Not an amiga fanboi actually, you seem to be comparing two different technologies and companies
fact one, the amiga had already been designed (chip wise) before commodore bought them out and remembering that atari were going to come up with something to compete with amiga, commodore needed to act fast which meant they could'nt spend months redesigning the chipset thast explains why Paula is what it is...And you also seem to forget that unlike NEC commodore didn't have gazillions to spend designing the amiga, whereas NEC had the money to spend making the pc engine what it was as unlike commodore NEC were able to draw funds from it's other divisions (like consumer electonics)
Comparing two different technologies is sort of how comparing retro computing/game systems works dude. They're all different. Duh. Also, NEC didn't design the hardware. Hudson did. NEC just manufactured it. Quit making shit up!
Fact two, you seem to be comparing a computer with a gaming system, what you must remember is that paula probably did more then just audio generation (especially if paula is patterned after it's predecessor, pokey) whereas the pc engine sound chip probably was only responsible for sound/audio generation
What is your point? We're talking about games and the hardware used to make them possible. Who cares if Paula was involved in other computational functions. As far as games go, she's the chip responsible for sound. You're making really off the wall excuses for why Paula may not be the best thing ever. And you're doing so after saying OH MAN YOU MUST NOT KNOW GAMING MUSIC OR YOU'RE TONE DEAF. GO LISTEN TO AMIGA SCENE DEMO TUNES. So I am not really sure what you're doing.
and btw, the PSG for the PCE is built into the CPU. It's integrated. Weee.
Paula, on paper, sounds great. Paula, in practice, sounds crapass alot of the time.. I blame late 80s/early 90s sampling fads. Paula tunes either sound kickass, or they suck. There is no middle ground.
You also seem to forget that most amiga games had limited space for putting music/sound tracks (apparently no more then the equivalent to a speccy or commodore 64's memory capacity, going by some of the articles i've seen about games programming on the amiga way back when) compare that to a pc engine which probably dedicated more memory capacity for sound/music tracks (considering that it was the first game system to work with cd rom)...I am pretty sure that if the amgia games programmer had the memory capacity for music/sound tracks that the pc engine had, you would have had much better music tracks emanating from the amiga
PC Engine used cards before CD-ROMs. The CD-ROM games typically use redbook audio. You sound like you're just guessing/making stuff up and don't have alot of experience with the PCE. The Amiga had more space for music/audio data. It had more space in general. Its a frikking Amiga. The game I made for PC Engine stuck all of the audio tracks in <8k of space. Pretty sure you have way more than 8k of space on an Amiga to put music data into. This argument is kind of poorly thought out anyways. The music format for the Amiga may be larger, so having more space is cancelled out by that fact. The PCE music format is generally small, to go with the small amount of storage.
Its all relative. Each machine has enough space to accommodate their respective sound formats.
Every Amiga game clearly shows that it can store lots of lengthy tracks that use Paula to her full potential. The problem, as I have stated like 5 times, is that the SAMPLES used, were complete crap. Maybe if Paula had a way to generate sound rather than just play samples back, there could have been more interesting sounds. And as it stands, hard L/R panning really sucks, especially when the PCE has stereo panning on each channel. Talk about awesome.
Can you point me to another gaming system that used NEC pc engine's audio technology, whereas i can point you to systems that used commodore or commodore related audio technology (i already gave you two examples, the apple iigs and the panther)
Considering Hudson made their hardware to compete with the other companies, there is no other system using the hardware. That argument is just retarded. Why would a company give up their secret weapon?
Though, the Konami SCC for the MSX computer is eerily similar to the PCE's PSG. It's only differences is it is 5 instead of 6 channels, has no stereo panning, and has 8bit instead of 5bit amplitudes.
Edited by Arkhan, Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:05 PM.