Envisaged One is right...


Having grown up with the evolution of these graphics modes it is quite shocking to see so many confused--actually, the superior graphics box of the day was the Amiga--with its 32-color-up-to-4.096 on-screen color modes....that made EGA and early VGA look pretty bad by comparison. BUT...to get back on topic...ahem...;)

The biggest difference between CGA/EGA/VGA at that time was the number of onscreen colors that could be displayed on screen simultaneously--each mode had a total number of colors (called a palette) out of which the on-screen colors were chosen. CGA=4 colors on screen (awful, even then...;)); EGA=16 colors (much better than CGA, but inferior to Amiga displays) and of course VGA=256 colors on screen (all of these were followed by SVGA, then 16-bit color, then 24-bit color then "32-bit" color--24-bits & alpha channel, and so on.)

CGA & EGA & VGA were not incompatible with each other--they were progressive steps along the same basic IBM graphics development path at the time. A CGA game with 4 colors could easily be ported to EGA and still show only 4 colors on screen; a 16-color EGA game could easily be ported to VGA but still display only 16-colors on screen--and it would still be VGA in every respect. There were differences between these modes in screen resolutions, too--but they, too, were easily up-ported to the next graphics mode in the progression.

Speaking of the Amiga, just to illustrate, there were actually many 16-color EGA games ported to the Amiga's 32-bit color mode--but still displaying only 16-bit colors! A long time ago, that used to upset me a lot...;)

Even today, with my "32-bit" graphics card I am running EGA 16-color & 256-color (8-bit) S/VGA games in Dosbox-svn inside Windows 8.1x64 (and now in Windows 10), which are displayed in their original EGA & VGA formats--and that's because my graphics card is still backwards compatible with S/VGA--which can itself run all of those earlier graphics modes with 4/16/ or 256 colors, because S/VGA is itself backwards-compatible with CGA/EGA/VGA, etc.

To sum up, there is almost no difference at all between a 16-color EGA mode game, and the same game running under a 256-color VGA GPU *unless* the game itself has been rewritten to use more than its original 16 colors! If an EGA game is simply a straight port to VGA then it, too, will display 16 colors and be no different in display from the same game running in EGA on an EGA-only graphics device. Both the EGA and the VGA versions, in that case, are running in 16-colors, and the VGA port of the EGA game can also run in the same resolution *if* that is way the port is written.

A *real* S/VGA game--not simply a port up of an earlier graphics mode--would display at least 256 different colors on screen simultaneously. In actuality, there's not a spit's worth of difference between a 16-color EGA game running in EGA mode and the *same game* running in 16-colors in VGA mode. If no other changes were made to the original game other than porting it up to VGA, an observer would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between them.

Not to barge in on an already heated discussion, but I think that's oversimplifying things (yet again). CGA, EGA, VGA and SVGA differ not only in the number of colors in their palette or in the number of colors they're capable of displaying simultaneously. They also differ in the kinds of resolutions they can display and in the number of colors they can display simultaneously at each of those resolutions. That was much more important than the absolute number of colors they can produce. People tend to forget that ... after all it's such a long time ago now.

EGA was 640x350x16 (wich until about 10 years ago you could see when the computers switched from BIOS in EGA to the real boot process in VGA)
VGA could do (amongst other resolutions): 640x480x16 (yes, not a lot better than EGA) or 320x200x256

That's just examples. It's working that way, because it's mostly about memory of the card. Only if you take the resolution and the color depth together you can tell how much storage you really need for each frame.

Today however that's no longer relevant, having graphics hardware with gigabytes of memory and GPUs which are in some ways even faster than the CPUs of our computers.

What is this discussion about anyway? A "true" VGA game could display more colors than a EGA game, but only at a lower resolution. So, essentially it is beyond me why it is an argument whether the remake of a game was true VGA or not. I personally would bet on it that it was not. First: it would have to have a lower resolution than the original (do you think you could sell that even then?) and second: why change it? The game was VGA compatible because VGA itself was EGA compatible. Well, big deal.

EGA could certainly do 640x350x16, but the vast majority of games used its 320x200x16 mode. Hence, this was generally not an issue.

Correct. It was pretty rare to find a EGA game support anything higher than 320x200 resolutions. Esp Sierra games at the time.

Exactly correct. That's why, several posts ago, I asked him to explain why memory on the video card was so important back in those days :)

You're both right. I didn't think of that, sorry. The original post asked about the VGA remake of an EGA game and then the arguing began whether the remake was a remake in the first place (essentially; I know that I make fun of it now).
We have so many games which when they became available in the 1980's were available on several platforms. King's Quest was available not only for DOS computers but also for the Amiga amongst others. I don't know whether it is true for King's Quest but apparently other games looked better on an Amiga than on a DOS machine (which is hardly surprising given the superior graphics capabilities of the Amiga). Based on the original wish to have a version of the game which provided improved graphics (maybe), we could also ask for Amiga versions of games (where available).
I think differently. We're using games we bought here on PC platforms (be it Windows, Mac or Linux), so let's stick to PC based games. If a game was released originally for EGA with EGA resolutions with EGA color palettes, then yes let us have it in this form. It may look ridiculous on a full-HD widescreen display, but that's part of the charme, that's part of the nostalgia. And more to the point: the VGA version will not look a whole lot better in this respect. So what.

Yes, I just wanted to point it out. My first PC had a VGA card with a whole megabyte of memory. One whole megabyte, can you believe this. ;) Anyway, today I believe this must have been an SVGA card, since it was capable of doing 1024x768x256 (don't ask me about the framerate; it was very flickery and my CRT was barely able to cope with the resolution; 1024x768 looks ridiculous on a 14" CRT).

As a long time Amiga user I can answer your question:

While the Amiga really a had a vastly superior graphics chip, it was almost never used to its full potential.
There are games designed for Amiga or ported by third parties which used a lot of neat tricks like on-the-fly-palette-swapping, HAM mode and other things the Amiga could do. But these were mostly European companies.

The big ones - like LucasArts (Lucasfilm Games) or Sierra - basically did what all comanies do today: Developing for "their" system and 1:1-port them.
Like bad console ports, Amiga ports most often used PC graphics.

I already explained this on another post... but the remake sold very poorly, Sierra was planning on making similar remakes to 2, 3 and 4. But cancelled them due to the massive negative reaction to this one.

That is most likely the reason it was omitted. But then again... Mask of Eternity made it on this site, and it was hated 100x more.

You're probably right.

But from what I read was that MOE was so incredibly loathed that most fans refuse to acknowledge it as canon, if even part of the series. And many that did like it, only do because it's "So bad, it's good"

Maybe it was panned by the existing fan base, but it managed to reach a new fan base with its different gameplay. I know it's not empirical evidence of anything but my flatmate's sole experience with King's Quest began and ended with Mask of Eternity.
"Dude, remember King's Quest? I feel like replaying King's Quest!
-Great! Which one? The first one? King's Quest V? King's Quest VI?
-Which one's the 3D one?
-Oh."
I'm guessing it was the same for a lot of people.

I guess, even the worst games out there have fans <3

But MOE is to Kings Quest, as Ultima IX was to Ultima. Fans still prefer to disregard it.

"some fans", actually.

Again its probably about a 50/50 split. But yes, there are fans who prefer to disregard it. Of course fans who may not like it as much as the earlier games, but still utilize it in their fan games. Both AGDI, and POS both utilize it in their fan game storylines. Most King's Quest fan fiction writers till reference it in their stories as well. The developers have also said that the upcoming 'reimagining' will also acknowledge KQ8.

My least favorite KQ is and will always be KQ7... Its far too goofy... It's so goofy that even the author of King's Quest Companion mocked it in the Authorized KQ7 guide which 'novelized' it. That is to say questioned its 'existence', and 'reality'. I think he still enjoyed it, but he did notice it leaned more towards cartoon physics, than 'reality' physics. Characters could fall form the sky land on their spines, and still 'survive'. Whereas in earlier games tripping off a step would kill you.

There are ideas I love about KQ8, and unfortunately it was hindered by some ideas that never got completed, due to management/funding/technical/engine limitations. If those ideas could have been used, it might have been even better game.

If you strip out the action from the game, it still has as almost twice as many puzzles as KQ7. Of the traditional inventory puzzle types. The action was just another feature thrown on top of it, adding to the gameplay.

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Puzzle_statistics

Okay, I'll be level with you. I don't care if they changed things, I don't care if it doesn't feel like a traditional Kings Quest game. If fans enjoy it, they have every right to :D I am not forcing people's opinions. And I'm sorry.

Also, I want to apologize for my constant "MOE KILLED ADVENTURE GAMES" rants. not only do I have no proof of that, you in fact proved me wrong several times. Thanks :3

No problem. I hope you having fun. That is what I think is the most important aspect of games! :).

I hope that upcoming King's Quest reimagining turns out to be a great game in its own right as well. It's not going to be 'traditional' in the same way that each generation of KQ has been different ("evolved').... KQ1-4 with the parsers (and mouse if you were lucky to use a port that allowed mouse control), KQ5-6 with the menu fully point and click. KQ7/8 with the single icon menu, and KQ8 with its 3D action...

The next game seems to be going more Grim Fandango context sensitive interactions, with action elements (possibly platforming?). It's not going to be like any previous game. But it could still be a great game in its own right!.