Thanks, Bill. I was a bit disappointed that the Amiga, Atari ST, and IIgs versions are so similar. They must have been working hard to make them identical rather than do anything special for the platforms' particular strengths. I'm starting to get that impression from a lot of different games for that set of platforms. For whatever reason, the DOS version (which I should probably have shown) is noticeably different, such as the opening graphic of the bard (that's right, the more advanced platforms got a still graphic instead of the great opening animation in the C-64/Apple II versions!)
At least the guys doing the NES version took some liberties with the license.
I think RPGs especially suffered from that syndrome of a minor graphical facelift, and maybe a slightly "improved" interface to take into account the standard mice on those platforms. Just like ports to the C-64 from the Apple II often used the inferior graphics (particularly color) of the source platform (and sometimes even the sound), I imagine one 16-bit graphics/sound package was created that would then be shared across those respective platforms (however it was done, it absolutely was a common occurrence to create shared engine types and assets across a certain range of systems).
With that said, I think there's a deeper issue with any port--how much time, effort, and financial resources do you want to put into another version of the same game, when the original formula works and you have to develop for a variety of platforms, meaning that your resources are already greatly stretched. By my count, The Bard's Tale was available on 11 different platforms. I'm sure the game sold better on some platforms than the others. Simple economics for the time I guess.
I remember the first Gold Box game ported to the Amiga. The development team responsible for the port took the time to create enhanced 32-color graphics and sound. Most of the subsequent Gold Box games were pretty much straight up 16 color IBM EGA ports, with minimal sound. The Atari ST, Amiga, and even the Apple IIGS all suffered through a bevy of straight up EGA ports (the hallmark was the distinctive and garish EGA color pallette, that weren't necessary on the other platforms, even in their respective 16 color modes), and even from the biggest names at the time, like Sierra.
I for one don't mind minor sound/graphical facelifts for ports, as long as the ports retain ALL of the features of the original. When you LOSE features, like incidental animations or even feature-sets, then you start to REALLY disappoint in my opinion. Naturally, some development toolsets and environments were designed to do certain things on certain platforms (like The Bard's Tale into animations you spoke about, Matt), but it's logical that when it's something relatively straightforward like that, it should be incorporated into the game even if it requires a little extra effort.
As a kid, as a C-64 user, I was ambivalent about shoddy Apple II ports. The example I often use is Origin's AutoDuel, which was a literal clone of the Apple II version, with ZERO consideration for the capabilities of the C-64. It looked, sounded and played like an Apple II game. You know what, though, once I got past my initial disgust, I still loved and beat the game. So I think even though we don't have to really like ports of old, if it still plays well and looks and sounds at least reasonable, that's probably enough these days to enjoy it, since the technological prowess no longer matters.
Interestingly, if you compare say the Xbox 360 to the PS3 and their respective multi-platform games, you often need to break out the heavy duty analyzers to discern any differences, which often come down to a frame rate stutter or two, or the occasionally less sharp texture. Again, shared assets will do that, and I'm sure that's what we were dealing with in the past, though I'm sure it wasn't always quite that straightforward...
*************************** Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
Thanks, Bill. I was a bit disappointed that the Amiga, Atari ST, and IIgs versions are so similar. They must have been working hard to make them identical rather than do anything special for the platforms' particular strengths. I'm starting to get that impression from a lot of different games for that set of platforms. For whatever reason, the DOS version (which I should probably have shown) is noticeably different, such as the opening graphic of the bard (that's right, the more advanced platforms got a still graphic instead of the great opening animation in the C-64/Apple II versions!)
At least the guys doing the NES version took some liberties with the license.
I think RPGs especially suffered from that syndrome of a minor graphical facelift, and maybe a slightly "improved" interface to take into account the standard mice on those platforms. Just like ports to the C-64 from the Apple II often used the inferior graphics (particularly color) of the source platform (and sometimes even the sound), I imagine one 16-bit graphics/sound package was created that would then be shared across those respective platforms (however it was done, it absolutely was a common occurrence to create shared engine types and assets across a certain range of systems).
With that said, I think there's a deeper issue with any port--how much time, effort, and financial resources do you want to put into another version of the same game, when the original formula works and you have to develop for a variety of platforms, meaning that your resources are already greatly stretched. By my count, The Bard's Tale was available on 11 different platforms. I'm sure the game sold better on some platforms than the others. Simple economics for the time I guess.
I remember the first Gold Box game ported to the Amiga. The development team responsible for the port took the time to create enhanced 32-color graphics and sound. Most of the subsequent Gold Box games were pretty much straight up 16 color IBM EGA ports, with minimal sound. The Atari ST, Amiga, and even the Apple IIGS all suffered through a bevy of straight up EGA ports (the hallmark was the distinctive and garish EGA color pallette, that weren't necessary on the other platforms, even in their respective 16 color modes), and even from the biggest names at the time, like Sierra.
I for one don't mind minor sound/graphical facelifts for ports, as long as the ports retain ALL of the features of the original. When you LOSE features, like incidental animations or even feature-sets, then you start to REALLY disappoint in my opinion. Naturally, some development toolsets and environments were designed to do certain things on certain platforms (like The Bard's Tale into animations you spoke about, Matt), but it's logical that when it's something relatively straightforward like that, it should be incorporated into the game even if it requires a little extra effort.
As a kid, as a C-64 user, I was ambivalent about shoddy Apple II ports. The example I often use is Origin's AutoDuel, which was a literal clone of the Apple II version, with ZERO consideration for the capabilities of the C-64. It looked, sounded and played like an Apple II game. You know what, though, once I got past my initial disgust, I still loved and beat the game. So I think even though we don't have to really like ports of old, if it still plays well and looks and sounds at least reasonable, that's probably enough these days to enjoy it, since the technological prowess no longer matters.
Interestingly, if you compare say the Xbox 360 to the PS3 and their respective multi-platform games, you often need to break out the heavy duty analyzers to discern any differences, which often come down to a frame rate stutter or two, or the occasionally less sharp texture. Again, shared assets will do that, and I'm sure that's what we were dealing with in the past, though I'm sure it wasn't always quite that straightforward...
***************************
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.