This is actually a close one. I love the Amiga soundtrack for this, has a whole medieval/Jethro Tull vibe going for it and whilst it does have some very intense tunes on some levels it doesn't have what I would necessarily call a "spooky" score. The Atari ST, whilst I don't think the music or quality is better, has more of a "spooky" feel to it. Plus its also the first version of this game I ever played (I bought the Amiga version as a direct result of having played the ST version at a friend's house).
On an overall technical level, the Amiga version is obviously head and shoulders above the ST version (I think we're past the playground platform wars with bad excuses at this point), but Tim Follin did a phenomenal job on both versions with two very different soundtracks playing to the strengths of each audio chipset. The ST chiptune soundtrack is basically an adaptation of Follin's own C64 themes and sounds great (well-done arpeggio always makes me weak at the knees), while the Amiga is given a sample-based ambient soundtrack that makes it feel less arcade and more horror. ST game audio was always at its best when composers leaned full-on into chiptune territory instead of blandly adapting Amiga soundtracks.
The Amiga has so much more visual candy in it. That really adds to the game. The brighter graphic on the ST do look better, the Amiga graphics are softer. I notice this a lot in these reviews. The ST graphics look more like what you would see on a arcade machine, being brighter and crisper and more contrast. This is probable a limitation for the ST but I seem to enjoy that look more. This game does go to the Amiga with all the extra items.
@John Chase interesting point... I tend to feel the opposite, looking at emulated Arcade games it seems to me they tended to have more muted colours than most of the home ports.
Actually, ST just has smaller color palette. It would be easy to have the same colors on Amiga. Simpler graphics on the ST are caused by CPU rendering optimizations as it lacks graphics hardware.
@@noop9k I stopped using my Atari ST in my junior year in college because I took a class in compiler design that required all programs to be written on a PC. After I switched, Atari came out with a blitter chip for the ST. I've never seen what this chip can do but I'm sure it was an improvement on the ST's graphics.
Both versions are massive inferior to the Megadrive version. Jesus, the Amiga fanboys are always banging on about how good their machine was but 90% of the time the 16 bit consoles piss all over it. As for the ST, well, listen to that music.
Of course, the mega drive and the super nintendo had a more superior hardware. But the amiga was released in 1985 - three/four years prior to the 16-bit consoles in japan! That's why the commodore computer was one of a kind.
@@r.m.renfield4541 I agree. The MD version is much better. It's not far from arcade version. let's not forget that SEGA themselves ported the game on the platform though. They poured a lot of resources into it.
It's incredible how much better Amiga sounds compared to ST... What were those guys in Atari smoking when they thought that the soundchip in ST was adequate?
The Amiga seems to be a direct conversion from the ST: no smooth scrolling, and no special efforts to use the 32 colours. The Fat Agnus is at rest. Only different music was created.
For me the music is just so much better and suited to the game on the ST. Sometimes chip tune music on the ST can be really good when done well, when it is written for it. The one clear advantage is that it is much crisper - I had my STE plugged directly into a stereo amplifier (STE had built-in RCA jacks!) - made many ST soundtracks sound pretty decent, but this game had excellent music all the way through.
Scrolling is where the Amiga superiority really kicks in. The Atari ST had issues with smooth bitmap scrolling whereas the Amiga had chips specifically designed for it. To compensate the Atari ST scrolling usually goes in chunks of pixels and a lot of the time parallax techniques or background effects are left out as shown here.
ST pretty good for a Stock machine with no extra hardware. Like an Apple IIe version compared to a C64 Game. Now an STE version would be really nice to see. Too few developers used that hardware and it was available at the same time as the Amiga 500.
@@noop9k Exactly. Every game from 1985 - 1994 on the Amiga should have been the best version and or arcade perfect. They didn't even need a 1200, just use the power of the 500 alone or the 1000.
Into The Vertical Blank I’m not an Amiga fanboy. While capable, its hardware was quite old. Some demos could be impressive, but this hardware isn’t THAT good unless you design a game specifically around it. Amiga games didn’t even have support for gamepads with more than 1 button. How can you make proper ports with that?
@@noop9k Right away, Commodore and Atari both should have marketed 2 button controllers for their systems. Based on the Amiga Spec though, you would think that they would have been able to really push the hardware by this time, unfortunately, the UK game houses were built on cheap games, and they just didn't put the time (until later) into making the best ports possible.
The base Atari ST has no 2d acceleration whatsoever, everything is done by CPU, which is somewhat faster vs Amiga 500 BTW. To help with horizontal scrolling many games use preshifted graphics. This method trades memory for performance and as result you have less graphics variety. Also optimizations may be present that avoid redrawing the black areas. With more RAM ST could do better, and also later STE models had blitter hardware, better color and audio, supported better gamepads, but most developers ignored that and just abandoned the platform.
@@noop9k Indeed, the lack of blitter is obvious in most ST games. It really made the difference for Amiga. It's too bad that STE blitter never really took off.
At that moment, ST blitter alone still wouldn’t make the difference. ST 2D games would run much faster but still worse than on Amiga that also has sprite engine, copper, extra bitplane etc. This won’t stop people from replacing ST with only slightly more expensive A500/A600. The extra hardware in STE makes it very competitive with Amiga (if fully utilized), but doesn’t make it equal or better. Not enough to persuade people to stay with ST, not enough to persuade lazy devs to invest their time. Falcon, on the other hand, is great, but late. Blitter would make the difference if available as a free upgrade before 1987 and heavily marketed to both devs and consumers.
@@noop9k Falcon 030 was indeed a great machine, if only it was released sooner. I also wish it was cheaper in eBay so I could get one, but too rare hence very expensive.
The bad news: Amiga version graphics was actually redone at 32 colors but not that good, i remember having a pirated version i did stumbled in the iff of the map and opened it in deluxe paint - guess time constraints acted against Software Creations
Just realized that stages 3 to 5 are identical to ST; this make me understand how Software Creations did its workflow: they did ST version first then ported it to Amiga and started improve things as much as possible before time runs out. At the end i think even Follin ran out of time because stage 5 music on Amiga is the same as stage 1. Darn U.S. Gold!
Pretty sure that's one of those games that was developed for the Atari ST, and then they did a quick upgrade for the Amiga. You can tell by the choppy scrolling, the Amiga can easily do hardware scrolling and the ST cannot, and here they just copied/pasted the ST code, which makes sense because they share the same CPU.
The music on the amiga is more soft and highest quality from a technical point of view, there is no doubt. However I prefer the sharp music of the ST. This game is a master piece!
The ST sounds a lot more "crip" - it's simple square waves if I am not mistaken. Can you imagine a machine that would mix both types of synthesis. The 4 pcm channels of the Amiga and the YM sound of the ST. That would even be better!
Back in the day I bypassed the NES, SNES and Genesis, for I owned an Amiga; however, several ports created by US Gold did not display Amiga hardware very well. The Genesis and Super Grafx versions of this game are significantly better. I owned and played the Amiga version back in the day, but wish many titles were not mostly ST ports with little to no Blitter or Copper usage. This game could have been just as good as the Genesis version if developed ground up.
I was suprised how much more background detail the amiga version had.also at the bit where it normally rains in the arcade version some of the trees faces are the opersite way around to the atari version. I always thought it was a direct st port but actually a few extra bits. Don't get me wrong the amiga version should of been better and maybe added use of the 1meg , 2 button joystick would of made big difference too but for us gold published game it wasn't half bad l
This comparation bring me the assurance that the game was firstly programmed specifically to tha Atari ST an after this they made some little adjusts for an adaptation to the Amiga plataform. So this game dont take advantage of the inumerous and exclusive features of Amiga standard like more simmultaneous colors, HW sprites and scrolling, blitter and cooper, etc. This leveling down was also quite usual in the 8 bits scene where also it was usual the development of a common and basic programming module, aiming the simplest of the machines(Spectrum) wich could then be easily ported to other (and advanced HW) plataforms (CPC, MSX, etc)...
The ST didn't have a graphics co-processor (at first). So it lacked sprites, hardware scrolling, and a blitter chip. They were added later to the ST. Even after the ST was upgraded, I don't remember if companies put out games that used the blitter chip of the ST or not.
Genesis and SNES versions piss on them both. Having watched a few of these Atari vs Amiga videos now, I find it crazy that at time many people actually thought the Atari and Amiga were better gaming machines than the likes of Genesis and SNES. It's not even close, at least based on the comparison videos I've seen. Pick almost any game that's on both the PCs and consoles and the consoles win 99% of the time from what I can tell. Strange.
The only games the ST does better are ST to Amiga ports that don't take advantage of the Amiga's custom chips, and just rely on CPU speed, where the ST is faster than the Stock Amiga 500 CPU. I don't think this game is that example because there was background and game features visibly missing in the ST side.
Cisco Heat says hi....one of the few games that properly supported STe hardware and it outperforms the Amiga as a consequence- the programmer got into trouble from publisher for not ensuring the Amiga had the superior version.
Personally, I don't like low rate digitized samples from Amiga. It sounds like something is not right. Although, the music is richer but the quality bothers me a lot. I like cleaner sound from Atari and C64 which produce more arcade like effects in this example. And don't take wrong, back in the days I was amazed by Amiga audio capabilities but this faded away over those last 30 years.
Well, it's U.S. Gold - so there was no hope of either version doing justice to the arcade original. And really, trying to fit the game into 512K was a non-starter. To be fair, this game is not the worst of the U.S. Gold arcade ports - and it's very possible to have fun with it. It's not terrible. Having said that, the scrolling is not great on either version. At least the Atari ST has an excuse but the Amiga version doesn't. Then the graphics are lacklustre and very disappointing. However, the music on the Amiga version is outstanding. It belongs in a much better game. The ST music sounds okay too, all things considered.
It was never going to be an impressive spectacle. Frustrating since both the ST and Amiga got a decent port of Ghosts 'n Goblins. Classic case of US Gold taking over from Elite as publisher. At least Tim Follin had fun.
c'monn it looks the same on atari and commodore; the differences are very slight; with the sound I go for Atari ST - it is more open and natural sounding
inphanta Not the awful cat music sid meeeooowwwwwww. Wow the blocky door 64 has blocks than minecraft lol 😂. Sampled music on st dear boy & c64 go bye bye.
They could have done a much better Job of these ports. Such laziness. How hard would it be to make Arthur go through the guillotines like every other version, instead of in front of them 2:20 .
I have always wondered why many home conversions of this era did either sound effects or music but not both. To me it seems like lazy programming (lazy enough that the characters in both version don't pass through the guillotines but in front) and/or the tight deadlines the publishers put on the software team. I love Tim Follin's score but wished it had the SFX too.
@@simonebernacchia Also, complete lack of documentation was fairly prevelent, and it being in near incomprehensible technical japanese when they were. Games were often converted "by sight" by playing, or from a recording of a complete playthrough if the actual arcade cabinet wasn't available. It was rare indeed that even any reverse engineering on the cabinet to get original code could happen. They're more "loose adapations" than actual ports, in the technical sense.
On Amiga, there are 2 audio channels on the left and 2 on the right. This is not much especially if you have stereo system and don’t want effects to come only from one side. Sure, you could compose the music for 3 voices and use remaining 1 for sfx but again, the audio would only be coming from one side.
These "Let's compare the Amiga to the ST with this or that game" is really a waste of time. The Amiga was designed to be a graphics powerhouse. The ST was designed to be an inexpensive but powerful computer. The only time the ST can win one of these game comparisons is when the programmer of the Amiga version does a bad job of programming and the ST programmer does a good job. Yes, it is nice to see that the ST was a decent computer that could play some nice games. The difference is that it took ALL the processing power of the ST to play a game where the Amiga could use it's custom chips to relieve a lot of the work of the CPU. If you want to see a comparison where the ST shines, write a program that does lots of mathematical calculations. Write it 68000 assembler and use the same source code as a base for the Amiga (the I/O for both machines will be different). The Atari will win hands down.
Amiga version should look IDENTICAL to the Sega version, but it looks like something produced by talentless Dpaint users and C coders. Does it really matter if the ST version was any worse?
Nope, sega gfx hardware is superior at dual plane scrolling effects and easier to use. Also there’s less fighting for RAM bandwidth between gfx hw, audio and main cpu. Also, sega has extra Z80 CPU.
@@noop9k Amiga has a blitter which is as fast as a 70-75mhz 68000 so the problem is conversions by companies who treated Amiga owners as scum. By the time this came out most people had 512k CPU and 512k custom chip RAM and there is zero bottleneck and the parallax can be done by the blitter as the memory bus is 14mhz, this is why the first level of Shadow of the Beast will always look best on Amiga. There is already an STE Atari WIP that looks more like the Megadrive etc console release than Amiga and the Amiga is more powerful. The problem is crap game engine design with terrible use of blitter, which is more powerful than any sprites of 16bit consoles, any idiot can write arcad games with simple powerful sprite hardware. Same as Sega Saturn the Amiga needs an expert machine code programmer just like Sega Rally 1 needed just look how bad Daytona looked. Difference is Sega didn't treat customers like scum and always put in the effort. Compare Sega Megadrive in house OUTRUN vs British coded Turbo OUTRUN and you get the idea. Syper Hang On isn't much better on Megadrive than Amiga and the Amiga was a port of the crap Atari machine code, just look at 60fps of Lotus II on Amiga.
madcommodore Sorry, your 70Mhz 68000 argument is silly. Based on somebody’s convoluted cherry-picked example. A person even slighly familiar with programming on these systems wouldn’t use this argument. I could just easily say that blitter equals 0Hz 68000, has zero performance if your task is to perform math calculations. In reality the main bottleneck is Chip RAM memory bandwidth, shared between Amiga CPU and all its custom hardware. Can blitter convert chunked to planar graphics for example, to enable Doom-like shooters? No, you either use the CPU or ASIC only added in CD32. Etc. Etc.
@@noop9k That is not my opinion it is FACT FROM BYTE magazine in their Amiga tests based on chipset bandwidth and blitter schematics to explain to their readers the performance over Mac and ST. I know more than anyone about the true potential of the blitter and how shit most games are programmed for the machine thanks.
two of the worse porting of this game... i have buyed (at the time) the original for my Amiga... a shame... console porting like genesis and pc engine supergrafx are good porting...
LOL, such a lazyport for the poor Amiga. It should have been so much better, challenging to the arcade version and X68000 even. There is a thread on EAB forums about converting arcade CPS1 version to Amiga but I am banned and can't find the link now. But many knowledgeable people are doing the calculations and it is possible. Even Atari ST can do a bit better than thhis original video, so Amiga can be 5 x as good. Parallex background scrolling, bigger sprites, more frames in sprite animation, silky smooth 60fps. Only when this port is done will the Amiga have a true port of Ghouls n Ghosts, until then please forget this ST lazyport shit. In my mind the Amiga has no Ghouls n Ghosts port until that day
I happen to also read the EAB forums and what you're claiming here is a rather big exaggeration of what was concluded. The conclusion was that the Amiga version could have been better, yes. But not 'equal to arcade or X68000' in any way. If you're waiting for a 60Hz Amiga version with full parallax backgrounds and arcade sized sprites you'll probably be waiting a very long time ;)
This was even a kind of poor game on the ST. Just OK. There could have at least been some sampled music. the STE was out in 1989, if they had used the as he base code, then the lazy port the the Amiga would have been 10x better than this. Still, it's a fun game on both.
It would have been *possible* back in the day, but the original developers didn't have anything like the resources of your average nerd with a quad core computer and an internet connection back in '88
Yeah, they're both f'ng horrible! I should track down and take former US Gold employees to court for robbery! They robbed me (a child at the time) of good arcade ports for years! Who robs a child?
Both are rubbish. LOL, was this the best Europe could do? All these games seem to be missing either sound FX or music. Lame. Give me a Sharp X68000 or FM Towns over these two garbage computers any day of the week!
Compare the price. Maybe this will give you a little hint. Also, the europeans provably didn’t have access to the original data and src code and couldn’t read japanese.
@@noop9k they could if they asked. Capcom has all the sources from their games, they have a source code repository Service. Any programmer commissionned to port a CPS1 game would go there and ask for a copy of the game in question.
@@dlfrsilver There are stories where European devs were given nothing by the publisher and had to videotape an arcade cabinet. Or the docs spent so much time in translation that the game was done by then.
![[TAS] Arcade Ghouls 'n Ghosts by Xipo in 13:18.18](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k_4JozDQH-g/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TAS] Arcade Ghouls 'n Ghosts by Xipo in 13:18.18](/img/tr.png)
Although I enjoy the YM sound, holy crap that Tim Follin's amiga intro song is magic!
You should hear it all to the end, is incredible!
@@simonebernacchia and go for the c64 version of it
C64 version is Tim Follin`s masterpiece : ua-cam.com/video/asvkbWgn9vo/v-deo.html
the amiga music was some of the best music EVER in anything.
True. It never fails to amaze me how many tone deaf people don’t agree with that fact.
Gameplay mostly similar but the Amigas music/sound effects simply wipes the floor with the Atari st hands down.
This is actually a close one. I love the Amiga soundtrack for this, has a whole medieval/Jethro Tull vibe going for it and whilst it does have some very intense tunes on some levels it doesn't have what I would necessarily call a "spooky" score. The Atari ST, whilst I don't think the music or quality is better, has more of a "spooky" feel to it. Plus its also the first version of this game I ever played (I bought the Amiga version as a direct result of having played the ST version at a friend's house).
Nice video!
On an overall technical level, the Amiga version is obviously head and shoulders above the ST version (I think we're past the playground platform wars with bad excuses at this point), but Tim Follin did a phenomenal job on both versions with two very different soundtracks playing to the strengths of each audio chipset. The ST chiptune soundtrack is basically an adaptation of Follin's own C64 themes and sounds great (well-done arpeggio always makes me weak at the knees), while the Amiga is given a sample-based ambient soundtrack that makes it feel less arcade and more horror.
ST game audio was always at its best when composers leaned full-on into chiptune territory instead of blandly adapting Amiga soundtracks.
The Amiga has so much more visual candy in it. That really adds to the game. The brighter graphic on the ST do look better, the Amiga graphics are softer. I notice this a lot in these reviews. The ST graphics look more like what you would see on a arcade machine, being brighter and crisper and more contrast. This is probable a limitation for the ST but I seem to enjoy that look more. This game does go to the Amiga with all the extra items.
@John Chase interesting point... I tend to feel the opposite, looking at emulated Arcade games it seems to me they tended to have more muted colours than most of the home ports.
Actually, ST just has smaller color palette. It would be easy to have the same colors on Amiga.
Simpler graphics on the ST are caused by CPU rendering optimizations as it lacks graphics hardware.
@@noop9k I stopped using my Atari ST in my junior year in college because I took a class in compiler design that required all programs to be written on a PC. After I switched, Atari came out with a blitter chip for the ST. I've never seen what this chip can do but I'm sure it was an improvement on the ST's graphics.
Scrolling Amiga is superior..... C64 music amazing !!
Amiga music and graphics is superior!
Both versions are massive inferior to the Megadrive version. Jesus, the Amiga fanboys are always banging on about how good their machine was but 90% of the time the 16 bit consoles piss all over it. As for the ST, well, listen to that music.
Of course, the mega drive and the super nintendo had a more superior hardware. But the amiga was released in 1985 - three/four years prior to the 16-bit consoles in japan! That's why the commodore computer was one of a kind.
@@r.m.renfield4541 I agree. The MD version is much better. It's not far from arcade version. let's not forget that SEGA themselves ported the game on the platform though. They poured a lot of resources into it.
Agreed
@@andyawardian1868 actually Amiga hardware is not inferior to the Megadrive hardware...they're very similar. This was just a lazy port.
It's incredible how much better Amiga sounds compared to ST... What were those guys in Atari smoking when they thought that the soundchip in ST was adequate?
16:13 when the raw C64 sound starts... ♥️
J adore la musique de la version atari st
The Amiga seems to be a direct conversion from the ST: no smooth scrolling, and no special efforts to use the 32 colours. The Fat Agnus is at rest. Only different music was created.
For me the music is just so much better and suited to the game on the ST. Sometimes chip tune music on the ST can be really good when done well, when it is written for it. The one clear advantage is that it is much crisper - I had my STE plugged directly into a stereo amplifier (STE had built-in RCA jacks!) - made many ST soundtracks sound pretty decent, but this game had excellent music all the way through.
Amiga music rocks!
Scrolling is where the Amiga superiority really kicks in. The Atari ST had issues with smooth bitmap scrolling whereas the Amiga had chips specifically designed for it. To compensate the Atari ST scrolling usually goes in chunks of pixels and a lot of the time parallax techniques or background effects are left out as shown here.
And the supergraphx version vs Amiga an Atari St ? :)
ST pretty good for a Stock machine with no extra hardware. Like an Apple IIe version compared to a C64 Game. Now an STE version would be really nice to see. Too few developers used that hardware and it was available at the same time as the Amiga 500.
The same lazy devs who often didn’t even use Amiga hardware besides scrolling and music.
@@noop9k Exactly. Every game from 1985 - 1994 on the Amiga should have been the best version and or arcade perfect. They didn't even need a 1200, just use the power of the 500 alone or the 1000.
Into The Vertical Blank I’m not an Amiga fanboy. While capable, its hardware was quite old. Some demos could be impressive, but this hardware isn’t THAT good unless you design a game specifically around it.
Amiga games didn’t even have support for gamepads with more than 1 button. How can you make proper ports with that?
@@noop9k Right away, Commodore and Atari both should have marketed 2 button controllers for their systems. Based on the Amiga Spec though, you would think that they would have been able to really push the hardware by this time, unfortunately, the UK game houses were built on cheap games, and they just didn't put the time (until later) into making the best ports possible.
An STE version like this? m.ua-cam.com/video/ZWOHrtpAKlU/v-deo.html
Did they forget to add the background graphics on the ST version or something ?
it might've been Atari ST computer hardware limits and/or storage limits
The base Atari ST has no 2d acceleration whatsoever, everything is done by CPU, which is somewhat faster vs Amiga 500 BTW. To help with horizontal scrolling many games use preshifted graphics. This method trades memory for performance and as result you have less graphics variety. Also optimizations may be present that avoid redrawing the black areas. With more RAM ST could do better, and also later STE models had blitter hardware, better color and audio, supported better gamepads, but most developers ignored that and just abandoned the platform.
@@noop9k Indeed, the lack of blitter is obvious in most ST games. It really made the difference for Amiga. It's too bad that STE blitter never really took off.
At that moment, ST blitter alone still wouldn’t make the difference. ST 2D games would run much faster but still worse than on Amiga that also has sprite engine, copper, extra bitplane etc. This won’t stop people from replacing ST with only slightly more expensive A500/A600.
The extra hardware in STE makes it very competitive with Amiga (if fully utilized), but doesn’t make it equal or better. Not enough to persuade people to stay with ST, not enough to persuade lazy devs to invest their time. Falcon, on the other hand, is great, but late.
Blitter would make the difference if available as a free upgrade before 1987 and heavily marketed to both devs and consumers.
@@noop9k Falcon 030 was indeed a great machine, if only it was released sooner. I also wish it was cheaper in eBay so I could get one, but too rare hence very expensive.
What's going on with the sound? Do these games genuinely not have any sound fx?
The bad news: Amiga version graphics was actually redone at 32 colors but not that good, i remember having a pirated version i did stumbled in the iff of the map and opened it in deluxe paint - guess time constraints acted against Software Creations
Just realized that stages 3 to 5 are identical to ST; this make me understand how Software Creations did its workflow: they did ST version first then ported it to Amiga and started improve things as much as possible before time runs out. At the end i think even Follin ran out of time because stage 5 music on Amiga is the same as stage 1. Darn U.S. Gold!
ST tunes are awesome, just like the C64 versions.
Yeh, i prefer the ST music here. It's more like the awesome tunes from the great c64 game.
The Amiga tunes are too. Only the title and first level tunes are different.
What happened to the graphics, they get shrunk in the wash? FFS the Amiga one should have looked identical to the Megadrive on a portable TV
Amiga Ghouls n Ghosts was a lazy remake of the Atari ST version because of deadlines, incompetent developer, save time
Software rendering optimizations on ST lead to this simplified look.
@@noop9k yes it gives a shit rendering. Ghouls'n'Ghosts is an abomination compared to Ghosts n Goblins released on Amiga at the VERY same time.
Cool
Amiga es superior , en cpu y sonido
I wish I could go back and collect all the rare Atari computer consoles. That would cost a fortune today. Maybe if I ever hit the lottery😄
Pretty sure that's one of those games that was developed for the Atari ST, and then they did a quick upgrade for the Amiga.
You can tell by the choppy scrolling, the Amiga can easily do hardware scrolling and the ST cannot, and here they just copied/pasted the ST code, which makes sense because they share the same CPU.
The music on the amiga is more soft and highest quality from a technical point of view, there is no doubt. However I prefer the sharp music of the ST. This game is a master piece!
The ST sounds a lot more "crip" - it's simple square waves if I am not mistaken. Can you imagine a machine that would mix both types of synthesis. The 4 pcm channels of the Amiga and the YM sound of the ST. That would even be better!
Back in the day I bypassed the NES, SNES and Genesis, for I owned an Amiga; however, several ports created by US Gold did not display Amiga hardware very well. The Genesis and Super Grafx versions of this game are significantly better. I owned and played the Amiga version back in the day, but wish many titles were not mostly ST ports with little to no Blitter or Copper usage. This game could have been just as good as the Genesis version if developed ground up.
Genesis wasn’t even the best. Supergrafx port better.
Las versiones de CONSOLA FUERON MUY SUPERIORES SIN NINGUNA DUDA
Yes, the SNES had a cool sound each time a sword was thrown
I was suprised how much more background detail the amiga version had.also at the bit where it normally rains in the arcade version some of the trees faces are the opersite way around to the atari version. I always thought it was a direct st port but actually a few extra bits. Don't get me wrong the amiga version should of been better and maybe added use of the 1meg , 2 button joystick would of made big difference too but for us gold published game it wasn't half bad l
Details is added in the first two levels only: my hypothesis is they wanted to improve Amiga version but ran out of time
@@simonebernacchia5724 yeah think u right. As if the started then time ran out
US Gold???.....this can only go one way!
crap, downhill, shit
This comparation bring me the assurance that the game was firstly programmed specifically to tha Atari ST an after this they made some little adjusts for an adaptation to the Amiga plataform. So this game dont take advantage of the inumerous and exclusive features of Amiga standard like more simmultaneous colors, HW sprites and scrolling, blitter and cooper, etc. This leveling down was also quite usual in the 8 bits scene where also it was usual the development of a common and basic programming module, aiming the simplest of the machines(Spectrum) wich could then be easily ported to other (and advanced HW) plataforms (CPC, MSX, etc)...
The ST didn't have a graphics co-processor (at first). So it lacked sprites, hardware scrolling, and a blitter chip. They were added later to the ST. Even after the ST was upgraded, I don't remember if companies put out games that used the blitter chip of the ST or not.
Likely they ran out of time, in those times ports were as brutal as crunch time nowadays and with tight deadlines
The Atari uses an 61 second timer. After 2:00 it shows 1:60.
st no audio
amiga best computer ever
Genesis and SNES versions piss on them both. Having watched a few of these Atari vs Amiga videos now, I find it crazy that at time many people actually thought the Atari and Amiga were better gaming machines than the likes of Genesis and SNES. It's not even close, at least based on the comparison videos I've seen. Pick almost any game that's on both the PCs and consoles and the consoles win 99% of the time from what I can tell. Strange.
Piracy made them better.
You do not see to many comparisons like this where the ST does pretty well against the vastly superior Amiga.
The only games the ST does better are ST to Amiga ports that don't take advantage of the Amiga's custom chips, and just rely on CPU speed, where the ST is faster than the Stock Amiga 500 CPU. I don't think this game is that example because there was background and game features visibly missing in the ST side.
Allen .Berge And 3D games.
@@abergethirty It is the case. Those games are called St Shovelware.
Cisco Heat says hi....one of the few games that properly supported STe hardware and it outperforms the Amiga as a consequence- the programmer got into trouble from publisher for not ensuring the Amiga had the superior version.
@@mwaawm Cisco Heat is a shit game. Only the coin-op is cool to play.
I'm Antonio from italy, fantastic "challenge". I have this game for my AMIGA 500 classic, the version AMIGA is better and great musics.
Amiga mini needed.
Personally, I don't like low rate digitized samples from Amiga. It sounds like something is not right. Although, the music is richer but the quality bothers me a lot. I like cleaner sound from Atari and C64 which produce more arcade like effects in this example. And don't take wrong, back in the days I was amazed by Amiga audio capabilities but this faded away over those last 30 years.
this game had audio filter on so sound even more muffled
Bad game and less bad game...Ghost n Goblins were great
Well, it's U.S. Gold - so there was no hope of either version doing justice to the arcade original. And really, trying to fit the game into 512K was a non-starter. To be fair, this game is not the worst of the U.S. Gold arcade ports - and it's very possible to have fun with it. It's not terrible.
Having said that, the scrolling is not great on either version. At least the Atari ST has an excuse but the Amiga version doesn't. Then the graphics are lacklustre and very disappointing. However, the music on the Amiga version is outstanding. It belongs in a much better game. The ST music sounds okay too, all things considered.
It was never going to be an impressive spectacle. Frustrating since both the ST and Amiga got a decent port of Ghosts 'n Goblins. Classic case of US Gold taking over from Elite as publisher. At least Tim Follin had fun.
c'monn it looks the same on atari and commodore; the differences are very slight; with the sound I go for Atari ST - it is more open and natural sounding
Why no SFX? What a shame for such a good game...
As much as I love this game and how great these ports look and sound, I just can't enjoy this game with the up = jump mechanism.
My gosh, the Atari music sounds horrific... Not even comparable with the C64.
Rafał Kleta that’s because the ST’s YM chip was significantly inferior to the C64’s SID in every way.
inphanta Not the awful cat music sid meeeooowwwwwww. Wow the blocky door 64 has blocks than minecraft lol 😂. Sampled music on st dear boy & c64 go bye bye.
Seriously? The Atari ST music sounds great here.
They could have done a much better Job of these ports. Such laziness. How hard would it be to make Arthur go through the guillotines like every other version, instead of in front of them 2:20 .
I have always wondered why many home conversions of this era did either sound effects or music but not both. To me it seems like lazy programming (lazy enough that the characters in both version don't pass through the guillotines but in front) and/or the tight deadlines the publishers put on the software team. I love Tim Follin's score but wished it had the SFX too.
Tight deadlines indeed
@@simonebernacchia Also, complete lack of documentation was fairly prevelent, and it being in near incomprehensible technical japanese when they were.
Games were often converted "by sight" by playing, or from a recording of a complete playthrough if the actual arcade cabinet wasn't available.
It was rare indeed that even any reverse engineering on the cabinet to get original code could happen.
They're more "loose adapations" than actual ports, in the technical sense.
On Amiga, there are 2 audio channels on the left and 2 on the right. This is not much especially if you have stereo system and don’t want effects to come only from one side.
Sure, you could compose the music for 3 voices and use remaining 1 for sfx but again, the audio would only be coming from one side.
@@noop9k not a bad thing; a partial mix can be done too when the effect play in the music 'blanks' with custom routines
No telling why they screwed this game up...........................
The Amiga Version is the better one.
These "Let's compare the Amiga to the ST with this or that game" is really a waste of time. The Amiga was designed to be a graphics powerhouse. The ST was designed to be an inexpensive but powerful computer. The only time the ST can win one of these game comparisons is when the programmer of the Amiga version does a bad job of programming and the ST programmer does a good job. Yes, it is nice to see that the ST was a decent computer that could play some nice games. The difference is that it took ALL the processing power of the ST to play a game where the Amiga could use it's custom chips to relieve a lot of the work of the CPU. If you want to see a comparison where the ST shines, write a program that does lots of mathematical calculations. Write it 68000 assembler and use the same source code as a base for the Amiga (the I/O for both machines will be different). The Atari will win hands down.
Yeah, ST killed by those crappy arcade ports.
not even. Just look at dread. The Amiga version has a higher framerate on the 3D, while having the CPU 10% slower.
Amiga version should look IDENTICAL to the Sega version, but it looks like something produced by talentless Dpaint users and C coders. Does it really matter if the ST version was any worse?
Nope, sega gfx hardware is superior at dual plane scrolling effects and easier to use. Also there’s less fighting for RAM bandwidth between gfx hw, audio and main cpu. Also, sega has extra Z80 CPU.
@@noop9k Amiga has a blitter which is as fast as a 70-75mhz 68000 so the problem is conversions by companies who treated Amiga owners as scum. By the time this came out most people had 512k CPU and 512k custom chip RAM and there is zero bottleneck and the parallax can be done by the blitter as the memory bus is 14mhz, this is why the first level of Shadow of the Beast will always look best on Amiga. There is already an STE Atari WIP that looks more like the Megadrive etc console release than Amiga and the Amiga is more powerful. The problem is crap game engine design with terrible use of blitter, which is more powerful than any sprites of 16bit consoles, any idiot can write arcad games with simple powerful sprite hardware. Same as Sega Saturn the Amiga needs an expert machine code programmer just like Sega Rally 1 needed just look how bad Daytona looked. Difference is Sega didn't treat customers like scum and always put in the effort. Compare Sega Megadrive in house OUTRUN vs British coded Turbo OUTRUN and you get the idea. Syper Hang On isn't much better on Megadrive than Amiga and the Amiga was a port of the crap Atari machine code, just look at 60fps of Lotus II on Amiga.
madcommodore Sorry, your 70Mhz 68000 argument is silly. Based on somebody’s convoluted cherry-picked example. A person even slighly familiar with programming on these systems wouldn’t use this argument. I could just easily say that blitter equals 0Hz 68000, has zero performance if your task is to perform math calculations. In reality the main bottleneck is Chip RAM memory bandwidth, shared between Amiga CPU and all its custom hardware. Can blitter convert chunked to planar graphics for example, to enable Doom-like shooters? No, you either use the CPU or ASIC only added in CD32. Etc. Etc.
@@noop9k That is not my opinion it is FACT FROM BYTE magazine in their Amiga tests based on chipset bandwidth and blitter schematics to explain to their readers the performance over Mac and ST. I know more than anyone about the true potential of the blitter and how shit most games are programmed for the machine thanks.
@@madcommodore You are retelling marketing bullshit then
You really sound like a fanboy, not a programmer
Amiga version is lazy port of the Amiga complete with laggy controls. Atari st definitely wins.
ahahahah puts down the flask
St played better, amiga looked better
Atari st all the way!👍
not as good as they should have been-us gold were shit!could of and should of been so much better-amiga music is great though
two of the worse porting of this game... i have buyed (at the time) the original for my Amiga... a shame... console porting like genesis and pc engine supergrafx are good porting...
LOL, such a lazyport for the poor Amiga. It should have been so much better, challenging to the arcade version and X68000 even.
There is a thread on EAB forums about converting arcade CPS1 version to Amiga but I am banned and can't find the link now. But many knowledgeable people are doing the calculations and it is possible. Even Atari ST can do a bit better than thhis original video, so Amiga can be 5 x as good. Parallex background scrolling, bigger sprites, more frames in sprite animation, silky smooth 60fps. Only when this port is done will the Amiga have a true port of Ghouls n Ghosts, until then please forget this ST lazyport shit. In my mind the Amiga has no Ghouls n Ghosts port until that day
I happen to also read the EAB forums and what you're claiming here is a rather big exaggeration of what was concluded. The conclusion was that the Amiga version could have been better, yes. But not 'equal to arcade or X68000' in any way.
If you're waiting for a 60Hz Amiga version with full parallax backgrounds and arcade sized sprites you'll probably be waiting a very long time ;)
This was even a kind of poor game on the ST. Just OK. There could have at least been some sampled music. the STE was out in 1989, if they had used the as he base code, then the lazy port the the Amiga would have been 10x better than this. Still, it's a fun game on both.
It would have been *possible* back in the day, but the original developers didn't have anything like the resources of your average nerd with a quad core computer and an internet connection back in '88
Amiga fanboys..
@@noop9k they are completely dilutional. I wouldn't rate an Amiga over a Pc engine for arcade games , let alone a x68000
Partendo dal fatto che fanno schifo entrambi,quello dell'amiga fa un po meno schifo...
Yeah, they're both f'ng horrible! I should track down and take former US Gold employees to court for robbery! They robbed me (a child at the time) of good arcade ports for years! Who robs a child?
You got that right. I can't think of one U.S. Gold game that was even halfway decent.
Both versions are crap. They are closer to 8 bits than 16 bits
Terrible both versions. Even in Master System was better.
Actually both seem very bad ports of the original :/
Atari ST sound >>> Amiga
Judson Júnior no.
The ST sound is quite abominable.
Both are rubbish. LOL, was this the best Europe could do? All these games seem to be missing either sound FX or music. Lame. Give me a Sharp X68000 or FM Towns over these two garbage computers any day of the week!
Non of these are from Europe
Compare the price. Maybe this will give you a little hint. Also, the europeans provably didn’t have access to the original data and src code and couldn’t read japanese.
The music on the Amiga version beats both hands down.
@@noop9k they could if they asked. Capcom has all the sources from their games, they have a source code repository Service. Any programmer commissionned to port a CPS1 game would go there and ask for a copy of the game in question.
@@dlfrsilver There are stories where European devs were given nothing by the publisher and had to videotape an arcade cabinet. Or the docs spent so much time in translation that the game was done by then.