From: mperry@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Was Re: BattleMech Game ... MS-DOS Vs Amiga
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:19:23 +1200
Distribution: rec.games.frp.misc
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug27.194529.6851@pimacc.pima.edu>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
> In article <NIGEL.92Aug27190943@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov>, nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
>> 
>> In article    From: kabreuer@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Klaus Breuer)
>> 
>>>   Hi everyone!
>> 
>>>   I'm busy translating the BattleTech game for the PC, as our group doesn't
>>>   meet very often. And yes, I know about Infocom's games, but I was looking
>>>   for a Strategy version closely following the board game.
>> 
>>>   Not having found one, I'm writing my own.
>>>   But surely, I'm not the only one with this problem? Except for 'MechForce'
>>>   on the (ugh) Amiga, are there any other programs like that around?
>> 
>> It is simply amazing the number of PC owners that are so insecure with
>> their "state of the art" 486 machines that they must bash the 1985
>> vintage technology Amigas...to which most Amiga owners respond "I spent
>> $699 for a multi-tasking, multi-media platform that plays some great
>> games...how much did you spend on your 486/SVGA/SoundBlaster game machine?"
>> 
> 
> You mean a $699 system that hardly any game companies support don't you?
> (Still waiting for WC or Ultima 7? Don't hold your breath!)  
> 
> Heck, Lord British is a self-admitted Mac-fanatic & he won't port them
> over to that because he knows there's not enough of a market. (He said
> IBM is 80% of the game market. I wonder how much the Amiga is?)
Get real!
The Amiga had in '85:
- good graphics
- good sound
- 32 bit processing
- a good price

IBM at the same stage had:
- crap graphics (when it was VGA it was so slow!)
- sound? what sound?
- the standard was '286 which was more expensive than the amiga or overpriced
  '386s

At this stage who had the game market? amiga price and power walked all over
the competition. If you wanted a halfway decent game for its price you went 
for an amiga.

Then Commodore bought out Amiga, and the Amiga has had little or no development
snice. Sure IBM may have 80% of the games market, but of that 80%, how much is
total crap? Just like somthing like 80% of business code running is COBOL, yet
how much of this COBOL code was actually written in COBOL (and not
electronically converted from another language). 

What is happening is people are comparing the amiga (as it was in 85 and still
is) with the normal minimum of 25Mhz '386 SX with 80Meg HD and 2Meg RAM with
the Amiga 500 with 1 Meg RAM, no HD and 7.1Mhz processing - or even worse, a 
'486 50Mhz with 300+ Meg HD and 8+ Meg Ram. 

In NZ the weather map is produced electronically. I am not sure what platform
now produces it, but in about 1989 they upgraded the graphics, and after
pricing they chose a souped up Amiga over Macintosh and IBM, so even as late as
this, Amiga was still holding its own after so little development.

With an accelerator card the amiga 500 can out perform a 33Mhz 386 SX.
Not bad considering its lack of development.
How many new games get released for the amiga per month? about 50 in NZ.
Not bad for having no market and NZ being such a tiny drop in the world market.

If I purchased a computer today I would purchase a IBM clone, not because it is
better, has better games etc, but because it would be more useful for work.
As standard, IBM clones still have shit sound, and graphics that is so slow
that you may as well take a break, only now is IBM graphics starting to achieve
Amiga quality as standard. Amiga, with no development is still
reasonable as it give reasonable graphics, reasonable sound as standard
(although it is so slow at 7.1Mhz (500) alongside others
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.misc:4567 rec.games.frp.dnd:3189