9 ms·
> Both of those platforms were a fair bit more technically advanced than the Amiga in many respects Can you elaborate on that?
by Torwald 8y ago
> Both of those platforms were a fair bit more technically advanced than the Amiga in many respects
Can you elaborate on that?
- tom_ 8y agoWho should you trust? Me, or your lying eyes when they see the games? ;) But I am shooting my mouth off a bit here because I've programmed a bit on the Amiga but never for the SNES or Megadrive. In CPU terms I guess they're all about the same. The SNES's CPU is half the speed but no less effective for most types of code, and possibly more so for some, as the 68000 is not an efficient CPU. But both console systems had more colours on screen, more sprites, character-based playfields, and more playfield rendering options. (The SNES has the advantage here, but the Megadrive has two 16-colour playfields, plus sprites, which is more than the Amiga can muster.) Result: more of the on-screen razzle-dazzle that you want, to a greater or lesser extent, with lots of colours, and no nede to cheat by using the copper to just add a nice gradient background. Of course, the Amiga has the copper and the blitter, which give you more flexibility, and the sprites can be as tall as you like. But this never seemed to actually translate into games that look better.
- Torwald 8y ago> But both console systems had more colours on screen The Amiga had HAM-mode with over 4000 colors! > But this never seemed to actually translate into games that look better. I think this has more to do with the production culture. At that time the other PC systems didn't have good looking games either. But the arcade systems had. I think shops like Konami translated a culture of good looking games over to the early consoles. (something that certainly was fostered by Sega and Nintendo.)