Talk:Amiga games

Amiga was(is) a 32-bit computer

16-bit? Amiga was 32-bit from the start.

M68000 was 32-bit architecture.

Addresses was 32 bit.

Data was 32 bits.

Memory word was 32 bits.

AmigaOS was 32 bit.

The address bus was 24-bit and the data bus was 16-bit, but this doesnt make it a 16-bit computer, architecture was 32-bit. Actually the firsts 386/486 didnt come with a 32 bit address/data bus, nor the firsts 286's(16-bit processors) came with 16-bits bus. It was recalled to be a 32-bit computer, and i coded it enough so i can confirm it. Motorola 68000

Custom chips had differents specifications, but they was mapped to different places of the memory. All the coding thing was doing in a 32-bit memory space handling and performing operations and transfering 32-bit data. Even when a 32-bit word had to be moved in to different steps(16-bit data bus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgarcia109 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

High Resolution, High Colour Games

I removed this section because it's unclear what it's purpose is. Is the idea to have a list of AGA games? Or to promote the single game that was there? Marasmusine 09:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is to list High Resolution, High Colour Games. Every other game in this article is a Low resolution game. On the Amiga, low res is 320x256. High Resolution is 640x512. What do you have against hi res games? What do you have against Amiga games? There was only one solitary game listed in the High Resolution, High Colour Games section (Total Chaos) and yet you felt compelled to destroy it for the second or third time. SuperfrogJumps 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for answering my question and the continued lack of assuming good faith (I love how you use the word 'destroyed', like there's no possibility of restoring it.) I had removed it the second time because you hadn't made any explaination (at the time) why you put it back. Now you have clarified it, there's no problem, feel free to add it back. I'd also suggest listing some other games that run in high-res or interlaced, such as the Amiga release of Sim City 2000. Marasmusine 13:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. Why didn't you add that before? Why don't you add that today? SuperfrogJumps 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Marasmusine, when are you going to restore the info about Total Chaos that you deleted? Thanks hon. GreatGianaSister 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't the section removed by Marasmusine been restored yet? StoneGiant 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous versions can be accessed by clicking the History tab, if someone wishes to restore it. Though I'm not sure that "high colour" is defined as 256 colours? Typically high colour means more than 256 colours (16 bit, etc), and I'm not aware of an Amiga specific definition?

There are probably plenty of other games we could add to that section - although less well known, there were various games in the late 90s onwards which supported higher resolutions and indeed high colour (as in 16/24 bit, not simply 256 colours) (e.g., Quake). Mdwh 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In 2007 "High Colour" means 64000+ colors. But back in the Classic Amiga days "High Colour" meant 256 colors or more. Technology has advanced. It is ok with me to use a different wording. But anything I have thought of so far is not as elegant. We could say "High Resolution Games Featuring 256 or more colors and not requiring an add-on PC graphics card". Not as elegant. How do you want to word it? StoneGiant 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not about what we think is a good wording, we should be using standard terms. Also, remember that many AGA games featured 256 colours. The thing that's special about this section is the high-resolution, and I fear it may mislead the reader into thinking there weren't many "high colour" (256 colour) games on the Amiga (although it would help if there was a separate section for low-resolution AGA games)? What's wrong with simply "High resolution games featuring 256 or more colours" though? I don't see anything special about not requiring a graphics card - and I believe that many if not most of the graphics card friendly Amiga games would still run on AGA on a high res 256 colour screen anyway? Mdwh 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We should have a section for graphics card games also. Oh and many AGA games don't run on graphics cards. Many graphics card games don't run on AGA. Furthermore, I disapprove of the extra u being added into the word 'color'.SuperfrogJumps 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Colour" is the correct British English spelling - IIRC, Wikipedia policy is that either British or US English is fine, as long as the choice is consistent in the article. Mdwh 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This section is stupid. If it's supposed to be a list of "high colour games", it's missing a lot of them. Like Knights of the Crystallion or Universe, that had far more than 32 colours even on an Amiga 500. Remove this section. 188.60.48.153 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section pending reliable, independent verification of the graphical capabilities of these titles. For example, I could only find information about the '92 release of Myst. Of course, place the titles back as you find sources, and perhaps the section could clarify which hardware was required for > 256 colours. Marasmusine (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Important?

By what merit is a game judged to be important? Is it sales, the first of its kind, awesome sound/graphics, etc. This article would do well to include a two/three line burp on just why <insert game> was included. This is especially true for Historically significant games.--Anss123 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding an external link

As no more external links can be added directly to the page I would like to request the addition of a new external link to the site classicamiga.com.

• classicamiga.com Database of Amiga games - information, screenshots, videos, manuals, reviews, comments and more.

Classicamiga 16:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Nice website you got there, but we already link Lemon Amiga (which is similar in scope) and I think that's enough.--Anss123 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding another external link

Hi,

<http://netzreport.googlepages.com/downloading_amiga_games_legally.html> is about where classic Amiga games can be downloaded legally and free of charge. Should we add this link? --Jutuub (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should - it's a useful and up-to-date enumeration of legal download links. -- Amigos santos (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amiga Defender of the Crown land.png

Image:Amiga Defender of the Crown land.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amiga Shadow of the Beast.png

Image:Amiga Shadow of the Beast.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed in this page

I must say that, for an article with a class of High importance, it is disappointing to see that ZERO effort has ever been made to add citations of pretty much any kind - and in fact, in the past, one attempt to get a citation was denied with the comment of "no citation needed, this is a given fact." There really is no such thing as 'a given fact' here on Wiki.

This entire article is full of seemingly-inflated, unsourced, and unsubstantiated statements, and it fails to meet Wiki guidelines in just about every single regard.

I hate to do it, but since most of the unsourced material has been sitting there for 6 full years, I'm really going to have to make severe cuts. What needs to be done is to add material back with good, reliable, 3rd party sources - like every other Wiki article. This article is not exempt from this criteria. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)