rgb inputs via scart, there is no problem of hooking it up with the best signal possible :)
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Gogan on September 24, 2010, 06:35:57 AM
Thanks for the onfo, sadly my TV at the moment doesn't have scart input, I think I may just use emulator, means more money for obey >:)
Any good ones for a Mac computer?
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 24, 2010, 07:13:28 AM
I would say it was sold as a legit computer (more legit than a C64 anyway) but it was also very fun. It certainly wasn't a "gaming system".
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Arkhan on September 24, 2010, 03:35:11 PM
you need a modulator or a modification to go to a normal TV. Otherwise its black and white. They make a nice svideo board to do regular TVs. and the flickerfixer!
Anyway what you want for the ultimate Amiga experience is either:
A1200 w/ a hard drive + proper ram expansions + accelerator (maybe) + WHDLoad plus a full install of OS possibly w/ kickstart rom upgrades (to install a newer OS) A4000 w/ the same. The 4000 is easier to modify since rather than being a wedgeboard, its a desktop. You can get nice accelerators and shit. Even a network card and surf the net all gimped 1995 style.
So one of the above w/ hard drive and ram expansions, and os3.1 or better is good..... you can get away with an older OS but its kinda lame. Then, you can download games for whdload and play them. You generally dont need an accelerator unless you are going to play 3d games. The reason for WHDLoad is for compatibility with the different processors, etc. (And for free games!)
That being said, and with all due respect to Amigans, f*ck the Amiga. What a waste of time and money. If you didn't experience them when they were current, getting one now is just a bad idea. The arcade conversions are gimped compared to other systems of the same era. Getting a working model up to speed in order to easily play games is a pretty hefty investment....and even then you get the whole thing setup, and it takes a big deal of space....for a less than <3 experience.
a solid A4000 will run you 500+$ on a good day, and a solid A1200 maybe about 350....... and youll still need to get a composite or svideo solution after that.
Definitely not worth it because you're in it for the games, and not the Amiga computer experience , I think.
If you want to diddle around with Workbench, and actually try using the thing seriously, then by all means go for it. Hell, PM me even, I know people who can hook you up with nice Amiga systems.
and in the end you could emulate it and be fine. The "real hardware" experience is not that great, and I speak from experience. I've had an A500, 1200, 2000, 2500, 3000 and 4000
I still have a 1200. I think. They really arent worth the time unless you just have to play the exclusives or if you are programming / using workbench.
I think youd be better off spending the $$ on a nice imported Japanese computer, like an MSX. Definitely cooler IMO.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: nat on September 24, 2010, 04:51:39 PM
Yeah, the Amiga was definitely a computer and NOT a "console." My grandmother, who is a professional artist, used an Amiga 500 and an Amiga 1000 from the late '80s through the late '90s for graphic design.
There are also Amiga models beyond the 4000, although I'm unsure if the newest hardware can run the old games. The newest Amiga models are actually called "AmigaOne" and have various identifiers (XE, SE, etc). There is a new model in development called the AmigaOne X1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOne_X1000) which was announced in January of this year.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Tatsujin on September 24, 2010, 06:24:13 PM
All what he needs is a plain A500 w/ 1MB RAM and probably 2nd disk drive.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Arkhan on September 24, 2010, 07:09:13 PM
All what he needs is a plain A500 w/ 1MB RAM and probably 2nd disk drive.
no AGA games? No thanks. You're just wasting your time with Amiga if you don't have access to AGA games.
also, Nat, all of those aftermarket Amigas (minimig, etc) are all junk. Plus, the minimig has some f*cking stupid port placement. cables coming out of 3 sides of the board. totally great for setting up on a desk. Totally. XD
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Gogan on September 27, 2010, 09:05:12 AM
Thanks for the infos. I def only want it for teh games, so I'd be bettr off with emulation.
What's with this MSX thing? Games look rather stellar...
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Vecanti on September 27, 2010, 10:27:41 AM
Theres vertical scrolling hardware on the MSX2, and horizontal on the 2+....
and Fray and Xak are admittedly better on the MSX despite the hardware shortcomings.
The scrolling complaint is for crybabies anyways. All the shooters play better on the msx than they do on scrolling computers like the C64. Unless you simply love you some R-Type with music and no sfx.
and Ill take FM or PSG over horribly redone Paula stuff.
then you got the SCC. Damn is it good. :)
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: guyjin on September 27, 2010, 02:00:21 PM
It's where Vampire Killer ( castlevania) came from. Theres a ton of great Konami games, (original metal gear 1 and 2), alot of RPGs and stuff.
you have that backwards. Castlevania came out on the Famicom first. But the msx version only came a month later, so they were probably in development at the same time.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Arkhan on September 27, 2010, 02:52:55 PM
It's where Vampire Killer ( castlevania) came from. Theres a ton of great Konami games, (original metal gear 1 and 2), alot of RPGs and stuff.
you have that backwards. Castlevania came out on the Famicom first. But the msx version only came a month later, so they were probably in development at the same time.
Ah right right. Given the like, month difference in release dates, its pretty obvious they were done in parallel, with Vampire Killer having some features/stuff the famicom didnt.
I prefer the MSX one in that regard, because I like the stuff in it that Famicom doesn't have.... i.e.: Treasure boxes with upgrades, merchants, and a bit more of an "adventure" feel to it that was then present in Simons Quest....
and then the newer CVs all do it too.... so I wonder if the majority of people preferred it that way?
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Arkhan on September 27, 2010, 03:28:43 PM
In regards to the MSX
MSX1: Commodore 64:
Yeah. The scrolling is blocky, but isn't so bad that it wrecks the game, especially with that ill ass SCC music.
as for "no scrolling":
MSX2 games: Aleste 2: Space Manbow: Ys:
and little windows:
Xak: Golvellius 2:
Thems is nice little windows. Then theres more goodness like Dragon Slayer 6, Sorcerian, and tonssss of other good games.
If we are talking STRAIGHT MSX1 stuff (MSX2 is backwards compatible and as such MSX is usually just the blanket term for the best MSX standard machine you can find), yeah there will be some scrolling-sadness that really doesn't kill any of the games. Not really a little window. Pretty solid game too. No scrolling, so what. Duh.
You could look at stuff like Gall Force, Hydlide 3 MSX1 version, and a plethora of other solid MSX1 games.... Antarctic Adventure, more Konami shooters, some more RPGs and text/digital comic adventures.
It's all really good stuff. The jerky scrolling argument is petty to me. If it was so bad, I don't think the MSX, and the PC88 would have been as successful as they were.
And don't get me wrong, the Amiga is fine. I like games on the Amiga. Agony, SotB 1 thru 3, and tons of other games are really good stuff.
That being said, when its a Japanese game being ported to the Amiga, or the Commodore, it usually sucks. Salamander for C64 is the only one I can think of that managed to make it over good.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: ccovell on September 28, 2010, 04:17:04 AM
Yeah. The scrolling is blocky, but isn't so bad that it wrecks the game, especially with that ill ass SCC music.
as for "no scrolling"...
Way to selectively snip quotes, Arkhan, and to overlook glaring faults. That video of Nemesis, as well as others like Nemesis 2, 3, Salamander, etc show how choppy scrolling can ruin a game. I have the Konami MSX collection for Saturn, and really, the games are that unplayable thanks to the crap scrolling.
Those Xak and Hydlide videos do indeed show off how tiny the viewing window in many MSX games is. It's approaching Gameboy dimensions.
Basically, the MSX had great programmers (how could it not? They were Japanese...) but let down by the most idiotic hardware (something all Japanese PCs save for the FM-Towns and X68000) suffered from.
C64 and Amiga games were let down on the programming side (lazy European or (gag, even worse) American conversions of excellent arcade originals.) But that's another story. Or rather, one that goes back to the topic of the original post.
Don't get me wrong, I have 2 Amigas and 2 C64s, but aside from productivity and demo fun, other (proper) consoles have much more playable games, conversions from the arcades, etc. The number of *truly* great Amiga exclusives is quite low, so consoles are usually a better investment.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Arkhan on September 28, 2010, 05:20:50 AM
Way to selectively snip quotes, Arkhan, and to overlook glaring faults. That video of Nemesis, as well as others like Nemesis 2, 3, Salamander, etc show how choppy scrolling can ruin a game. I have the Konami MSX collection for Saturn, and really, the games are that unplayable thanks to the crap scrolling.
I didn't really selectively snip it, I don't think? If I did, I didn't mean to. You said it had no scrolling hardware, so I assumed you meant the usual block-scrolling complaint. Yeah it's a fault, but I guess I fall into the group of people that don't see it as a huge problem that ruins the games. I play the games on real MSX hardware and don't find them unplayable. The only blockscrolling game I can't play is Legend of Kage. It's just disorienting as hell when you start to jump around. Gall Force is perfectly playable!
I think I would take the MSX shmups w/ the block scrolling (Starsoldier!) over the stuff they put on C64 (Lions of the Universe) any day. The shmups on the C64 were all pretty terrible.
Quote
Those Xak and Hydlide videos do indeed show off how tiny the viewing window in many MSX games is. It's approaching Gameboy dimensions.
It's not a hardware flaw; its a design preference. They could have extended the gameplay window without affecting the gameplay speed in games like Xak, Fray and Ys, but chose to put the HUDs in. I think it was to mimic the then-popular western RPGs like Questron and Ultima.
Those western games had tiny windows too and were running on hardware that could definitely do better as well.
Quote
C64 and Amiga games were let down on the programming side (lazy European or (gag, even worse) American conversions of excellent arcade originals.) But that's another story. Or rather, one that goes back to the topic of the original post.
The MSX port of Green Beret is probably the worst thing I've ever seen on a computer, lol. It made Konami stop letting english speakers port their games for awhile I think.
Quote
Don't get me wrong, I have 2 Amigas and 2 C64s, but aside from productivity and demo fun, other (proper) consoles have much more playable games, conversions from the arcades, etc. The number of *truly* great Amiga exclusives is quite low, so consoles are usually a better investment.
Yep. The games I like to play most on Amiga/C64 aren't exclusives (D&D/Ultima/other RPGs and arcade games), and the exclusives on either system don't warrant actually having one set up anymore. Having an A4000 set up on a desk to play like 3 games is sort of obnoxious.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: ccovell on September 28, 2010, 11:19:21 AM
Those Xak and Hydlide videos do indeed show off how tiny the viewing window in many MSX games is. It's approaching Gameboy dimensions.
It's not a hardware flaw; its a design preference. They could have extended the gameplay window without affecting the gameplay speed in games like Xak, Fray and Ys, but chose to put the HUDs in. I think it was to mimic the then-popular western RPGs like Questron and Ultima.
It was a design preference inasmuch as the programmers didn't want to overload the CPU... Moving a full screen of data around every time the screen scrolled (by 8 pixels) might have been possible, but not with other objects moving, enemy AI, and a music engine on top of all that, especially with lazy or incapable programmers.
That's the same reason why many Speccy, Amstrad, and Atari ST games had such thick, baroque borders all around the game peephole.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Arkhan on September 28, 2010, 02:22:48 PM
The VDP in the MSX2 saves it from overloading the CPU. It is actually quite nice. non transparent blitting is pretty damn speedy. It's very nice! Vroom vroom backgrounds, with minimal work.
You can see some other screen 5 games that are fullscreen/action packed to prove that point. Aleste 2 and Undeadline for example, use the same screen mode as Fray. Same with Xak 2.
Good stuff!
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Tatsujin on September 28, 2010, 03:03:46 PM
with Vampire Killer having some features/stuff the famicom didnt.
Vice versa as well, started with scrolling.
Title: Re: Commodore Amiga question
Post by: Arkhan on September 28, 2010, 03:18:42 PM
one things for sure, the lack of scrolling in the MSX2 game prevents the cheesy non-stop enemy respawn spots in the game that often result in DAMNIT DAMNIT DAMNIT.