i'm amazed at how good the sound design is for this game.. they did a good job on the st, seeing it had a mere YM2149, but on the amiga it really shines. magical game!
Good ol' Bitmap brothers. Unlike a lot of developers back then, this lot wanted to push machines' capabilities. I loved that distinct solid, 'marble' look many of their games had. And the sound was mind blowing at the time.
ok, GODS was a gem for the Atari ST in terms of graphics and sound. I really loved playing it on my 1040 STFM. But, when I bought an A500 back then, found out that the same game offered more detail, more colors and far better (during gameplay) sound. It's all obvious in this video. Still, an awesome game for the ST!
Not sure how the graphics could be better apart from the color palette (maybe that's what you are talking about?). Bitmap Brother games are ST games ported to Amiga without any improvements.
I had an A500+ miss it hugely, keep meaning to pickup a 500 or 1200 on Ebay and installing one of the modern accelerators and a scan doubler. Emulation is great, but I have a craving to play on the original system again!
This gives the edge to the Amiga. Both look good and are very playable and the scrolling looks fine on both but the Amiga edges ahead with better sound.
The Atari was very limited when it came to game audio - it had a great noise chip (so a lot of music was made using sample sequencers on ST), and could handle external midi devices nicely, but it could barely manage a weedy series of beeps and variations on white noise otherwise. The Amiga had a definite edge in synthesized audio. It should have had the edge in the scrolling department too, but Gods was ported from the ST to the Amiga without any effort being put into taking full advantage of the Amiga's additional graphics processing hardware. Many other games demonstrate the disparity between the capabilities of the two much more clearly, with much of the fluidity lost in Atari versions (swapping scrolling for paging, for instance, or scrolling in one direction only). The Amiga could handle sprites in hardware too, which meant that the Atari tended to have fewer on-screen (or noticeable slow-down with similar loads). I had a lowly Atari STFM myself, but I never deluded myself about its shortcomings- I preferred it because it suited me better, and it still amply delivered a satisfying experience- I'm definitely not bashing the Atari. I preferred playing some games on my mate's Amiga, though. He had a bigger television, too... ^-^
WhiteHawkUK The Genesis version also failed to use its scrolling hardware capabilities - smoothly. As for the ST version I think it shows that the machine wasnt as bad as people expected.
@@Gwalchgwyn Not only Gods, I think ALL the Bitmap Brothers games are ST games ported to Amiga with very minimal any code change. No sprites, no hardware scrolling. They still look great but that's why they all run at 25fps or less, never at 50 ...
It's an Amiga port from the ST actually. The Bitmap Brothers made all their games for ST and simply reused the code on Amiga, with sometimes better music/sound. That's why they're 16 colors on Amiga, not using sprites or hardware scrolling. In other words, those games could have looked even a lot better on Amiga.
+Stephen Ancell sound FX's on Amiga are better. Look at that scroll!!! 1:00 Amiga always had a plus!!! the image looks brighter and better too. ;) Amiga games ruled!!
I still have my Atari STE, the 1.62 TOS, to me I found the old 8bit sound better match for the graphics, real sample sound eats up memory and was too modern for the game of them times, the STE had a DAC for real sample sound but was not really used, thank god but was used in were it really was needed that was music, The Atari was built for this that the Amiga was not but the Amiga had 32 Color v 16 but as it was built for graphics, Atari not so much more towards MIDI for music and other stuff, so a draw really both good machines in diferant areas and when it came to games I would say Amiga had the slight edge in graphics but killed it with modern sound effects and was not much in it to a kid, both looked great.
Atari STE's PCM DAC = 2 channels at 8 bits Atari ST/STE supports 4-bit planes (16 colors). Amiga 500 OCS/ECS's PCM DAC = 4 channels at 8 bits. Amiga 500 OCS/ECS's PCM DAC = 2 channels at 14 bits (i.e. two of Amiga's PCM DAC forms a 14 bit DAC channel). Amiga 500 supports 6-bit planes (64 colors EHB or dual playfields). Amiga 500 supports 8 sprites slots with tiled multi-instancing sprites as the alternative to dual playfield mode. Amiga 500 has a major edge in graphics in titles such as Shadows of the Beast and other games with background parallax.
Rnl Valen but to the end user a kid both were just as enjoyable and unless you had both side by side the average kid would of seen both platforms more less equally good both just as enjoyable. Atari STE had DAC and blitterchip that could be used for sprites tho hardly any games too advantage of it the Falcon was too late the ST market at that time was practically over they missed the boat shame Falcon should of been the Atari STE
@@insoft_uk Atari STE's release was the acknowledgment that the Amiga 500 is superior. Atari ST era was run by ex-Commodore Jack Tramiel with a higher tendency for releasing inferior machines.
Atari released STE in late 1989. My 1989 A500 Rev 6 motherboard was an ECS variant with upgradable ECS Denise (with 4 color non-lace productivity resolution) and 1MB chip ram (aka shared video ram, two simple jumper pads change) in an A500plus configuration. Commodore duplicated the same BS non-lace productivity resolution in C128 (just a C64 with monochrome non-lace productivity resolution). VIC-20 and C-64 were under Jack Tramiel's administration with Commodore. Both Commodore and Atari (run by ex-Commodore Jack Tramiel) released 4 color non-lace productivity (Amiga ECS) screen or monochrome non-lace productivity (ST) resolution while PC world moves to 1987 VGA 16 color 640x480 non-lace resolution which the Amiga 3000 matched in 1990 (flicker fixed 16 color 640x512 PAL), but year 1988 was the arrival of PC's SVGA. IBM introduced XGA in 1990 while VBE 1.0 was defined in 1989 for commodity SVGA. Commodore had a working AGA chipset in Feb 1991 which is delayed by management towards near the end of 1992. Commodore had a working C65 chipset in late 1990 with 256 colors and a 4096 color palette which is canceled by Commodore management. Commodore has near working Amiga Ranger chipset with 128 colors and 4096 color palette in 1987 which is canceled by Commodore management. Commodore, Atari (run by ex-Commodore Jack Tramiel), and Motorola (68K) wasted their technical leadership over the PC.
It always intrigued me how amiga had the better music chip/sound yet the ST had the midi so was used for music production haha. That 90's track "your woman" was done mostly on an ST
ST provided software. Yeah, it was very good computer for mixing and stuff. Many "Engima" soundtracks were made on it as well. Yet Amiga 500 were used on some TV studios ;) Until late 90's
@@camulodunon Really, Well, nowadays there are better ways than ancient 16bit computer. Actually not many, oi believe. We had famous composer who died 1995, at young age, and left lot of unfinished music behind on, and now noone can use them as they are all on old disks and formats.
Good comparison, the ST holds up really well but Bitmap Bros didn't really push the Amiga. By 1991 the Amiga was showing the difference between having and not having custom chips.
Man, you're giving me flashbacks to the first game I loaded up when I eventually got an A600 a couple years back... it made very heavy use of Copper effects... loads of high-colour sprites everywhere, and a smooth scrolling background ... which occasionally went into sine-wavey wibbly wobbly travel-sickness mode... *bluerkch* :D I think our ST would have melted if asked to do that. The one time I saw anyone bust out even a similar effect was on a rather demosceney PD version of Tetris, which became very hard to play in the later levels thanks to all that going on. IDK, I think I sorta prefer the simpler versions because of that!
1:47 That sound! Pure nostalgia. I may be getting old but at least I can explain where A: and B: in computers come from, and why every computer starts at C: nowadays 😀
I like these comparisons, but as a tip Bitmap Bros games are a bit pointless to compare, since they were developed for Atari STE and then ported straight to Amiga, without taking advantage of the hardware like f.ex. Shadow of the Beast or the Turrican/X-Out series do. (Case in point: the stuttering scrolling in Gods here.) The same is true for many vector games, hence the small screens and using the CPU to fill polygons. You will get identical results if the games are done first on ST, then ported to Amiga. Many developers did this to cut development costs. If you notice a difference in frame rates, you could try uploading in the new 60Hz format for RUclips to show this difference. Default is 25Hz.
Not at all, as with any computer including PC, its performance in games directly tells you the quality of what you bought.Comparing an Atari STE to a 286 or 386 reveals the very limited extent of your computer knowledge. Atari 8-bit were not junk when they were relesed. The 16-bit Ataris were. They were simply the cheapest possible 16-bit computers that could be made. Some bought that junk, well, they got what they deserved.Just a waste of money to me. I got tricked too, but as soon as I started using it I saw it was junk and luckily enough I could return it. That doesn't mean you don't have fond memories of the computer you had when you grew. But that's true for any brand computer.
***** "Amiga only for Gaming", That was always code back in the 1980's when a Mac guy, or PC Guy or Atari Guy, admitted that the Graphics and sound and OS on the Amiga were vastly superior to their machines. The PC guys would say.... umm well I can do "Word Processing", (and I could do it with pictures and color on the Amiga). or the Mac guys ... Umm I can do ... oh forget it, Amiga is only a game machine.. x Don saying "the Amiga is only a game machine" is kinda funny because that is what they Always said about the ST in the Day, (and it was not true either). Add a $50 Midi port and the Amiga can do EVERYTHING better than the ST. What TV Series were Done on the ST.. NONE, (Babylon 5 and Sequest DSV were done on the Amiga), Did NASA use the ST for tracking Orbital Objects? Was the ST the first Home computer to be used as "TV Guide" Scrolling Menu's on TV. Could you do more than one task at a time? No, But the Amiga can! The ST rocked back in the day, its price to performance level was unbelievable, but don't trash the Amiga. It was godlike back then and it was truly the computer of the future. Sluggo
I suppose the ST is still superior to the PC then because it *still* lacks built in MIDI? :D Most worthless selling point ever. "Well of course 100% of anyone using a computer will own $1000 synthesizers and use a shitty, slow $300 home computer to sequence MIDI on them!". It's just two contacts soldered to a serial port, you know. Me, I used Bar'n'Pipes with a $30 MIDI interface on Amiga *and* I could use the Amiga for excellent percussion. Any ST guys making music gladly paid $600 for a drum machine, obviously. As long as you spend the least amount of money on the actual computer, right...? Silly. As an interesting(?) side fact, Stevie Wonder used a ZX Spectrum with MIDI interface to sequence "I just called to say I love you".
Yes, of course any computer with a MIDI interface can sequence synths. That was kind of my point. That it's built-in is of no consequence whatever, and so as that last straw Atari ST users grasp to defend their plasticky purchase, it's an extremely lame excuse. It's the ST users who had to put up with crap games, grating music, GEM, and a general lack of features, though. So Iin retrospect it's mainly just sad you didn't look around before you bought the cheapest one in the store. (Or, well, your parents did. :P)
There are 900 just as well-known musicians active in the 80s that you don't know what they used, software or hardware. But OK, that's a claim. Give me just one of the musicians you listed who actively use an Atari ST to make new songs.
Atari ST was a pretty decent rival, but no matter what Amiga always had a plus, in this case the sounds. Amiga always stood out from the crowd. THANK YOU AMIGA!
I dad both machines, and obviously the Amiga is much more superior. However, the ST was my first 16 Bit computer and I have fond memories of many a good time. Dungeon Master was one of my first games, and was I was so amazed by the whole atmosphere of that game. It was a real big leap for me at the time having previously owned a ZX Spectrum.
St version appears better, like most games from 85-88 they were made for the dominant machine in sales and that was the ST. Amiga customers always complained of bad ports, this one seems fine, almost as good as the ST version.
I was lucky enough to own both,Despite popular belief, the ST was considered more powerful by some ST users - the ST's processor ran a whole 1MHZ faster than the Amiga's processor. I don't think this made any real difference though, as the Amiga had the superb custom chips to back it up and take the strain away from the main CPU.
The Bitmap Brothers were "GODS" back then... (umm get it Gods... OK that fell flat), I just loved so many of their games! Especially Speedball 2, Chaos Engine, Xenon and Xenon2. Great Memories! Sluggo
amiga and atari st have the same cpu so they share many games but many games are ported to amigas from atari and don't use amiga's advanced feats so they look pretty similar, also atari ports on amigas could run slower because of poor conversion
KRISNA MUSIK neither were the best, if you were into music midi keyboard then Atari ST were if gamer Amiga so depends on the user and both platform had their strengths
Yeah, thinking about it, it's a weird thought that the two major 16 bit computers at a time when Apple's 16 bit involvement wasn't exactly smooth or colorful and PC was still the "business computer" could both lose out so hard.
These are pretty close as were most of the well coded games near the latter part of these two great 16 bit machines life's. The Amiga might be slightly brighter and have a little better sound, but the ST version holds its own and is faster at loading. If only Atari had released the STE from day one, that would have taken the Amiga vs STE debate to a whole new level, because the STE would have whooped the Amiga's ass, lol.
wanna talk about expansions or the machines itself? my Amiga 1200 as the 060 also. Amiga WAS and STILL IS the BEST my friend, Atari was good, but with Amiga around he always be 2nd best...
Hmm, if I'm hearing correctly, sounds like the "go" button wasn't pressed on the ST one until after the Amiga one was already loaded... ;) I wonder why they didn't scroll the intro text though? It's not exactly the most difficult task even without the Copper... Oh, and your ST disc 2 is a bit damaged ... which makes the miggy's slow loading seem even worse :D Funny though, out of all the games that I might have thought would show up the difference in colour palette, this wasn't one of them. The ST version looks like someone's put it in a photo editor and turned the contrast up way too high. All the same, for 16 colours out of 512, not bad at all even now ... you can just feel the extra 32 / 3584 (plus halfbrite) its competitor had to play with quite plainly.
I remember reading somewhere that the same game engine was used on both the Amiga and ST versions and were programmed with ST limitations in mind, thus saving time and money porting across computers (the same with Magic Pockets.) A case of 'lowest common denominator' which might explain why this game doesn't really exploit the custom chips on the Amiga the way Shadow of the Beast does. Saying that, I still play this even now and have recently discovered how to get to the hidden switch at the top of the first level, thereby opening up the upper platforms on level two! Great game.
***** : this is exact. All the bitmap brothers games were ST ports, until they started The chaos engine, where the amiga was the leading machine. Gods, magic fuckets, Speedball 2, Xenon 2 were all ST ports.
I have a theory that the code for Gods was designed to be as portable as possible. The Amiga version doesn't seem as quick as it should be, implying that it does no hardware acceleration.
It's true and not only Gods but all the Bitmap Brothers games. They're not using hardware scrolling nor sprites. They're essentially all ST games that run on Amiga. And then the ST has a small advantage since its CPU is clocked at 8MHz instead of 7.14MHz. That's why all their games have a poor frame rate.
The Amiga is clearly smoother, more colours, better sound... but the Bitmap Bros never let ST users down, all their games had really good ST ports. If you do more, please please please don't bother with Psygnosis games, they ported games with all the care of a mother, disposing of a used diaper. Maybe just comparing other Bitmap Bros games might be an idea, like Xenon2, Magic Pockets, Chaos Engine, Cadaver, and Speedball2 - heck apart from Magic Pockets they're all landmark games IMO.
I agree; the Amiga version, due to the machine's capabilities, is faster/smoother and the array of colors is a bit higher. Anyway, again, I agree when you say that the ATARI ST versions are good. In fact, as far as I remember, ATARI ST has always had a lot of good games! :)
stunthumb : when they ported psygnosis games on atari ST, they had to converted all the hardware routines used by the amiga to software routines. This has a price : speed !
3 года назад
I miss my ST and Xenon 2 and IK+ and the very great Buggy Boy !
The Amiga version won ( as usuall) . The graphics are better ( more colors ) the sounds are also better ( digital samples ) The Atari's faster loading is only because the Amiga's digital samples requires a bit more loading time :) As far as I know the game originally developed for the Amiga !
I don't know if this game was developed for the Amiga, but even if it is, it's not using any Amiga specific hardware and it's also limited to 16 colors. In other words, it was developed in a way that the same code can run on both the Amiga and the Atari ST. It means it could have looked even better on Amiga, if it had used hardware scrolling and sprites. I think it could run at 50fps.
Co to jest? Znajdź 10 różnic? 1. Intro gry- scroll tekstu: Amiga tak, Atari nie 2. Inny odcień koloru między Amigą a Atari 3. Na pewno dźwięk, ale tu nie można porównać. Coś jeszcze?
Amiga and Atari are virtually identical in performance and capabilities.. Too bad they couldn't just cooperate instead of fighting to the death of both machines..
It's was all hugs and kisses until someone said, "Business is war"... ;) Most of the user war was because of the silly insistence that "Atari ST is almost as good as Amiga". Technically experienced users saw that it was obviously not, but rather a hires C64 but with a 1979 sound chip.
@@ScoopexUs The Amiga had more in common with the Atari 800 than the ST. And just because both computers can do the same thing in the end, the amount of programming power to bounce that ball around the screen used up much more computing power on the ST than on the Amiga.
@@bjbell52 Yes, and for a reason. ;) And Amiga was brilliant and ST was the cheapest 16-bit computer you could build. Some devs decided to port from ST to Amiga, and that's why we we got performance down by 66% as displayed here. Have you thumbed down the ignorant person I replied to yet? :) You should.
The skin tone of the fighter and the color temperature on the steel armor and blade in the opening scene are more natural in the Atari ST version, though there is a slight green cast in the blade. The Amiga version has a magenta color cast in the skin and a blue cast in the steel. During game play the ST version also has more naturally colored stone walls while the Amiga version has a bluishness. Saturation is also nicer in the ST version.
Hey, calm down a bit. Even with great capabilities, the Commodore Amiga, we can never forget what an ATARI ST could (and still can) do! These flame wars remind me of the ZX Spectrum vs C64. There are things in which a certain machine is better than the other, obviously and clearly. There are others that it isn't.
Quazatronn Commodore Amiga 500 dominated the Atari ST , just kidding just kidding! I understand the comparison analogy that you tried to give between the ZX and the 64, every system was definitely unique. I never had interation with an ST but I just think the AMIGA was better...... could be just me
Depends on where you lived. In Europe, it was a mixed bag. In the States, the Amiga took the lead. In either case, the best gaming software was coming from Europe. As for comparisons... The original A1000 and A500 were comparable to the ST, but the sound and graphics options were better on the Amiga (I should know, I owned both). UNLESS you were a musician, in which case, the ST had built-in MIDI (which was GREAT!) But the Amiga had one thing that initially turned me off during the A1000 days. The operating system was seriously buggy. Even with all the promise it had, when it crashed (as it often did back then - GURU MEDITATION# 34573489234387, etc.), it really sucked to have to load the Kickstart AND the OS. The first ST I got wasn't that great either - the machine was ready before the ROM's were, so I had to wait another 5 months after purchase before I received the ROM's in the mail and installed them. Later on, the A500's stability improved to the point where I finally purchased one of those too. But also, let's all not forget one VERY important fact. The ST ran GEM, a cooperative OS, whereas the Amiga was running a true Unix-like preemptive OS. And THAT, my friends, made me start using the Amiga FAR more than my ST. The STE evened the score a bit with better sprites, 4096 color graphics, and sampling audio, but then you had the A1200, which upped the ante to 261,000 colors at once. Both machines had direct-to-bus expansion for faster processors and memory, BUT, the STE series had serious compatibility problems (BOMB!), In truth, very little software was written to take advantage of either of these machines' full capabilities. But like the old Atari 800 vs. C64 wars, all these 68000-based machines were more similar than they were different, and, best part of all, you didn't have to be rich to run a graphical interface-based computer anymore. When I saw the first Mac up close, in 1984 (my senior year of high school), I was blown away... Then I found out how much it was - close to what $5000 would be in today's money. I came away angry and frustrated. There was NO WAY I could afford that. I could barely afford my pathetic Atari 400 back then! But in less than two years, other options opened up. I bought my first mouse-driven computer (the 520 ST), in 1985, and I felt like the luckiest guy in the world. :)
Michael Korben : I had interaction with both, and while the Amiga had obvious advantages in some areas (particularly those considered most important by the average gamer of the time), I still preferred the ST. The flame wars are sad, particularly as the majority of statements are driven by the biased opinions of those who had experience only of one. Oddly, I'm utterly biased against anything made by Apple, even with extensive experience and knowledge of them- the more I'm exposed to them, the more I learn to loathe them with every fibre of my being. Perhaps it's like that for some passionate ST/Amiga fans? lol
Genesis and Amiga share some games too they have the samd CPU 68k but Genesis is more advanced in a way cause rom cartridge gives fast loading unlike floppys and you can see Genesis has some advanced features like doppler effects on the background unlike Amiga, for example Leander\Legend of Galahad
That "doppler effect" you're talking about can be done on Amiga very easily. I even did several demos with it. The main advantage of the Genesis apart from having data on the cartridge, is that it has better sprites support, it can display more of them with fewer limitations. It can also flip sprites and tiles horizontally/vertically in hardware. That saves A LOT of memory, and ultimately it means you can have more animations and more characters.
The sprites in this game seem too large. Most 2D platform games today have smaller sprites. It's almost as if they were having large sprites just because they could.
Your observation is quite accurate... At the time, sprite size was compared between platforms as if it was really important, and made things difficult when porting arcade games to systems without hardware sprite support, like the Atari ST (especially the STfm which had no blitter).
You are literally the first person I've ever seen who thought to complain about such a thing o_O People only go for small, simple sprites today when doing a "retro" game because of misplaced NES nostalgia (whose sprites generally topped out at 8x16 pixels in 3 colours, with no more than 8 per line, and whose overall screen resolution was a bit crunched...). At the time, in the 16-bit realm (and even some of the other 8-bits), bigger, more colourful, and more plentiful sprites were all considered Good Things if you could manage to render them at a decent speed (which, with decent code, and especially on the Amiga, or STs with blitters, was perfectly possible). Compare Gods et al with, say, Golden Axe or Streets of Rage, and they look somewhat small... even though those games are running at the same resolution. And we certainly thought they all looked pretty damn good back in the day ;)
Indeed it was perfectly possible to do large sprites well, but it was quite difficult, at least on the STFM (most games targeted that rather than taking advantage of the later STe's blitter). So the reality (as far as I remember it.... money back guarantee not guaranteed :D) was that many games that _did_ try for very large sprites paid quite a large cost for the privilege, and were often underwhelming and jerky, etc. On a lot of machines with hardware sprites, they had a maximum size of e.g. 16x16 or maybe 32x32 pixels, so you had to stitch several sprites together, which led to other problems (e.g. processing time / max sprite count per frame -> flickering).
Do you really think this is pushing an OCS Amiga, this game was designed for ST and ported to Amiga with very minimal extras, only colours and obvious sound difference. Having said that though Bitmap Bros did look after the ST with some quality games, some software teams did manage to release impressive stuff for ST considering limitations.
Gods looked and sounded great, and it played fast and smooth, however I never liked it. Why? All those damn switches that don't appear to do anything. Exactly how many times were you expected to flip each switch? Twice? Five times? A dozen? Did the designers really expect you to wander the level for hours randomly flipping the switches an infinite number of times in the hope that something would happen? Having a switch that you need to flip to open a door or to turn off a trap is one thing. Having a switch that appears to do nothing until you travel halfway across the level, flip a couple more switches, then come back and flip the first one a couple more times, is just frustrating, especially when there's no indication of what you have to do.
GuruMediator When I play a game, I like to know what I'm doing. If there's a door, I want to know what I need to do to open it, not just wander around the level and hope something, somewhere causes it to open. A single switch with a mysterious function to act as an Easter egg is one thing, but to cover the entire level with such switches is just dumb.
GuruMediator Magic Pockets was another Bitmap Brothers game that seems to be universally loved, but which I had to wonder about some of the design choices. Progressing though the levels often required you to drop down into pits or off ledges, but since you couldn't see what was below you, you often ended up landing on an enemy and taking damage.
The Amiga's music was far superior than anything on the market at the time & The Bitmap Bros showcased this with Xenon 2 Megablast / Magic Pockets / Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe / The Chaos Engine & many others. I mean do use any long play of the ST Game music out there on RUclips do u ^^ ruclips.net/video/PvSfqBJi0ss/видео.html
The STs sound chip delivers lovely clean crisp sound effects compared to the Amiga with its overuse of low frequency sampling to deliver a messy audio experience...though for some reason Amiga owners seem to think this sounds better. Let's not mention their geriatric disk drive with its appallingly slow loading and their geriatric processor that meant 3d games felt like wading through treacle compared to the same games on the ST ;)
+mwaawm After the initial wave of poor ST ports when the Amiga first released, the majority of games are superior on the Amiga. Just listen to the sound in the above video, are you really trying to say that tinny ST fx is better? You are in denial.
+Steven Allen Sometimes though just because you can use samples or low frequency stuff it doesn't always make it sound better - there were a few arcade conversions on the Amiga that annoyed me when they ditched the arcade music for some jazzed-up multi-channel showy soundtrack instead.
ahh the old amiga st debate we all know the amiga had better support chips i had an st as a kid and know that workbench is slow and irritating to use compared to the gem desktop. at the end of the day its horses for courses as each machine was better in different ways. i would take an ste over an amiga because i liked the styling and the gui and the midi capabilities.
![Second Samurai Longplay (Amiga) [QHD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JeF2oYKlj7c/mqdefault.jpg)
i'm amazed at how good the sound design is for this game.. they did a good job on the st, seeing it had a mere YM2149, but on the amiga it really shines. magical game!
gods omg's :)
but i think the colors are too green in this vid for the st
That's it, I'm off to setup my Amiga. The Xbox One can have a night off!
Good ol' Bitmap brothers. Unlike a lot of developers back then, this lot wanted to push machines' capabilities.
I loved that distinct solid, 'marble' look many of their games had. And the sound was mind blowing at the time.
Both versions look impressive graphic wise. And they are hard as hell.
ok, GODS was a gem for the Atari ST in terms of graphics and sound. I really loved playing it on my 1040 STFM. But, when I bought an A500 back then, found out that the same game offered more detail, more colors and far better (during gameplay) sound. It's all obvious in this video. Still, an awesome game for the ST!
Not sure how the graphics could be better apart from the color palette (maybe that's what you are talking about?). Bitmap Brother games are ST games ported to Amiga without any improvements.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube not true, take a look at speedball 2
"Crystal Cracked". Now there's a blast from the past.
A surprisingly modest intro- I seem to recall most cracked intros being exemplary of the demo scene. There's not even any bouncing! lol
Wish I hadn't sold my A1200 all those years ago :(
I have Amiga500 and it collects dust, as i use emulator if i want play Amiga games,
@@urmo345 winuae ;)
I had an A500+ miss it hugely, keep meaning to pickup a 500 or 1200 on Ebay and installing one of the modern accelerators and a scan doubler. Emulation is great, but I have a craving to play on the original system again!
This gives the edge to the Amiga. Both look good and are very playable and the scrolling looks fine on both but the Amiga edges ahead with better sound.
The Atari was very limited when it came to game audio - it had a great noise chip (so a lot of music was made using sample sequencers on ST), and could handle external midi devices nicely, but it could barely manage a weedy series of beeps and variations on white noise otherwise. The Amiga had a definite edge in synthesized audio.
It should have had the edge in the scrolling department too, but Gods was ported from the ST to the Amiga without any effort being put into taking full advantage of the Amiga's additional graphics processing hardware. Many other games demonstrate the disparity between the capabilities of the two much more clearly, with much of the fluidity lost in Atari versions (swapping scrolling for paging, for instance, or scrolling in one direction only). The Amiga could handle sprites in hardware too, which meant that the Atari tended to have fewer on-screen (or noticeable slow-down with similar loads).
I had a lowly Atari STFM myself, but I never deluded myself about its shortcomings- I preferred it because it suited me better, and it still amply delivered a satisfying experience- I'm definitely not bashing the Atari. I preferred playing some games on my mate's Amiga, though. He had a bigger television, too... ^-^
WhiteHawkUK The Genesis version also failed to use its scrolling hardware capabilities - smoothly. As for the ST version I think it shows that the machine wasnt as bad as people expected.
@@Gwalchgwyn Not only Gods, I think ALL the Bitmap Brothers games are ST games ported to Amiga with very minimal any code change. No sprites, no hardware scrolling. They still look great but that's why they all run at 25fps or less, never at 50 ...
Amazing port for the Atari ST, they did an excellent job.
It's an Amiga port from the ST actually. The Bitmap Brothers made all their games for ST and simply reused the code on Amiga, with sometimes better music/sound. That's why they're 16 colors on Amiga, not using sprites or hardware scrolling. In other words, those games could have looked even a lot better on Amiga.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube cool didnt know that.
Amazing game on the ST
Still have all the Bitmap Brother games and the original Atari ST and Amiga. :) Gods is my favourite after Dungeon Master of course.
And in the PC I also liked: The Chaos Engine, Speedball 2 and Magic Pockets!
Quazatronn Ahh, my friend and I used to spend hours playing Speedball 2 on the Amiga, it was an awesome game....
I used Atari for the MIDI capabilities which were quite phenomenal at the time. Oh yeah, and for 'Dungeon Master'.
I sometimes wonder how many hours of my life were spent playing Dungeon Master, amazing game.
You need to do more of these, it's quite cool.
From a back in the day Amiga nut, I'm undecided between the two versions. They're both pretty damn good.
+Stephen Ancell sound FX's on Amiga are better. Look at that scroll!!! 1:00 Amiga always had a plus!!! the image looks brighter and better too. ;) Amiga games ruled!!
I still have my Atari STE, the 1.62 TOS, to me I found the old 8bit sound better match for the graphics, real sample sound eats up memory and was too modern for the game of them times, the STE had a DAC for real sample sound but was not really used, thank god but was used in were it really was needed that was music, The Atari was built for this that the Amiga was not but the Amiga had 32 Color v 16 but as it was built for graphics, Atari not so much more towards MIDI for music and other stuff, so a draw really both good machines in diferant areas and when it came to games I would say Amiga had the slight edge in graphics but killed it with modern sound effects and was not much in it to a kid, both looked great.
Atari STE's PCM DAC = 2 channels at 8 bits
Atari ST/STE supports 4-bit planes (16 colors).
Amiga 500 OCS/ECS's PCM DAC = 4 channels at 8 bits.
Amiga 500 OCS/ECS's PCM DAC = 2 channels at 14 bits (i.e. two of Amiga's PCM DAC forms a 14 bit DAC channel).
Amiga 500 supports 6-bit planes (64 colors EHB or dual playfields).
Amiga 500 supports 8 sprites slots with tiled multi-instancing sprites as the alternative to dual playfield mode.
Amiga 500 has a major edge in graphics in titles such as Shadows of the Beast and other games with background parallax.
Rnl Valen but to the end user a kid both were just as enjoyable and unless you had both side by side the average kid would of seen both platforms more less equally good both just as enjoyable.
Atari STE had DAC and blitterchip that could be used for sprites tho hardly any games too advantage of it the Falcon was too late the ST market at that time was practically over they missed the boat shame Falcon should of been the Atari STE
@@insoft_uk Atari ST /STE was losing the war against Amiga 500 before gaming PC whacked them both.
@@insoft_uk Atari STE's release was the acknowledgment that the Amiga 500 is superior.
Atari ST era was run by ex-Commodore Jack Tramiel with a higher tendency for releasing inferior machines.
Atari released STE in late 1989.
My 1989 A500 Rev 6 motherboard was an ECS variant with upgradable ECS Denise (with 4 color non-lace productivity resolution) and 1MB chip ram (aka shared video ram, two simple jumper pads change) in an A500plus configuration. Commodore duplicated the same BS non-lace productivity resolution in C128 (just a C64 with monochrome non-lace productivity resolution).
VIC-20 and C-64 were under Jack Tramiel's administration with Commodore.
Both Commodore and Atari (run by ex-Commodore Jack Tramiel) released 4 color non-lace productivity (Amiga ECS) screen or monochrome non-lace productivity (ST) resolution while PC world moves to 1987 VGA 16 color 640x480 non-lace resolution which the Amiga 3000 matched in 1990 (flicker fixed 16 color 640x512 PAL), but year 1988 was the arrival of PC's SVGA. IBM introduced XGA in 1990 while VBE 1.0 was defined in 1989 for commodity SVGA.
Commodore had a working AGA chipset in Feb 1991 which is delayed by management towards near the end of 1992.
Commodore had a working C65 chipset in late 1990 with 256 colors and a 4096 color palette which is canceled by Commodore management.
Commodore has near working Amiga Ranger chipset with 128 colors and 4096 color palette in 1987 which is canceled by Commodore management.
Commodore, Atari (run by ex-Commodore Jack Tramiel), and Motorola (68K) wasted their technical leadership over the PC.
It always intrigued me how amiga had the better music chip/sound yet the ST had the midi so was used for music production haha. That 90's track "your woman" was done mostly on an ST
ST provided software. Yeah, it was very good computer for mixing and stuff. Many "Engima" soundtracks were made on it as well. Yet Amiga 500 were used on some TV studios ;) Until late 90's
@@urmo345 people use STs for music production to this very day.
@@camulodunon Really, Well, nowadays there are better ways than ancient 16bit computer. Actually not many, oi believe. We had famous composer who died 1995, at young age, and left lot of unfinished music behind on, and now noone can use them as they are all on old disks and formats.
Good comparison, the ST holds up really well but Bitmap Bros didn't really push the Amiga. By 1991 the Amiga was showing the difference between having and not having custom chips.
Man, you're giving me flashbacks to the first game I loaded up when I eventually got an A600 a couple years back... it made very heavy use of Copper effects... loads of high-colour sprites everywhere, and a smooth scrolling background ... which occasionally went into sine-wavey wibbly wobbly travel-sickness mode... *bluerkch* :D
I think our ST would have melted if asked to do that. The one time I saw anyone bust out even a similar effect was on a rather demosceney PD version of Tetris, which became very hard to play in the later levels thanks to all that going on.
IDK, I think I sorta prefer the simpler versions because of that!
I liked GODs on Amiga but wanted a slightly smoother version - so was looking forward to the SNES one - however it's too fast!
1:47 That sound! Pure nostalgia. I may be getting old but at least I can explain where A: and B: in computers come from, and why every computer starts at C: nowadays 😀
Subbed bring back the old days
I'll drink to that.
I like these comparisons, but as a tip Bitmap Bros games are a bit pointless to compare, since they were developed for Atari STE and then ported straight to Amiga, without taking advantage of the hardware like f.ex. Shadow of the Beast or the Turrican/X-Out series do. (Case in point: the stuttering scrolling in Gods here.)
The same is true for many vector games, hence the small screens and using the CPU to fill polygons. You will get identical results if the games are done first on ST, then ported to Amiga. Many developers did this to cut development costs.
If you notice a difference in frame rates, you could try uploading in the new 60Hz format for RUclips to show this difference. Default is 25Hz.
Not at all, as with any computer including PC, its performance in games directly tells you the quality of what you bought.Comparing an Atari STE to a 286 or 386 reveals the very limited extent of your computer knowledge.
Atari 8-bit were not junk when they were relesed. The 16-bit Ataris were. They were simply the cheapest possible 16-bit computers that could be made. Some bought that junk, well, they got what they deserved.Just a waste of money to me.
I got tricked too, but as soon as I started using it I saw it was junk and luckily enough I could return it.
That doesn't mean you don't have fond memories of the computer you had when you grew. But that's true for any brand computer.
***** "Amiga only for Gaming", That was always code back in the 1980's when a Mac guy, or PC Guy or Atari Guy, admitted that the Graphics and sound and OS on the Amiga were vastly superior to their machines. The PC guys would say.... umm well I can do "Word Processing", (and I could do it with pictures and color on the Amiga). or the Mac guys ... Umm I can do ... oh forget it, Amiga is only a game machine.. x Don saying "the Amiga is only a game machine" is kinda funny because that is what they Always said about the ST in the Day, (and it was not true either). Add a $50 Midi port and the Amiga can do EVERYTHING better than the ST. What TV Series were Done on the ST.. NONE, (Babylon 5 and Sequest DSV were done on the Amiga), Did NASA use the ST for tracking Orbital Objects? Was the ST the first Home computer to be used as "TV Guide" Scrolling Menu's on TV. Could you do more than one task at a time? No, But the Amiga can! The ST rocked back in the day, its price to performance level was unbelievable, but don't trash the Amiga. It was godlike back then and it was truly the computer of the future.
Sluggo
I suppose the ST is still superior to the PC then because it *still* lacks built in MIDI? :D
Most worthless selling point ever. "Well of course 100% of anyone using a computer will own $1000 synthesizers and use a shitty, slow $300 home computer to sequence MIDI on them!".
It's just two contacts soldered to a serial port, you know.
Me, I used Bar'n'Pipes with a $30 MIDI interface on Amiga *and* I could use the Amiga for excellent percussion. Any ST guys making music gladly paid $600 for a drum machine, obviously. As long as you spend the least amount of money on the actual computer, right...? Silly.
As an interesting(?) side fact, Stevie Wonder used a ZX Spectrum with MIDI interface to sequence "I just called to say I love you".
Yes, of course any computer with a MIDI interface can sequence synths. That was kind of my point. That it's built-in is of no consequence whatever, and so as that last straw Atari ST users grasp to defend their plasticky purchase, it's an extremely lame excuse.
It's the ST users who had to put up with crap games, grating music, GEM, and a general lack of features, though. So Iin retrospect it's mainly just sad you didn't look around before you bought the cheapest one in the store. (Or, well, your parents did. :P)
There are 900 just as well-known musicians active in the 80s that you don't know what they used, software or hardware. But OK, that's a claim. Give me just one of the musicians you listed who actively use an Atari ST to make new songs.
What would have happened if the Atari ST had the blitter right from the start?
Atari ST was a pretty decent rival, but no matter what Amiga always had a plus, in this case the sounds. Amiga always stood out from the crowd. THANK YOU AMIGA!
Never heard of MIDI?
I did, why?
That's one area where the ST wins every time, so it wasn't on top in all areas
why? give me an example please
People are still using ST's in music studios to this day to make dance music
I dad both machines, and obviously the Amiga is much more superior. However, the ST was my first 16 Bit computer and I have fond memories of many a good time. Dungeon Master was one of my first games, and was I was so amazed by the whole atmosphere of that game. It was a real big leap for me at the time having previously owned a ZX Spectrum.
The only difference I see is they use slightly different colour palettes.
St version appears better, like most games from 85-88 they were made for the dominant machine in sales and that was the ST. Amiga customers always complained of bad ports, this one seems fine, almost as good as the ST version.
I was lucky enough to own both,Despite popular belief, the ST was considered more powerful by some ST users - the ST's processor ran a whole 1MHZ faster than the Amiga's processor. I don't think this made any real difference though, as the Amiga had the superb custom chips to back it up and take the strain away from the main CPU.
Amiga the way it's meant to be played!
The Bitmap Brothers were "GODS" back then... (umm get it Gods... OK that fell flat), I just loved so many of their games! Especially Speedball 2, Chaos Engine, Xenon and Xenon2.
Great Memories!
Sluggo
amiga and atari st have the same cpu so they share many games but many games are ported to amigas from atari and don't use amiga's advanced feats so they look pretty similar, also atari ports on amigas could run slower because of poor conversion
I had the Atari st,loved God,blood money and xenon
Bitmap brothers Into the wonderful on both systems.
amiga is the best
KRISNA MUSIK neither were the best, if you were into music midi keyboard then Atari ST were if gamer Amiga so depends on the user and both platform had their strengths
Amiga & Atari ST was really great machines.. Is is sad that none of them survive.. Commodore & Amiga & Atari Rulezz
if you check in the web AMIGA still alive and kicking even today, 2014
Rui Sousa No.
OpticalFascism yes
Yeah, thinking about it, it's a weird thought that the two major 16 bit computers at a time when Apple's 16 bit involvement wasn't exactly smooth or colorful and PC was still the "business computer" could both lose out so hard.
@@Offensive_Username TheA500 Mini returned to mainstream stores. The Amiga's future is with ARM CPU.
These are pretty close as were most of the well coded games near the latter part of these two great 16 bit machines life's. The Amiga might be slightly brighter and have a little better sound, but the ST version holds its own and is faster at loading. If only Atari had released the STE from day one, that would have taken the Amiga vs STE debate to a whole new level, because the STE would have whooped the Amiga's ass, lol.
hey, mr brains, have you ever heard oh the AMIGA 1200????now who's whooping who's ass?????
Rui Sousa Ever heard of the Falcon 030? That kicks the A1200 ass big time.
SUBAPOO My Amiga with 060 kicks the Falcon :D But hey, this is about fun at gaming, not about measure lengths :D
TheThore The Falcon has a 68060 expansion board too. :-)
wanna talk about expansions or the machines itself? my Amiga 1200 as the 060 also. Amiga WAS and STILL IS the BEST my friend, Atari was good, but with Amiga around he always be 2nd best...
Great video and channel. But I have a question, are these captures done through an emulator?
Happy days!
ST version 👍👍👍
Atari st best🤩
Hmm, if I'm hearing correctly, sounds like the "go" button wasn't pressed on the ST one until after the Amiga one was already loaded... ;)
I wonder why they didn't scroll the intro text though? It's not exactly the most difficult task even without the Copper...
Oh, and your ST disc 2 is a bit damaged ... which makes the miggy's slow loading seem even worse :D
Funny though, out of all the games that I might have thought would show up the difference in colour palette, this wasn't one of them. The ST version looks like someone's put it in a photo editor and turned the contrast up way too high. All the same, for 16 colours out of 512, not bad at all even now ... you can just feel the extra 32 / 3584 (plus halfbrite) its competitor had to play with quite plainly.
I miss the atari st
Mee too great little machine
My too i had 1040 STE with 2MB RAM. I have sold it for few bucks back in the day. 😭😭😭😭
I remember reading somewhere that the same game engine was used on both the Amiga and ST versions and were programmed with ST limitations in mind, thus saving time and money porting across computers (the same with Magic Pockets.)
A case of 'lowest common denominator' which might explain why this game doesn't really exploit the custom chips on the Amiga the way Shadow of the Beast does.
Saying that, I still play this even now and have recently discovered how to get to the hidden switch at the top of the first level, thereby opening up the upper platforms on level two! Great game.
i too still play the game but i don't know how tu use thar switch...help please :)
***** : this is exact. All the bitmap brothers games were ST ports, until they started The chaos engine, where the amiga was the leading machine. Gods, magic fuckets, Speedball 2, Xenon 2 were all ST ports.
+Jono S What is more important, it is not crap, unlike Shadow of the Beast.
Beast is not rubbish, it's a good game, but not on ST lol
It's the same apart from a few sound effects isnt it?
I have a theory that the code for Gods was designed to be as portable as possible. The Amiga version doesn't seem as quick as it should be, implying that it does no hardware acceleration.
It's true and not only Gods but all the Bitmap Brothers games. They're not using hardware scrolling nor sprites. They're essentially all ST games that run on Amiga. And then the ST has a small advantage since its CPU is clocked at 8MHz instead of 7.14MHz.
That's why all their games have a poor frame rate.
Comparison that the ST(E?) can look and sound like its rival. Almost.
Atari ST is not bad, but Amiga is AMIGA! :)
The Amiga is clearly smoother, more colours, better sound... but the Bitmap Bros never let ST users down, all their games had really good ST ports.
If you do more, please please please don't bother with Psygnosis games, they ported games with all the care of a mother, disposing of a used diaper.
Maybe just comparing other Bitmap Bros games might be an idea, like Xenon2, Magic Pockets, Chaos Engine, Cadaver, and Speedball2 - heck apart from Magic Pockets they're all landmark games IMO.
I agree; the Amiga version, due to the machine's capabilities, is faster/smoother and the array of colors is a bit higher. Anyway, again, I agree when you say that the ATARI ST versions are good. In fact, as far as I remember, ATARI ST has always had a lot of good games! :)
GODS, magic pockets were ST ports on amiga. BB only made ST port when doing the chaos engine.
stunthumb : when they ported psygnosis games on atari ST, they had to converted all the hardware routines used by the amiga to software routines. This has a price : speed !
I miss my ST and Xenon 2 and IK+ and the very great Buggy Boy !
The Amiga version won ( as usuall) . The graphics are better ( more colors ) the sounds are also better ( digital samples ) The Atari's faster loading is only because the Amiga's digital samples requires a bit more loading time :)
As far as I know the game originally developed for the Amiga !
I don't know if this game was developed for the Amiga, but even if it is, it's not using any Amiga specific hardware and it's also limited to 16 colors.
In other words, it was developed in a way that the same code can run on both the Amiga and the Atari ST.
It means it could have looked even better on Amiga, if it had used hardware scrolling and sprites. I think it could run at 50fps.
Amiga version looks and Sounds better then ST version.
The VGA graphics on PC look about the same. Solid ports all round.
Co to jest? Znajdź 10 różnic?
1. Intro gry- scroll tekstu: Amiga tak, Atari nie
2. Inny odcień koloru między Amigą a Atari
3. Na pewno dźwięk, ale tu nie można porównać.
Coś jeszcze?
Tak, w Amidze jest lepsza animacja na początku (ruchome napisy itd.) i w grze trochę też.
i thought the amiga had a blitter chip?
La carte son de Amiga 500 offrez un son stéréo et le rendu audio était excellent
Amiga and Atari are virtually identical in performance and capabilities.. Too bad they couldn't just cooperate instead of fighting to the death of both machines..
It's was all hugs and kisses until someone said, "Business is war"... ;) Most of the user war was because of the silly insistence that "Atari ST is almost as good as Amiga". Technically experienced users saw that it was obviously not, but rather a hires C64 but with a 1979 sound chip.
@@ScoopexUs The Amiga had more in common with the Atari 800 than the ST. And just because both computers can do the same thing in the end, the amount of programming power to bounce that ball around the screen used up much more computing power on the ST than on the Amiga.
@@bjbell52 Yes, and for a reason. ;) And Amiga was brilliant and ST was the cheapest 16-bit computer you could build. Some devs decided to port from ST to Amiga, and that's why we we got performance down by 66% as displayed here. Have you thumbed down the ignorant person I replied to yet? :) You should.
Haha, this game was great. Even tho I don't think I ever got past level 3.
The skin tone of the fighter and the color temperature on the steel armor and blade in the opening scene are more natural in the Atari ST version, though there is a slight green cast in the blade. The Amiga version has a magenta color cast in the skin and a blue cast in the steel. During game play the ST version also has more naturally colored stone walls while the Amiga version has a bluishness. Saturation is also nicer in the ST version.
Commodore Amiga 500 dominated the Atari ST
Hey, calm down a bit. Even with great capabilities, the Commodore Amiga, we can never forget what an ATARI ST could (and still can) do!
These flame wars remind me of the ZX Spectrum vs C64. There are things in which a certain machine is better than the other, obviously and clearly. There are others that it isn't.
Quazatronn
Commodore Amiga 500 dominated the Atari ST , just kidding just kidding! I understand the comparison analogy that you tried to give between the ZX and the 64, every system was definitely unique. I never had interation with an ST but I just think the AMIGA was better...... could be just me
Depends on where you lived. In Europe, it was a mixed bag. In the States, the Amiga took the lead. In either case, the best gaming software was coming from Europe. As for comparisons... The original A1000 and A500 were comparable to the ST, but the sound and graphics options were better on the Amiga (I should know, I owned both). UNLESS you were a musician, in which case, the ST had built-in MIDI (which was GREAT!)
But the Amiga had one thing that initially turned me off during the A1000 days. The operating system was seriously buggy. Even with all the promise it had, when it crashed (as it often did back then - GURU MEDITATION# 34573489234387, etc.), it really sucked to have to load the Kickstart AND the OS. The first ST I got wasn't that great either - the machine was ready before the ROM's were, so I had to wait another 5 months after purchase before I received the ROM's in the mail and installed them. Later on, the A500's stability improved to the point where I finally purchased one of those too.
But also, let's all not forget one VERY important fact. The ST ran GEM, a cooperative OS, whereas the Amiga was running a true Unix-like preemptive OS. And THAT, my friends, made me start using the Amiga FAR more than my ST.
The STE evened the score a bit with better sprites, 4096 color graphics, and sampling audio, but then you had the A1200, which upped the ante to 261,000 colors at once. Both machines had direct-to-bus expansion for faster processors and memory, BUT, the STE series had serious compatibility problems (BOMB!), In truth, very little software was written to take advantage of either of these machines' full capabilities.
But like the old Atari 800 vs. C64 wars, all these 68000-based machines were more similar than they were different, and, best part of all, you didn't have to be rich to run a graphical interface-based computer anymore. When I saw the first Mac up close, in 1984 (my senior year of high school), I was blown away... Then I found out how much it was - close to what $5000 would be in today's money. I came away angry and frustrated. There was NO WAY I could afford that. I could barely afford my pathetic Atari 400 back then!
But in less than two years, other options opened up. I bought my first mouse-driven computer (the 520 ST), in 1985, and I felt like the luckiest guy in the world. :)
Michael Korben : I had interaction with both, and while the Amiga had obvious advantages in some areas (particularly those considered most important by the average gamer of the time), I still preferred the ST. The flame wars are sad, particularly as the majority of statements are driven by the biased opinions of those who had experience only of one.
Oddly, I'm utterly biased against anything made by Apple, even with extensive experience and knowledge of them- the more I'm exposed to them, the more I learn to loathe them with every fibre of my being. Perhaps it's like that for some passionate ST/Amiga fans? lol
Rico x So true, I miss that feeling
Genesis and Amiga share some games too they have the samd CPU 68k but Genesis is more advanced in a way cause rom cartridge gives fast loading unlike floppys and you can see Genesis has some advanced features like doppler effects on the background unlike Amiga, for example Leander\Legend of Galahad
That "doppler effect" you're talking about can be done on Amiga very easily. I even did several demos with it.
The main advantage of the Genesis apart from having data on the cartridge, is that it has better sprites support, it can display more of them with fewer limitations. It can also flip sprites and tiles horizontally/vertically in hardware. That saves A LOT of memory, and ultimately it means you can have more animations and more characters.
The sprites in this game seem too large. Most 2D platform games today have smaller sprites. It's almost as if they were having large sprites just because they could.
Your observation is quite accurate... At the time, sprite size was compared between platforms as if it was really important, and made things difficult when porting arcade games to systems without hardware sprite support, like the Atari ST (especially the STfm which had no blitter).
You are literally the first person I've ever seen who thought to complain about such a thing o_O
People only go for small, simple sprites today when doing a "retro" game because of misplaced NES nostalgia (whose sprites generally topped out at 8x16 pixels in 3 colours, with no more than 8 per line, and whose overall screen resolution was a bit crunched...). At the time, in the 16-bit realm (and even some of the other 8-bits), bigger, more colourful, and more plentiful sprites were all considered Good Things if you could manage to render them at a decent speed (which, with decent code, and especially on the Amiga, or STs with blitters, was perfectly possible).
Compare Gods et al with, say, Golden Axe or Streets of Rage, and they look somewhat small... even though those games are running at the same resolution.
And we certainly thought they all looked pretty damn good back in the day ;)
Indeed it was perfectly possible to do large sprites well, but it was quite difficult, at least on the STFM (most games targeted that rather than taking advantage of the later STe's blitter). So the reality (as far as I remember it.... money back guarantee not guaranteed :D) was that many games that _did_ try for very large sprites paid quite a large cost for the privilege, and were often underwhelming and jerky, etc. On a lot of machines with hardware sprites, they had a maximum size of e.g. 16x16 or maybe 32x32 pixels, so you had to stitch several sprites together, which led to other problems (e.g. processing time / max sprite count per frame -> flickering).
Atari maSTer race
The ST wins because it is very similar to the Amiga, Yet it does not have any of the fancy Amiga hardware.
Do you really think this is pushing an OCS Amiga, this game was designed for ST and ported to Amiga with very minimal extras, only colours and obvious sound difference. Having said that though Bitmap Bros did look after the ST with some quality games, some software teams did manage to release impressive stuff for ST considering limitations.
Gods looked and sounded great, and it played fast and smooth, however I never liked it. Why? All those damn switches that don't appear to do anything. Exactly how many times were you expected to flip each switch? Twice? Five times? A dozen? Did the designers really expect you to wander the level for hours randomly flipping the switches an infinite number of times in the hope that something would happen?
Having a switch that you need to flip to open a door or to turn off a trap is one thing. Having a switch that appears to do nothing until you travel halfway across the level, flip a couple more switches, then come back and flip the first one a couple more times, is just frustrating, especially when there's no indication of what you have to do.
GuruMediator When I play a game, I like to know what I'm doing. If there's a door, I want to know what I need to do to open it, not just wander around the level and hope something, somewhere causes it to open. A single switch with a mysterious function to act as an Easter egg is one thing, but to cover the entire level with such switches is just dumb.
GuruMediator Magic Pockets was another Bitmap Brothers game that seems to be universally loved, but which I had to wonder about some of the design choices. Progressing though the levels often required you to drop down into pits or off ledges, but since you couldn't see what was below you, you often ended up landing on an enemy and taking damage.
An ST game with good music?
and the winner is...
SNES version - because it have animated intro and additional background graphics :)
+GzegzolkaDA Bothe SNES an MD versions are ridiculously fast though... almost as if they're running on ritalin or something.
That's obvious mate. Way better hardware for the SNES (and MD). I suggest to compare platforms of similar architecture :-)
First rate code on the ST. Second rate code on the Amiga. And the Amiga version probably still marginally wins.
No bliter in Atari which was just a copy.
Not much to compare; both games look almost identical. However the amiga version obviously sounds better.
A REALLY GOD PORT,BUT THE ORIGINAL WRITING IS ON THE ST. I READ OF BITMAP BROTHER PROGRAMING ON THE ST THEN PORT TO THE AMIGA. A GOD PORT
The Amiga's music was far superior than anything on the market at the time & The Bitmap Bros showcased this with Xenon 2 Megablast / Magic Pockets / Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe / The Chaos Engine & many others. I mean do use any long play of the ST Game music out there on RUclips do u ^^
ruclips.net/video/PvSfqBJi0ss/видео.html
Basically the same then.
GODS is the best Amiga game ever!!!
However, give these magnificent coding bastards, sure the Amiga had some more scrolling but each version is great.
Thanks, yeah maybe the beast games next..
You should try DOGOLRAX on Steam, it's like an Another World /Out of this World 2.0 !
Atari ST ftw!
The STs sound chip delivers lovely clean crisp sound effects compared to the Amiga with its overuse of low frequency sampling to deliver a messy audio experience...though for some reason Amiga owners seem to think this sounds better. Let's not mention their geriatric disk drive with its appallingly slow loading and their geriatric processor that meant 3d games felt like wading through treacle compared to the same games on the ST ;)
+mwaawm After the initial wave of poor ST ports when the Amiga first released, the majority of games are superior on the Amiga.
Just listen to the sound in the above video, are you really trying to say that tinny ST fx is better?
You are in denial.
+Steven Allen Sometimes though just because you can use samples or low frequency stuff it doesn't always make it sound better - there were a few arcade conversions on the Amiga that annoyed me when they ditched the arcade music for some jazzed-up multi-channel showy soundtrack instead.
Obviously U ran out of ur meds.
So geriatric processor. You are aware that both an ST and an A500 have the same M68K CPU, right?
Amiga had more a more developed Audio Processor ~Sorry ST
Gods looks better on Genesis and more responsible gameplay
Into the wonderful.
Atari ST always fast on the floppy
(Amiga looks better obviously)
Amiga > Atari ST
Another lazy port I'm afraid. They didn't care about the Amiga at all, to make it good quality.
Retro mc lessons on old school amiga music hmu @bandlab or on here I'm banned everywhere else
Amiga win.
atari is shit. amiga was the boss of that time.
ahh the old amiga st debate we all know the amiga had better support chips i had an st as a kid and know that workbench is slow and irritating to use compared to the gem desktop. at the end of the day its horses for courses as each machine was better in different ways. i would take an ste over an amiga because i liked the styling and the gui and the midi capabilities.
lol, some sound are the same than some sound in speedball2:) .(i know bitmap b games to)
And some of those have been carried over from Xenon, by way of Speedball 1. Why change what works, if you need a generic "schhhuff" noise? :D
Atari version is a little faster and looks good. Amiga version has poor scrolling and nasty graphics - it's a straight port.
atari st hahahahahahahh shit!
face of an angry sad bold old guy