🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30249@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes:
>In article <228@stag.UUCP> trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey ) flames:
>> Today we got in Marble Madness for the ST. I think I can keep this to a short
>> low tech analysis, starting with 5  words...What a piece of trash. Very poor
>> graphics (not close to what can be done on the ST), buggy play (the ball
>> 'tracking' is slightly out of phase with the screen), and poor animation
>> (ball doesn't even disappear when going behind small projections...) ...
>>                                                             ... I played
>> Marble Madness on the Amiga before I got rid of it (the Amiga) and there
>> is no reason that the graphics couldn't have been even better and smoother
>> on the ST...(or the 8 bit Atari for that matter)...
>
>Well, sorry to rain on your parade Todd, but there really is a reason why
>the graphics are 'better and smoother' on the Amiga. It's those custom 
>chips that are taking care of 50% of the game mechanics. As more people 
>design programs that use them efficiently there will be more programs (games
>especially) that you *cannot* port to other architectures, *and* retain
>satisfactory 'look and feel'. Take something as simple 'Mouse Trap', a ...
>
>The bottom line is you can flame EA all you want, they consistently do
>stupid things, but I draw the line at this "there's no reason ..." stuff.
>There *is* a reason, Amiga owners paid extra for it, and as developers
>use 'the Amiga difference' they don't feel as cheated as they once did.
>
>--Chuck McManis
>uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
>These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.

	I don't think so.  I just saw Marble Madness for the ST yesterday,
	and I agree with Todd.  There really is no reason why they (EA)
	couldn't have made it better.  At least (AT LEAST), the background
	graphics could have been improved.  I know this for a fact, because
	just using NEOchrome, I have PAINTED more authentic MM screens than
	the game itself uses.

	As for the rest of your "reasons" why the Amiga version is better,
	they're all perfectly true.  However, if you've seen Time Bandit
	on the ST, you would know that it's possible to simulate the
	sprites and graphics functions pretty closely.  There is definitely
	no reason why EA has to put out games that are lower quality than
	others (notable MichTron and Xanth FX) put out.  The only reason
	I know of if that Trip Hawkins (remember THAT guy?) still doesn't
	like the ST.

	Recently, when asked what he thought of the market situation, he
	replied that the ST games have not been selling as well as the
	Amiga's.  Given the fact that the ST versions are almost always
	made worse, I'm not surprised.  Of course people don't buy the
	EA ST games!  Most of us are out there buying games from manufacturers
	who are willing to put some effort into programming their games!

	Please understand that this was not meant to be a flame.  Actually,
	I do think that some of the EA stuff is pretty good, like Chessmaster
	2000, and Arctic Fox (well, actually, a friend of mine has AF, and HE
	thinks it's good;  it bored me to sleep).

	Okay, everybody.  Instead of just applying pocketbook veto to EA's
	products, lets let them know WHY we won't buy them.  Otherwise, they'll
	continue to maintain that the ST's not good enough, instead of
	improving their own programs.


					Sincerely ticked off,

					Warner Young

					\        /   \    /
					 \  /\  /     \__/
					  \/  \/         |
							 |
						       __|