ScummVM vs DOSBox

[joek0]

I notice on many forums (Particularly GOG) that disscuss classic PC games that many prefer ScummVM over DOSBox. Those people only use DOSOX if neccessary. I am fine with using DOSBox. Is there a reason that many people use one over the other? Is it the fact that ScummVM is more user friendly than DOSBox?

[Tawmis]

I notice on many forums (Particularly GOG) that disscuss classic PC games that many prefer ScummVM over DOSBox. Those people only use DOSOX if neccessary. I am fine with using DOSBox. Is there a reason that many people use one over the other? Is it the fact that ScummVM is more user friendly than DOSBox?

It's like MAC vs PC. Mac users scream about how great Macs are because it's so user friendly.

Me, I am a PC guy.

Who also happens to prefer DOSBox.

[Maxor127]

In general, I think DOSBox is better, and with a good front end, it's just as easy to use. Plus, I don't like how ScummVM uses its own save files that they've said may become incompatible as newer versions are released. And DOSBox has better audio support, unless ScummVM has finally caught up. Plus more scaler/render options.

I only use ScummVM for non-DOS games. Or if I want to play a game with text and speech together if it didn't originally support that. Or if for some reason a game runs better in ScummVM than DOSBox. Early Windows games might be a good option with ScummVM instead of messing with DOSBox or some other emulator, but I haven't really tried them.

[Collector]

There are a few games that you can get better results from ScummVM, but usually DOSBox can give you better results, especially when it comes to sound. I also don't like the liberties that they have taken with the default settings, especially with the Sierra SCI0 games. Out of the box, there should be no "improvements". It is like forcing you to watch old black and white movies with early colorization.

While most consider ScummVM easier to use because of its built-in GUI, some of the settings can be a bit maddening to get right. Many of the settings are spread out across the GUI and sometimes can override a setting you made elsewhere. Once you learn the mounting and what to look for in the dosbox.conf file, I feel that setting up DOSBox to be the easier of the two.

One thing that is possible with ScummVM that is not with DOSBox is that you can have impossible combinations for the configuration, such as the DOS sounds (think MT-32) with the Windows version of some games. ScummVM is the only way to get the Windows high res dialog images of the Windows version of KQ6 on x64 Windows without installing Windows in an emulator or VM. One other advantage of ScummVM is that it does not rely on MSCDEX, the old MS-DOS CD-ROM drive extension, which can help with some DOS CD games that used MSCDEX in undocumented ways. believe that ScummVM can be installed on an iPhone/iPad without Jailbreaking it, but not so with DOSBox. Someone with an i device can correct me if I am wrong on this.

So it is not just personal preferences, but in large part depends on the game. I personally use DOSBox for the majority of the DOS games that ScummVM supports, but not exclusively.

[envisge0ne]

I have to admit, I like using ScummVM for the undithering effects on the SCI games. Yes, I know that's a HUGE debate, but I personally prefer the look. Luckily they finally made it so it was easy to enable/disable & that it's disabled by default.

But, to list a disadvantage, ScummVM hasn't emulated the MT-32 sounds perfectly, and a lot of the SCI games have missing sounds (like the beginning of SQ3 when the pod door opens and closes).

That's just a couple examples of what could be considered a benefit and disadvantage. But like previously said, it's like a preference of a pc or a mac. You gotta decide for yourself. Personally, overall, I prefer DOSBox. And I think for a lot of people, DOSBox will be the more popular choice.

[MusicallyInspired]

They both have their uses and I use them both. Many people shy away from DOSBox because they think it's far too complicated for them. These are usually people who weren't around before Windows 95 came along or are absolutely terrified of typing in commands. The main differences are that DOSBox plays the game in their original form and emulates an old system and ScummVM allows playing older games on a new system out of the box, but these versions could be reverse engineered "best-guess" versions. Unless the source code was given to the team, in which case it's pretty much the same (or better). ScummVM is able to play MT-32 with Adlib sound effects in some SCUMM games. There are many sound effects that only exist in Adlib and not in MT-32 so this is a great asset. It also runs the Windows version of certain SCI games with high resolution/alternate soundtracks while using the original larger coloured DOS mouse icons, which I prefer.

ScummVM can be better because it's in a position to change how the original game acts. DOSBox is more of a purely authentic experience, though. This can be both good and bad. Also ScummVM has MUNT included and DOSBox doesn't (unless you get a special SVN build).

Also, I don't mind that ScummVM has an undithering option. That's awesome for those that like it. But like Collector said, ScummVM should run the games as they originally looked by default. Any cosmetic changes should be opt-in not the other way around. Imagine if scalers were enabled automatically. I hate scalers. I love my pixels. That was a bit of a tough battle to win, but luckily not everyone on the ScummVM team agreed with the few people who implemented it as default initially.

But, to list a disadvantage, ScummVM hasn't emulated the MT-32 sounds perfectly, and a lot of the SCI games have missing sounds (like the beginning of SQ3 when the pod door opens and closes).

That's a fault of the MUNT emulator (which incidentally has come a LONG way, but as you said certain minor sounds don't get sounded) and not necessarily ScummVM. You'd get the same experience with using a MUNT-instilled DOSBox or the MUNT WDM MIDI driver.

That's just a couple examples of what could be considered a benefit and disadvantage. But like previously said, it's like a preference of a pc or a mac. You gotta decide for yourself. Personally, overall, I prefer DOSBox. And I think for a lot of people, DOSBox will be the more popular choice.

Agreed.

[envisge0ne]

Are you sure about the same thing would happen in DOSBox? If I choose the MT-32 Synth Emulator (where I have it setup to select in the Control Panel). When I run DOSBox, all the sounds play correctly. Including the sounds of the Pod Doors in SQ3.

However, if I select the MT-32 Synth Emulator or the MT-32 Emulator option in ScummVM, not all the sounds play.

[MusicallyInspired]

You're right. It's exclusive to ScummVM. It must be ScummVM's specific implementation of MUNT screwing things up somewhere. Or the code's just not right. remember ScummVM is using a reverse engineered interpreter (FreeSCI) while DOSBox is running the original interpreter in its native format. This is why DOSBox will always be more authentic.

[Tawmis]

This is why DOSBox will always be more authentic.

And more awesome.

[MrFlibble]

I've never used ScummVM myself, but I think the difference between using it and using DOSBox is like a difference between using a source port of the game and playing it in DOSBox or on a real machine. Sure, source ports/engine recreations are cool because they may add new features and all that, but using DOSBox means you play the original thing*, or, at least, the closest possible thing to the original.

Source ports and engine recreations are good for easily running a game natively on modern systems, however it only takes a little time to set up a permanent DOSBox configuration to run all your DOS games too. At any rate, it's always nice to have several alternatives, especially since DOSBox does not support all of the games out there yet.

* Hardcore retro gamers will probably argue that the "pure" experience only comes from playing a game on original vintage hardware.

[Tawmis]

I've never used ScummVM myself, but I think the difference between using it and using DOSBox is like a difference between using a source port of the game and playing it in DOSBox or on a real machine. Sure, source ports/engine recreations are cool because they may add new features and all that, but using DOSBox means you play the original thing*, or, at least, the closest possible thing to the original.

Source ports and engine recreations are good for easily running a game natively on modern systems, however it only takes a little time to set up a permanent DOSBox configuration to run all your DOS games too. At any rate, it's always nice to have several alternatives, especially since DOSBox does not support all of the games out there yet.

* Hardcore retro gamers will probably argue that the "pure" experience only comes from playing a game on original vintage hardware.

I only used ScummVM when there was a discussion here about the dithering they do...

I am so used to DOSBox, that's just my preference. And I am sure there's so much more you can do with DOSBox that I don't even know HOW to.

[Maxor127]

Like I said, DOSBox is usually best unless you want to play a non-DOS game or use a feature that didn't originally exist in the DOS version. I forgot about undithering, but that would probably be the only compelling reason I could see to play a DOS game on ScummVM instead of DOSBox if that appeals to you. But then you might be a trade-off with using inferior MT-32 emulation, unless that's been fixed in the last few months. There might be a few odd games that run better in ScummVM, like maybe 7th Guest or other graphic-intensive games.

I would've liked to use ScummVM for IIgs games, but the IIgs AGI emulation is nothing like how it should be. Ugly cursor, music didn't work last I checked, and it seems to use graphics from some other version because the actual IIgs colors looked better, in my opinion.

I'd also like to use ScummVM for Mac versions because Mac emulators are a huge pain, but it needs a lot more work. It would be cool if they could somehow fix the purple bleed through on QFG1VGA. I don't think the Mac version has that problem, but it has uglier character portraits for some reason. Return to Zork for Mac is probably the top game I want to see working. The Mac version is so much better than the DOS version.

[Collector]

I would've liked to use ScummVM for IIgs games, but the IIgs AGI emulation is nothing like how it should be. Ugly cursor, music didn't work last I checked, and it seems to use graphics from some other version because the actual IIgs colors looked better, in my opinion.

I'd also like to use ScummVM for Mac versions because Mac emulators are a huge pain, but it needs a lot more work. It would be cool if they could somehow fix the purple bleed through on QFG1VGA. I don't think the Mac version has that problem, but it has uglier character portraits for some reason. Return to Zork for Mac is probably the top game I want to see working. The Mac version is so much better than the DOS version.

IIgs AGI games would be one of the best reasons for ScummVM, they are not fully supported. I, too, have a Mac version of RtZ, but their Mac support is always lacking. There is not even support for sound in some Mac SCUMM games, like the Loom floppy.

Then again, Mac games are not part of the DOSBox vs ScummVM question. In the end, it comes down to the best tool for the job and for me, that is usually DOSBox, but I do use ScummVM for a number of games.

[MusicallyInspired]

I end up using ScummVM for Scumm games just because it kills the copy protection (most of the time). There are some exceptions. Also, the FM Towns version of the Scumm games can only really be played in ScummVM today. The FM Towns VGA version of Indy 3 has a CD Audio soundtrack, for one. And no copy protection at all. Very nice. Then there's Zak McKracken's VGA version completely exclusive to FM Towns. It does have its place. Plus the combined usage of MIDI and Adlib sound effects.

[Akril]

I tend to prefer DOSBox because I've gotten so used to it over the years. I only use ScummVM for games that can't be run in DOSBox (at least not with my barely adequate skills), like Woodruff and the Schnibble.

(Plus, DOSBox has its own built-in video capture system, which is all kinds of awesome.)