Two options:
a) Emulators
b) Using the real hardware.

Real hardware for me. I recently played Sinbad on my TurboXT and just for kicks (and save states 😂) I played it also on DosBox-X. The experience is nothing like the original hardware. The way the keyboard handled was very sluggish on DosBox whereas on real hardware it was snappy and responsive. Sinbad is one of those games that benefit from a turbo button. Changing turbo in DosBox-X is a little more involved than a button press on the PC's front panel.

And I agree with you, game ports to IBM during this period were of low quality both due to hardware limitations, but also inexplicable differences the porting team carry out during their work.. more often than not breaking the game or making it almost impossible to win.

Well real hardware if an amiga 1200 with an 060 running earlier 80s amiga titles counts , I do have a modded A500 as well , depressingly though they both don't get much use and collect dust and even worse yet the 500 is in a storage box and isn't set up , as I seem to gravitate towards 90s games on pc more since I grew up playing those. I did have a C64 a few years ago , it had some pretty fun games like Bruce Lee , Nebulus , Head over heels , The last ninja etc. But I ended up selling it off , which I kinda half regret since it was a pretty great system , but I just didn't use it that much.

It depends. I do like all platforms, though the ZX Spectrum feels like it's below CGA. ;)

I also think simulation games such as MS Flight Sim, Sim City or "graphics adventures w/ text" weren't so bad on PCs of the 80s.

Hercules and EGA adapters did feature high-res graphics better than Macintosh, roughly on eye level with an Amiga.

Some of them did use EGA in 640x200 pels (Falcon AT ?) or in full 640x350 pels (EGATrek, CD Man, Sim City, Tracon: Air Traffic Control Simulator).

MS Flight Simulator 4 from 1989 had support for 640x480 pels (VGA) and 800x600 pels (Super VGA), even.
The latter via patch (Boing cockpit and ET4000 card support).

Same goes for the tower simulators.
"RAPCON: Military Air Traffic Control Simulator" had supported full 640x480 pels VGA in 1989.

Chess games, golf games and other "business" games were a domain of PC, too.
The whole simulation thing.

Then, there were professional chess games that were very computing intensive and thus required an 16-Bit proccessors to be a challenge to the player.

So the Motorola 68000 systems or higher clocked 8088/8086 had an advantage over 8-Bit systems like 6502.

Text adventures, however, were very popular on C64.
Lots of bedroom programmers had written their own stories over the years.
So I like playing them on this same vintage platform, despite me being a bit of an critic when it comes to Commodore/C64 in general.. ;)

- Unless an Amiga DOS port is available, of course!
I just love the blue/white colour scheme and that old text font! ^^
It reminds me of my old Sharp MZ-700.. Infocom titles on Amiga really are something, I think.

So it really depends, I think.

I think anything that's CAD/CAM or DTP like in terms of graphics is usually visually more pleasing on PC (with the Amiga being second).
Like the aforementioned simulation games.

PS: I do like both emulators and vintage hardware.
To me, emulators always had been developer tools like assemblers/dissasemblers and no contradiction to using real hardware.

I guess there is one big issue: How well did 80s games age? If they don't offer replay value, they will not be played much again. Once your memory is satisfied, there is not much point playing again.

I have so far refused to rebuy 80s hardware. I wouldn't want to use a C64 on a CRT or TV again. And that holds for Amiga and Atari too. I am planning to use an older sandy bridge notebook of mine permanently for the 80s emulators of ST, c64 and to a lesser extend Amiga 500. I would suspect the Amiga 500 to deliver the best version if available. I rebought a C64 around 1990 but discovered that I really only enjoy very few games, as the game interfaces had already become increadibly dated. So I sold it again.

I am also worried about the condition of 40y old hardware and the room it will take up.

Of course, if something is done just as well on PC (i.e. Zork1), I wouldn't bother using an emulator to run it on a c64.

ux-3 wrote on 2024-07-06, 11:52:

I guess there is one big issue: How well did 80s games age? If they don't offer replay value, they will not be played much again […]
Show full quote

I guess there is one big issue: How well did 80s games age? If they don't offer replay value, they will not be played much again. Once your memory is satisfied, there is not much point playing again.

I have so far refused to rebuy 80s hardware. I wouldn't want to use a C64 on a CRT or TV again. And that holds for Amiga and Atari too. I am planning to use an older sandy bridge notebook of mine permanently for the 80s emulators of ST, c64 and to a lesser extend Amiga 500. I would suspect the Amiga 500 to deliver the best version if available. I rebought a C64 around 1990 but discovered that I really only enjoy very few games, as the game interfaces had already become increadibly dated. So I sold it again.

I am also worried about the condition of 40y old hardware and the room it will take up.

Of course, if something is done just as well on PC (i.e. Zork1), I wouldn't bother using an emulator to run it on a c64.

Depends on the game , I think the old sierra games like Kings Quest and Police quest from the 80s have held up pretty well though they can be a bit brutal at times. On the Amiga side Rick dangerous can be fun , as can Arkanoid and the batman movie game is pretty solid oh and the silkworm port is really good.

Most of my gripes come from things like games not having save menus (one of the perks of having a pc with a hdd in the late 80s) or games using only one button on the gamepad though whdload can solve these things to a degree.
Though I can understand if people these days can't pallete the game design of yore. Or early 80s graphics.

I think one of the issues with old gamea is that the analogue side no longer is available to today's audiences.

Early titles look so crude nowadays because they were made with old video systems in mind.

An Atari 2600 game looks best on an US American TV set from the 1970s, via RF connection (PAL/SECAM versions are inferior here).

For a faithful emulation, the old NTSC standard has to be emulated, but also loss/blurring by RF connection and the CRT tube.

The tube emulation has to have phosphor glow and convergence errors taken into account, but also the type of CRT tube (slot, dot, trinitron, etc) and the bad resolution (big dot pitch. 0.6mm and up).

Unfortunately, many of the popular emulation projects had started in the 90s,
when physical CRT VGA monitors still were in wide use and thus CRT emulation was more of an afterthought.

The various Japanese emulators are a good example, here, I think.
They do emulate no CRT characteristica, except scan lines.

Or, let's take Apple II color graphics or CGA w/ artifact colours.

The real thing connected to real old TVs or video monitors looks so much more vibrant than emulation does.

So it's no wonder that people think old games look bad - if they never have experienced things in its authentic condition.

I thought same about DOS games in 320x200 at the turn of the century, by the way:
It wasn't until the 2000s when I noticed how ugly they are, because that's when I got modern VGA CRT monitors.

Before this, in the 1990s, I still had my 286 PC with an 14" IBM PS/2 monitors that had a 0.41mm dot pitch and a somewhat blurry image.

This blur helped to make even Windows 3.1 look smooth, despite those dithered 16 colour icons and the blocky text fonts.

It wasn't until DOSBox and the filtered Direct Draw output (Win32 build) that I got my old Windows 3.1 experience back.
It wasn't perfect, by any means, but much better.

Anyway, I'm optimistic that CRT emulation will be near perfect one day.
(SNES9x and Blarg's NTSC filter are quite good already.)

Because, it's not the LC display itself that prevents this from happening.:
Otherwise, YouTube videos with recordings of real CRTs watched on smartphones/tablets/flat-screens wouldn't look realistic, either.

Edited.

PS: CRT emulation could also be useful to our fellow users here on Vogons one day, I think.
It could improve experience of users of TFT monitors or modern day VGA CRT monitors.

Maybe there's a converter box one day, which takes an VGA signal, adds blur or CRT emulation to it and outputs it to VGA again.
A Raspberry Pi 5 could do that, maybe. RGB and RGBHV aren't that different.

ux-3 wrote on 2024-07-06, 11:52:

I guess there is one big issue: How well did 80s games age?

Well, if you consider the arcades. Galaxy Force II still looks amazing to me, and every port it's had (prior to Saturn/PS2) had been a complete disaster.

leileilol wrote on 2024-07-06, 13:47:

Well, if you consider the arcades.

Arcade games are quite accessible. When I got STEEM set up the other days, I started looking for the games I used to play back in the 80s. I was no big fan of arcade titles, more RPG, scifi and strategy. But one of the first things I actually played for a while was "better dead than alien".

With a game like Sid Meier's Silent Service 1, it is a different thing. I played the game very often for a time. But it has been improved in many ways: graphics, sound, scope etc. In fact, the main charm today may be the relative simplicity of the game. But it seems far more aged overall.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-07-06, 13:32:

I think one of the issues with old gamea is that the analogue side no longer is available to today's audiences.

Having been around at the dawn of home computing, I wouldn't sign that. I much disliked TV as monitor. I did buy a decent color monitor that had RGB input too. So when I switched to AtariST, I was ready. I much liked the SM124 black and white monitor I got with the Atari. Used it for playing if it was an option, as in Interstel's Empire.
I'd say the preference for CRT is very subjective. I don't have it at all.

ux-3 wrote on 2024-07-06, 15:56:

Jo22 wrote on 2024-07-06, 13:32:

I think one of the issues with old gamea is that the analogue side no longer is available to today's audiences.

Having been around at the dawn of home computing, I wouldn't sign that. I much disliked TV as monitor. I did buy a decent color monitor that had RGB input too. So when I switched to AtariST, I was ready. I much liked the SM124 black and white monitor I got with the Atari. Used it for playing if it was an option, as in Interstel's Empire.
I'd say the preference for CRT is very subjective. I don't have it at all.

Well, I think it also depends on use case.
Doing word processing or programming on a blurry TV isn't fun, but same goes for playing Atari 2600 games on a CAD monitor.
The whole game graphics was meant to be smeared together, the imagination did the rest.

Atari ST and SM124.. Yep, I agree it was nice. But part of the trick was that the image had been compressed to a tiny size.
About 1/3 of the screen was left unused, I think.

Together with the 640x400 computer resolution, the picture looked very sharp, while dithering effects still worked (gray background of GEM Desktop really was a checkerboard pattern).

Zup wrote on 2024-07-06, 10:20:

Two options:
a) Emulators
b) Using the real hardware.

A third option would be on an FPGA, such as MiSTer.

I recently, decided to play Pool of Radiance. Here the Amiga version is definitively superior over other systems (looking much better). After being far into the game twice I got an error which currupted the files (on WinUAE). After that I switched to the gog version and beat the game.

More generally I think your question is not easy to answer and often needs consideration game by game. For example early Lucas Arts games (MM, Zak) belong to the C64. The definitve original version of Loom is EGA (with the art dittering technique specifically developed to compensate for lack of more colors.)

Many early PC versions lack proper sound and music but have also in some cases added through patches later (e.g. U5). Both PC and Amiga versions of Lotus are awesome, but the PC version lacks the iconic intro soundtrack. Dungeon Master is one of the few genuine Atari titles, so if you happen to have such a system, there would be no better ocasion to play it on the ST and not the Dos version. On the other hand, a huge number of important games also never got ported to the PC (think of impossible mission for the C64 or Turrican and Shadow of the Beast for the Amiga.

So generally, if I decide to play some old classic for the first time, I usually do quite a bit if reading before I decide which version to play.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-07-06, 18:50:

A third option would be on an FPGA, such as MiSTer.

that's also emulation and can carry similar emulation accuracy pitfalls, just executed differently.

For old stuff, MSX Turbo-R is my weapon of choice. Not only are the games great, but the community seems to never slow down either, the amount of modern hardware devices for it is just insane. The music abilities are also mind blowing.

Aui wrote on 2024-07-07, 09:26:

The definitve original version of Loom is EGA (with the art dittering technique specifically developed to compensate for lack of more colors.)

Oh yes, I second this. I've played the EGA version of Loom and it's definitely special.
Because, I think it's the only version that captures this eery, British-depressive type of mood.
The 256c versions look all beautiful, sure, but they don't possess this dark atmosphere.
It's as if a Nightmare Before Christmas gets turned into a 3D-rendered film with HDR.

Aui wrote on 2024-07-07, 09:26:

Many early PC versions lack proper sound and music but have also in some cases added through patches later (e.g. U5). Both PC and Amiga versions of Lotus are awesome, but the PC version lacks the iconic intro soundtrack.

Well, the sad thing is they had proper sound (from ca. 1984 onwards) - but only for PC Junior and Tandy 1000.
So the 3-voice music/sfx had been hidden to most PC users, which is sad.

If only a third-party 3-voice compatible sound board had been available to market in the 1980s.

Because, quite a few DOS games had the option to support 3-voice independently.

Probably that was intended for Tandy users who did upgrade to EGA (VGA didn't exist yet).

Edit: To be fair, DOS games from Europe probably didn't support Tandy 1000, since the machine was unheard of.
Just like Composite CGA was, with its NTSC artifact colour.
In fact, some former PC users still don't know what it is ("Why had CGA games these strange stripes?!").

Aui wrote on 2024-07-07, 09:26:

I recently, decided to play Pool of Radiance. Here the Amiga version is definitively superior over other systems (looking much better). After being far into the game twice I got an error which currupted the files (on WinUAE). After that I switched to the gog version and beat the game.

When I played the game 1990 or so, it was likely on a VGA PC, or perhaps on the Atari PC1 in EGA mode.
Why would the game files corrupt? Software bug in the game? Error in the emulator?

I think there is no VGA version of Pool. However the Amiga version has better colors and sound. But I dont know why the game crashed (I vagely remember some memory error ) This may have been a problem with the emulator of the files, not sure. But it happened (twice) far into the game and you would have to start again from the beginning. The GOG version run without any problems (but it looked not so great).

I just made an interesting, yet somewhat sobering experience by trying to play 'Elite' again.

I played a purchased original in 1985 on the C64. I remember being very fascinated and playing this for a while back then.
In 1988, I got a copy for Atari ST. I recall the graphics and sound to be improved, but the game never got my attention again. Retrospectively, I attributed this to having completed 'Sundog' in between.

In the last 3 days, I took a look at the game again. The author hosts all versions of the game for free on a web site.
I played the C64 version on CCS64, the Atari version on Steem, the Amiga version on WinUAE, the two PC versions on a slowed 486.

In the process, I realized why the game worked so well back then: The manual created (and still creates) an expectation and imaginative frame, in which the game can operate! This it shares with all my favorite C64 games. (not many: Nato Commander by Sid Meier, Lords of Midnight and Elite)

The first version I tried to run was the C64 one, as that was the one I played some 40 years ago. It worked OK, but with spartan graphics. It still created a limited immersion for a few runs.
But I soon found and remembered the problems from the past. The game initially has three different challenges: trade, combat and docking. But steering is turning combat and docking into nightmares. I remembered that docking was hard back then. As this was my first 3D space combat simulator, I had nothing to compare it to in 1985. But today, the steering feels almost broken.

I then tried Atari ST and Amiga. Both versions look and sound much improved. On the ST emulation, combat was near impossible. The joystick response was way too strong. That I could not play. The Amiga version was better, but still felt very crude. Due to the steering problems, docking was much worse than on the C64.

The PC versions had the same issues so far. Steering is difficult and artificial, docking just a time consuming burden. Profits seem to be reduced in comparison. I never got far, as the game seems to run a bit too fast. I am down to a speedsys of 6. As reducing the PC speed doesn't change the game speed, I am not even sure if the game isn't just working as intended.

I could try dosbox, but I kind of lost interest.
In 1985, the game lived from creating an expectation through the manual and filling it as far as was technically possible back then. In that, it is totally different from todays gaming. The rapidly increasing possibilities rendered it obsolete quickly.
It has become an artifact from the early days of computer gaming: Interesting to revisit briefly and to recall a totally different approach to computer gaming.

Sad to hear! 🙁
But maybe Elite 128 is worth a try?
It's a Commodore 128 version of your favorite version.
I also remember that VICE has C128 emulation, too, among other things.

There's a video review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9xMuskMERw