VOGONS

Common searches


Reply 180 of 212, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
newtmonkey wrote on 2021-06-29, 07:31:

I think including that game among the "most beautiful" of DOS games might be a bit of a stretch haha

Well, it kinda was beautiful, considering the time it was released in and its origin..
Early-mid 90s, Germany, in 486 era. It's also a classic; in fact, there used to be a fan site over here :
https://web.archive.org/web/20070423174635/ht … upernova.de.vu/

But yes, it was a shareware game programmed by two brothers..
So if we're comparing that to a commercial game made by a big a$$ company with lots of money and artists,
then sure, it's not as visually appealing. Well, at least it does look better than SOMI. 😉

Also, it made a lot of references to the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series..
Just look at the restaurant at the edge of nowhere, the password for the hibernation chambers (42 in words) etc ..
Now tell me that this game doesn't "fit" this place. 😁

Edit: Some typos fixed.
Edit: ScummVM added support for the Supernova engine a while ago.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 182 of 212, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Settlers was a game I loved on Amiga, how does the PC version compare?

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 185 of 212, by Peter Swinkels

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

How good or ugly a game appears to be also depends on your expectations. My opinion of many old games took a nose-dive after I had tried some more modern games. Also after having really invested in a good PC it's hard to believe I ever could have made to with the kind of computers I used during the 90's and early 2000's.

I can accept most old games for that they are, especially judged by the standards of the time they were made. Almost all shrivel in comparisson to a well made modern game. The same goes for hardware.

Do not read if you don't like attention seeking self-advertisements!

Did you read it anyway? Well, you can find all sorts of stuff I made using various programming languages over here:
https://github.com/peterswinkels

Reply 186 of 212, by MotoPete

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 09:55:

Almost all shrivel in comparisson to a well made modern game. The same goes for hardware.

I can't say I agree, but to be fair it really depends on what it is you're wanting to get out of the experience.

Reply 187 of 212, by dinth

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
appiah4 wrote on 2021-06-29, 17:00:

Settlers was a game I loved on Amiga, how does the PC version compare?

I have played both, but never compared them side by side. I think that the PC version looks even better as it was supporting SVGA (?)

Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 09:55:

My opinion of many old games took a nose-dive after I had tried some more modern games.

I cannot agree.
Comparing hand-drawn graphics from old games like Settlers or Indiana Jones to the modern, 3d rendered games is like comparing oil paintings to photo print-outs. Obviously photo printouts look more "realistic" but that doesnt mean that Rembrant's paintings are ugly or inferior.
Additionally - this is something i noticed and not everyone may agree with me - but i feel that 3d graphics gets old quickly. Comparing Fifa 22 with Fifa 02, the second one indeed that look ugly. But i dont think that the same process happens with 2d hand-drawn graphics. You can compare Octopath Traveller (2018) with Chrono Trigger (1995), or Cuphead (2019) with Earthworm Jim (1994) and while technologically the difference between those games is *COLOSSAL*, you cannot say that one of them is less "beautiful" or artistic than the other.

Reply 188 of 212, by Peter Swinkels

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
MotoPete wrote on 2021-07-03, 11:09:
Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 09:55:

Almost all shrivel in comparisson to a well made modern game. The same goes for hardware.

I can't say I agree, but to be fair it really depends on what it is you're wanting to get out of the experience.

A varied and dynamic experience. Many older games offer the player relatively limited options. In modern games the player gets so many options it's made me personally felt lost in the possibilities. On the other hand it's given me the opportunity to try lots of strategies while playing.

Do not read if you don't like attention seeking self-advertisements!

Did you read it anyway? Well, you can find all sorts of stuff I made using various programming languages over here:
https://github.com/peterswinkels

Reply 189 of 212, by Peter Swinkels

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
dinth wrote on 2021-07-03, 11:25:
I have played both, but never compared them side by side. I think that the PC version looks even better as it was supporting SVG […]
Show full quote
appiah4 wrote on 2021-06-29, 17:00:

Settlers was a game I loved on Amiga, how does the PC version compare?

I have played both, but never compared them side by side. I think that the PC version looks even better as it was supporting SVGA (?)

Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 09:55:

My opinion of many old games took a nose-dive after I had tried some more modern games.

I cannot agree.
Comparing hand-drawn graphics from old games like Settlers or Indiana Jones to the modern, 3d rendered games is like comparing oil paintings to photo print-outs. Obviously photo printouts look more "realistic" but that doesnt mean that Rembrant's paintings are ugly or inferior.
Additionally - this is something i noticed and not everyone may agree with me - but i feel that 3d graphics gets old quickly. Comparing Fifa 22 with Fifa 02, the second one indeed that look ugly. But i dont think that the same process happens with 2d hand-drawn graphics. You can compare Octopath Traveller (2018) with Chrono Trigger (1995), or Cuphead (2019) with Earthworm Jim (1994) and while technologically the difference between those games is *COLOSSAL*, you cannot say that one of them is less "beautiful" or artistic than the other.

And I disagree with the assertion more "modern" tends to equate more "realistic". Some modern games look anything but realistic, while older ones do. If anything some modern games have such stunning graphics they manage to pass off the fantastical more convincingly, leaving older games looking ridiculously silly in their attempts to pass off the fantastic. Either it looks too mundane or you get to see a few pixalated/blurry drawings.

Don't get me wrong, when I do sit down and start up an older game, I won't compare it to something more modern and hate it for being pixalated/blurry and limited in options. I can appreciate the nostalgia, and what is offered for what it is. (unless I choose to do so on purpose at times)

After having played old games for quite a while, I tried more modern games and it was a jarring experience to see just how much games had evolved. My older games did feel kind of crappy after that if I forgot how what time they were from.

That and it's hard to not be a little annoyed at the clunky interfaces some older games offer. Then again with new stuff it sometimes feels like drowning in an ocean of too many possibilities.

Do not read if you don't like attention seeking self-advertisements!

Did you read it anyway? Well, you can find all sorts of stuff I made using various programming languages over here:
https://github.com/peterswinkels

Reply 190 of 212, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 13:17:
And I disagree with the assertion more "modern" tends to equate more "realistic". Some modern games look anything but realistic, […]
Show full quote

And I disagree with the assertion more "modern" tends to equate more "realistic". Some modern games look anything but realistic, while older ones do. If anything some modern games have such stunning graphics they manage to pass off the fantastical more convincingly, leaving older games looking ridiculously silly in their attempts to pass off the fantastic. Either it looks too mundane or you get to see a few pixalated/blurry drawings.

Don't get me wrong, when I do sit down and start up an older game, I won't compare it to something more modern and hate it for being pixalated/blurry and limited in options. I can appreciate the nostalgia, and what is offered for what it is. (unless I choose to do so on purpose at times)

After having played old games for quite a while, I tried more modern games and it was a jarring experience to see just how much games had evolved. My older games did feel kind of crappy after that if I forgot how what time they were from.

That and it's hard to not be a little annoyed at the clunky interfaces some older games offer. Then again with new stuff it sometimes feels like drowning in an ocean of too many possibilities.

Well said, I think.

This has been said a thousand times, but..
Some games were indeed as good looking/playable as we remember.
However, todays hardware is still not able to properly replicate the looks and feels of back then.
It's just not CRT vs LCD, but also other little details.
Say, the palette, blur and other analogue properties of a real CGA card's composite output; the lossy connection itself; etc.
But speaking of monitors.. I still haven't seen an modern replica of a B/W TV set, it's RF connection or an amber/green monitor that's authentic.
It seems that math alone can't replicate the chaotic glow of a phosphor screen,
or that our modern technology isn't ready yet (how ironic).
Anyways, that's a bit off-topic, I'm afraid. What I mean to say - even the screenshots shown in this thread/topic, don't do justice.
They will always be a bit different from the physical setup that each of us used to use.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 191 of 212, by Peter Swinkels

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Jo22 wrote on 2021-07-03, 14:38:
Well said, I think. […]
Show full quote
Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 13:17:
And I disagree with the assertion more "modern" tends to equate more "realistic". Some modern games look anything but realistic, […]
Show full quote

And I disagree with the assertion more "modern" tends to equate more "realistic". Some modern games look anything but realistic, while older ones do. If anything some modern games have such stunning graphics they manage to pass off the fantastical more convincingly, leaving older games looking ridiculously silly in their attempts to pass off the fantastic. Either it looks too mundane or you get to see a few pixalated/blurry drawings.

Don't get me wrong, when I do sit down and start up an older game, I won't compare it to something more modern and hate it for being pixalated/blurry and limited in options. I can appreciate the nostalgia, and what is offered for what it is. (unless I choose to do so on purpose at times)

After having played old games for quite a while, I tried more modern games and it was a jarring experience to see just how much games had evolved. My older games did feel kind of crappy after that if I forgot how what time they were from.

That and it's hard to not be a little annoyed at the clunky interfaces some older games offer. Then again with new stuff it sometimes feels like drowning in an ocean of too many possibilities.

Well said, I think.

This has been said a thousand times, but..
Some games were indeed as good looking/playable as we remember.
However, todays hardware is still not able to properly replicate the looks and feels of back then.
It's just not CRT vs LCD, but also other little details.
Say, the palette, blur and other analogue properties of a real CGA card's composite output; the lossy connection itself; etc.
But speaking of monitors.. I still haven't seen an modern replica of a B/W TV set, it's RF connection or an amber/green monitor that's authentic.
It seems that math alone can't replicate the chaotic glow of a phosphor screen,
or that our modern technology isn't ready yet (how ironic).
Anyways, that's a bit off-topic, I'm afraid. What I mean to say - even the screenshots shown in this thread/topic, don't do justice.
They will always be a bit different from the physical setup that each of us used to use.

Be that as it may, with older computers you were stuck with pretty much the options offered by the hardware. Trust me I haven't forgotten the many times where my computer was either a bit too fast or too slow or I didn't have the right hardware to fully enjoy a game. Today's computer screens and software may not be able to fully replicate the experience of a CRT and personally there isn't much I remember about such screens I would miss. Software emulation, especially DOSBox ironically allows me to do stuff I would have needed mulitple physical computers for, that is emulating set-ups each best suited to a specific game. And just to bring up hardware again, never ever in my life do I want to see a mouse with a trackball again or a serial port connector. Urgh. Did you enjoy strained eyes, being zapped by static electricity or having a 10 pound monitor taking up valuable deskspace when you lovingly speak of obsolete screen technology?

Yeah, seeing an old computer in a musuem or something is amusing. Not worth the details for enjoying older games imho however. It's the same as how I really don't understand how people could seriously long for a grammaphone player... And the special quality the music has when played on it.

I have no idea whether that is imagined or real, or whether it really can't be emulated.

Do not read if you don't like attention seeking self-advertisements!

Did you read it anyway? Well, you can find all sorts of stuff I made using various programming languages over here:
https://github.com/peterswinkels

Reply 192 of 212, by Shreddoc

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I like old games and systems from my life, and new as well.

I can appreciate the various aspects, and understand that ever-evolving trends like graphics and mechanical complexity are far, far secondary to what really matters : subjective enjoyment and personal emotion. I mean, shall we really talk about how much of Europe's population is currently obsessed with swinging one's leg at a sack of air? Shall we talk about all the logical and technical reasons why that is an old, simple, and silly thing to be doing? 😉 Of course not!

Any era or style of play can be easily criticised, with a list unending, but that is not really the point is it?

Reply 193 of 212, by Peter Swinkels

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

"I mean, shall we really talk about how much of Europe's population is currently obsessed with swinging one's leg at a sack of air?"- Haha, I must have missed something. What is this trend called?

Yeah, anything can be criticized, if you look for something to harp on, I guess.

Do not read if you don't like attention seeking self-advertisements!

Did you read it anyway? Well, you can find all sorts of stuff I made using various programming languages over here:
https://github.com/peterswinkels

Reply 194 of 212, by Shreddoc

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 20:17:

"I mean, shall we really talk about how much of Europe's population is currently obsessed with swinging one's leg at a sack of air?"- Haha, I must have missed something. What is this trend called?

It's called "kicking Boris Johnson in the nuts".

No it isn't, I jest. It's the game known as football. An old pasttime whose few simple mechanics (and clunky interface) lie over a vast wealth of complex possibilities and enjoyment, in the same way that old simple Tetris is merely "(the vast worlds of) geometry and calculus combined". Age, simplicity, technical trappings, these are two-edged swords, they can cut both ways, but alone are rarely the basis for superiority.

For example, 18th century violinist Niccolo Paganini was (by all accounts and evidence) technically superior to almost all musicians even to this day. What he created was more complex, more technical, more detailed, faster, than 99.9..% of individual musicians will ever be able to play. (Funny that, isn't it - a very old thing, which was 'technically' superior to most new things : showing how age and technicality are not inevitably correlated.) That aside aside, how well do you think Paganini is doing in the charts these days against simple, plodding, strum-a-few-chords-and-warble Ed Sheeran?? How much enjoyment does the average human gain from the latter vs the former? Just one example of how technicals are rarely the primary factor in artistic endeavours (where computer gaming also resides).

Reply 195 of 212, by Procyon

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I'd like to add two Particle Systems games, namely: Evasive Action and Subwar 2000.
Maybe also Metaltech: Battledrome and Earthsiege.

Epic Megagames made pretty impressive games, I have fond memories of One Must Fall 2097, Seek and Destroy and Highway Hunter.

Reply 196 of 212, by liqmat

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Procyon wrote on 2021-07-03, 21:13:

I'd like to add two Particle Systems games, namely: Evasive Action and Subwar 2000.
Maybe also Metaltech: Battledrome and Earthsiege.

Epic Megagames made pretty impressive games, I have fond memories of One Must Fall 2097, Seek and Destroy and Highway Hunter.

Subwar 2050 and Seal Team were two 1993 games that really impressed me on release. Earthsiege was on a whole other level though. There was a poster for it in our local Babbage's game store and I remember thinking that can't be in-game graphics. 🤣

Reply 197 of 212, by Peter Swinkels

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Shreddoc wrote on 2021-07-03, 20:40:
It's called "kicking Boris Johnson in the nuts". […]
Show full quote
Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 20:17:

"I mean, shall we really talk about how much of Europe's population is currently obsessed with swinging one's leg at a sack of air?"- Haha, I must have missed something. What is this trend called?

It's called "kicking Boris Johnson in the nuts".

No it isn't, I jest. It's the game known as football. An old pasttime whose few simple mechanics (and clunky interface) lie over a vast wealth of complex possibilities and enjoyment, in the same way that old simple Tetris is merely "(the vast worlds of) geometry and calculus combined". Age, simplicity, technical trappings, these are two-edged swords, they can cut both ways, but alone are rarely the basis for superiority.

For example, 18th century violinist Niccolo Paganini was (by all accounts and evidence) technically superior to almost all musicians even to this day. What he created was more complex, more technical, more detailed, faster, than 99.9..% of individual musicians will ever be able to play. (Funny that, isn't it - a very old thing, which was 'technically' superior to most new things : showing how age and technicality are not inevitably correlated.) That aside aside, how well do you think Paganini is doing in the charts these days against simple, plodding, strum-a-few-chords-and-warble Ed Sheeran?? How much enjoyment does the average human gain from the latter vs the former? Just one example of how technicals are rarely the primary factor in artistic endeavours (where computer gaming also resides).

🤣 - In short everything has it’s ups and downs and nothing is inherently superior or inferior. Age and technicality are not related per se.

I guess Paganini’s music isn’t very populer compared to simple strums because it’s not very user friendly (ahem). Hard to reproduce, too much effort to fully appreciate for most the average person during day to day life.

Do not read if you don't like attention seeking self-advertisements!

Did you read it anyway? Well, you can find all sorts of stuff I made using various programming languages over here:
https://github.com/peterswinkels

Reply 198 of 212, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 14:47:
Be that as it may, with older computers you were stuck with pretty much the options offered by the hardware. Trust me I haven't […]
Show full quote
Jo22 wrote on 2021-07-03, 14:38:
Well said, I think. […]
Show full quote
Peter Swinkels wrote on 2021-07-03, 13:17:
And I disagree with the assertion more "modern" tends to equate more "realistic". Some modern games look anything but realistic, […]
Show full quote

And I disagree with the assertion more "modern" tends to equate more "realistic". Some modern games look anything but realistic, while older ones do. If anything some modern games have such stunning graphics they manage to pass off the fantastical more convincingly, leaving older games looking ridiculously silly in their attempts to pass off the fantastic. Either it looks too mundane or you get to see a few pixalated/blurry drawings.

Don't get me wrong, when I do sit down and start up an older game, I won't compare it to something more modern and hate it for being pixalated/blurry and limited in options. I can appreciate the nostalgia, and what is offered for what it is. (unless I choose to do so on purpose at times)

After having played old games for quite a while, I tried more modern games and it was a jarring experience to see just how much games had evolved. My older games did feel kind of crappy after that if I forgot how what time they were from.

That and it's hard to not be a little annoyed at the clunky interfaces some older games offer. Then again with new stuff it sometimes feels like drowning in an ocean of too many possibilities.

Well said, I think.

This has been said a thousand times, but..
Some games were indeed as good looking/playable as we remember.
However, todays hardware is still not able to properly replicate the looks and feels of back then.
It's just not CRT vs LCD, but also other little details.
Say, the palette, blur and other analogue properties of a real CGA card's composite output; the lossy connection itself; etc.
But speaking of monitors.. I still haven't seen an modern replica of a B/W TV set, it's RF connection or an amber/green monitor that's authentic.
It seems that math alone can't replicate the chaotic glow of a phosphor screen,
or that our modern technology isn't ready yet (how ironic).
Anyways, that's a bit off-topic, I'm afraid. What I mean to say - even the screenshots shown in this thread/topic, don't do justice.
They will always be a bit different from the physical setup that each of us used to use.

Be that as it may, with older computers you were stuck with pretty much the options offered by the hardware. Trust me I haven't forgotten the many times where my computer was either a bit too fast or too slow or I didn't have the right hardware to fully enjoy a game. Today's computer screens and software may not be able to fully replicate the experience of a CRT and personally there isn't much I remember about such screens I would miss. Software emulation, especially DOSBox ironically allows me to do stuff I would have needed mulitple physical computers for, that is emulating set-ups each best suited to a specific game. And just to bring up hardware again, never ever in my life do I want to see a mouse with a trackball again or a serial port connector. Urgh. Did you enjoy strained eyes, being zapped by static electricity or having a 10 pound monitor taking up valuable deskspace when you lovingly speak of obsolete screen technology?

Yeah, seeing an old computer in a musuem or something is amusing. Not worth the details for enjoying older games imho however. It's the same as how I really don't understand how people could seriously long for a grammaphone player... And the special quality the music has when played on it.

I have no idea whether that is imagined or real, or whether it really can't be emulated.

CRT monitor only 10 pounds, you must be kidding. Try lifting up my 19" Dell Trinitron crt if you want. I've never ever been zapped from a crt. I personally love the hands on tactility of working on old kit. Something you cannot get from emulation. Serial, lpt etc ports were pretty standard for a long long time and are not a problem at all if you actually know what you are doing. I have no problem at all using ball mice on my XT-Turbo, Zenith 286LP Plus, other x86 systems or my Acorn A410, A4000s or RiscPCs or Amiga A600s and Mac SE systems. They work and work well as intended. Just like my 1976 Honda CB550F Super Sport motorcycle. They can still accomplish exactly what they were designed to do 20 plus years later.

Also with new tech continually being made for the older stuff, XT bios hdd, CF adapters, new sound cards etc they are bound to last a bit longer.

Let's get back on topic. What is your favorite game used on a 486? Where you even born when they were put on the market?

Last edited by Caluser2000 on 2021-07-04, 09:11. Edited 2 times in total.

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 199 of 212, by Procyon

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
liqmat wrote on 2021-07-03, 23:03:
Procyon wrote on 2021-07-03, 21:13:

I'd like to add two Particle Systems games, namely: Evasive Action and Subwar 2000.
Maybe also Metaltech: Battledrome and Earthsiege.

Epic Megagames made pretty impressive games, I have fond memories of One Must Fall 2097, Seek and Destroy and Highway Hunter.

Subwar 2050 and Seal Team were two 1993 games that really impressed me on release. Earthsiege was on a whole other level though. There was a poster for it in our local Babbage's game store and I remember thinking that can't be in-game graphics. 🤣

Ha yes it was Subwar 2050. 🤣
Dawn Patrol also looked pretty and ran on a 486.