Support NeoGAF

[Afro Republican]

Your poll is poorly worded, and implies - very, very clearly - that a comparison is to be made between the 464/664/6128 systems and the Amiga/Atari. I don't give a fuck what you 'meant' - perhaps your poor English and inability to accurately represent yourself has led you constructing a terrible poll.


Yeah, and that's the point where I jump off here. You're a troll, you're spamming the threads with shitty polls, and you'll be taken care of by the mods soon enough - I've wasted enough of my time on you.

Yes a enhanced 464 is still a 464, and actual AMSTRAD fans will know about the period were AMSTRAD was INTENTIONALLY competiting with the other with outdated systems, which also explains why you continue to avoid the 6128 and the GX4000. You clearly have a temper issue to work on.

You can yell and scream all you want but you're not going to get anywhere, the thread will continue without you. Have a nice day.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Yes a enhanced 464 is still a 464, and actual AMSTRAD fans will know about the period were AMSTRAD was INTENTIONALLY competiting with the other with outdated systems, which also explains why you continuie to avoid the 6128 and the GX4000.

You can yell and scream all you want but you're not going to get anywhere, the thread will continue without you. Have a nice day.

I'm not 'yelling and screaming' at all.

You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I'll be very clear.

Your poll states:

'The better Home computer for games?' (with a misplaced capital 'H', which is pretty funny).

You then list a fairly random list of systems. But, you are also quite specific with the model numbers (Atari ST Line (ST/STE/TT/etc).

You list the 'Amstrad CPC' and give three options - the 464/664/6128.

You don't mention anything about 'enhanced versions'. You don't mention anything about the GX4000. You are very fucking clear about the models that you are offering in the poll.

But, when called on it, you fall into a mixture of hilariously misguided gatekeeping ('REAL AMSTRAD FANS WOULD KNOW'), denials of reality ('I NEVER ASKED FOR A COMPARISON'), and the usual internet troll 'umad' nonsense ('YELLING AND SCREAMING', 'RILED UP').

Basically, you're a complete and utter fool. Your spammy posts are evidence of your value as a poster. Clearly, you're of the mind that it is the reader's responsibility to work out what you meant, based on your poorly phrased broken English, but nah. Sorry. That doesn't get you a pass. If you'd wanted to compare the 'enhanced versions' of the 464/664/6128, or the GX4000, then you should have written them in the poll.

And, again, I ask you. Show me an example of an 'enhanced 464' game that compares with an Amiga title. You've conveniently neglected to do that, instead screeching about how you 'never asked for a comparison'. If you never asked for a comparison, why is it in the original poll?

Your move, genius.

EDIT: Just for funsies, I thought I'd get a bit nostalgic. Let's have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_CPC

So, the 464plus was released in 1990. Here's what a 464plus game looked like:



The 664 had no 'enhanced version'. It was discontinued early. So, since your poll deals with 'enhanced versions', and you're such a 'true Amstrad fan', what is doing there?

Here's Xyphoe demoing a 6128 Plus:



Both models were released with green screens, as well as color monitors.

And, the GX4000 is an interesting one. From Wikipedia:

Developed as part of the plus range, the GX4000 was Amstrad's short-lived attempt to enter the video game consoles market. Sharing the plus range's enhanced hardware characteristics, it represents the bare minimum variant of the range without a keyboard or support for mass storage devices.[10] It came bundled with 2 paddle controllers and the racing game Burning Rubber.

The GX4000 was never intended to compete with the Amiga or the Atari ST. It was a console competitor. What is it even doing in this poll? Why are you comparing Amstrad's console competitor to two 16bit home computers?

But, of course, you'd already know that, being a true Amstrad fan, right? Lol.

 

[Afro Republican]

'The better Home computer for games?' (with a misplaced capital 'H', which is pretty funny).

You then list a fairly random list of systems. But, you are also quite specific with the model numbers (Atari ST Line (ST/STE/TT/etc).

You list the 'Amstrad CPC' and give three options - the 464/664/6128.

You don't mention anything about 'enhanced versions'. You don't mention anything about the GX4000. You are very fucking clear about the models that you are offering in the poll.

But, when called on it,

because I don't need to, because Amstrad fans, you know the ones that have actually used an Amstrad and followed them, will KNOW what AMSTRADS systems intended to compete were. This is something you don't seem to be able to understand which baffles me.

Don't forget your first response to me in this thread was based on you NOT reading the quote you quoted. In fact, you did that TWICE IN A ROW, because I actually went into further explanation and you ignored the explanation and saying the same thing while also saying I stated (which I never did and you put those words in my mouth) "I compared an 8-bit 464 to an Amiga" which again I never did. This is because you were on an angry rant and didn't bother actually reading and only posting reactionary responses.

Even you could have done 4 seconds of research instead of doing all this irrelevant nonsense and saw that Amstrad intended to compete with outdated hardware enhanced or not (and it backfired on them badly) but that would mean you'd have to actually stop wasting time with useless rants.

Also among the models in the poll, I notice in almost every reply you pretend I never mention the GX4000/6128, that's because you're a troll and likely KNOW that those were CPC based hardware that were intended to compete with the 16-bit computers and consoles (hence the GX4000 being a console, and being released in 1990, and failing badly)

So I'll just move on from here, please do some research, have a nice day.

 

[Panajev2001a]

because I don't need to, because Amstrad fans, you know the ones that have actually used an Amstrad and followed them, will KNOW what AMSTRADS systems intended to compete were.

But is the poll only speaking to them? Is the poll meant to quiz if amongst those fans there are super hardcore of them?

 

[Optimus Lime]

because I don't need to, because Amstrad fans, you know the ones that have actually used an Amstrad and followed them, will KNOW what AMSTRADS systems intended to compete were. This is something you don't seem to be able to understand which baffles me.

Don't forget your first response to me in this thread was based on you NOT reading the quote you quoted. In fact, you did that TWICE IN A ROW, because I actually went into further explanation and you ignored the explanation and saying the same thing while also saying I stated (which I never did and you put those words in my mouth) "I compared an 8-bit 464 to an Amiga" which again I never did. This is because you were on an angry rant and didn't bother actually reading and only posting reactionary responses.

Even you could have done 4 seconds of research instead of doing all this irrelevant nonsense and saw that Amstrad intended to compete with outdated hardware enhanced or not (and it backfired on them badly) but that would mean you'd have to actually stop wasting time with useless rants.

Also among the models in the poll, I notice in almost every reply you pretend I never mention the GX4000/6128, that's because you're a troll and likely KNOW that those were CPC based hardware that were intended to compete with the 16-bit computers and consoles (hence the GX4000 being a console, and being released in 1990, and failing badly)

So I'll just move on from here, please do some research, have a nice day.

I have done some reasearch, added it to my initial post, and proved that absolutely everything you just said is complete horseshit. You're a liar, and watching you desperately try to spin this in your favour is seriously pathetic. And, you can drop the 'UMAD' crap kiddo, it makes you look really pitiful.

Let's cut to the chase. You've never used an Amstrad. You aren't an 'Amstrad fan'. Your 'explanation' is bullshit. You absolutely compared an 8-bit 464 to an Amiga, that is the entire premise of your poll. You DON'T mention the 6128Plus OR the GX4000 in your poll. I mean, have you been hit in the head with a rock or something? What are you not getting about this?

The GX4000 was NOT intended to compete with 16bit computers. At all. That's a lie.

Yes, I think it's a good idea for you to move on though. You've humiliated yourself. You've proven that you know nothing about classic computer history, you've proven that your shitty little 'polls' are a waste of everybody's time, and you've proven incapable of producing a coherent argument.

Again, the mods will deal with you soon enough. But, I'm more than happy to continue making you look like an ignorant, ill-informed moron for as long as you like. Why don't you tell me again about how the GX4000 was an Atari ST competitor?

 

[Optimus Lime]

But is the poll only speaking to them? Is the poll meant to quiz if amongst those fans there are super hardcore of them?

Apparently Boy Genius's idea with his 'polls' is that the GAF userbase is supposed to vote on what he MEANS, not on what he SAYS, and if they don't do that, they are mad, they have anger issues, and they've never used the systems in question. It's pretty funny stuff.

 

[Afro Republican]

EDIT: Just for funsies, I thought I'd get a bit nostalgic. Let's have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_CPC

You're an idiot, for one if you have to go to Wikipedia for information you already proved to me you knew nothing before you even entered this conversation.

Secondly, the GX4000 was a dual market machine, it was supposed to attract people to the home computers from the console market by having CPC game titles, and it was meant to not only compete width he SNES/GEN, but other home computer consoles that came out around that time as well, all of which had the same strategy, try and use the game market to get people into the computer market. Unless you believe Computer consoles like the "CDTV" weren't competing in the computer stage, or the cancelled ST system.

Of course again, that would require you to actuall know what you're talking about. And once again in your little "edit" you omit the enhancements you can make on older systems and post native 464 games which again shows you know nothing. of course you never had an Amstrad, know nothing about it, and had to run to wiki to get the small information you did. You have not only are irrelevant you have also failed to pretend like you know anything about Amstrad, and likely, home computers in general.

Anyway have a nice day we are finished.

 

[RAIDEN1]

Amiga blew away the Atari without breaking a sweat, its just a shame things started to fall down with the 1200 and ultimately the CD32...

 

[Afro Republican]

I have done some reasearch, added it to my initial post, and proved that absolutely everything you just said is complete horseshit. You're a liar, and watching you desperately try to spin this in your favour is seriously pathetic. And, you can drop the 'UMAD' crap kiddo, it makes you look really pitiful.

Let's cut to the chase. You've never used an Amstrad. You aren't an 'Amstrad fan'. Your 'explanation' is bullshit. You absolutely compared an 8-bit 464 to an Amiga, that is the entire premise of your poll. You DON'T mention the 6128Plus OR the GX4000 in your poll. I mean, have you been hit in the head with a rock or something? What are you not getting about this?

The GX4000 was NOT intended to compete with 16bit computers. At all. That's a lie.

Yes, I think it's a good idea for you to move on though. You've humiliated yourself. You've proven that you know nothing about classic computer history, you've proven that your shitty little 'polls' are a waste of everybody's time, and you've proven incapable of producing a coherent argument.

Again, the mods will deal with you soon enough. But, I'm more than happy to continue making you look like an ignorant, ill-informed moron for as long as you like. Why don't you tell me again about how the GX4000 was an Atari ST competitor?

The mods aren't stupid, and they can also read, you're rant will be forgotten like the other drive-by posts.

You also did no research just went on wiki and nitpicked stuff, as I showed in the post below. I never compared a native 464 to an Amiga, in fact I compared NONE of the Amstrads to an Amiga, my first post was that Amstrad released competition was behind. You again have not only poor reading comprehension, but you also have to lie to keep pretending you have an argument. Your first response to me is based on you lacking the skills to read, and even no you continue to lie saying I compared the Amstrad to the Amiga in power despite me saying multiple times they competed with outdated hardware from behind. You have mental issues that need to be dealt with.

Everyone can see that just looking at the first page Me.I-need-info-from-Wikipedia.

But I'll let you rant alone, the thread will continue without you like all the other poorly negative posts that appears in these threads, so all that hardwork lying you did all for nothing. And I'm sure calling people "kid" is the most adult response you can come up with?

Well that wraps it up. Moving on.

Edit: Here's the first set of posts for onlookers:

The 90's models (including the enhanced 80's models) were meant to compete with the 16-bits. With the 6128/gx4000 spearheading it. of course Amstrad didn't realize how far behind they would be but it has its share of fans.

The 464 and 664 were not 'enhanced models'

But in the 90's you COULD enhance them. hence why I mentioned that, and why you ignored the fact I also mentioned the GX4000 and the 6218. You're also exaggerating the gaps in power but eh.

Uh. No. I'm not 'exaggerating the gaps in power'. If you believe that an 8bit Amstrad 464 was in any way comparable to a 16bit Amiga, you're either out of your mind, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

As you can see, not only does he intentionally (across the thread) excludes the mentions of the GX4000/6128, but he also doesn't read the word enhanced, says there were no enhanced 464's (then backtracks on this later) and also out of nowhere things I'm comparing the 464 to an Amiga in graphics, yet I already said that Amstrad was behind graphically.

If you have to make up a statement that was never said you already lost the argument.


Further edit:

I had an amstrad 464, I had an Atari ST and I had an Amiga. I can assure you that the amstrad is nowhere near either.

Which i never said, in fact I said that Amstrad was competing from behind the start of the conversation that you jumped into without actually reading. This is like me removing the TG16 because the GEN/SNES were more capable, doesn't change the fact that the TG16 was competing with those consoles, and even introduced an ill-support upgraded version of the console along with a CD-addon to add value and get people to move to their platform.

Issue here though is people not reading and thinking I'm saying the 464 among others are comparable in power which not only have I never said by clarified twice. Look before leaping.

Firstly, you’re lumping ECS Amigas with AGA machines, which actually had far better 3D than the ST.

Also, as everyone here has said, why are you bringing in an Amstrad CPC 464 into this? It’s an 8 bit machine and belongs alongside the spectrum or C64.

Firstly, I competed all models of ST with all models of the Amiga because they were ALL made to compete.

Secondly, if you knew anything about Amstrad you would no that they intended to compete with their outdated machines. The GX4000/6128 were still not as capable as the AMIGA/Atari's and maybe even PC at the time,especially at the dates those came out, and also offered an upgrade to increase the power of the older models a bit. I never said Amstrad was comparable power but to deny those machines were "competition" is changing reality as Amstrad clearly did what they did with the intention of trying to compete with the other machines whether they are outdated or not.

The whole point of the thread was to compare competition from that generation of computers.

 

[Optimus Lime]

You're an idiot, for one if you have to go to Wikipedia for information you already proved to me you knew nothing before you even entered this conversation.

So, if I go and 'do the research' that you asked for, I'm working in ignorance. If I DON'T go and 'do the research' that you asked for, I'm working in ignorance. I get the feeling that you haven't thought this thing through. Or, maybe you're just a halfwit. That would make sense too.

Secondly, the GX4000 was a dual market machine, it was supposed to attract people to the home computers from the console market by having CPC game titles, and it was meant to not only compete width he SNES/GEN, but other home computer consoles that came out around that time as well, all of which had the same strategy, try and use the game market to get people into the computer market. Unless you believe Computer consoles like the "CDTV" weren't competing in the computer stage, or the cancelled ST system.

The GX4000 was a console competitor. It was not an Amiga/Atari ST competitor. Sorry, you lose. Again.

Of course again, that would require you to actuall know what you're talking about. And once again in your little "edit" you omit the enhancements you can make on older systems and post native 464 games which again shows you know nothing. of course you never had an Amstrad, know nothing about it, and had to run to wiki to get the small information you did. You have not only are irrelevant you have also failed to pretend like you know anything about Amstrad, and likely, home computers in general.

Except that I've proven literally everything that you've said incorrect, humiliated you, and made you look like an ignorant clown. I didn't 'omit' anything, to the point that I posted footage of a 464 Plus running games. There's no trick here, little man. Your poll asks for a comparison between the 464/664 and 6128 lines, and an Atari ST/Amiga. Then, you shifted the goal posts because apparently we're all supposed to know that you ACTUALLY meant the 464Plus, and if we don't, we're not ACTUAL Amstrad fans. So, I just posted footage of the 464Plus showing it running games - apparently THAT'S not fair either.

Why did you post the discontinued 664 in your original poll? It was never enhanced. Since you're clearly such a classic computing guru, why are you asking for a comparison between a discontinued 8-bit system and the 16bit systems?

Anyway have a nice day we are finished.

I mean, I am happy to keep going. Making someone look this stupid is a rare pleasure, and watching you freak out is thoroughly entertaining.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

Amiga blew away the Atari without breaking a sweat, its just a shame things started to fall down with the 1200 and ultimately the CD32...

I loved the A1200, I still have mine, CD32 I agree though.

 

[Optimus Lime]

The mods aren't stupid, and they can also read, you're rant will be forgotten like the other drive-by posts.

Uh, might want to look up the definition of 'drive-by posts' there, matey. You may not like what I've said, but they are clearly not drive-by posts. Why are you using terminology that you don't understand? Is for the same reason that you create polls that you don't want to hear the responses to?

You also did no research just went on wiki and nitpicked stuff, as I showed in the post below. I never compared a native 464 to an Amiga

You did. Your poll asks us to compare a set of systems. Among those systems is the Amstrad 464/664/6128. It's right there. In your poll.

in fact I compared NONE of the Amstrads to an Amiga

You did. It's right there, in the original poll. See above.

my first post was that Amstrad released competition was behind. You again have not only poor reading comprehension, but you also have to lie to keep pretending you have an argument.

Nah. It's right there in the poll, clear as day. Everyone else can see it, why can't you?

Your first response to me is based on you lacking the skills to read, and even no you continue to lie saying I compared the Amstrad to the Amiga in power despite me saying multiple times they competed with outdated hardware from behind. You have mental issues that need to be dealt with

So, you created a poll asking us to compare a group of systems, but some of the systems that you listed shouldn't be included in that comparison? Are you sure that I'm the one with the mental issues, little guy?

Everyone can see that just looking at the first page Me.I-need-info-from-Wikipedia.

You seem very hung up on the fact that I posted a Wikipedia link. What should I have posted instead?

But I'll let you rant alone, the thread will continue without you like all the other poorly negative posts that appears in these threads, so all that hardwork lying you did all for nothing. And I'm sure calling people "kid" is the most adult response you can come up with?

The thread will continue, certainly. I'm loving watching you have a meltdown. And, you clearly are a kid. No reasonable adult would create a poll like yours, and then flat out deny the options that it contains moments later. I guess the key word there is 'reasonable'.

Well that wraps it up. Moving on.

Nah. Sorry, kid. We're not finished at all.

For instance, genius, you haven't explained why the 664 is in the original poll, since you were 'only referring to the advanced systems' or some such horseshit. There was no 'advanced' 664. Care to explain yourself?

 

[Afro Republican]

I loved the A1200, I still have mine, CD32 I agree though.

It's funny because the two systems are similar.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Edit: Here's the first set of posts for onlookers:

As you can see, not only does he intentionally (across the thread) excludes the mentions of the GX4000/6128, but he also doesn't read the word enhanced, says there were no enhanced 464's (then backtracks on this later) and also out of nowhere things I'm comparing the 464 to an Amiga in graphics, yet I already said that Amstrad was behind graphically.

If you have to make up a statement that was never said you already lost the argument.

So, why is the 664 in the original poll?

EDIT: And just to be clear, here's what I said:

The 464 and 664 were not 'enhanced models'.

That's correct. They weren't. The 664 didn't even receive a plus model. So, no - you're a liar. I didn't say there were 'no enhanced 464s' and then backtrack. That is a bald-faced lie.

Great, then show me an 'enhanced' Amstrad CPC 464 with graphics that are comparable to a 16bit Amiga or Atari ST

Again, that's what I said. Again, you are a liar.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Optimus Lime]

It's funny because the two systems are similar.

It's not the funniest thing about this thread though, to be fair.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

It's funny because the two systems are similar.

Indeed it was, you could also get the CD ROM attachment for the 1200 however in those days I had little interest in that option.

 

[Afro Republican]

Indeed it was, you could also get the CD ROM attachment for the 1200 however in those days I had little interest in that option.

It really didn't change much. Granted, it was more reliable than the build-in drive in the CD32.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

I voted Amiga. It had Moonstone.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

I voted Amiga. It had Moonstone.

Commands ridiculous prices on eBay mind you.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

Commands ridiculous prices on eBay mind you.

Exhibit 3,678 why I should have taken more care of my games.

 

[hariseldon]

I had an amstrad 464, I had an Atari ST and I had an Amiga. I can assure you that the amstrad is nowhere near either. You could argue about modding it but then one could mod an Atari ST to be a Mac or a pc with the right add-on boards, but no bugger had them. I'd say the sensible thing is to compare the standard model of each, so 520/1040 STE, Amiga 500/600, standard Amstrad CPC464, no Amiga 1200 32 bit) and no Atari TT or Falcon (32 bit). The poll even says as much, no we won't read your mind, we'll read what you wrote.
Btw the temper tantrum the OP is having here is just embarrassing.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

Exhibit 3,678 why I should have taken more care of my games.

Ditto, used to have it long before eBay or the internet was a thing.

 

[Thanati]

So I know gaf is primarily console based but I'm sure there may be a few guys who actually played an Amiga or an ST.

Now with that said, the question is which of these two powerhouses (that collapsed into themselves and allowed Windows/PC's to dominate computers) of computer gaming do you prefer? Which had the better games overall?

-------

IMO, the Atari St is a vastly superior product. While Commodore had the C64 and some nostalgia may make people choose the Amiga becaue of that, it's really not the better machine imo. For one, the Amiga Library is filled with 9x more shovelware, and Amigas model compatibility issues from the early 80's models to the 90's models meant that several developers put out compromise games that were not much better than your average Apogee developed PC game, or worse. The review aggregates side with the ST by a 24% gap.

Atari ST had a more consistent library as well as more best sellers since everything wasn't spread so thin. The Atari ST also had better architecture for 3D, allowing the ST 3D games whether exclusive or cross-platform running at usually a significantly higher frame rate than the Amiga versions, even with unoptimized games the ST is usually 5fps ahead. But most of the time the differences were huge with the Amiga 3D games being slide-shows or having slowdowns that looked like time slowed down.

When you realize that the ST has more quality games and a lot of the Amiga library was shovelware, once the rose glasses are taken off, you'll find that the only real advantage the Amiga has over the ST is sound, and in some cases, 2D games can be better, depending on what the game does, however, while people will often bring up Amigas superior 2D. it only applies 2D games without much going on, once you start getting all those objects, parallax, and pseudo 3D effects, which granted weren't that common on Amiga, the Amiga would choke while the ST would run them smoothly. Amiga is best when there's not much going on, which put it behind the advancement of gaming at the time.

(skip to 2:50 in below video)

(As you can see as soon as polygons get on the screen after the race starts the Amiga chucks like a potato. While ST is smooth from the start.)

You also have around 200 exclusive ST only games not ported anywhere else giving better value, while a lot of Amiga games are also on PC, other computers, and sometimes consoles. In many cases the other versions are better which really hurts the library for those without rose-tinted glasses and didn't grow up with an Amiga.

If you wanted the top Hi-fi 2D and best 3D games optimization, you got the ST, Exclusives? ST, Wanted to start in gaming music and get a job doing music for a developer/publisher? ST. Wanted to use your computer for games and also take it seriously enough to actually be an alternative to a PC (at the time) for serious or business work? You chose the ST.

I mean of course don't take this as me saying the Amiga library doesn't have good games, it does, just if you had any other computers or consoles it's games most likely ran better not on the Amiga. This is something that was always a flaw with Amiga not "focusing" on games and Commodore not taking the Amiga as a gaming machine seriously. Rarely did Commodore publish games or put games on a pedestal, they made it easy to print games for the machine and then let things go, they never really had an ecosystem, which would effect their 2 attempts at trying to turn the Amiga into a home game console. How can an Amiga game console success with no real ecosystem, no real development/publishing platform, no developer relationships, and poor logistics? Not to mention they were behind the trends at the time, usually pseudo 3D games and actual 3D games were what was generating excitement, so the regions like NA, Korea, Eastern Euro, etc. the ST did well in, it dominated the handily. Of course, the Commodore 64 gave Amiga a good distribution network throughout the rest of Europe which prevented their slaughtering and gave them an advantage they otherwise would not have had.

All In all, this thread is asking which of the two you prefer. The Commodore Amiga (all models) or the Atari ST Line (all models) for gaming?

You’re analysis is completely flawed I’m afraid. However, the poll is also a mess. Firstly, you’re lumping ECS Amigas with AGA machines, which actually had far better 3D than the ST.

Also, as everyone here has said, why are you bringing in an Amstrad CPC 464 into this? It’s an 8 bit machine and belongs alongside the spectrum or C64.

Also, the sound chip for the ST was equivalent to the spectrum 128k.

 

[Bogroll]

I voted for ST because i felt sorry for it, it was a massive step up from a spectrum in the 80's and if you had a Amiga or ST most people where like "wow". Any way i bought a ST because that's all they had in my Grandmothers catalogue for £5.35 a week but i knew the Amiga was better but coming from a Spectrum i wasn't going to turn it down, i think it was probably one of the biggest generation step up ever. I did get a Amiga in the end though when first started work a 16, £10 a week out of my YTS money (£28 a week) from Dixons over 3 years. Over £1500, never bought anything on credit again, but at least the games (cough) were (cough) free

 

[Havoc2049]

Most 3D stuff, and most 2D with 3D-esque graphical effects, which was the popular trend of the time. Amiga generally was better at 2D though, could have more objects moving on screen., more color, larger sprites, etc.


No you're evading your poor reading comprehension because even when I explained in post what I meant you still didn't read it and thought I was comparing a native 464, and I also got you backtracking on the "you said it was comparable" statement, which I never said.

These are all competitors. Amstrad fans, the ones who would vote for that option, would KNOW that the 464 I'm referring to would be the one you would enhance. Why would an Amstrad owner wanting great games intentionally not upgrade the- you know what I've made my point.

Also nice how you avoided the fact the GX4000 and the 6128 were released AS 16-bit competitors because Amstrad miscalculated, which is what I said earlier, they fell behind. Doesn't mean they were not trying to compete. Maybe if you actually used an Amstrad before you wouldn't be so riled up.



Thing is that the Amiga has no focus or real ecosystem in place for the games, so prices were all over the place, and the share-ware era hurt that even more. When you want to look at the best selling Amiga games mos games barely broke through into high numbers while the ST actually put out games for the market to buy. I think this crack in Commodores armor basically made it impossible for them to really compete with other gaming machines. The ST, at least for awhile, did to an extent.
.

I think it is an understatement to say that it would have been best to leave the Amstrad and Acorn machines out of your poll, especially since you didn't even mention them in the title and barely touch on them in the initial post. It's like you spammed your own topic.

It's not like Atari Corp. was a hotbed of AAA gaming content on the ST. All they did was publish updates of tired old games from the 400/800/XL/XE line, such Star Raiders, Missile Command, Crystal Castles, Moon Patrol, Joust, etc. They did a little better in Europe, by republishing older games in those Turbo Packs and publishing a few other games. Atari did do a better job at developing and publishing productivity and educational software compared to Commodore. Atari Works was a really cool productivity suite, similar to Microsoft Works.

Not sure where you are getting your info, but in almost all cases, games sold better on the Amiga than they did on the ST, with the exception of FTL's Dungeon Master, which was the ST killer app game for a year or two before even being released on the Amiga.

 

[benjohn]

Amiga 500 is still my favourite computer. This topic reminds me of retrobriting my my good old Miggy

 

[Arkhan]

A dubious poll option is not justification for insulting and attacking other members, and action will be taken against those who continue down that path. If you have an issue with the way a thread has been setup, make your points and move on. If you think it breaks rules then report it.

 

[MilkyJoe]

IMO, the Atari St is a vastly superior product. While Commodore had the C64 and some nostalgia may make people choose the Amiga becaue of that, it's really not the better machine imo. For one, the Amiga Library is filled with 9x more shovelware, and Amigas model compatibility issues from the early 80's models to the 90's models meant that several developers put out compromise games that were not much better than your average Apogee developed PC game, or worse. The review aggregates side with the ST by a 24% gap.

Atari ST had a more consistent library as well as more best sellers since everything wasn't spread so thin. The Atari ST also had better architecture for 3D, allowing the ST 3D games whether exclusive or cross-platform running at usually a significantly higher frame rate than the Amiga versions, even with unoptimized games the ST is usually 5fps ahead. But most of the time the differences were huge with the Amiga 3D games being slide-shows or having slowdowns that looked like time slowed down.

Console warring 30 years late to the party...

 

[NXGamer]

This seemed an appropriate please to share and answer the POLL, well the only bit that matters and is relevant to each other anyway.

 

[Thanati]

It's funny because the two systems are similar.

Yes, exact same architecture but different purpose. One was a computer while the other was marketed solely as a games console and, with the FMV adapter, a video player.

The AGA chipset used was very good, but not great. However, in all instances (yes, 3D as well), they were superior to the ST.

 

[Harlock]

Tandy.

 

[kikonawa]

So I know gaf is primarily console based but I'm sure there may be a few guys who actually played an Amiga or an ST.

Now with that said, the question is which of these two powerhouses (that collapsed into themselves and allowed Windows/PC's to dominate computers) of computer gaming do you prefer? Which had the better games overall?

-------

IMO, the Atari St is a vastly superior product. While Commodore had the C64 and some nostalgia may make people choose the Amiga becaue of that, it's really not the better machine imo. For one, the Amiga Library is filled with 9x more shovelware, and Amigas model compatibility issues from the early 80's models to the 90's models meant that several developers put out compromise games that were not much better than your average Apogee developed PC game, or worse. The review aggregates side with the ST by a 24% gap.

Atari ST had a more consistent library as well as more best sellers since everything wasn't spread so thin. The Atari ST also had better architecture for 3D, allowing the ST 3D games whether exclusive or cross-platform running at usually a significantly higher frame rate than the Amiga versions, even with unoptimized games the ST is usually 5fps ahead. But most of the time the differences were huge with the Amiga 3D games being slide-shows or having slowdowns that looked like time slowed down.

When you realize that the ST has more quality games and a lot of the Amiga library was shovelware, once the rose glasses are taken off, you'll find that the only real advantage the Amiga has over the ST is sound, and in some cases, 2D games can be better, depending on what the game does, however, while people will often bring up Amigas superior 2D. it only applies 2D games without much going on, once you start getting all those objects, parallax, and pseudo 3D effects, which granted weren't that common on Amiga, the Amiga would choke while the ST would run them smoothly. Amiga is best when there's not much going on, which put it behind the advancement of gaming at the time.

(skip to 2:50 in below video)

(As you can see as soon as polygons get on the screen after the race starts the Amiga chucks like a potato. While ST is smooth from the start.)

You also have around 200 exclusive ST only games not ported anywhere else giving better value, while a lot of Amiga games are also on PC, other computers, and sometimes consoles. In many cases the other versions are better which really hurts the library for those without rose-tinted glasses and didn't grow up with an Amiga.

If you wanted the top Hi-fi 2D and best 3D games optimization, you got the ST, Exclusives? ST, Wanted to start in gaming music and get a job doing music for a developer/publisher? ST. Wanted to use your computer for games and also take it seriously enough to actually be an alternative to a PC (at the time) for serious or business work? You chose the ST.

I mean of course don't take this as me saying the Amiga library doesn't have good games, it does, just if you had any other computers or consoles it's games most likely ran better not on the Amiga. This is something that was always a flaw with Amiga not "focusing" on games and Commodore not taking the Amiga as a gaming machine seriously. Rarely did Commodore publish games or put games on a pedestal, they made it easy to print games for the machine and then let things go, they never really had an ecosystem, which would effect their 2 attempts at trying to turn the Amiga into a home game console. How can an Amiga game console success with no real ecosystem, no real development/publishing platform, no developer relationships, and poor logistics? Not to mention they were behind the trends at the time, usually pseudo 3D games and actual 3D games were what was generating excitement, so the regions like NA, Korea, Eastern Euro, etc. the ST did well in, it dominated the handily. Of course, the Commodore 64 gave Amiga a good distribution network throughout the rest of Europe which prevented their slaughtering and gave them an advantage they otherwise would not have had.

All In all, this thread is asking which of the two you prefer. The Commodore Amiga (all models) or the Atari ST Line (all models) for gaming?

You are a bitter atari fanboy

 

[LordRaptor]

 

[Turnip Truck]

I've never played games on an Atari ST so my perspective is one sided. My dad and I looked at both the ST and the Amiga. In the end, we wound up buying the Amiga 2000. Part of our purchase decision was based on the Amiga's superior graphics and sound relative to the Atari ST thanks to the custom chipset of fat Agnus for graphics, Denise for video, and Paula for the audio. I was in college at the time, but used it more for entertainment than anything academic. I created music on it, did a lot of digital painting, and of course played games. I still have the original Civilization along with games like ShadowGate, CinemaWare titles Rocket Ranger and Sinbad and the Throne of the Falcon, a huge Infocom games collection (Zork and such), and a lot of shareware games from the Fred Fish disks. Eventually I bought my own used Amiga 1000 when I moved out to my own apartment.

My dad used that A2000 for years for word processing, taxes, etc. until the software companies abandoned the platform. He then gave it to me. I still have the A2000 on the table behind me. I fired it up a few months ago to show Civilization to my own son as he was getting ready to head off to college for his own computer science study. It still works perfectly!

 

[Thanati]

Tandy.

The TRS80?

That was a pretty decent machine and had a phenomenal sound chip!

 

[Laptop1991]

My first home computer was the Amiga 500, i got in 1990 after every one i knew recommended it over the Atari St, which had been out on sale longer than the Amiga, it had far better games at the time and up until the PC took over in 94/95, it had a larger selection of games in the shops as well, well the ones i went into anyway.

 

[Havoc2049]

Having grown up with the Atari 8-bit home computers, I was always curious about the ST (and later TT and Falcon), but the computer line was never popular in the US and I wasn't a musician when I was a teenager. The Amiga, however, was very popular for its powerful OS and graphics capabilities (Amigas were used by some local television stations right up to the year 2000), and it was the ultimate games machine.

I always felt the Amiga was the true heir to the Atari 800, as it was designed by the legendary Jay Miner. RJ Mical and Dave Needle, two members of the Amiga team, went on to create the Atari Lynx, which is basically a portable Amiga (if only we had those classic Amiga games).

The Atari ST, meanwhile, was created by Jack Tramiel as a serious business machine, and playing computer games was the last thing on his mind. His goal was to beat Amiga and Apple Macintosh with a powerful 16-bit computer at a fraction of the price, and at least in 1985, it was a success and saved Atari Corp from bankruptcy. The addition of MIDI ports proved to be the masterstroke that made the computer a success with musicians for years.

I'm not very familiar with the computer games on the ST, but a cursory glance on Youtube and a quick glance at consensus is that Atari is notably inferior to Amiga for games. There are many classics on the system such as Dungeon Keeper, which was hailed as a killer app when it was released.

Personally, I think it's a mistake to think of which system has the "better" computer games. Both Amiga and ST will have a great library of games that are fun and engaging, as well as a number of hidden gems and surprise classics. There are also the multimedia (Amiga) and music (ST) functions that will see a lot of use.

I'm from the States and was both an Atari 8-bit user and ST user and I felt the ST line was more popular, had a larger reltail presence and received more software support than the 8-bit line. Starting around 1984, software support for the 400/800/XL line became pretty bleak compared to the C64 and Apple II, with many software developers and retail locations either dropping the A8 or cutting back on development and retail space. Between 85-90 though, ST support in the US was bigger than the A8 ever was. All the big US game developers of the day like Microprose, Lucas Arts, Sierra, Electronic Arts, SSI, Origin, Activision, etc., supported the Amiga, C64, Apple II, Mac, MS-DOS and Atari ST, while making almost nothing for the Atari XL/XE line. Gunship and Pirates! by Microprose were announced for the XL/XE, then cancelled, but came out on ST. National software retailers like Egghead, Walden Software and Software Etc. sold ST computers and software. Ya, after 1991, being an ST owner in the US wasn't that great, while the Amiga lasted another couple of years at retail, but it was good times for ST owners between 85 and 90.

Here is the classic ST vs Amiga Computer Chronicles episode:

 

[Alexios]

I'm not 'yelling and screaming' at all.

You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I'll be very clear.

Your poll states:

'The better Home computer for games?' (with a misplaced capital 'H', which is pretty funny).

You then list a fairly random list of systems. But, you are also quite specific with the model numbers (Atari ST Line (ST/STE/TT/etc).

You list the 'Amstrad CPC' and give three options - the 464/664/6128.

You don't mention anything about 'enhanced versions'. You don't mention anything about the GX4000. You are very fucking clear about the models that you are offering in the poll.

But, when called on it, you fall into a mixture of hilariously misguided gatekeeping ('REAL AMSTRAD FANS WOULD KNOW'), denials of reality ('I NEVER ASKED FOR A COMPARISON'), and the usual internet troll 'umad' nonsense ('YELLING AND SCREAMING', 'RILED UP').

Basically, you're a complete and utter fool. Your spammy posts are evidence of your value as a poster. Clearly, you're of the mind that it is the reader's responsibility to work out what you meant, based on your poorly phrased broken English, but nah. Sorry. That doesn't get you a pass. If you'd wanted to compare the 'enhanced versions' of the 464/664/6128, or the GX4000, then you should have written them in the poll.

And, again, I ask you. Show me an example of an 'enhanced 464' game that compares with an Amiga title. You've conveniently neglected to do that, instead screeching about how you 'never asked for a comparison'. If you never asked for a comparison, why is it in the original poll?

Your move, genius.

EDIT: Just for funsies, I thought I'd get a bit nostalgic. Let's have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_CPC

So, the 464plus was released in 1990. Here's what a 464plus game looked like:



The 664 had no 'enhanced version'. It was discontinued early. So, since your poll deals with 'enhanced versions', and you're such a 'true Amstrad fan', what is doing there?

Here's Xyphoe demoing a 6128 Plus:



Both models were released with green screens, as well as color monitors.

And, the GX4000 is an interesting one. From Wikipedia:

Developed as part of the plus range, the GX4000 was Amstrad's short-lived attempt to enter the video game consoles market. Sharing the plus range's enhanced hardware characteristics, it represents the bare minimum variant of the range without a keyboard or support for mass storage devices.[10] It came bundled with 2 paddle controllers and the racing game Burning Rubber.

The GX4000 was never intended to compete with the Amiga or the Atari ST. It was a console competitor. What is it even doing in this poll? Why are you comparing Amstrad's console competitor to two 16bit home computers?

But, of course, you'd already know that, being a true Amstrad fan, right? Lol.

Posts lengthy replies with explanations, examples, links to actual sources showing both how the statements in the OP are flawed/don't reflect the truth of what happened and how the poll choices aren't quite there... is constantly told nah, you're wrong and raging, OP is right and the thread will move on without you (cos OP will keep randomly bumping it). Same for other people calling out the issues. Wtf, quality thread, any kind of actual discussion of the actual topic at hand as presented is apparently just derailing trolling when it doesn't see eye to eye with OP and not taking everything written as gospel

 

[Shifty]

Posts lengthy replies with explanations, examples, links to actual sources showing both how the statements in the OP are flawed/don't reflect the truth of what happened and how the poll choices aren't quite there... is constantly told nah, you're wrong and raging, OP is right and the thread will move on without you (cos OP will keep randomly bumping it). Same for other people calling out the issues. Wtf, quality thread, any kind of actual discussion of the actual topic at hand as presented is apparently just derailing trolling when it doesn't see eye to eye with OP and not taking everything written as gospel

It's almost as if this could have been a genuinely fascinating dive into the world of classic computers had it not been presented in the usual poorly-considered poll format.

But instead, we have rabbling. Lots and lots of rabbling.

 

[FatboyTim]

I still have two A500s in the garage. I almost brained myself last summer, when one of them fell out of a box (on top of an old wardrobe) onto my unprotected head. Those things weighed a flipping tonne.

 

[sunnysideup]

Atari 520st with powerpack was my first gamesystem ever. Had tonnes of fun with gauntlet 2, double dragon, space harrier, rtype, super hang on. Even more fun when i learned how to copy games.

But as a grown up it is easy to see that Amiga is vastly superior in every department, from graphics, to sound, to games. Atari st is just a simple budget machine.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Posts lengthy replies with explanations, examples, links to actual sources showing both how the statements in the OP are flawed/don't reflect the truth of what happened and how the poll choices aren't quite there... is constantly told nah, you're wrong and raging, OP is right and the thread will move on without you (cos OP will keep randomly bumping it). Same for other people calling out the issues. Wtf, quality thread, any kind of actual discussion of the actual topic at hand as presented is apparently just derailing trolling when it doesn't see eye to eye with OP and not taking everything written as gospel

I tried arguing with him in good faith, produced what I thought were fairly credible sources backing up my point, but his argument boiled down to 'you know nothing about the Amstrad' and 'you can go because millions will replace you in this thread'. I have absolutely no idea why his behaviour was tolerated, especially when he has repeated it in multiple threads.

 

[hariseldon]

I tried arguing with him in good faith, produced what I thought were fairly credible sources backing up my point, but his argument boiled down to 'you know nothing about the Amstrad' and 'you can go because millions will replace you in this thread'. I have absolutely no idea why his behaviour was tolerated, especially when he has repeated it in multiple threads.

Perhaps we have our first case of a protected member in the manner found on era?

 

[Afro Republican]

Perhaps we have our first case of a protected member in the manner found on era?

Ot it's the fact he's lying about arguing in good faith. Also chill out, the Mods already warned about this, stay on topic.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Ot it's the fact he's lying about arguing in good faith. Also chill out, the Mods already warned about this, stay on topic.

There it is again. Calling me a liar for disagreeing with you. And, this time, you're claiming to have special insights into what I was thinking during my posts.

Take your own advice. You don't like the direction the conversation is going in? Go post in another thread. Or, report my posts.

 

[Afro Republican]

There it is again. Calling me a liar for disagreeing with you. And, this time, you're claiming to have special insights into what I was thinking during my posts.

Take your own advice. You don't like the direction the conversation is going in? Go post in another thread. Or, report my posts.

Well for one your'e directly trying ti find a loop hole to ignore the mod. For two you started in this thread aggressive and not even reading the posts you were quoting leading to your on confusion and quickly degraded the conversation. Which those posts are still there, so you're not going to win this move on and stop bumping threads for the sold purpose of being antagonizing.

Of course you could ignore that and keep doing this, but that would be a silly idea.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Well for one your'e directly trying ti find a loop hole to ignore the mod. For two you started in this thread aggressive and not even reading the posts you were quoting leading to your on confusion and quickly degraded the conversation. Which those posts are still there, so you're not going to win this move on and stop bumping threads for the sold purpose of being antagonizing.

Of course you could ignore that and keep doing this, but that would be a silly idea.

I've already 'won', you maniac. You don't have a single supporter in this thread. I didn't 'start aggressive' at all - that is another example of you denying a reality that is blatantly recorded in the thread.

Let's return to the start, shall we?

This was my original post in this thread:

This is a seriously weird poll. Why are you comparing the 16bit Amiga and Atari ST to the 8bit Amstrad CPC series?

No. That's not aggressive. That's an observation that I'm perfectly fine to make, even if it irritates you.

You replied with:

The 90's models (including the enhanced 80's models) were meant to compete with the 16-bits. With the 6128/gx4000 spearheading it. of course Amstrad didn't realize how far behind they would be but it has its share of fans.

Totally fine. Nothing at all wrong with your response here.

I responded with:

The 464 and 664 were not 'enhanced models'. Their presence in this poll seems dumb. You may as well be comparing the Vic 20 to the original Playstation.

Again, there's nothing 'aggressive' there. The 464 and 664, the two models you listed in your original poll, weren't 'enhanced'.

You responded with:

But in the 90's you COULD enhance them. hence why I mentioned that, and why you ignored the fact I also mentioned the GX4000 and the 6218. You're also exaggerating the gaps in power but eh.

Take a look at some of the enhanced games, they match the TG16 in several ways, but the TG16 seems to be consistently better.

You're already starting, by accusing me of 'ignoring' something, and 'exaggerating' something else. The GX4000 wasn't in the original poll. As we all know.

Let's fast forward down to here, though. The first aggressive comment in the thread is made by you, and it reads as follows:

Except your' fanboy is killing your reading comprehension because I never said the 464 had comparable graphics, in fact I said this twice:

So, you decided to call me a 'fanboy' and to make a stupid statement about my 'reading comprehension' because you fucked up your original poll.

So, no. I'm sorry, Afro Republican, you started insulting me - not the other way around, unless you were so deeply wounded by the fact that I disagreed with you that you just couldn't help yourself.

Now. Here's what. Why don't you just run along and create another poll on the frontpage? I'm sure you're going to reply with some absolute nonsense about how I'm wrong, I'm a liar, I'm misquoting you, or something similarly ridiculous - and that's fine, the entire site can see your M.O at this point. But, I think the best thing that you could possibly do would be to let this one go. You've got a lot of spot fires to put out, and a lot of people to call 'trolls', so you'd better get to it.

 

[Afro Republican]

I still have two A500s in the garage. I almost brained myself last summer, when one of them fell out of a box (on top of an old wardrobe) onto my unprotected head. Those things weighed a flipping tonne.

On the plus site the heavy build was a trade-off for reliability, at least in comparison to some other erhem, computers.

 

[Daniel Thomas MacInnes]

Here are some screenshots that I just snapped of the excellent Llamatron 2112 on Atari ST. This comes from the Hatari emulator running on my 2017 iMac. If you're a fan of Robotron, then you'll love Jeff Minter's take, which is ferocious, always challenging and loaded with humor. I feel like sending him a couple dollars just out of thanks.

It's fascinating to see the improvements when you move from the standard 1040ST setting to a more powerful STe or Mega STe with blitter chip, 16 MHz speed and 4 MB RAM. The game runs fast and silky smooth and controls are very responsive.

Llamatron was also released on Amiga and I'm sure it's equally good. It was also released a few years back on iOS as part of Minter's Project Minotaur series, which is now unavailable thanks to Apple's constant OS updates. I enjoyed the ST version more thanks to its faster speed and ability to strafe when firing (a nice solution to a single-joystick control).

I'm still trying to work out the Hatari emulator, and it doesn't seem to want to load a lot of software. I've also been tinkering around with the "serious" business software like the 1st Word Plus, a respectable word processor that I used to write part of the introduction to one of my art/photo ebooks. The lack of selectable font types was a notable omission, but it worked very well and looked nice running on the ST's 640x400 monochrome mode.

Back to the main topic on this thread, I do wish the PC and Mac were also included, if only so that we could have all the major players at once. I kinda want to play around with a classic Macintosh now. I really miss that b/w look, especially with the word processors and art programs. Isn't that crazy? Probably just nostalgia talking. I'm not about to dump my 2017 iMac for a Mac Classic or Mega STe. But let's be honest, computers used to be a lot more fun than they are today.

 

[hariseldon]

Daniel Thomas MacInnes I tend to use Steem - see https://sourceforge.net/projects/steemsse/ - it never lets me down. Llamatron was fucking amazing by the way. Absolutely loved it.