🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike S.  <Mik...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>And as for graphics, are you sure it looks better on the C-128 even
>after a graphical scaler like hq3x is applied in Dosbox?

I'm sure you can use the same scalers under a Commodore 128 emulator, but
I've never really liked them personally myself.  The slightly improved
graphics I'm talking about a result of the PC and C64/C128 ports being
done by different people from the same base Apple II game.  Both games
greatly improved on the Apple II graphics, both use a resolution of
320x200, but the Commodore port is supposed to be slightly better done.
At least as far as the tile sets go.  Looking at dungeon screenshots the
PC version looks noticeably better, the C64/C128 dungeons appear to be
using 160x200 graphics, so maybe I'm wrong here.

>>The Bard's Tale games and Dragon Age probably play
>>better on the Amiga for similar reasons. 
>
>The Bard's Tale looks and sounds better on the Amiga winUAE emulator
>but the DOS version plays better in DosBox. At least that was my
>experience when I played through the Bard's Tale a few years ago.

Yah, when I tried running the C64, Amiga and IBM PC versions of Pool
of Radiance to see what version was better, I found using WinUAE to be
a pain.  That was something like 15 years ago though.  I was kind hoping
that the state of Amiga emulation had improved by now.

The great thing about DOSBox is that it's designed to play games first
and foremost.  (It's actually kind of a crappy emulator for things
aren't games.)  I remember reading a post by the person behind UAE or
WinUAE about how upset they were that all people wanted to do with it
was play games.

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //