Love Monkey Island 2! Nice video comparisson! Just one thing, please check the Amiga Music. I know very well this version ant it seems some instruments are missing at times... ¡Cheers!
Bear in mind that this is running on an OCS Amiga from 1985. The equivalent VGA PC didn't exist in its basic form until 2 years later. Which cost basically the same as a small car. And let's not start about the sound... So yes. "VGA" wins here. But then it should. The same baseline PC that could run MI with this quality is probably a decade newer than the old Miggy. Let's compare a 1985 A1000 to a 1987 VGA relic IBM PC running the same title. I can wait.
@@matthewjames5621 a PC from 1987 for example stock IBM ps/2 model 80, could play MI and MI2 with no problem, while stock A1000 could not play non of the MI games at all. Yes the IBM ps/2 wasnt exactly a cheap computer, but the question was not the price, but if it could play the game in stock form, while A1000 could not. Not even in theory... And since MI had EGA graphics even 1985 i286 PC clone could play it... And just a little off topic correction, Amiga from 1985 was not running on OCS.
@@matthewjames5621 well, thank you for a typical Amiga fanboy presentation. Amiga fanboys do not even know their own worshiped hardware and this is the culprit of all their blind fanboy nature and blind supremacy claims. So let me please educate you, since I had Amiga from 1985, the US version made in Japan without the Commodore logo (I never should give it away), today I own a European version, made in Japan A1000 from Q1/1986. So here we go, A1000 from 1985 was not a OCS Amiga as majority of fanboys including you think, it was so called ICS, the OCS started probably around Q2/1986 maybe with German A1000 production. Trust me, I was there and owned the ICS A1000 in stock form. And that was also a reason why I gave it away, since it was stock and pretty useless to my work. And in 1992 it wasnt as easy and cheap to upgrade it as today. I opted for stock A500. The thing is that A1000 in 1985 wasnt good for anything except genlock VHS cutting. It was not good for business use and not good for games either, majority games you think of would simply not run on stock A1000. A1000 had a very restrictive hardware that was overpriced, in 1985-86 the ST was the gaming 16/32bit computer of choice alongside with PC clones. It was A500 in 1987 that changed this status for a short term, but this was already the time VGA took of... It was also very hard to get one Amiga in 1985, the launch was more of a paper launch, yes some people got it but it wasnt widely available before Q2/1986. The ICS is not very different to OCS, it is the Denise chip that has no EHB mode (the R4 and R5 chip versions) and also the OG Agnus has a Blitter bug. But that was not the big limitation, not many games use EHB anyway, it is the very low RAM on stock A1000. And that is the reason games from 1985 look like 8-bit era games, you could not do much with 256KB RAM with a computer lacking a synthesizer chip. Samples are not exactly cheap. 5 bitplanes are not cheap as well. The price of stock A1000 was same or even higher then PC clones with EGA and the PC install base was much bigger then Amiga, even Mac was more used as a gaming platform back then. So there was not much interest to program games for Amiga and majority of Atari ST games didnt get ported due to low Amiga RAM in 1985.
this is a somewhat unfortunate comparison for the Amiga, though it's also something of a testament to the platform that Lucasarts apparently felt the ECS version was good enough that they didn't bother to release an AGA version.
The Amiga version has a huge lack of music which makes the game to seem poor but it has better scrolling. Graphics on VGA are better and there is music on almost every scene. Probably the Amiga version has a little better music quality (well, on some scenes that there is music) than the Adlib/Sound blaster but the best one is the Roland which is really superb with the MT32 (or CM32L, CM64 etc.). My personal opinion? Best version is the PC with the Roland. The music is outstanding with my Roland CM64. The game has great soundtrack. 2nd place? The Macintosh version! It has the best graphics of all and better sound than the Adlib/Sound Blaster. If there was a Roland support for Mac it would be the best version of all. I am going to turn on my Mac now and admire the picture. Even the VGA graphics seem a little poor next to my Mac (both computers are on my desk side by side) Almost the same for The Secret of Monkey Island where the graphics on Mac version are better than every other format that the game exists. I wish there was a Mac cd version.
@@TheTurnipKing also, Amiga had only 4 voices, and while you can rewrite compositions for limited amount of voices, implementing iMuse in that scenario is probably a pain in the ass
Nice video. Would be nice to see Guybrush wander around Scabb. I believe there's some strange graphical changes (like the missing fish in the carpenter's shop).
Looking at the MI2 rolling demo, it seems like the Amiga art may have come from a slightly earlier build of the game. Among other things, the Woodtick art in the demo appears to have the same static water as the amiga version.
Considering this comparison it seems obvious the writing is on the wall for the amiga and ms-dos eventually surpasses it..However as a teenager playing this on an amiga500 i was just thankful for the efforts made by the developers.
That looks like creator's licence more than anything, using the opportunity of doing the Amiga conversion. The boat is in an unnecessary and ugly distraction in the frame that pulls viewer focus for no reason.
The Amiga version is great despite the weaker hardware. However, if you played this on an Amiga back in the day, it was most likely on an Amiga 500, which sucks for this game. It's extremely slow on A500, not to mention disk swapping (at least that can be fixed nowadays with a GOTEK).
Indiana Jones 4 was even worse. I traced the game faster than I played through it on my A500. On my A1200 with turbo card, on the other hand, it was a dream.
The only difference are active effects (like fire changing the gloss/shadow on characters while burning at the start) nothing else. Its completely the same.
lol nope. Some scenes look similar enough that you have to carefully look for the differences, but on some others the lack of colors is very apparent. Just look at the bridge scene with Largo, the color banding is extremely obvious there.
I am an Amiga guy but the water was moving slightly as well on the PC on all places in this video. But not much more than that. It's still a great playable game on the Amiga! :-)
I doubt it, the scripts need to be patched and they're all bundled up with the assets. And because the assets are so different, all the scripts are likely to be in very different locations, even assuming they were otherwise the same as the PC version.
@@TheTurnipKing - That's kind of a bummer, I guess that we'd need to find someone who knows Amiga programming to find the assets and figure out how to encode and insert the audio files so that the game would access and play them at the correct times...
@@TheTurnipKing - Whoa, there's ScummVM for Amiga?!? That's AWESOME dude, I'll have to look into it...I had NO idea that you could run such a sophisticated emulator on such an old computer! O_O
Yes but Mt32 could also be used by the Amiga if it was implemented. There are a few games that actually use it on the Amiga. It definitely is not fair to compare mt32 to Amiga Paula. Paula should always be compared to Adlib and Sound Blaster.
Well, the VGA version uses a palette of 256 colours, while the Amiga version uses a palette of 32 colours, so there should be some differences. But it's impressive what they managed to squeeze out of the old OCS chip. If it was released for the AGA amigas, there would no difference though.
It looks to me that only 32 colors was used on the PC version even if VGA could display up to 256 colors. Because of that I don't see much difference. If the PC took advantage of 256 colors I'd notice a striking difference. It's hardly the only VGA game using much the same 32 colors as the Amiga version. On the other hand it's clear King's Quest V on Amiga was inferior to the PC because they could only work with 32 colors and the PC version took advantage of all 256 colors. To be honest the Amiga version isn't any worse than the EGA version.
@@Miler97487 More colors on the pc, indeed. Look at the grass on the fire scene or the sky on the bridge scene. Animated fire reflection & water on pc also.
@@brugges I never owned an Amiga and I've only played the Monkey Island games recently thanks to GOG but also able to find downloads to the original to play on DOSBox and yeah, I didn't look carefully, but I shouldn't be too surprised that more than 36 colors were displayed on the PC version as it's VGA, although there were plenty of VGA games only displaying the 32 colors that the Amiga could display starting as early as Rockford the Arcade Game.
Amazing how 32 colors of the amiga looks nearly the same 256 colors vga
Because it was 32 out of 4096 colors, but 256 out of 256.
@@stefansigmund1822 nop. Vga is 256 out of 262.144. Amiga version is just a piece of art
Love Monkey Island 2! Nice video comparisson! Just one thing, please check the Amiga Music. I know very well this version ant it seems some instruments are missing at times... ¡Cheers!
Bear in mind that this is running on an OCS Amiga from 1985. The equivalent VGA PC didn't exist in its basic form until 2 years later. Which cost basically the same as a small car. And let's not start about the sound... So yes. "VGA" wins here. But then it should. The same baseline PC that could run MI with this quality is probably a decade newer than the old Miggy. Let's compare a 1985 A1000 to a 1987 VGA relic IBM PC running the same title. I can wait.
are you in a dream? Thinking that stock A1000 was capable of running MI2...
@@madigorfkgoogle9349 think of it as a right exercise. Couldn't imagine a 1987 PC playing it either. But both theoretically possible
@@matthewjames5621 a PC from 1987 for example stock IBM ps/2 model 80, could play MI and MI2 with no problem, while stock A1000 could not play non of the MI games at all. Yes the IBM ps/2 wasnt exactly a cheap computer, but the question was not the price, but if it could play the game in stock form, while A1000 could not. Not even in theory... And since MI had EGA graphics even 1985 i286 PC clone could play it...
And just a little off topic correction, Amiga from 1985 was not running on OCS.
@@madigorfkgoogle9349 1985 Amiga was OCS. Apart from business use, a pc was pathetic for gaming back then. I was there. Trust me
@@matthewjames5621 well, thank you for a typical Amiga fanboy presentation. Amiga fanboys do not even know their own worshiped hardware and this is the culprit of all their blind fanboy nature and blind supremacy claims.
So let me please educate you, since I had Amiga from 1985, the US version made in Japan without the Commodore logo (I never should give it away), today I own a European version, made in Japan A1000 from Q1/1986.
So here we go, A1000 from 1985 was not a OCS Amiga as majority of fanboys including you think, it was so called ICS, the OCS started probably around Q2/1986 maybe with German A1000 production. Trust me, I was there and owned the ICS A1000 in stock form. And that was also a reason why I gave it away, since it was stock and pretty useless to my work. And in 1992 it wasnt as easy and cheap to upgrade it as today. I opted for stock A500.
The thing is that A1000 in 1985 wasnt good for anything except genlock VHS cutting. It was not good for business use and not good for games either, majority games you think of would simply not run on stock A1000. A1000 had a very restrictive hardware that was overpriced, in 1985-86 the ST was the gaming 16/32bit computer of choice alongside with PC clones. It was A500 in 1987 that changed this status for a short term, but this was already the time VGA took of...
It was also very hard to get one Amiga in 1985, the launch was more of a paper launch, yes some people got it but it wasnt widely available before Q2/1986. The ICS is not very different to OCS, it is the Denise chip that has no EHB mode (the R4 and R5 chip versions) and also the OG Agnus has a Blitter bug. But that was not the big limitation, not many games use EHB anyway, it is the very low RAM on stock A1000. And that is the reason games from 1985 look like 8-bit era games, you could not do much with 256KB RAM with a computer lacking a synthesizer chip. Samples are not exactly cheap. 5 bitplanes are not cheap as well. The price of stock A1000 was same or even higher then PC clones with EGA and the PC install base was much bigger then Amiga, even Mac was more used as a gaming platform back then. So there was not much interest to program games for Amiga and majority of Atari ST games didnt get ported due to low Amiga RAM in 1985.
this is a somewhat unfortunate comparison for the Amiga, though it's also something of a testament to the platform that Lucasarts apparently felt the ECS version was good enough that they didn't bother to release an AGA version.
The Amiga version has a huge lack of music which makes the game to seem poor but it has better scrolling. Graphics on VGA are better and there is music on almost every scene. Probably the Amiga version has a little better music quality (well, on some scenes that there is music) than the Adlib/Sound blaster but the best one is the Roland which is really superb with the MT32 (or CM32L, CM64 etc.). My personal opinion? Best version is the PC with the Roland. The music is outstanding with my Roland CM64. The game has great soundtrack. 2nd place? The Macintosh version! It has the best graphics of all and better sound than the Adlib/Sound Blaster. If there was a Roland support for Mac it would be the best version of all. I am going to turn on my Mac now and admire the picture. Even the VGA graphics seem a little poor next to my Mac (both computers are on my desk side by side) Almost the same for The Secret of Monkey Island where the graphics on Mac version are better than every other format that the game exists. I wish there was a Mac cd version.
Huh? How are the graphics different for the Mac? I'm intrigued!
The Mac had usually a grey scales video mode at that time. How can it look better without colors?
The 880k floppy disks (vs HD 1.44MB) were likely a limiting factor. Music samples consume a lot of disk space.
@@TheTurnipKing also, Amiga had only 4 voices, and while you can rewrite compositions for limited amount of voices, implementing iMuse in that scenario is probably a pain in the ass
Nice video. Would be nice to see Guybrush wander around Scabb. I believe there's some strange graphical changes (like the missing fish in the carpenter's shop).
Looking at the MI2 rolling demo, it seems like the Amiga art may have come from a slightly earlier build of the game.
Among other things, the Woodtick art in the demo appears to have the same static water as the amiga version.
Considering this comparison it seems obvious the writing is on the wall for the amiga and ms-dos eventually surpasses it..However as a teenager playing this on an amiga500 i was just thankful for the efforts made by the developers.
The Amiga version is missing the boat in the foreground in the bridge scene. Wonder why
That looks like creator's licence more than anything, using the opportunity of doing the Amiga conversion. The boat is in an unnecessary and ugly distraction in the frame that pulls viewer focus for no reason.
No fair comparison, as it ends where the scrolling will start.
Want to see that!
The Amiga version is great despite the weaker hardware. However, if you played this on an Amiga back in the day, it was most likely on an Amiga 500, which sucks for this game. It's extremely slow on A500, not to mention disk swapping (at least that can be fixed nowadays with a GOTEK).
Indiana Jones 4 was even worse. I traced the game faster than I played through it on my A500. On my A1200 with turbo card, on the other hand, it was a dream.
@@onkelebert787turbo card doesnt matter for this game. Only fast ram does.
The only difference are active effects (like fire changing the gloss/shadow on characters while burning at the start) nothing else. Its completely the same.
lol nope. Some scenes look similar enough that you have to carefully look for the differences, but on some others the lack of colors is very apparent. Just look at the bridge scene with Largo, the color banding is extremely obvious there.
I am an Amiga guy but the water was moving slightly as well on the PC on all places in this video. But not much more than that. It's still a great playable game on the Amiga! :-)
@@SebastianKrzyszkowiak lol.nope
@@RetroGamingMusicCom Exception is Amiga 500. It's so slow in that.
Look at the sky. The sky looks on the PC much better and has more colors.
Any idea whether there's a way to convert/upgrade the Amiga version to the Ultimate Talkie Edition like you can do with the VGA DOS version?
I doubt it, the scripts need to be patched and they're all bundled up with the assets. And because the assets are so different, all the scripts are likely to be in very different locations, even assuming they were otherwise the same as the PC version.
@@TheTurnipKing - That's kind of a bummer, I guess that we'd need to find someone who knows Amiga programming to find the assets and figure out how to encode and insert the audio files so that the game would access and play them at the correct times...
@@JohnnyProctor9 path of least resistance would just to be use Amiga ScummVM and play the pc version
@@TheTurnipKing - Whoa, there's ScummVM for Amiga?!? That's AWESOME dude, I'll have to look into it...I had NO idea that you could run such a sophisticated emulator on such an old computer! O_O
In this game you can already see the superiority of the pcs of the time, I played with a 386 sx with vga and a sound blaster.
what? it stops exactly where the scrolling should start … what a waste of time
Pc+mt32 is the best platform here. I like the module based music of the amiga, but at these “midi” games are not the best.
Yes but Mt32 could also be used by the Amiga if it was implemented. There are a few games that actually use it on the Amiga. It definitely is not fair to compare mt32 to Amiga Paula. Paula should always be compared to Adlib and Sound Blaster.
@@ancalimonungol it is closer to the hw mixed gus, how it works.
Unfortunately a lazy port for the Amiga. There were Amiga adventure games that looked and performed much better.
Graphically - they're so similar. There's not much in it. I'd say the PC VGA is a little better with skin tones, but to be honest - not by much.
Well, the VGA version uses a palette of 256 colours, while the Amiga version uses a palette of 32 colours, so there should be some differences. But it's impressive what they managed to squeeze out of the old OCS chip. If it was released for the AGA amigas, there would no difference though.
It looks to me that only 32 colors was used on the PC version even if VGA could display up to 256 colors. Because of that I don't see much difference. If the PC took advantage of 256 colors I'd notice a striking difference. It's hardly the only VGA game using much the same 32 colors as the Amiga version. On the other hand it's clear King's Quest V on Amiga was inferior to the PC because they could only work with 32 colors and the PC version took advantage of all 256 colors. To be honest the Amiga version isn't any worse than the EGA version.
@@Miler97487 They used more colors for the PC. Look at the sky in the videos.
@@Miler97487 More colors on the pc, indeed. Look at the grass on the fire scene or the sky on the bridge scene. Animated fire reflection & water on pc also.
@@brugges I never owned an Amiga and I've only played the Monkey Island games recently thanks to GOG but also able to find downloads to the original to play on DOSBox and yeah, I didn't look carefully, but I shouldn't be too surprised that more than 36 colors were displayed on the PC version as it's VGA, although there were plenty of VGA games only displaying the 32 colors that the Amiga could display starting as early as Rockford the Arcade Game.