|
RadicalR posted:You COULD use the emulator in the readme. There's a modified version of XM6 called XM6 Type G that works great. Totally missed the readme, but I've actually never tried Win68K and I like it a lot more than XM6 so it worked out well.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
iastudent posted:So for reasons I can't quite understand, I've spent the last couple days combing Ebay listings for 800XL's. I've never laid hands on one much less seen it in person, but there's just something about it I can't get out of my head. Mail Order Monsters Alternate Reality M.U.L.E. Seven Cities Of Gold Realms of Impossibility
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Is this also the place to discuss running old OS's under virtual machines like Windows 98? I'm trying to figure out how to get the damned shared files to work or be able to drag/drop files onto my Win98 desktop using VirtualBox. There's even an option you can turn on but I can't get the drat thing to work. My only method of moving files is loading them onto a virtual CD rom but it's really clunky and annoying having to do this. I will say I'm surprised how relatively fast things run on VB. It took a few hours of tinkering but I'm happily plodding away in The Dark Eye which I can't get to run in DOSbox at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Is this also the place to discuss running old OS's under virtual machines like Windows 98? I'm trying to figure out how to get the damned shared files to work or be able to drag/drop files onto my Win98 desktop using VirtualBox. There's even an option you can turn on but I can't get the drat thing to work. My only method of moving files is loading them onto a virtual CD rom but it's really clunky and annoying having to do this. In the settings for my VM there's a section named "Shared Folders" and I have a machine folder pointing to my host (Win 7) D drive that auto-mounts and I can see it fine within the VM under My Computer as a network drive. The VM is XP though - I've no idea if that makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Tendales posted:Mail Order Monsters Or he could ask me to try out some of my decently sized collection and post some info and screenshots. I need a bit of fire to play things more often than I do. (Not sure about Mail Order Monsters though. It would mean cracking the seal. The last time I did that on an A8 bit game I ended up with a copy of Pitstop 2 whose disk managed to get fragged in the sealed box. That takes skill.) Also most of the titles you listed run about 30 shipped on eBay. Generally cart games are the best starter titles for an Atari 8 bit micro collection. They are usually cheap outside of a couple rarities everyone wants. (Bounty Bob Strikes Back and Pastfinder are Earthbound priced.) My current favorite games on the A8 include Miner 2049er, River Raid, Pac Man, Yoomp! (Home brew ) , and Pole Position. Ghostbusters and Upndown are good but the C64 versions own them. And for Ghostbusters the SMS version is nigh definitive. Also see SMS Montezumas Revenge and Choplifter. Hell, Ultima 4. (Don't try to get Ultimas on the A8s. They don't look that great and they go for idiotic prices. Ultima 2 box and cloth map with no game or manual or command card just went for 100. I lucked out getting U2 disks and manual and card for 25. That is basically stealing by Ultima collector standards.) In general for US 8 bit micro collecting the Atari 8 bit is in the middle with the C64 on top and the Apple 2 at the bottom. Every other micro was basically a joke. A8s just didn't have the success the 64 or Apple 2 did so they have a bit less software to choose from so it tends to go for more. (See my intro posts for more basic system info.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:Ghostbusters and Upndown are good but the C64 versions own them. And for Ghostbusters the SMS version is nigh definitive. Also see SMS Montezumas Revenge and Choplifter. Hell, Ultima 4. My one and only complaint about the SMS version of Ultima IV is that the switch to menu-based dialogue means you can't sequence-break it quite as hard as you can with the PC versions. On the other hand 99% of the stuff you need can just be found by searching if you already know where it is, so even that isn't a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:Ghostbusters and Upndown are good but the C64 versions own them. I think I remember reading Paul Woakes preferred the Atari to the C64, so Mercenary and Encounter are worth checking out. The Jet Set Willy port is Very Bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Is this also the place to discuss running old OS's under virtual machines like Windows 98? I'm trying to figure out how to get the damned shared files to work or be able to drag/drop files onto my Win98 desktop using VirtualBox. There's even an option you can turn on but I can't get the drat thing to work. My only method of moving files is loading them onto a virtual CD rom but it's really clunky and annoying having to do this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Yeah but poo poo like VMware tools exists for a lot of platforms. It's when you don't have tools available for your retro platform it becomes a pain getting files in the VM
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Welp, I just bought a Spectrum +2 w/ a bunch of games. Not exactly  but I just hope the thing works still (and that the tapes work because, well, they're tapes)...probably a crazy decision but it was the first computer I had and I still love it today (enough to play it loads on emulator + bore the crap out of people with videos about old Speccy games...all the usual stuff). Can't wait to stick it straight into the antenna port of my Plasma TV!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Is there a website that lists all or most of the games that require windows 3.1? Maybe organized by year with information about them or box art?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:In general for US 8 bit micro collecting the Atari 8 bit is in the middle with the C64 on top and the Apple 2 at the bottom. Every other micro was basically a joke. A8s just didn't have the success the 64 or Apple 2 did so they have a bit less software to choose from so it tends to go for more. You know, I'd disagree with this sentiment. I can't see any reason at all to pick an Atari 8-bit over an Apple 2. Not only is its library tiny in comparison, I can't think of a single game it had that was substantially better--or even markedly different--from the Apple version. C64 yeah, but not the Atari 8-bit. Atari ST, sure. Actually, come to think of it, if you're primarily looking to play adventure, RPG, or strategy titles, you might even want to pick the Apple over the C64. A lot of good adventures or RPGs either didn't make it to the C64 (like the Kings Quest/Space Quest games) or were vastly inferior ports. A big reason for this is that a lot of those titles required 128k, which was relatively common on Apples (IIcs came with it, IIes were easily expandable to it) wasn't effectively doable on a C64. (and C128-only software was rare)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:You know, I'd disagree with this sentiment. I can't see any reason at all to pick an Atari 8-bit over an Apple 2. Not only is its library tiny in comparison, I can't think of a single game it had that was substantially better--or even markedly different--from the Apple version. C64 yeah, but not the Atari 8-bit. Atari ST, sure. Actually, come to think of it, if you're primarily looking to play adventure, RPG, or strategy titles, you might even want to pick the Apple over the C64. A lot of good adventures or RPGs either didn't make it to the C64 (like the Kings Quest/Space Quest games) or were vastly inferior ports. A big reason for this is that a lot of those titles required 128k, which was relatively common on Apples (IIcs came with it, IIes were easily expandable to it) wasn't effectively doable on a C64. (and C128-only software was rare) Apple 2s were usually 5 uggo colors. And composite artifacting from hell. C64 utterly trashed the Apple 2 in price, performance, graphics, and sound as did the Atari 8 bits. Sure Sierra was Apple 2 but A:PC versions better if not ultimate especially with the VGA versions. and B: Adventure Games are pretty arse, especially Sierra ones. And C64 has the first real survival horror, Project Firestart. Plus try and make an Apple 2 play Creatures or Mayhem in Monsterland. It ain't happening son. Apple 2s were like quasi IBM PCs. They were better at productivity than games. And honestly there isn't much reason to do work on these old machines nowadays other than just to say you can. Honestly if we add the Tandy 1000 to the mix the Apple 2 is probably your WORST choice for US 80s retro computer gaming for the big platforms. Go watch some 8 Bit Battles or Gaming History source. Apple 2 is usually tied with the Speccie in being the worst. (Apple has always been about paying more for less. This isn't a new thing.) Now that I have George Plimptoned it that VMware thing. I have tried Windows 98 with it and XP. It's.. Not very good. Bad 3d support and 98 is sort of off. Mechwarrior 2 Mercenaries was a buggy mess. Maybe some titles work with it but.. Not all by any means. Magic was unplayable due to speed issues. (Frame limiters? Duhh what's that? Oh but you need all the speed for actual card play? Have fun with that...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:Apple 2s were usually 5 uggo colors. And composite artifacting from hell. The only thing I'll really agree with is the graphics and sound. And price, which is irrelevant nowadays. Apple II's graphics were usually bad, no two ways around it. But that's pretty much it. And it's really only the titles until ~1985 or so that really looked bad. Commodore 64 always had better graphics and a wider color palette. Better sound too. Atari 8-bit's titles almost always looked nearly identical to the Apple II's, though it did have better color selection. As for performance, C64 maybe beats an Apple out of the box. Expanded it's no contest, the Apple II is far better. My Apple IIe has a megabyte of RAM, a Mockingboard, and a Transwarp+ drive which doubles the running speed of the computer. My C64 is...a C64. Great machine, great games, but it's not ever going to perform better than it did when I first got it. Atari 8-bit, no way. Also the Apple IIe is the only computer amongst the above that had a keyboard that wasn't complete garbage. Especially if you were into action games I can see why you'd want to pick a Commodore 64 over an Apple. But if RPGs or strategy titles are your thing, not a chance. Commodore's RPG ports were almost universally terrible, especially Origin games. They might have looked nicer but were slower and often had AI/interface issues. (Just one example, but I'm currently re-playing Deathlord on my C64 and good god is it bad compared to the Apple II version, despite having a better color palette and presentation) And Atari 8-bit had almost nothing in the way of RPGs. It had the SSI RPGs and that's about it. No Gold Box, no Bard's Tale, no Wizardry, no Magic Candle, no Autoduel, no Knights of Legend, no...well, you get the point. (also all of the aforementioned games were better on Apple vs C64 except for Magic Candle and Bard's Tale 1) During the 80s the Apple II was the platform to own when it came to RPGs. Most RPGs were written on the Apple first (including both Ultima and Wizardry) and were the definitive versions. It all really depends on what you want to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:and B: Adventure Games are pretty arse, especially Sierra ones. Have to disagree with you there, bro. Dying pointlessly wasn't fun but the early adventure games carried with them the same principles of RPGs and text adventures in keeping meticulous notes and maps. Sierra's games got bad when they dropped the text parser and forced you to slowly move from screen to screen plus bloating them with a load of scripted events and poo poo. Basically all the problems of modern game design with the additional poo poo icing that loving up meant starting over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Rediscovered out my copies of Chuck Yeagers Advanced Flight Sim, Silpheed, Nova 9, and Arctic Fox when I was at my parents house. Arctic Fox 3.5" original disk was going corrupt, but was able to confirm that the Linux disk cloning stuff I linked to earlier worked. I ended up merging the files I could recover from ancient backup copies, and got it working in Dosbox Tandy emulation mode. Besides that, I have fallen into the retromania of Roland Sound thanks to this youtube clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-YEjybPBRY. Now I have another hobby, and have been looking into MUNT & arduino eeprom readers. quantumfoam fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Ah Roland. It is to retro computing what RGB mods are to consoles. Everyone wants it, only a few are nutty enough to drop coin. Which at least doesn't require a soldering iron and SCART cables at least.. But going back to Genpei and his Apple 2 defense: you are kind of goalpost moving dude. Most people never had all these Apple 2 booster goodies, few games used them, and it costs gobs of money to get many of them when a Commodore 64 or a Tandy 1000 utterly smokes it even in the games you claim Woz's wonder machine does best. And C64s do have ram carts and accelerators available. I am also writing this stuff to get new blood into the game and more talk going. An Apple 2 isn't a good first retro gaming choice unless you grew up with one and loved it. I used them in school and still liked the C64 better. Plus the 64 has amazing and great playing titles in every category and they still look good. The same system that started with Radar Rat Race ended with Creatures and Mayhem in Monsterland. No need for more ram or chipset changes. The 64 is your all in one fun machine. (Also reading some old Electronic Games mags had the readership basically considering the Atari the games machine of 80-83 to own. Even then folks took issue with the Apple 2.) Also there are multiple Apple 2 models and not all of them could even take these cards. Like the 2c which is the one I almost got but the Craigslist seller flaked out on me. It was the + model too with 4mhz mode.  Basically Apple and Jobs hated the 2 line and kept trying to kill it. Which lead to the Gs basically being nerfed in speed and the e almost not existing. Which is a shame because the Gs coulda been a contenda... I guess if you love text adventures and like monochrome an Apple 2 is worth it for the earliest of those and RPGs but I would take a c64 or Tandy 1000 as my 80s retro computer over the Apple 2 any day, especially as a starter machine or if you can only have 1. Gold Box looked better and had more installments on the C64 than the Apple. Even Wizardry 1 and 5 look superior on the c64. And a fast load cart fixes the biggest c64 issue. Outside of going into flash storage or MP3 players for the EU crew. Would an Apple 2 be a bad system? Not really no. I'd say it is a better choice than the also rans by a mile. (Tandy CoCo, TI 99, Coleco Adam. Even if I wouldn't mind all 3..) But play what you love. Bonus points for sharing said love with us. And hopefully I didn't get too system warrior here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
tuluk posted:Rediscovered out my copies of Chuck Yeagers Advanced Flight Sim, Silpheed, Nova 9, and Arctic Fox when I was at my parents house. Arctic Fox 3.5" original disk was going corrupt, but was able to confirm that the Linux disk cloning stuff I linked to earlier worked. I ended up merging the files I could recover from ancient backup copies, and got it working in Dosbox Tandy emulation mode. Awesome video. It was amazing to hear "oh that's what it's supposed to sound like. ... Oh that's what it's supposed to sound like. ... Oh that..."  So good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:But play what you love. Bonus points for sharing said love with us. And hopefully I didn't get too system warrior here. Yeah dude, you are getting awfully system warrior here. I had a IIe and a C64 growing up (IIe was the parents' computer, C64 was the kids) but played on both so it's not like a case of rose-colored glasses here. I'm not trying to be a dick in pointing this out, but you're kinda relying a lot on arguments to authority and non-sequitur arguments (Electronic Games magazine said Atari was better! Jobs wanted to kill the A2!) then actually focusing on the games. If you want to argue the Apple is inferior to the C64 and Atari in all cases that's fine but so far the only thing you've really offered is that the graphics are better. Which is true, but a silly thing to get hung up on when we're talking about 8-bit computers, since none of them have graphics to write home about. Let's get down to brass tacks here, the capabilities of the systems. Checking things out I realize I was wrong earlier--the Apple II was a more powerful computer than the C64, full stop. Even without expansions. The disk drives on the Apple were faster (good god I was trying to put my finger on why Deathlord on C64 is garbage compared to the A2--it's the excruciating load times). The clock speeds are the same but in practice the C64 was about 10% slower because of its architecture compared to the Apple. The Apple had an open architecture; you had the logic board, the RAM, and that's it, so everything ran direct to the metal. C64 lost a lot of cycles to OS wait states/hardware wait states. (Know how you can boot up a C64 without a disk in the drive and get that "READY" screen with Load"*",8,1 and all that? That's not free cycles-wise) Another thing interesting about the Apple II is that it had a built-in text generator the C64 lacked--you had to make weird calls to get text output on the C64 which made it more difficult to program applications that had a lot of text. To the end user it's not immediately visible, but it makes a difference in a lot of games. So what does this mean for games? On the C64 you had a dedicated graphics chip/sound chip allowing for better graphics (though ironically lower resolution) which was a big plus--though the Apple's artifacting could be used to great effect, look at Karateka or Prince of Persia for an example. (NTSC only though--the artifacting looked like hot garbage on PAL displays) But you also had a lot less power. For a lot of games, even the majority, this made no difference. For simple action games and the like, you load the game into memory, play and go. That's a huge library of 80s games, and where the C64 shines. Add the better graphics, and the C64 becomes the choice of computer if you mainly want to play these types of games, hands down. Once you get into games that are more complicated and/or games that have a lot of text, however, the C64 starts to lose out and lose out hard. With less memory to work with, a slower processor, and slower disk access, you have a problem--either you have to hit the much slower disk more often to load things into memory, impacting the performance of your game greatly, or you have to make sacrifices in terms of game complexity to make it work. Sometimes both! For this reason a lot of RPGs, strategy games, etc for the C64 had simplifed systems, AI, or even maps in a few cases to make up the slack. Who cares if they look better if they don't play better? Most RPGs and complex titles like this were programmed on the Apple for this reason--you had more resources to work with, could program straight to the metal, and didn't have to deal with hardware wait states gumming up cycles that could be used for more important things. As for expansions, that's not goalpost moving since that was one of the primary draws of the Apple II. The Apple II was built with expansions right out the gate, with internal slots and everything. And they were common and robust! The aforementioned Transwarp essentially offloaded all of the Apple's logic processing into an overclocked chip inside the Transwarp itself. I can't stress how awesome that was for RPGs in the age of slow 8-bit computers. The C64 was a very slow machine, but the Apple wasn't that fast either! Remember the Apple II was built primarily as a hobbyist computer, and came with charts detailing processor architecture and PEEK/POKE listings. There was a thriving market for expansions, given the demographic that primarily bought Apples. It's dumb to bring up the IIc in this context since that model was specifically marketed as a "portable" (*snicker*) computer and was not the same way as the rest of the line. Though it did have more memory out the gate than the IIe, which was the model everyone owned. The C64 was more of a so-called "toy computer" on the other hand, made on the cheap for the mass-market rather than the enthusiast, and that allowed their larger marketshare/game library. But they couldn't do as much, both out of the box and with expansions. For a lot of games that's perfectly sufficient. But if you want to play wargames, RPGs, strategy games, and that sort of thing then the Apple II is your best choice. Or if you want to play the Bilestoad.  And honestly there's zero reason to own an Atari 400/800 when the C64/Apple are available--it doesn't have the library of the C64 or the power of an Apple.Again, it boils down to what type of game you want to play. If you're an RPG/Strategy enthusiast like me, the Apple II will be your best choice among 8-bit computers. If you're more of an action/arcade guy, then the C64 beats the Apple hands down. ed: Oh! I forgot to mention one thing. Star Raiders. That game alone practically justifies the purchase of an Atari 8-bit. That was an amazing game, though I only got to play it at a friend's house. Genpei Turtle fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:Yeah dude, you are getting awfully system warrior here. I had a IIe and a C64 growing up (IIe was the parents' computer, C64 was the kids) but played on both so it's not like a case of rose-colored glasses here. I'm not trying to be a dick in pointing this out, but you're kinda relying a lot on arguments to authority and non-sequitur arguments (Electronic Games magazine said Atari was better! Jobs wanted to kill the A2!) then actually focusing on the games. If you want to argue the Apple is inferior to the C64 and Atari in all cases that's fine but so far the only thing you've really offered is that the graphics are better. Which is true, but a silly thing to get hung up on when we're talking about 8-bit computers, since none of them have graphics to write home about. You are probably right but in that guy's defense I just google image searched "apple II games" and then "C64 games" and the latter's games just look better. If I was purely into games in the 80's I'd want a C64. If I wanted a more versatile computer I'd want an Apple. I know that's unscientific, I know next to nothing about these machines because I'm more of a Japanese retro computer guy  but that's just a layman's impression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
d0s posted:You are probably right but in that guy's defense I just google image searched "apple II games" and then "C64 games" and the latter's games just look better. If I was purely into games in the 80's I'd want a C64. If I wanted a more versatile computer I'd want an Apple. I know that's unscientific, I know next to nothing about these machines because I'm more of a Japanese retro computer guy Fair enough, but it's kinda different once you play them. C64 games look nice but they generally play slow as molasses in January for any kind of game with an even minor degree of complexity. Having played both in their heyday, I can't tell you how annoying it is in an RPG to wait 5 minutes to load a dungeon, then load 30 seconds for each battle, then wait another 5 minutes when you leave the dungeon, and another 5 minutes to load a town...it got really old, really quick. For a quick action game fix, the C64 is really good, but the pretty graphics don't make up for the constant loading, sluggish gameplay as the C64 struggles to calculate AI decisions, etc. for the more complicated games. As a kid, I couldn't really articulate why my Apple RPGs seemed better at the time, but the difference is palpable if you spend any decent amount of time with both. Action games, especially arcade ports, are almost universally better on the C64 though, there's no comparison. I'm a Japanese retro computer guy too BTW. PC-98 mostly. Though I have a non-functional PC-88 in box, with a boxed copy of Ishin no Arashi I can't play.  (With original receipt! 9800 yen in 1988! drat Koei games were expensive...)
Genpei Turtle fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
I grew up with an Apple IIc (still have it). I had a friend who had a C64 and I wanted one for myself really bad, but as much as I loved the Apple II it looks so loving bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Bing the Noize posted:I grew up with an Apple IIc (still have it). I had a friend who had a C64 and I wanted one for myself really bad, but as much as I loved the Apple II it looks so loving bad. Yeah, most of that is due to the fact that the Apple doesn't have a dedicated graphics chip the same way the C64 did. Apple's display also did graphics in a really, really weird way, as I remember from programming on it as a kid. Lo-res mode was great because you could use all sorts of colors but it was, well, lo-res. Hi-res mode broke the screen into "blocks" of 7 pixels each, with the first bit indicating what colors would be used. It also had really weird stuff like only being able to output certain colors on even or odd pixels. Later version of the Apple, like the IIe/IIc, etc, allowed for double hi-res graphics which circumvented a lot of this. You could get really great graphics this way--a lot of the Sierra games used this to good effect, so they looked almost as good as the EGA versions! Check out a screenshot of Space Quest Apple II for example. Or Maniac Mansion. The problem though is that the older versions of the Apple (II, II+, etc) didn't support that without expansions, so a lot of software was written with backward compatibility in mind. Something that's going to work on an Apple II+ just isn't going to look nice as something made for the later model versions. A lot of the later Apple games looked really nice for this reason, but they're the exception, rather than the rule. Also the Apple II supported double-buffering which a lot of its contemporaries couldn't. (Don't remember if the C64 had it, I think it might have) So even with the crappy graphics, there was smoother motion and less screen tearing than a lot of other platforms. ed: Another thing that was interesting about the Apple II is that early on they supported 80-column modes, which was really great if you wanted to play terminal-type/text-based games. Most other platforms only had 40 columns. I had David Ahl's big books of Basic Computer games and spent copious amounts of time banging them into both the Apple and C64, but it was always nice to be able to play some of them in 80-column mode. Also it had a really unusual split-screen mode that used the top 80% or so of the screen for hi-res graphics and the bottom 20% for text. A lot of the really early graphic adventures with a text parser (like Demon's Forge, Brian Fargo's first game) used this mode to really great effect. Genpei Turtle fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:I'm a Japanese retro computer guy too BTW. PC-98 mostly. Though I have a non-functional PC-88 in box, with a boxed copy of Ishin no Arashi I can't play. I used to be a MSX2 guy but I had to sell my entire setup at one point when I lost my job. I kept my nearly complete collection of Compile Disc Stations but I lost: Panasonic FS-A1 MKII Sanyo Wavy 70FD Aleste (complete) Aleste 2 (complete) Puyo Puyo (complete) Girly Block (complete) Yuureikun/Mr. Ghost (complete) (source of my avatar) Metal Gear King's Valley II Castlevania Kiki Kai Kai (complete) Valis (complete) Maze of Galious Usas Garyuoh I have never stopped kicking myself. I should have sold my car. Normally I'm happy to sell stuff as I really hate hoarding but this was a system and games I absolutely loved. I'm expecting something in the mail today that's gonna ease that pain a bit though
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
d0s posted:I used to be a MSX2 guy but I had to sell my entire setup at one point when I lost my job. I kept my nearly complete collection of Compile Disc Stations but I lost: Wow, that's a bummer. How far did you get in MSX Castlevania? Never played it, but from what I hear it's absolutely brutal. Maze of Galious is an awesome game too--I play it on my homebrewed Wii, often in MSX mode.My host family in Japan had an MSX2 but I didn't get to play with it much. Really liked it though. MSX was one of those weird computers that straddled the line between computer and console, but it had some really good games for it. MSX would have been a really great computer to have during the days of the NES. That said, I don't know whether I would have really liked the MSX as much if I grew up in Japan in the 80s. I've always been more of an RPG/sim/strategy guy, and the MSX always seemed like it was a little light on those sorts of titles. I've been really getting into the PC-98 games, especially Koei's re-releases of them on CD. (though seriously, slow DRM on a bundled PC-98 emulator? C'mon!) I had a real PC-98 at one point but sold it when I moved, and really regret it. Why I kept the PC-88 instead I'll never know. I think part of it was that Ishin no Arashi was the most complete game I had and didn't want to part with it. Also it was an early-model PC-98 so the games I really wanted to play ran like garbage. It kind of sucks the way the Japanese PC game industry has moved--in the 80s and 90s you had so much to choose from--MSX, PC-88/98, Sharp X68000, and so forth, then in the late 90s the market just sort of implodes and now there's nothing but crappy porn games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
I nearly beat Castlevania but it's a total pain in the rear end in later stages. I'm almost purely an action gamer who likes a handful of JRPGs as well so yeah the MSX2 was the system for me. PC-98 was THE system for the type of games you're into though (and all kinds of other games), jesus what a fantastic library that thing had.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
d0s posted:I nearly beat Castlevania but it's a total pain in the rear end in later stages. I'm almost purely an action gamer who likes a handful of JRPGs as well so yeah the MSX2 was the system for me. PC-98 was THE system for the type of games you're into though (and all kinds of other games), jesus what a fantastic library that thing had. I've always found the success of the PC-98 really ironic considering how old the thing was. It came out in freaking 1982, just a year after the PC-88, and lasted nearly two decades! I don't think there's a computer platform in history outside of business mainframes that's lasted that long. Granted, a huge amount of that is that it ran 8086 processors out the gate which allowed it to be upgraded to 286/386/486 and so forth but that's still a giant lifespan for a platform. My pet theory is that the bottom fell out on the Japanese PC games industry because the PC-98 was so prevalent. After dominating the market for 20 years, it's the only thing people knew how to program for, and like is so common in Japanese companies, the culture/skillset ossified so when it died in the face of Pentiums and Windows, all of a sudden you had no programmers. Also if you see early Windows Japanese PC games, even from the heavyweights like Koei, they're really poorly programmed. In just a couple of years you've got games that are squeezing every bit of juice they can from the aging PC-98 platform to clunky and terribly-coded Windows software with bugs and bad UIs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Speaking of the MSX, there was a Laserdisc addon for it with only a small handful of games. One of them was a port of Astron Belt and there was also Starfighters, which has an impressive amount of CGI stuff but the actual gameplay is really bland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRnHc2h3baU
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
That's really disappointing. I was hoping it would be a Star Raider's/Star Trek esque game with a tactical map and first person combat. I've always been a sucker for epic space war games that put as much focus on your ship as the world around. Nothing really scratched that itch until the Star Trek games started getting really good and blew my mind by the time Starfleet Academy hit PC. The only thing I ever wanted an Atari ST for was Sundog. al-azad fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Wow that Roland MT-32 stuff sounds great. How faithful is the emulated version (MUNT) to the original? Curious if it's worth trying to get the patched dosbox version working with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:Wow that Roland MT-32 stuff sounds great. How faithful is the emulated version (MUNT) to the original? Curious if it's worth trying to get the patched dosbox version working with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:Wow that Roland MT-32 stuff sounds great. How faithful is the emulated version (MUNT) to the original? Curious if it's worth trying to get the patched dosbox version working with it. If you can't get a real Roland MT-32, absolutely. MT-32s were so much better than Soundblasters for music and just about everything that uses them sounds great, even emulated. Even if it's not perfect it's still worth it. When I got Wing Commander and Darklands from GOG I switched them both over and it's such an improvement. Best way to get Roland MT-32 emulation working is with the SVM-Daum version of DosBox in my experience, since it's built right in. (with a lot of other nifty bells and whistles that stock DosBox lacks) Configure your game to run with MT-32, switch your Midi option in DosBox to MT-32, and you're good to go. No major effort needed at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Both C64 and the Apple II had that awesome Conan game that was like Prince of Persia but before Prince of Persia and with much smaller characters so they both own.  Genpei Turtle posted:
I totally agree with this. It's especially true in the mid to late nineties. Like 99% of the stuff released for Windows in Japan at that time was "remake of a PC98 game but somehow with worse music and worse interface." And all the control limitations that would entail. You also see it in the quality stuff that does come out of Japan today. Like the Etrian Odyssey games on the DS/3DS have universally praised soundtracks for DS games. They were composed and arranged on a PC98 sound driver Yuzo Koshiro did in like 1989. The throwback stuff is always great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Both C64 and the Apple II had that awesome Conan game that was like Prince of Persia but before Prince of Persia and with much smaller characters so they both own. Speaking of this, the Conan game was made by Datasoft, which made some stellar games for 8-bit computers. Not only Conan, but the Goonies, Bruce Lee, and the amazing Alternate Reality series. 221B Baker Street too, which I never played but I heard was a really good game. quote:I totally agree with this. It's especially true in the mid to late nineties. Like 99% of the stuff released for Windows in Japan at that time was "remake of a PC98 game but somehow with worse music and worse interface." And all the control limitations that would entail. You also see it in the quality stuff that does come out of Japan today. Like the Etrian Odyssey games on the DS/3DS have universally praised soundtracks for DS games. They were composed and arranged on a PC98 sound driver Yuzo Koshiro did in like 1989. The throwback stuff is always great. A lot of it was really poor ports of PS1 stuff as well. Like Even Koei and their Rekoeition games, which used to be have their definitive versions on the PC-98, suddenly had weird PS1 ports. (Ishin no Arashi 2 was a little different though I think--I think it might have been made for Windows first, though it was still poorly coded) Yuzo Koshiro might not be the best example though as he really incorporates the hardware into his music when he writes it, as in how it will sound. Even though Ys' soundtrack has been reproduced on a bazillion platforms, he still holds that the original on the PC-88 is the definitive version and the others "don't sound right."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Both C64 and the Apple II had that awesome Conan game that was like Prince of Persia but before Prince of Persia and with much smaller characters so they both own. I have this vague recollection of playing the Conan game on the Apple II and if you popped the disc drive open when it went to load one of the levels it would make that familiar drive grinding noise. You then closed the drive door and it would finish loading the next level but the exit would be open straight away as the graphics for it being blocked didn't load properly. Why do I remember this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I just personally can't stand the way PC x8 games look. That odd rear end dithered graphics thing they use just looks so bad most of the time. But yeah. Rolands kick rear end if you can afford it. This is still the video that explains it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a324ykKV-7Y Lazy Game Reviews owns. There is a reason I have it as one of my resources. His Spectrum overview video is a good one to see why getting a UK micro for a NA gamer is probably a bad idea. Or at least a lot of trouble for very little game. (Sorry y'all but it's C64 and Tandy 1000 as the best overall 80s retro computer to game on if you like all sorts of games. Say what you want but deep down? YOU KNOW ITS TRUE. Watch some Gaming History Source or 8 bit Battles videos.) Course if you want to play Amiga or ST you kind of have to. Or do a bit of machine tinkering. And then pray at the altar of 3.5 disks and drives which seem to only be relied on to die horribly for no visible reason... This of course happens to PCs too but there are plenty of places to get the games even if the floppies die but you still have your manuals. Because try playing Gunship without the docs and overlays. Or F19. Or Ultima. 1-5. It won't be pleasant. I still say it was intentional extra copy protection. Just one that gave us more lovely Denis Loubet artwork in Origin games. But instead of fighting with Genpei (and me being too lazy to make a GBS thread where we can system warrior for shits and giggles) I want to know if you have played Origin's Omega which is like a tank AI game. I always wanted to play it but never did. (Nor got Carnage Heart on the Ps1 which could practically be a spiritual sequel.) It seems like such a nifty game and one that could maybe get my brain to finally click with programming code something it seems reluctant to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
I never knew the Roland sounded so good I think I need one Hell it even works with dosbox if you have a real one that's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:I just personally can't stand the way PC x8 games look. That odd rear end dithered graphics thing they use just looks so bad most of the time. C'mon dude! Don't be so hung up on graphics. You're missing out on a lot of great classic games that way!  The dithering in PC-98 games is much more noticeable when you look at it in emulation. On the actual monitors they used to ship them with, the bleed made a world's worth of difference. A lot of old systems look funny like that since they were explicitly coded for specific types of displays. In the PC-98's case, games only had 16 colors until the very end of the computer's life cycle but the wizardry they did with dithering made it seem like much more. Take a look at games like Genpei Kassen or Sangokushi Eiketsuden on an actual PC-98 monitor and they look [i]amazing.[/] quote:But instead of fighting with Genpei (and me being too lazy to make a GBS thread where we can system warrior for shits and giggles) I want to know if you have played Origin's Omega which is like a tank AI game. I always wanted to play it but never did. I think you mean Ogre, and if so, I had it! It was a very interesting game, though frankly the SSI war games were better. It was interesting because of the way it was set up--one side had this one enormous juggernaut while the other had an array of defenders. It felt like a "defend against Godzilla" type of game only Godzilla is a tank. It was more of a board game though. Worth trying if you can find it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
yeah, roland sound is fantastic. MUNT seems like a viable option, but it needs the ROM files from Roland MT-32 hardware, or Roland ISA cards. Luckily I have 2 Roland eeproms from a dead MT-32 system. Next step is to use a commerical eeprom programmer or wire up an arduino as a eeprom programmer to extract them out. For people interested in the whole Roland Sound retrogaming/midi music experience here's some decent links http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NUQpAZeAdo -3.5 hr ultimate roland sound tutorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Nightmare -very detailed Roland Sound system info http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgYfsLv8J90 -Nova 9 opening with Roland MT-32 hardware.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:Course if you want to play Amiga or ST you kind of have to. Or do a bit of machine tinkering. And then pray at the altar of 3.5 disks and drives which seem to only be relied on to die horribly for no visible reason... I have a couple of Amigas in my shed and a monitor (1081? 1084S? No idea which off the top of my head) that haven't been powered up in decades. I have this horrible feeling that my A2000 has had a catastrophic battery leak, as they seem to all do that over time. I really want to fire it up, though, as it has a 520MB SCSI HDD on it and it will be like opening a time capsule to see what I had put on there from the early 90s. Loads of grainy porn grabbed from BBSes no doubt. And probably about 500 3.5" floppy disks and a bunch of original C64 games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 00:02
|
|