I see alot on here with folks trying to declare the turbo as having more impressive graphics than the genesis. I've always been a fan of turbografx but pretty much knew the graphics were not up to snuff (even though I would still argue the point back in the day). The additional background layer on the genesis did wonders, and it seemed like the turbo games spent alot of power and sprites trying to emulate this effect. Also the resolution always appeared higher on the Genesis games, with smoother edges and more detailed sprites. I would give the turbo an edge in color, but thats about it. I would say that it was always interesting to see how the programmers could overcome the single background limitation on the the turbo. LOT is especially impressive in this department. The limitations of the turbo are especially apparent in ports like altered beast and strider, where the turbo just can't match the depth of the parallax layers.
Any comparisons that could blow me out of the water and prove me wrong? I'd love to see. Plus where, if it all, does the turbo beat out the Genesis in any tech stat categories? I'm talking strictly graphics not sound
Even though the "standard" resolution of the TG-16 was square and a little smaller, it could do a larger screen res that was largely equal to the Genesis screen res. I think Irem games typically used the larger screen res. Also, the Genesis could only put 64 colors on a screen and the TG-16 could put far more. One need only compare the PCE port of SF2 to the Genesis port to see some of the graphical differences. And while layered backgrounds and such are nice, graphics are, at their core, detail (resolution) and color, and the TG beats the Genesis on color and is capable of matching it on detail.
Once you get to CD games, compare the CD versions of Strider and Forgotten Worlds to the Genesis cartridge versions.
One area where the Genesis did really shine was putting the powerful CPU to use for creating special effects. Games like Gunstar Heroes and Bio Hazard Battle really used animation and other neat effects to take what was only so impressive when paused and make it "wow!" when put in motion.
This is a tired old debate that I wish would go the fuck away.
Anyways, the Genesis may seem more impressive, but that's because Sega was able to secure more talented third parties with bigger budgets, and they could devote more time to messing with the hardware to create nifty tricks. The only advantage the Genesis really has in the graphics department is the second background layer. It's an important advantage though. Also, the Genesis can do tile flipping (this helps for memory usage, a major problem on the Genesis), and from what I understand, supports 8x8 sprites, whereas the TG16's smallest sprite size is 16x16 (may not seem important, but using a 16x16 sprite for bullets in a shooter seems wasteful). Things are pretty close between the two consoles, and zealots on both sides like to point out this or that advantage. I'll give a brief zealotry rundown:
Genesis Zealot: The Genesis has 80 sprites!
Turbo Zealot: Yeah but the Turbo can do 32x64 sprites, whereas the Genesis can only do 32x32 tops!
Genesis Zealot: The Genesis has two background layers! Hah, beat that, Turbonerd!
Turbo Zealot: So does the Supergrafx! And it has twice the RAM! Hah back at you!
Genesis Zealot: Hey that's not fair, no one has a Supergrafx!
Turbo Zealot: Hah! Sucks to be you!
Genesis Zealot: The Genesis has SHADOW MODE!!!!!!*&^!@$#^^
Turbo Zealot: The Turbo has more colors already built in without the need for some stupid hardware hack!
Genesis Zealot: The Genesis has 32 megabit games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111
Turbo Zealot: You need all that extra memory for the wasteful CPU your console has! We don't NEED cartridges that big! Besides, our Street Fighter II kicks your Street Fighter II's stupid ass!
Genesis Zealot: Sega's games on the Turbo look like ass!
Turbo Zealot: WELL NO DUH! They had to make them look like crap on superior hardware (Turbo) so they could sell more of their inferior hardware (Genesis)!
Genesis Zealot: Well suck on this! The Genesis has a 16 bit CPU with a higher clock rate! HAH! Sucks to be your old 8 bit turtle!
Turbo Zealot: The Turbo's CPU is more efficient than your wasteful RISC wanabe CPU! It performs better than your Frankenstein of a CPU!
Rarely do the tile-flip and 8x8 sprite size advantages of the Genesis come into play because the common zealot knows nothing of these details...these were not pimped by magazines back in the day so zealots never touch on them.
Coming right down to it, neither machine is the clear-cut winner, both have their strengths and weaknesses. The Genesis shines in parallax, the Turbo shines in colors.
And don't bother with the speed argument...games run at 60FPS, plain and simple. The speed of the game is controlled by the software; if I make tiles scroll at 2 pixels rather than 1, my game is going to look twice as fast. This is the concept behind "speedy Genesis games" like Sonic...variable tile scrolling rates make the game faster...it has nothing to do with that old media buzzword, "blast processing".
Standard resolutions:
Genesis: 320x224 viewable
Turbo: 256x224 viewable
I don't know how high the Genesis can go but I do know that the Turbo can do 512 pixels across and about 263 or so tall.
Yeah, this is an endless discussion. You even said so yourself, so why fight the prophecy in trying to end it? :D
Quote from: Nödtveidt on 09/12/2007, 10:54 AMRarely do the tile-flip and 8x8 sprite size advantages of the Genesis come into play because the common zealot knows nothing of these details...these were not pimped by magazines back in the day so zealots never touch on them.
This is a rather faulty argument, saying that the advantage of one system doesn't count because few people are aware of it.
The tile-flipping feature of the Genesis BG is what helps make the graphics more detailed. Let's say you wanted to put a circle on-screen on both systems. The graphic tiles in the Genesis would take up 1/4 of the VRAM compared to the Turbo, and thus the other 3/4 of extra space in the Genesis could be used for even more graphics.
Quote from: Nödtveidt on 09/12/2007, 10:54 AMAnd don't bother with the speed argument...games run at 60FPS, plain and simple. The speed of the game is controlled by the software; if I make tiles scroll at 2 pixels rather than 1, my game is going to look twice as fast.
60fps is only there for timing; the clock speed of the CPU is what determines how much processing can be done
within that 60th of a second. And I'd say as far as calculating polygons and moving sprites around go, the Genesis wins out.
Quote from: Nödtveidt on 09/12/2007, 10:54 AMStandard resolutions:
Genesis: 320x224 viewable
Turbo: 256x224 viewable
Be careful when using words like "standard", as the less intelligent on the internet always take that to mean "maximum."
Quote from: Nödtveidt on 09/12/2007, 10:54 AMI don't know how high the Genesis can go but I do know that the Turbo can do 512 pixels across and about 263 or so tall.
I'm no expert, but I'm aware that both systems can manage 256x224, 256x240, 320x224, 320x240 resolutions. The PCE can additionally manage a vertical maximum of 242 lines, and a horizontal resolution exceeding 565 pixels. (TV overscan limitations notwithstanding.)
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 08:53 AMI see alot on here with folks trying to declare the turbo as having more impressive graphics than the genesis. I've always been a fan of turbografx but pretty much knew the graphics were not up to snuff
[-X
Quote from: ccovell on 09/12/2007, 12:06 PM60fps is only there for timing; the clock speed of the CPU is what determines how much processing can be done within that 60th of a second. And I'd say as far as calculating polygons and moving sprites around go, the Genesis wins out.
So does this mean that a standard game loop should always run at 1/60th of a second?? I'm new to all this but interested
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 08:53 AMI see alot on here with folks trying to declare the turbo as having more impressive graphics than the genesis.
That's 'cause it's true for most games that were released on both systems. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a game that looks better on the Turbo than it does on the Genesis - such as Exile, Devil's Crush (close call), Lords of Thunder, Street Fighter 2, Forgotten Worlds, and the Arcade Card SNK fighters. Of course, a few games look just as good or even better on the Genny - namely Aero Blasters and Dynastic Hero. Basically, it boils down to the Genny's limited color palette. The Turbo could replicate the missing extra plane by using sprites, but the Genesis couldn't do anything about the lack of colors (which resulted in nicely detailed games with washed out colors).
If I look at the best games that each console has to offer, I can't see any meaningful differences. Like has already been said - the Genesis and the Turbo are pretty damn close in capabilities, with each having a slight advantage in some specs and a slight disadvantage in others.
Now gimme back my two cents. :lol:
Quote from: ccovell on 09/12/2007, 12:06 PMThis is a rather faulty argument, saying that the advantage of one system doesn't count because few people are aware of it.
No no no, what I mean is that this is a detail that never comes up in the flame wars between zealots. I wish the PCE had this ability. I don't think a big boring circle is a very good example though. :D The guy working on the Sonic clone was kind of annoyed at the lack of tile flipping, as it would have helped out his doing bonus stages (going for the Sonic 2 thing) but I showed him another way to get good results.
Quote from: ccovell on 09/12/2007, 12:06 PM60fps is only there for timing; the clock speed of the CPU is what determines how much processing can be done within that 60th of a second. And I'd say as far as calculating polygons and moving sprites around go, the Genesis wins out.
Genesis zealots would wish such a thing. I have no problem moving around 40+ sprites on the PCE hardware without any degredation of performance, even with collision detection. Controlling that many sprites on the Genesis always seemed to result in degradation of performance, but only when collision detection was applied (using the same algorithm). When in a real application, the speed of the game is going to be affected by the efficiency of the coldet function, which is going to be related to how fast the CPU can crunch numbers. The two competing CPUs are pretty on-par in calculation speed here; this I know because I've written benchmark programs for both consoles to see which one had more performance in raw calculations. The difference is less than 1%, with the 6280 having a slight advantage in addition and subtraction and the 68000 having a slight advantage in multiplication and division (optimized mul/div, perhaps?). Also, you can technically forgo the vsync, allowing your program to run as fast as the machine can go, but if you do this then you're a bloody idiot who needs to consider a new career. The MHz of the CPU isn't the only factor in determining how much processing can be done (didn't AMD drill this point home with people?), you also have to consider how many ticks an instruction takes. The 6280 and the 68000 vary quite a bit in many instructions. At the end of the day though, they're roughly even; a program written for one will perform roughly the same as the same program written for the other.
Quote from: ccovell on 09/12/2007, 12:06 PMBe careful when using words like "standard", as the less intelligent on the internet always take that to mean "maximum."
When I say "standard", I'm saying what is typically used, which is more or less the "standard". The less intelligent on the internet are the ones who start up the stupid zealot flame wars to begin with. :D
Quote from: guest on 09/12/2007, 05:31 PMQuote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 08:53 AMI see alot on here with folks trying to declare the turbo as having more impressive graphics than the genesis.
The Turbo could replicate the missing extra plane by using sprites, but the Genesis couldn't do anything about the lack of colors (which resulted in nicely detailed games with washed out colors).
but the turbo struggled to pull it off and sacrificed sprites to do it half as well. After hearing from some others in here, that's still the main (and perhaps only) disavantage of the turbo, but it's a big one in my book that. I don't think i've ever looked at a genesis game and siad "this would great if i had three more shades of aqua #3". I have definitely fired up a turbo game (forgotten worlds etc) and said "where' the parallax?" or better yet noticed the background flickering in psychosis cause it's really an extra sprite that the turbo can't handle.
having said all this, I still love the Turbo as i said before the games sem to have a quality that makes them more fun to play.
That a refund on the 2 cents :P
Genesis has poor color. PC Engine games are better looking and more colorful that the Genesis. Go ahead and compare after burner, then you will see what I'm talking about. The PC Engine was obviously more powerful. Genesis games always look shitty. You can especially see the difference on that sorry lords of thunder port. I mean come on, was that a joke? It had parallax were it wasn't supposed to, eliminating the purpose of parallax. The sound was god awful too. All of the colors are bland and faded. Seriously, go download the dual boot cd and see for yourself.
chiki chiki boys
forgotten worlds
lords of thunder
bonanza bros
gain ground
shadow of the beast
super darius 2
fatal fury2
fatal fury special
art of fighting
strider
snatcher
dynastic hero
double dragon 2
might & magic III
daisenpu costom
monster lair
valis 3
valis 1
golden axe
exile
Ys III
zero wing
hellfire
warsong (langrisser)
streetfighter 2
after burner
out run
cadash
atomic robo kid
aero blasters (air buster)
altered beast
rastan saga
bomberman 94 (mega momberman)
tiger heli
and for fun the snes:
shadow of the beast (super shadow of the beast)
world heroes 2
fatal fury 2
fatal fury special
art of fighting
dracula x, not a direct port or a sequal but a remake.
brandish
emerald dragon
Ys III
Ys IV
valis IV
raiden
street fighter 2
might & magic III
dungeon explorer 2 (crystal beans)
tokimeki memorial
these are not all of them but most of the games from this large sample of ports and remakes, for me are better graphics wise than either the genesis or snes.
great list :D
We've had several threads with this debate before, as well as with the SNES thrown in. I think our most extreme case was the legendary Ranger X: The Official Debate Thread (https://www.pcengine-fx.com/forums/index.php?topic=2192.0).
Really it's not so much the power of each system that makes the difference as it is the art itself.
Obviously the Genesis with Sega CD completely blows both Turbo and SNES out of the water graphically (Soul Star and Battlecorps alone are proof of this), but if you compare just the base Genesis to the Turbo Duo then I think they're basically equal.
Ummmm... should Golden Axe really be on the Turbo list as a positive asset? The thing looked worse than the Master System version of that game. I don't think Ys 3 should be on that list, either. It may look great in stills, but the second it moves you can see where the quality most certainly wasn't. Oh, Strider should be on that list, either. It looks like it has 1/2 to 1/4 the colors of the Genesis version and lack of parallax as well. And Areo Blasters/Air Buster shouldn't be on that list, either. Everything in the Turbo version looks smaller. Snatcher is a bit subjective and I don't think either system has any advantage graphically in this game. Rastan Saga 2 looked pretty much identical on both systems, except the Genesis looked more like the arcade since it had parallax. I could go on and on. Horrible list.
Back when these consoles came out, arcades were what I was all about. The Genesis matched the arcades better than the Turbo due to the extra screen which was almost ALWAYS present in the hot new arcade games of the time. The Turbo reminded me more of the NES with its single layer and the same type of shimmering effects when it scrolled (remember, we were hooking these things up through RF or composite at best back then). Yeah, the Turbo can put shitloads more color on the screen than the Genesis. That is its one true advantage that cannot be argued against. I also think the Turbo's 512 colors are better than the Genesis' 512 colors. The Genesis seems to have 512 dark colors, whereas the Turbo has 512 pastel colors.
Quote from: turbo D on 09/12/2007, 06:04 PMGenesis has poor color. PcEngine games are better looking and more colorful that the Genesis. Go ahead and compare after burner, then you will see what I'm talking about. The PcEngine was obviously more powerful. Genesis games always look shitty. You can especially see the difference on that sorry lords of thunder port. I mean come on, was that a joke? It had parallax were it wasn't supposed to, eliminating the purpose of parallax. The sound was god awful too. All of the colors are bland and faded. Seriously, go download the dual boot cd and see for yourself.
That's due to a better color encoder in the PCE hardware. But yes, the sound was definitely worse in the Sega CD port. I almost screamed though when I read this one comparison between the two versions written by some Sega fanboy that said that the reason why the Sega version was poor was because it "they copied the code over". Yeah, sure thing, brat...pure assembly code from a 6502-based CPU to a 68000 CPU...yep, code copy alright...dammit, I wanted to hit that idiot with a tack hammer for his overwhelming ignorance of how CPUs work.
GUTS: I feel sorry for you. :P
Do you feel sorry for me because I am gifted with the ability to perceive the reality of Soul Star pretty much slaughtering every SNES and Turbo game ever graphically? Like I'd be better off living in ignorance and delusion instead?
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 05:47 PMor better yet noticed the background flickering in psychosis cause it's really an extra sprite that the turbo can't handle.
That would be more or less due to poorer quality programming,and a early title. If this was the way to judge things,only on the early weaker stuff,then we should be bring up weak titles on Genesis like Space Harrier 2,Curse, Super Thunderblade,which totally sucks placed against the PcEngine one,and alot of others.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/12/2007, 08:12 PMBack when these consoles came out, arcades were what I was all about. The Genesis matched the arcades better than the Turbo due to the extra screen which was almost ALWAYS present in the hot new arcade games of the time.
I think that the PcEngine did a better job on altered beast and afterburner than the Genesis did, haha.
Oh yes GUTS, I'm so positive that a badly-controlling game like that is just the app killer. :roll: The game is okay but nothing to write home about. The graphics are good but nothing we haven't seen ten thousand times before.
Quote from: turbo D on 09/12/2007, 08:42 PMI think that the PcEngine did a better job on altered beast and afterburner than the Genesis did, haha.
Both versions suck. Sucky ports of a sucky game. :(
I basically agree with GUTS, though I think he's being a little too kind to the Duo.
Quote from: PCEngineHell on 09/12/2007, 08:39 PMQuote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 05:47 PMor better yet noticed the background flickering in psychosis cause it's really an extra sprite that the turbo can't handle.
That would be more or less due to poorer quality programming,and a early title. If this was the way to judge things,only on the early weaker stuff,then we should be bring up weak titles on Genesis like Space Harrier 2,Curse, Super Thunderblade,which totally sucks placed against the PcEngine one,and alot of others.
But Paranoia (Psychosis) was released two and a half years into the PCE's life, and it's considered by many to be one of the stronger chip shooters.
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 08:53 AMI see alot on here with folks trying to declare the turbo as having more impressive graphics than the genesis. I've always been a fan of turbografx but pretty much knew the graphics were not up to snuff (even though I would still argue the point back in the day). The additional background layer on the genesis did wonders, and it seemed like the turbo games spent alot of power and sprites trying to emulate this effect. Also the resolution always appeared higher on the Genesis games, with smoother edges and more detailed sprites.
I would give the turbo an edge in color, but thats about it. I would say that it was always interesting to see how the programmers could overcome the single background limitation on the the turbo. LOT is especially impressive in this department. The limitations of the turbo are especially apparent in ports like altered beast and strider, where the turbo just can't match the depth of the parallax layers.
Any comparisons that could blow me out of the water and prove me wrong? I'd love to see. Plus where, if it all, does the turbo beat out the Genesis in any tech stat categories? I'm talking strictly graphics not sound
Genesis games appeared to have smoother edges and shading that wasn't really there because of how blurry the RF and composite image quality was. Turbo 'graphics' appeared extra pixelly because of how clear the image was. During the heyday of the 16-bit console wars, some of my friends argued the same thing.
It sounds like you aren't overly familiar with the PC Engine library, but maybe you are and just missed some of the better examples of the kinda graphics that impress you.
An unimpressive game on any platform is the fault of the developer, not the hardware. Altered Beast wasn't the greatest port even on Genesis. The parallax used in the Genesis version is a poor example by Genesis standards and can easily be replicated on the PC Engine, SMS or NES.
If you're judging the mediocre Altered Beast PCE port as being poor mainly because of the missing layers, you must also not be very impressed by the weak arcade hardware whose version of Altered Beast's flat backgrounds the PCE port emulates just fine.
Strider is widely regarded as one of the worst arcade to PCE ports and the Genesis version one of its best. At least criticize the PCE version of Forgotten Worlds for having nearly arcade perfect graphics and flat bgs as looking uglier than the Genesis port's crude in comparison graphics complimented by layered bgs.
But regardless, I don't understand how you can point out how impressive Lords of Thunder is for layered graphics in one sentence and in the next sentence say that Altered Beast and Strider
prove that the PC Engine can't do them. #-o
I don't know if any examples
could blow you out of the water, since your appreciation of graphics is based on how closely they emulate the Genesis. Any good examples of layered bgs in PCE games could still be done on Genesis if you discount the actual
graphics.
Aside from all the Turbo/PCE games that have nice layered graphics, there are still a bunch of flat bg games that look nicer than their Genesis counterparts. But its still not simply always a reflection of a weakness in the Genesis and usually has more to do with the developer(
like when all the graphics are redrawn). But when the Turbo's strength in color is used effectively, it does look very nice compared to a well done Genesis port. Like say SFIICE and the arcade card Neo Geo ports.
Dude I'm only talking about the graphics obviously (that's what we're all talking about here since you didn't read the whole thread), and they're beyond "nothing we haven't seen before". Any real programmer would have respect for what Core was able to do with the hardware in both Battlecorps and Soul Star.
Soul Star is good,granted,as most Core titles were,but its built on scaling,and that only stays impressive for so long before you want more going on and more traditional stuff to look at. This is why I enjoy traditional side scrolling shooters the most myself.
QuoteSuper Thunderblade,which totally sucks placed against the PcEngine one
I dunno, dude. They both look fantastically crappy to me. The PCE version emulates the arcade version more whereas the Genesis version is supposed to be a sequel. Both the PCE and Genesis versions have atrocious first person graphics that are beyond pathetic.
Oh yeah I agree, side scrolling shooters are way better for actually playing, I never said Soul Star was actually a very good game (actually I don't really like it at all since half the levels are free roam which I hate). I was just listing Soul Star as a game that did things graphically that the SNES or Turbo couldn't have done since the scaling was so impressive for the time. Personally I think it still looks amazing today though, I'm always impressed by games that really push the hardware to do things that we're way beyond the norm.
I agree with GUTS. Lack of color aside, Soul Star did things that the Turbo, SNES or even the Neo Geo simply could never do.
To me the 2 games that were really impressive scaling wise on the Sega Cd were Batman Returns and The Adventure of Batman and Robin. Not just that but both played extremely well.
Soul Star does look better than pretty much everything on Turbo and SNES as far as sprite scaling games go and the Sega-CD is the unrivaled champ for that kind of graphics. Joe's Sega CD - Scaling and Rotation (http://youtu.be/k80dODWdj9I) is very impressive.
But thats only one kind of graphics and not as popular as real 2D graphics/gameplay. Just as few people judge a 16-bit console's overall graphics by its polygon games.
If layered bgs are the most important/impressive aspect of 16-bit/2D graphics to someone, followed by neato effects and then actual graphics, then the SNES must be the most impressive console for them.
I like the driving portions of Batman Returns as well (I always turn off the gross-looking platform parts which I feel display some of the worst Genesis graphics next to Chakan). Batman & Robin requires you to get in a "zone" to pay it because otherwise it is too tough. It is beatable, though.
QuoteUmmmm... should Golden Axe really be on the Turbo list as a positive asset? The thing looked worse than the Master System version of that game. I don't think Ys 3 should be on that list, either. It may look great in stills, but the second it moves you can see where the quality most certainly wasn't. Oh, Strider should be on that list, either. It looks like it has 1/2 to 1/4 the colors of the Genesis version and lack of parallax as well. And Areo Blasters/Air Buster shouldn't be on that list, either. Everything in the Turbo version looks smaller. Snatcher is a bit subjective and I don't think either system has any advantage graphically in this game. Rastan Saga 2 looked pretty much identical on both systems, except the Genesis looked more like the arcade since it had parallax. I could go on and on. Horrible list.
ummmm..if you read what i said
Quotethese are not all of them but most of the games from this large sample of ports and remakes
key word is most
for starters i don't agree that the turbo version of strider looks like it has only 1/2 to 1/4 the colors of the genesis version infact the screens i have seen the turbo version has almost double the colors but colors are not everything and i give this one to the genesis
Golden axe, the genesis version has better sprites, effects and animation but if you actually look at the backgrounds the duo version looks better in many cases, still the genesis takes this one easily,
Snatcher, this certainly looks better on the duo to me.
Parallax scrolling isn't the only difference in rastan saga 2, the duo version has better textures due to more colors and better detail.
I'll take good old hand drawn stuff over technical trash any day.
Damn
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/12/2007, 09:00 PMI agree with GUTS. Lack of color aside, Soul Star did things that the Turbo, SNES or even the Neo Geo simply could never do.
Not good idea using the NeoGeo as a comparison. If thats the case then if the Sega Cd was such a scaling monster,then why didn't Samurai Shodown do it on SegaCd.I can name hundreds of things the Neo did that the Genesis couldn't do even with the Sega Cd add on anyway,and it should be noted that any attempt to port a Neo title over to Sega Cd or Genesis ended in horrible failure for the most part....where as at least the Snes was decent,and the Pc-Engine Arcade cd technology was awesome. The few,and I do mean few titles that used scaling on Sega Cd anyway did look well,but that was the exception,not the rule,and basically boiled down to the few shining moments of the hardware being used as well as it could. It def scaled sprites themselves well and objects,and the floor/ground graphics fluidly.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/12/2007, 09:12 PMI like the driving portions of Batman Returns as well (I always turn off the gross-looking platform parts which I feel display some of the worst Genesis graphics next to Chakan). Batman & Robin requires you to get in a "zone" to pay it because otherwise it is too tough. It is beatable, though.
Batman Returns looks as impressive to me as the few 32-bit games I remember using a similar style(Road Rash?) and Batman and Robin looks like a full on 3D texture mapped game.
Over on Sega-16 there's a debate over which was more impressive visually/technically: Virtua Racing Genesis or Star Fox. I think that Batman & Robin puts them both to shame. 8)
Quote from: awack on 09/12/2007, 09:16 PMfor starters i don't agree that the turbo version of strider looks like it has only 1/2 to 1/4 the colors of the genesis version infact the screens i have seen the turbo version has almost double the colors but colors are not everything and i give this one to the genesis
Golden axe, the genesis version has better sprites, effects and animation but if you actually look at the backgrounds the duo version looks better in many cases, still the genesis takes this one easily,
Snatcher, this certainly looks better on the duo to me.
Parallax scrolling isn't the only difference in rastan saga 2, the duo version has better textures due to more colors.
What the PCE version of Strider has going for it is the use of actual graphics/artwork from the arcade and a ton of extra detail over the Genesis version. Unfortunately, they did a bad job translating those graphics to the PCE. But it'd still look nice enough if the scrolling wasn't broken.
Its still way better than its awful rep, but its still a bad port by PCE standards(
especially by CPS to PCE standards).
OldTurboBastard: some Turbo/PCE games with decent layered bgs: Magical Chase, Gate of Thunder, Super Darius/Darius Plus, Ninja Spirit, Vasteel, Shubibinman 3.
QuoteWhat the PCE version of Strider has going for it is the use of actual graphics/artwork from the arcade and a ton of extra detail over the Genesis version. Unfortunately, they did a bad job translating those graphics to the PCE. But it'd still look nice enough if the scrolling wasn't broken.
Its still way better than its awful rep, but its still a bad port by PCE standards(especially by CPS to PCE standards).
I agree with this, another thing that was bad about the pc engine version was the choice of colors in some places.
Michael, I didn't say that the Sega CD could eclipse anything the Neo Geo could do, I said that games like Soul Star have scaling that simply can NOT be done on the Neo Geo, period. The Neo Geo cannot do perspective (like SNES mode 7) and it cannot do hardware rotation. Therefore F-Zero and Pilotwings, some of the first SNES games ever, could not be done on the Neo Geo. Also, Core or Malibu didn't make Samurai ShoDown for the Sega CD, some little podunk developer did.
Strider PCE looks extremely dark to me. It looks... murky.
JVC handled Sam Sho and Fatal Fury Special. Sammy handled Sengoku. None of them were good ports,which also held true for AOF,World Heroes 1,King of the Monsters,View Point,Samurai Shodown,and alot of others on Genesis.
It def had nothing to do with the lack of quality programmers,and more to do with what the hardware could do and not do.
Yea the Sega Cd had the ability to do scaling with perspective in the play field,and as I said did objects/sprites and the floor graphics well and smooth,but regardless of this the Neo did the whole damn screen along with traditional back and forth individual sprite scaling. Each used their scaling abilities to do what they could,and both have strong points,but neither were massive monsters besting each other scaling wise because of the apples and oranges comparason. The Neo could do this,the Sega Cd that. Each method was good for certain game types,with the Sega Cds being best for driving/flying games,the Neo's obviously being arcade titles.
That and as far as just traditional graphics,sprites,colors,and audio goes,the NeoGeo is the winner hands down. The NeoGeo was a sprite handling monster. I will take that over the few shining moments of the Sega cd's hardware any day of the week.
Who wouldn't? Anyway the Neo Geo had to be a sprite handling monster since I don't think the thing had any dedicated background planes... only sprites.
It is technically impressive that the Neo Geo did everything with only sprites and the results are impressive as visuals in general.
But even though the Genesis could port Neo Geo bgs as serperate layers and only have to do characters as sprites instead of doing things technically the same way... -I look at layered Turbo/PCE bgs the same way. It doesn't matter how the effect is achieved, only that the end result looks cool.
I agree that it doesn't matter how the effect is achieved, but the Genesis could do that particular effect better. Also it had Blast Processing©™® which r00lz u. u cannot compeet wit teh blast procesing :dance:
Anyway I've always wondered about some TG/PCE games that did multi-scrolling quite well, like Ninja Spirit. I'm not a programmer, but I have a theory that the "tiled" background is simply a single column of sprites, repeated across the screen. When repeated like this, it acts as only one column instead of many, though they cannot be moved independently from each other. Am I right? Can I get a programmer's opinion on this?
I looked at Ninja Spirit a while back and it animates the tiles to simulate the additional BG layer.
Heh..guess Technosoft forgot to turn on Blast Processing©™® for TFIV :D
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/12/2007, 09:34 PMThe Neo Geo cannot do perspective (like SNES mode 7)
The Neo-Geo can indeed do perspective (just not rotation) by changing the scaling of its BG [sprites] each scanline -- just like the SNES and GBA did it. The title screen to Sengoku Denshou 2 does this in a limited fashion. Probably the main thing limiting its use in things like driving games is the complete lack of rotation.
Yes, the Neo-Geo is a strange beast. It has one background plane, used for title screens, displays, and the road in Riding Hero, and all the rest are sprites -- a whole friggin' lot of them. That's like having a hundred background layers, so I consider that pretty powerful.
some questions about the multilayer funktion of both systems, which isn't clear at all yet.
PCE: there's no such HW feature, therefore for any additional layers, a sprite-(plane) have to be used to fake parallax-scrolling. so tell me how many of those big-sized sprites where used to simulate back-layers in Winds of thunder or Coryoon? and how big in size are they? was it even possible to creat such big sprites? and how the horizont flickering could be suppressed that well since you have overlapping sprites along the whole screen?
MD: the MD got some extra back-layers in its HW, but how many of them? and when games exceeded the number of max. possible HW multilayers, does the MD use the same sprite trick as the PCE? (e.g. Thunder Force IV..)?
I can answer the Mega Drive question. It only has 2 background layers. You can achieve what looks like more than one pretty easily, though. Just as long as a background never overlaps itself, all is fine. Thunder Force 4 works basically by putting the backgrounds in between each other. If you look closely, you'll see that layer A never overlaps itself, the same with layer B. Also there are some games on the system that use sprites to give the illusion of a 3rd layer, like Shinobi 3, Sonic 3, Ys 3 or any game with a "3" in it. :D I think both the PCE and MD can scroll a single background "into" itself vertically (but not over itself) as seen in Super Fantasy Zone and Aero Blasters.
Basically games like Winds/Lords of Thunder on the Turbo have predetermined scrolling. You can't scroll in any direction freely with the parallax working in each of those directions like you can on, say, the overhead levels of Thunder Force 2. If the "BG sprites" in a PCE game get heavy, then that will likely be a part in the game where the enemy attacks aren't too intense.
Also, the MD's resolution limit is 320 pixels wide. It can do 448 pixels tall via interlacing as seen in Sonic 2.
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/13/2007, 12:13 AMsome questions about the multilayer funktion of both systems, which isn't clear at all yet.
PCE: there's no such HW feature, therefore for any additional layers, a sprite-(plane) have to be used to fake parallax-scrolling. so tell me how many of those big-sized sprites where used to simulate back-layers in Winds of thunder or Coryoon? and how big in size are they? was it even possible to creat such big sprites? and how the horizont flickering could be suppressed that well since you have overlapping sprites along the whole screen?
MD: the MD got some extra back-layers in its HW, but how many of them? and when games exceeded the number of max. possible HW multilayers, does the MD use the same sprite trick as the PCE? (e.g. Thunder Force IV..)?
Coryoon? You mean all those parallax scrolls? They don't *overlap* and are also known as hsync scrolls. The PCE, like the MD and SNES, can do up to 242 hsync scrolls in a single frame.
For LOT, sprites are used in *some* areas, mostly the ones that need overlap, but the game also uses animated tiles to cut back on the sprite usage. GOT does this too. Usually small areas where the scroll "drops" off and/or transitions into another section leaving a gap.
There are a lot of clever ways to fake multilayer scrolls. Just want until you see Charles MacDonald PCE project with MindRec. Some really impressive stuff.
so waht you mean, as long the different planes (layers) don't overlap each other, there is no need to use sprites to fake multi-layer scrolling? and for WoT only where the back-layers overlaps, the use of sprites makes sense.
One of the pc engine games that uses a lot of sprites for parallax scrolling is Dracula x.
here is an example.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_072EAB00-037.png)
I would never go so far as to make a statement putting Genesis graphics below that of the TG-16. Each of the 16-bitters of that generation, Genesis, TG-16, and SNES, had different capabilities, and each was fantastic. That was probably one of the best, if not the best, generations in video game history.
To me, a more common statement is that the Genesis outshined the TG-16 in every technical category, which is patently false. The TG-16 was readily capable of visuals matching or surpassing the Genesis, taken on a game by game basis. That said, some games looked like late generation NES games with a better color palette (which in itself is not a dig, as those NES games themselves looked pretty darn good, even compared to 16-bit).
Any crusade to show that any console was objectively superior is a fruitless and pointless enterprise, especially comparing those in the 16-bit era.
Quote from: ccovell on 09/12/2007, 11:27 PMQuote from: Joe Redifer on 09/12/2007, 09:34 PMThe Neo Geo cannot do perspective (like SNES mode 7)
The Neo-Geo can indeed do perspective (just not rotation) by changing the scaling of its BG [sprites] each scanline -- just like the SNES and GBA did it. The title screen to Sengoku Denshou 2 does this in a limited fashion. Probably the main thing limiting its use in things like driving games is the complete lack of rotation.
Yes, the Neo-Geo is a strange beast. It has one background plane, used for title screens, displays, and the road in Riding Hero, and all the rest are sprites -- a whole friggin' lot of them. That's like having a hundred background layers, so I consider that pretty powerful.
Agree!!!!
(?action=dlattach&attach=12167&image)
(?action=dlattach&attach=12171&image)
(?action=dlattach&attach=12169&image)
Other games like Last Blade and Art of Fighting would be nice to show, but no scaling in .gif. Same thing with the ones posted by not scrolling left and right, but you get the idea.
the only one real exiting thing is, that the PCE was released more than a year earlier than the MD and almost 3 years before the SFC came out. considering this fact, the PC Engine was really a big step ahead and astonishing little piece of hardware back then! if you open a PCE there is 96% designed in advanced SMD technology, which makes it such compact and you think you openend something designed in the middle 90s. if you open a MD, you think you opened an alarm-clock from the mid 80s.
Quote from: Gentlegamer on 09/13/2007, 03:48 AMTo me, a more common statement is that the Genesis outshined the TG-16 in every technical category, which is patently false. The TG-16 was readily capable of visuals matching or surpassing the Genesis, taken on a game by game basis. That said, some games looked like late generation NES games with a better color palette (which in itself is not a dig, as those NES games themselves looked pretty darn good, even compared to 16-bit).
There are lots of games on Genesis and SNES that look like NES games.
I've probably written this before, but at the time the PCE came out (1987), a lot of the development tools for home systems were focussed on the Famicom: 8-bit CPU, small sprites, simple tiles, etc. And so I think a lot of early PCE games (let's say the ones not by Hudson's best teams) really lacked powerful graphics to distinguish them from Famicom games at the time. It took most companies until they developed PCE-specific tools (map editors, better graphic editors) before stunning games started to get made. Early in the PCE's life, we saw plenty of NES-alikes and Japanese PC conversions.
The Mega Drive, on the other hand, had a lot of developers experienced with arcade graphics and had arcade (or X68000) devkits, so I think the arcade quality of many games was definitely there even early in the MD's life.
When I look at PCE ads from 1987-88, I feel a sense of disgust with the game lineups of most companies... :(
but then, something strange happened..
QuoteThe CDROM attachments (all of them) include a new ADPCM soundchip and some extra RAM for playing sound samples. This RAM is not the same as normal PCE RAM, and was designed to be used with the new soundchip exclusively. Through clever programming the game Monster Lair used this RAM to store extra sprite animation, essentially bypassing the RAM limitations of the PCE and System Card. It's probably that this is the first and possibly only time that new sound hardware increased graphic quality. Interestingly this affected emulation as well, as Monster Lair suddenly looked better when this soundchip was accurately emulated.
quite interesting how to use hardware, isn't it?^^
Ah this damn thread again! LOL
I always thought the Genesissy put way too much stock in competing with the SNES(Which it SO couldn't), while the TG16 went in a whole different direction.
I personally prefer the TurboGrafx graphics over the genesis.
But just for the record I love all things 16-bit! The Genny, Snessy, and TG16 was truly the greatest time in gaming!
TS
Quote from: guest on 09/12/2007, 08:47 PMBut regardless, I don't understand how you can point out how impressive Lords of Thunder is for layered graphics in one sentence and in the next sentence say that Altered Beast and Strider prove that the PC Engine can't do them. #-o
Then why did'nt they port over parrallax in those games? Probably because the system can't handle having to emulate true parallax while providing the rest of the game action. It works well in LOT and other turbo original games bacause because they could program around the limitation using fairly simple second layers, which often morph back into one layer when the system could not pull off the mirage any more.
...if they could've they would've is all i'm saying. And yes maybe "they couldve if they used nifty programming and this and that" but the fact is they did'nt because it was not easy for the turbo to pull off
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/13/2007, 12:55 PMQuote from: guest on 09/12/2007, 08:47 PMBut regardless, I don't understand how you can point out how impressive Lords of Thunder is for layered graphics in one sentence and in the next sentence say that Altered Beast and Strider prove that the PC Engine can't do them. #-o
Then why did'nt they port over parrallax in those games?
In the case of Altered Beast, it was because there was no parallax to port. As I stated in another thread, the parallax was
added specifically for the Genesis version. The Turbo version was not a port of the Genesis version, it was a port of the arcade. The arcade did not have any parallax.
Quote...if they could've they would've is all i'm saying. And yes maybe "they couldve if they used nifty programming and this and that" but the fact is they did'nt because it was not easy for the turbo to pull off
Perhaps not as easy to program, but it's still possible. We've seen it in tons of games on the system (maybe you haven't). So what it really boils down to is lazy or incompetent programmers.
Ha! I'm much more concerned about character design (sprite design) and the graphics used for the stage/background when it comes to aesthetics.
All this attention lavished upon parallax scrolling is too much!
Don't get me wrong: I love parallax, but I find myself disappointed with the artistic vision of a game much more often than I lament the "lack of parallax" (or similar technicality). In fact, I think I can flip this discussion around and argue that parallax was a LAZY SHORTCUT to add superficial eye candy to most games, whereas it would have been much more exciting (and impressive) to see bold, daring artistic vision.
Or, if it is too much to ask for pioneering art design, we deserved to have more inspired and creative art directors for video games! Then, at least, we would have seen more variety in our games instead of the same rehashed, generic stuff ad nauseam.
For example, let's take JJ & Jeff:
1. I always felt the game looked flat, the backgrounds and stage design is anemic and sparse. Adding parallax would have been a "quick-n-easy" way to make the game more appealing, visually, IMO.
2. But, actually, I would happily forgo parallax in JJ & Jeff if the artistic designer had had a more creative / inspired vision for the game.
3. I like JJ & Jeff. I guess I lust for a sequel to the game. And don't forget to give me some more eye candy, if only for some cheap thrills!
Quote from: ccovell on 09/13/2007, 09:31 AMI've probably written this before, but at the time the PCE came out (1987), a lot of the development tools for home systems were focussed on the Famicom: 8-bit CPU, small sprites, simple tiles, etc. And so I think a lot of early PCE games (let's say the ones not by Hudson's best teams) really lacked powerful graphics to distinguish them from Famicom games at the time. It took most companies until they developed PCE-specific tools (map editors, better graphic editors) before stunning games started to get made. Early in the PCE's life, we saw plenty of NES-alikes and Japanese PC conversions.
The Mega Drive, on the other hand, had a lot of developers experienced with arcade graphics and had arcade (or X68000) devkits, so I think the arcade quality of many games was definitely there even early in the MD's life.
When I look at PCE ads from 1987-88, I feel a sense of disgust with the game lineups of most companies... :(
Awesome, thanks for the sweet info!
Quote from: esteban on 09/13/2007, 03:41 PMFor example, let's take JJ & Jeff:
1. I always felt the game looked flat, the backgrounds and stage design is anemic and sparse. Adding parallax would have been a "quick-n-easy" way to make the game more appealing, visually, IMO.
2. But, actually, I would happily forgo parallax in JJ & Jeff if the artistic designer had had a more creative / inspired vision for the game.
3. I like JJ & Jeff. I guess I lust for a sequel to the game. And don't forget to give me some more eye candy, if only for some cheap thrills!
1. Agreed, and i'll take it. better more appealling even if it is a simple and easy way, as it was for the genesis developers.
2. I'll agree with this too. But they did'nt cause it's not easy to pull off on the turbo so we are left with boring backgrounds that could've been helped by a little parallax
3. I had fun with this one back in the day too
As for too much attention being paid to parallax, I disagree, it's a pretty big upgrade over flat boring backgrounds and is even used in some genesis games to create gigantic boss characters without using up onscreen sprites. I'd say it's right up there with the mode 7 effects on the SNES as far as importance goes.
It's the only area between the two consoles where the PC engine can't come close to the Genesis or vice cersa. The rest is pretty debateable, as we have seen in this thread.
the pcengine has lots of games with good parallax, you just haven't played any of them :lol:
Quote from: turbo D on 09/13/2007, 04:18 PMthe pcengine has lots of games with good parallax, you just haven't played any of them :lol:
Not true - played most of 'em mentioned on here, aside from a possible few oscure japanese titles.
FACT -most games for the turbo do not use overlapping parallax scrolling. They are not the the norm, they are the exception. Most games that did have it featured separately scrolling planes that could not overlap. When they did manage to pull it off overlapping parallax, it was generally clunky looking, (i.e. black squares instead of sharp borders) and one layer of the background was normally a weak pattern (Ninja Spirit). Y's III had two complex backgrounds but it ran like doo-doo. Some of the parallax on the turbo may have been good (LOT, Dracula, Dead Moon etc), but it was no where near on the level of say Mystic Defender Or Revenge of Shinobi (both early games for the Genesis), and it was RARE (which is why we turbo fan boys seem to ga-ga over it), which made owning the turbografx in the USA back it 1990 like having a system that pretty much did not do true parallax, only the separate planes like we see in R-TYPE that do not overlap.
it is what it is...
Quote from: nat on 09/13/2007, 01:35 PMIn the case of Altered Beast, it was because there was no parallax to port. As I stated in another thread, the parallax was added specifically for the Genesis version. The Turbo version was not a port of the Genesis version, it was a port of the arcade. The arcade did not have any parallax.
You and I both pointed this out,I wonder how that keeps getting missed so much....
Also,as stated before and what also seems to be forgotten,the Genesis used off the shelf parts,and was easier for companies to program for,esp for companies in there to make a quick buck with the bonus of less programming experience needed then what early development on the Pc-Engine required. Companies programming for the Pc-Engine had to start from scratch,and learn tricks and limits. Yea they did on the Genesis also,but to a lesser degree as the hardware in there was familiar to about all the companies about due to Amiga and arcade development.
Edit:ccovell pointed much of the above out too,sorry I overlooked that post,but still always good to know all great minds think mostly alike.
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/13/2007, 04:29 PMQuote from: turbo D on 09/13/2007, 04:18 PMthe pcengine has lots of games with good parallax, you just haven't played any of them :lol:
Not true - played most of 'em mentioned on here, aside from a possible few oscure japanese titles.
FACT -most games for the turbo do not use overlapping parallax scrolling. They are not the the norm, they are the exception. Most games that did have it featured separately scrolling planes that could not overlap. When they did manage to pull it off overlapping parallax, it was generally clunky looking, (i.e. black squares instead of sharp borders) and one layer of the background was normally a weak pattern (Ninja Spirit). Y's III had two complex backgrounds but it ran like doo-doo. Some of the parallax on the turbo may have been good (LOT, Dracula, Dead Moon etc), but it was no where near on the level of say Mystic Defender Or Revenge of Shinobi (both early games for the Genesis), and it was RARE (which is why we turbo fan boys seem to ga-ga over it), which made owning the turbografx in the USA back it 1990 like having a system that pretty much did not do true parallax, only the separate planes like we see in R-TYPE that do not overlap.
it is what it is...
Have you played airzonk? that game has tons of parallax and huge bosses and plays very nice and fast. I'd like to see the Genesis do something like that. Shinobi was fine and all, but it had poor color and fuzzy/blurry sprites. Perhaps the Genesis needed parallax so badly to cover up its bland color and fuzzy/blurry grafx. One thing the Turbo Grafx had over the Genesis was sharp picture and non-blurry/ugly sprites. Its hard to tell what the faces of the characters are on a lot of genesis games because of the poor quality, haha. Sometimes its even hard to tell whats going on.
Air Zonk is definitely nice looking but Shinobi III, Ranger X, and many others completely annihilate it graphically.
This thread is pretty pathetic from both sides.
And to add to it's uselessness, I will inform you that Air Zonk had h-sync parallax (no overlapping), just like Choplifter for the Sega Master System.
I'd also like to add that the Genesis is clear and sharp in RGB,S-video,and component,not blurry or fuzzy.
With all the talk about parallax scrolling i should mention shape shifter (a turbo game for those who don't know), there is an area which has an object in the foreground which scrolls by so often behind that you have i think 4 or 5 layers of scrolling (the ground your running on) and behind that you have 3 layers of overlapping parallax scrolling(trees).
Thats not the same thing as having 2 background screens but it is still very impressive to most people i guess.
It would be impressive to me. I haven't played Shape Shifter because I really only hear bad things about it, but my friend owns it so I should borrow the game and give it a try.
so let's merge that parallax talk in short sentences! as told by chris and joe:
As for the PCE:
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites (from the 2nd to n layers)
As for the MD:
two hardware layers. so from the 3rd to n layer >
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites
right?
Quote from: OldTurboBastardAs for too much attention being paid to parallax, I disagree, it's a pretty big upgrade over flat boring backgrounds and is even used in some genesis games to create gigantic boss characters without using up onscreen sprites. I'd say it's right up there with the mode 7 effects on the SNES as far as importance goes.
You hit the nail on the head. Parallax can be faked in many different ways (and some you guys have yet to see...) and game design around such subtle scrolling layers can prove to be more in the interest of overall production than importance of throwing in a second layer *just* to be "16bit" distinguished. But... a *big* added bonus to second or more BG layers is that you can fake large Boss (sprites) with it. Maaaaanny games do this. Heh- using sprites to fake BGs, using BGs to fake sprites.
Ehem... SGX. (Wish the hell they had included the damn hardware into the Duo unit since the technology(ICs) were already developed and available)
Btw, Cdoty mentioned NeoGeo specs on a mame dev site and stated the system could support 16x4096 size sprites. Wiki says 16x512, but they've been known not to have their shit together.
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/13/2007, 12:55 PMQuote from: CrackTiger on 09/12/2007, 08:47 PMBut regardless, I don't understand how you can point out how impressive Lords of Thunder is for layered graphics in one sentence and in the next sentence say that Altered Beast and Strider prove that the PC Engine can't do them. #-o
Then why did'nt they port over parrallax in those games? Probably because the system can't handle having to emulate true parallax while providing the rest of the game action. It works well in LOT and other turbo original games bacause because they could program around the limitation using fairly simple second layers, which often morph back into one layer when the system could not pull off the mirage any more.
...if they could've they would've is all i'm saying. And yes maybe "they couldve if they used nifty programming and this and that" but the fact is they did'nt because it was not easy for the turbo to pull off
Because not every game is developed by the same team.
Pretty much all the parallax in the Genesis Altered Beast is very easy to pull of on the Turbo. It'd just be 'slate' scrolling that even the NES can do (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TqGxTMxe09Q) with a few extra sprites to poke out over the layers in spots. Its nothing that puts the Genesis's layering abilities to good use.
Here is the Genesis Altered Beast parallax on NES-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q5U3oacYauM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iL7nX9W3aOU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MSXYXhao6vI
It has nothing to do with ease or difficulty for the Turbo, only competency and/or laziness of developers.
It'd take some nifty tricks to do some of
Strider's bgs on the Turbo, but its not hard to figure out how at least some of it could be done. But its obvious that the PCE port of Strider was very poor and that the developer couldn't handle programming in some of the most basic things, like scrolling a screen across a flat background, let alone attempt to do layers of any kind.
Quote from: PCEngineHell on 09/13/2007, 08:17 PMI'd also like to add that the Genesis is clear and sharp in RGB,S-video,and component,not blurry or fuzzy.
Yeah, but who in North America was playing their Genesis in RGB and S-Video in 1989? And would those who did really say that Genesis games had smoother edges and more detailed sprites when they could make out all the jaggies and pixels?
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/13/2007, 08:43 PMso let's merge that parallax talk in short sentences! as told by chris and joe:
As for the PCE:
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites (from the 2nd to n layers)
As for the MD:
two hardware layers. so from the 3rd to n layer >
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites
right?
Wait.. what? By ">" do you mean "->" as in "goes to/associated with"?
The MD can do overlapping parallax layers without using sprites. ThunderForce 4 ocean side level is a perfect example of this. The SGX and SNES can do this too.
Black Tiger: The NES did that with the help of an additional chip (in the US they used MMC3 or greater), otherwise you could only split the screen once per frame using the sprite 0 method (The coin in the upper side screen of SMB1 is a perfect example).
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/13/2007, 08:51 PMQuote from: Tatsujin on 09/13/2007, 08:43 PMso let's merge that parallax talk in short sentences! as told by chris and joe:
As for the PCE:
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites (from the 2nd to n layers)
As for the MD:
two hardware layers. so from the 3rd to n layer >
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites
right?
Wait.. what? By ">" do you mean "->" as in "goes to/associated with"?
The MD can do overlapping parallax layers without using sprites. ThunderForce 4 ocean side level is a perfect example of this. The SGX and SNES can do this too.
Black Tiger: The NES did that with the help of an additional chip (in the US they used MMC3 or greater), otherwise you could only split the screen once per frame using the sprite 0 method (The coin in the upper side screen of SMB1 is a perfect example).
The NES used chips for a lot of things. :wink: So then its a 'trick' that even the SMS can do no problem. :P
Quote from: awack on 09/13/2007, 08:22 PMWith all the talk about parallax scrolling i should mention shape shifter (a turbo game for those who don't know), there is an area which has an object in the foreground which scrolls by so often behind that you have i think 4 or 5 layers of scrolling (the ground your running on) and behind that you have 3 layers of overlapping parallax scrolling(trees).
Thats not the same thing as having 2 background screens but it is still very impressive to most people i guess.
It appears to use a 'weak pattern' tile animation in the distance and the 'h-sync' parallax on the ground with sprites popping out.
Whats cool about the animating tiles is that, if I remember correctly, they animate as if there are two layers in the distance overlapping each other, kinda like 3 layers of bgs.
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/13/2007, 08:46 PMYou hit the nail on the head. Parallax can be faked in many different ways (and some you guys have yet to see...) and game design around such subtle scrolling layers can prove to be more in the interest of overall production than importance of throwing in a second layer *just* to be "16bit" distinguished. But... a *big* added bonus to second or more BG layers is that you can fake large Boss (sprites) with it. Maaaaanny games do this. Heh- using sprites to fake BGs, using BGs to fake sprites.
The NES has many games with very cool giant bosses that do that on a black background. 8)
I played a ways through Atomic Robo Kid the other day, and some of the fullscreen bosses had slight flicker at times. I'm guessing that they just used a bg layer on the Genesis version, but it was still impressive that the PCE was tossing them around with only sprites plus they looked cool regardless. :)
QuoteWhats cool about the animating tiles is that, if I remember correctly, they animate as if there are two layers in the distance overlapping each other, kinda like 3 layers of bgs.
exactly, there are 3 overlapping background layers of trees.
The Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer; its all that it has to compete. Anyways, Genesis failed to the PcEngine in Japan for obvious reasons. It will fail in this thread as well :wink:
Quote from: turbo D on 09/13/2007, 09:13 PMThe Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer; its all that it has to compete. Anyways, Genesis failed to the PcEngine in Japan for obvious reasons. It will fail in this thread as well :wink:
Well, this
is a
PC Engine forum.
Try starting this thread over on Sega-16. :wink:
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/13/2007, 08:51 PMQuote from: Tatsujin on 09/13/2007, 08:43 PMso let's merge that parallax talk in short sentences! as told by chris and joe:
As for the PCE:
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites (from the 2nd to n layers)
As for the MD:
two hardware layers. so from the 3rd to n layer >
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites
right?
Wait.. what? By ">" do you mean "->" as in "goes to/associated with"?
The MD can do overlapping parallax layers without using sprites. ThunderForce 4 ocean side level is a perfect example of this. The SGX and SNES can do this too.
yes ">" = "->"
as i could take out from joes post, the MD only owns 2 HW layers, therefore i thought, any addition layers have to be done the exactly same way as on the PCE, h-sync or use of sprites.
Quote from: turbo D on 09/13/2007, 09:13 PMThe Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer; its all that it has to compete. Anyways, Genesis failed to the PcEngine in Japan for obvious reasons. It will fail in this thread as well :wink:
what you mean with 3 years? that was the SFC..
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/13/2007, 06:31 AMthe only one real exiting thing is, that the PCE was released more than a year earlier than the MD and almost 3 years before the SFC came out. considering this fact, the PC Engine was really a big step ahead and astonishing little piece of hardware back then! if you open a PCE there is 96% designed in advanced SMD technology, which makes it such compact and you think you openend something designed in the middle 90s. if you open a MD, you think you opened an alarm-clock from the mid 80s.
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/13/2007, 09:28 PMQuote from: TurboXray on 09/13/2007, 08:51 PMQuote from: Tatsujin on 09/13/2007, 08:43 PMso let's merge that parallax talk in short sentences! as told by chris and joe:
As for the PCE:
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites (from the 2nd to n layers)
As for the MD:
two hardware layers. so from the 3rd to n layer >
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites
right?
Wait.. what? By ">" do you mean "->" as in "goes to/associated with"?
The MD can do overlapping parallax layers without using sprites. ThunderForce 4 ocean side level is a perfect example of this. The SGX and SNES can do this too.
yes ">" = "->"
as i could take out from joes post, the MD only owns 2 HW layers, therefore i thought, any addition layers have to be done the exactly same way as on the PCE, h-sync or use of sprites.
It can still throw up a foreground. I don't know if the foreground can scroll seperate pieces to keep a score/status and moving graphic elements though.
so then we talking about 1 foreground + 2 extra background layers (for parallax) = 3 hardware layers? 4th to n layer by h-sync or sprites?
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/13/2007, 09:36 PMso then we talking about 1 foreground + 2 extra background layers (for parallax) = 3 hardware layers? 4th to n layer by h-sync or sprites?
Thats how I understand it.
I had been thinking of starting a thread to ask all the tech heads questions about how certain Turbo bgs effects were achieved once I got enough examples together. Since this thread has already touched on it, here's one I've wondered about for a while:
How is the red floor and ceiling bg achieved in Stage 3 (http://superpcenginegrafx.com/magicalchaseusstage3.wmv) of Magical Chase?
Quote from: guest on 09/13/2007, 09:15 PMQuote from: turbo D on 09/13/2007, 09:13 PMThe Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer; its all that it has to compete. Anyways, Genesis failed to the PcEngine in Japan for obvious reasons. It will fail in this thread as well :wink:
Well, this is a PC Engine forum.
Try starting this thread over on Sega-16. :wink:
:roll:
yeah that's an amazing example of how to use manific parallax multi scrolling on the PCE.
Accroding to our new earned knowledge of how to create parallax on the PCE, i would say the wood parts are made of pure sprites, which would be quite amazing. the 1st moving cloud layer have to be done in n-sync, since they used the same blue on the top as in the rearmost back ground to hide the cuts of n-sync parallax.
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/13/2007, 08:46 PMYou hit the nail on the head. Parallax can be faked in many different ways (and some you guys have yet to see...)
Heh, we've seen it done that (...) way in Crisis Force on the Famicom. :wink:
Turbo D, you really, REALLY hate the Genesis with a passion, dontcha?
QuoteI don't know if the [Mega Drive/Genesis'] foreground can scroll seperate pieces to keep a score/status and moving graphic elements though.
The Genesis can scroll each horizontal line independently on both BGs simultaneously. Quite a few games do this, but I think the first was Gaiares. Wings of Wor did this as well while simultaneously scrolling each 8-pixel wide column up and down independently on both backgrounds at the same time for a crazy wavey effect.
I'd also like to know how stage 3 of Magical Chase was done. I also think the wood parts are probably sprites, but like I said before, just about any system seems to be able to scroll a single BG layer into itself vertically (though never actually overlapping). CrackTiger, why are there black bars on the sides of that video?
It's a close call for me. Some games look best on the Turbo... while other games look better on the MD.
Like mentioned before.. it all boils down to who developed the games. We can talk until we're
blue in the face about hardware... but what good is the hardware without great programmers?
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/14/2007, 01:25 AMBlack Tiger, why are there black bars on the sides of that video?
Thats a good question. I just checked some other videos that I recorded and they have the same thing. Hopefully I can fix it by checking a box in my capturing software. :P
QuoteI also think the wood parts are probably sprites, but like I said before, just about any system seems to be able to scroll a single BG layer into itself vertically (though never actually overlapping).
I'd really like to know how that works, because I've noticed a few Turbo games lately that do some cool vertical bg moves and it seems to me that combined with h-sync scrolling + a few extra sprites, combined the Turbo should be able to easily replicate any kind of multi layered scrolling/movement, other than something that moves in 360 degrees.
How Magical Chase does it is pretty simple, and any game can have the same effect; the sections of the background in Stage 3 of Magical Chase are just unbroken horizontal bars (sky, clouds, a wooden floor and ceiling) -- these can be moved around at will just like the sections of a slide rule. The wooden stumps, turrets, rivets, etc that poke out from the floor and ceiling are sprites. It's the same technique that is done on countless other shmups.
Quote from: turbo D on 09/13/2007, 09:13 PMThe Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer; its all that it has to compete.
It was only one year (October 30, 1987 to October 29, 1988), but point taken. The SNES had two years on the Genesis (November 21, 1990) and was superior in every way, except for the most important - clock speed.
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/13/2007, 08:46 PMParallax can be faked in many different ways (and some you guys have yet to see...)
Quit teasing us, ya bastard!
Quote from: WoodyXP on 09/14/2007, 05:00 AMIt's a close call for me. Some games look best on the Turbo... while other games look better on the MD.
Like mentioned before.. it all boils down to who developed the games. We can talk until we're
blue in the face about hardware... but what good is the hardware without great programmers?
It makes it so a lazy genesis programmer can accomplish cool things with the background that a clever, determined, programmer working with the turbo platform could never pull off as well.
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/14/2007, 10:40 AMIt makes it so a lazy genesis programmer can accomplish cool things with the background that a clever, determined, programmer working with the turbo platform could never pull off as well.
It's clear to me now that OldTurboBastard is either trolling or is mentally unable to grasp the concepts laid out here.
Quote from: nat on 09/14/2007, 10:55 AMQuote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/14/2007, 10:40 AMIt makes it so a lazy genesis programmer can accomplish cool things with the background that a clever, determined, programmer working with the turbo platform could never pull off as well.
It's clear to me now that OldTurboBastard is either trolling or is mentally unable to grasp the concepts laid out here.
Again not true on both counts. Not trolling, just engaged in a lively (if not heated) discussion. That's one of the things a forum is for.
I grasp the conceps laid out here, that the turbo CAN pull off SOME of the parallax featured so often in Genesis games, and I have seen it with my own eyes. But the fact remains it is more difficult to pull off on the turbo and therefore is seen less often and is generally not as complete or involved - which is not good for us turbo gamers and probably the reason we tend to point it out so much in the turbo games that DO have it "Holy cow they finally pulled off parallax!!"
I like both systems,and both have abilities to top each other here and there,but if I had to choose a hands down winner in over all quality,esp graphically Id pick Hudson's baby. Paralax scrolling doesn't paint the whole picture anyway. Besides that,no matter how many fine shooters were presented on Genesis/Megadrive,Pc-Engine/TG16 had the better ones available on hucard or scd. Couple that with the nice Neo ports,and Sf 2 Champ,and the other fighters on Scd,the system simply stays as my favorite right beside the Neo.
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 08:53 AMAny comparisons that could blow me out of the water and prove me wrong? I'd love to see. Plus where, if it all, does the turbo beat out the Genesis in any tech stat categories? I'm talking strictly graphics not sound
Some good examples of excellent programming,to me,are shown on the videos people made:
http://youtu.be/dyJEP_EMME0
http://youtu.be/OpxuBzPI5yI
http://youtu.be/57KOMZvHxJI
http://youtu.be/oLRZeqKYhM0
http://youtu.be/9qNofQy9tDs
http://youtu.be/sTMef7_CFCA
http://youtu.be/paTzGclGk9Y
Good video to watch so you can see how the Pc-Engine handled the Neo stuff the best
http://youtu.be/BHSKgOFUwio
http://youtu.be/M_Sjnjamk2E
http://youtu.be/OSJx2t2ij1k
http://youtu.be/3_1g2AFTv7o
http://youtu.be/gNofXgiJ1mY
http://youtu.be/4-4b6Mf9ydE
Not to knock you OldTurboBastard,but it does seem like your actually more into the other system,Genesis,which is fine,everyone can have their fav,and a right to their opinion,but what you could do to put up a better argument if your dead set on feeling like your right is to do screen shot comparisons or something. We tend to do that off and on around here.
I should note however I feel neither systems shooters can touch my Blazing Star and Last Resort on NeoGeo :wink:
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/14/2007, 10:40 AMIt makes it so a lazy genesis programmer can accomplish cool things with the background that a clever, determined, programmer working with the turbo platform could never pull off as well.
Can you name a single game on the Genesis that could not be done on the Engine? Using the techniques already mentioned here, all of your coveted parallax could be replicated on the Engine - until it runs out of sprites. You'd have to find a game that has a shit load of overlapping parallax as well as a ton of sprites, which simply doesn't happen all that often.
You are under the delusion that there is only a handful of PC Engine games with parallax, when in reality there are hundreds. While nearly every Genesis game has some parallax, much of it is pretty simplistic and nothing technically impressive.
Quote from: PCEngineHell on 09/14/2007, 12:09 PMNot to knock you OldTurboBastard,but it does seem like your actually more into the other system,Genesis,which is fine,everyone can have their fav,and a right to their opinion,but what you could do to put up a better argument if your dead set on feeling like your right is to do screen shot comparisons or something. We tend to do that off and on around here.
Fair Enough. Thanks for posting the videos some were quite impressive. If I were not at work i'd post some examples. I'm starting to get the feeling that no amount of hard evidence could sway the opinions on this board anyhow. Most seem pretty set that the turbo can do anything the Genesis can do. My argument at this point is that most of the time it did'nt.
As for liking the genesis more - I always enjoyed the turbo when i owned it, I just spent alot of time wishing my turbo games had some of the cool backgrounds I saw so often in the Genesis games -
Thanks to everyone for all the feedback. I'm out for now....
Gunstar Heroes. There's quite a few raster effects Trasure does with that hardware that I don't think would really be able to be done on the Duo. I love my Duo way better than my Genesis/MD btw, just adding fuel to the fire :twisted:
Quote from: guest on 09/14/2007, 12:30 PMYou are under the delusion that there is only a handful of PC Engine games with parallax, when in reality there are hundreds. While nearly every Genesis game has some parallax,
Good point.
I'd be interested, just for the sake of perhaps getting some acknowledgement from OldTurboBastard, to see a total count of all the PCE games that feature parallax versus a count of all the Genesis games that have parallax.
I'd venture a guess that there isn't as big a gap in the tallies as OldTurboBastard believes.
But Michael (and others) also made a grand point-- parallax isn't the end all and be all of video games.
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/14/2007, 01:00 PMI'm starting to get the feeling that no amount of hard eveidence could sway the opinions on this board anyhow. Most seem pretty set that the turbo can do anything the Genesis can do. My argument at this point is that most of the time it did'nt.
And judging from
your comments, I get the feeling you haven't played many Turbo games-- otherwise you probably wouldn't feel that way. :)
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/14/2007, 11:27 AMI grasp the conceps laid out here, that the turbo CAN pull off SOME of the parallax featured so often in Genesis games, and I have seen it with my own eyes. But the fact remains it is more difficult to pull off on the turbo and therefore is seen less often and is generally not as complete or involved - which is not good for us turbo gamers and probably the reason we tend to point it out so much in the turbo games that DO have it "Holy cow they finally pulled off parallax!!"
OldTurboBastard makes a good point here. Take Sinistron/Violent Soldier. Players were THRILLED by the first stage's parallax, while if the identical game had been released for the Genesis, people would just be wondering why the hell the other stages didn't follow suit. Dead Moon always garners praise for its scrolling, but such effects would be considered merely obligatory in a Genesis game.
I'm not one of these tech experts who can explain the ins and outs of each system, but I own hundreds of PCE/Turbo games, and I've played the crud out of just about all of them, so I have a pretty good idea of what the system was capable of visually (or at least what programmers managed/bothered to produce with it). Things that would seem routine on the Genesis amaze people when they're accomplished in a PCE game. And I don't buy the excuse that all of these programmers were too lazy or simply unwilling to go the extra mile with the resources available to them, as there were MANY renowned third party developers producing games for the PCE. I think it's more likely that, as OldTurboBastard has asserted, it was extremely difficult or simply impossible to pull off the sort of visual effects that have been discussed.
Of course, the PCE was capable of outdoing the Genesis in some ways, mostly thanks to colors. And people have correctly pointed out that certain ports were much more impressive on the PCE (though while some people are quick to use "lazy programmers" as an excuse for the PCE's lack of impressive effects, most don't seem to give the Genesis the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to these ports). But I don't think the PC Engine was capable of hosting graphics like those in Lightening Force or Aladdin for the Genesis. I think even the relatively early Castle of Illusion, beautiful on the Gen, would look very 8-bit and unimpressive on the Turbo.
Well Valis III on Genesis has way more parallax than the Turbo version, but to me the Turbo version is better with extra levels, cd music and shitty voice acting. Then again I guess it doesn't count since it's a CD based game. Regardless, the "awesome" :roll: Genesis parallax scrolling didn't make it a better gaming experience for me.
I love Lightening Force,its def a paralax benchmark,and that really adds to the visuals alot,but I still think Rayxanber 2 and 3,and Gradius 2 look better,not worlds better,but enough.
Takara was a great company when it came to doing what they could with Neo ports on the Genesis and Snes,I don't think it was ever a lazy factor that came into play.Proof of Takara working hard shows in AOF,FF Special, and World Heroes 2 on Snes,and Fatal Fury 1 and 2 and King of the Monsters on Genesis. I think the Pc-Engine just had it better at drawing and moving those kinda sprites though,the types needed for fighting games,much easier then the Snes and Genesis. I think infact SF 2 Champ would have been much better if Hudson worked on it then Nec,as Hudson prob would have strove for a better port while Nec seemed content to just match the others more or less. Proof of that def shows in the Hudson Neo ports. Its also nice to point out that Gradius 1,2 and Salamander on PcEngine are better ports of those 3 then Gradius 3 on Snes.
Quote from: nat on 09/14/2007, 01:04 PMAnd judging from your comments, I get the feeling you haven't played many Turbo games-- otherwise you probably wouldn't feel that way. :)
I lied i'm back... :-)... you already mentioned that a few times...see previous retort.....anyway by popular demand here's some evidence
here's a clip of Mystic Defender, one of the earliest games on the genesis..nothing too special really: http://youtu.be/hbMmkNKuceE note the parallax is both vertical and horizontal and overlaps. A great example is the grid background in stage 4(?). Also note the background is not limitied to dark colors to conceal the black tiles. Again, this is an early genesis game and came out when virtually NONE of the turbo games had any true parallax, only some flat horizontal stuff. That's what i'm reffering to.
I do agree parallax is not the only thing and some have made some other good points on here aside from parallax. It's just obvious to me that the two were not equal on this spec.
looks like another mediocre genesis game to me. The parallax I saw in the video was nothing that couldn't be done on the turbo. I could see the cut off on the parallax layers, so I'm not sure what makes you think its so special :-k
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/14/2007, 02:22 PMQuote from: nat on 09/14/2007, 01:04 PMAnd judging from your comments, I get the feeling you haven't played many Turbo games-- otherwise you probably wouldn't feel that way. :)
I lied i'm back... :-)... you already mentioned that a few times...see previous retort.....anyway by popular demand here's some evidence
here' s a clip of mystic defender, one of the earliest games on the genesis..nothing too special really
http://youtu.be/hbMmkNKuceE
note the parallax is both vertical and horizontal and overlaps. A great example is the grid background in stage 4(?). Also note the background is not limitied to dark colors to conceal the black tiles. Again, this is an early genesis game and came out when virtually NONE of the turbo games had any true parallax, only some flat horizontal stuff. That's what i'm reffering to.
Again, I'm really not sure what you're talking about....
The craptacular
Bravoman, released in 1988 or 1989 features parallax just like what is displayed by that game in your video. The background also overlaps vertically and horizontally, if I understand your meaning correctly. Witness:
http://youtu.be/wg1AsaGfzRU
The PCE sure has a ton of lazy programmers. :)
Kidding, of course. But PCE programmers had to work MUCH harder to achieve the same effect as the Genesis, and that results in man hours. Many games probably didn't have the budget or the schedule to allow for such things. With the Genesis it was extremely simple and didn't cut in to production time anywhere near as much.
I do enjoy how a lot of Turbo fans discount anything that isn't built in to the system as "unnecessary". If the Turbo can't do it, it doesn't matter. That's always been the attitude. I'm not sure why you guys play Turbo instead of the NES with that attitude. But just look at this thread. Parallax is obviously a huge issue that many of you have opinions about. If it wasn't much of an issue, I don't think there would really be much of a debate, especially when only a few people are arguing pro-Genesis or pro-parallax here. But notice how many of you needed to chime in to state that the Turbo can do EVERYTHING a Genesis can do without exception and if there is something that the Genesis can do that the Turbo can't, it is of no importance. Big issue amongst you. A couple of you like Turbo D would rather murder your own mother than play (much less enjoy) a Genesis game. Fanboyism runs strong here indeed.
I generally prefer the Genesis simply because there are more games available in the style that I want to play, but I'd be a fool to say something like the fact that it can't properly do scaling and rotation doesn't matter. Lots of games like Super Thunder Blade, Space Harrier 2 and many others look like crap without it. Sure, it can do some great scaling and rotation in the software, but I won't kid myself. The Genesis is weak in this area. But you won't see me on Sega-16 moaning at how scaling doesn't add anything and doesn't make or break a game. While there is some truth to that, eye candy counts for a lot and can indeed make games more enjoyable. If you're 100% about the art and not about things that move like parallax and scaling/rotation, then why would you even play games? Just pause it and stare at the still screen. Yes, good art definitely helps, but it's not the only thing. A game needs to move well. Adding depth via parallax helps achieve cool visuals.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/14/2007, 08:01 PMA couple of you like Turbo D would rather murder your own mother than play (much less enjoy) a Genesis game. Fanboyism runs strong here indeed.
:lol: thats funny, but I'm not a fanboy. I own a Genesis model 1 and 2 aswell as Cd add on 1 and 2, powerbase converter and 32x (all boxed and in great condition :mrgreen:). I enjoy my Genesis gaming experience, I just think that parallax alone doesn't make the Genesis have better grafx than PcEngine. Everyone was coming here and saying that the Genesis slaughters the PcEngine and such that just wasn't true. Those posters are the real fanboys :wink:
Four semi-related statements follow:
I always thought that parallax scrolling was more commonly found / more extensively employed in Genesis games relative to TG-16/Duo games in North America.
I say this having played a bazillion games over the years.
Even later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.
I thought the third stage of Vigilante (on the bridge) was pretty kool because of the subtle parallax scrolling. I thought it would have been neat if other stages in the game had incorporated the effect as well (such as the junkyard, IIRC).
Slaughters? No. Surpasses? In many areas, yes. All areas? No.
Quote from: esteban on 09/14/2007, 08:10 PMEven later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.
very true, like in ninja gaiden 3
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/14/2007, 08:10 PMSlaughters? No. Surpasses? In many areas, yes. All areas? No.
I think that we can all agree that they are both very good in certain areas where the other one isn't.
answer: NEITHER or BOTH. There's no definitive answer.
As all the reasonable gamers know, and have known for over a decade and a half,
both the PC-Engine~TurboGrafx-16 and Megadrive~Genesis had various strengths and weakness
when it came to graphics.
we all know what those weaknesses and strengths are. no need for a huge debate about it.
what I will say, is that I wished the upgraded machines, SuperGrafx and SEGA CD, had offered a larger improvement in graphics than they did. The SuperGrafx should've had scaling & rotation and more than just two background layers. the SEGA CD should've allowed for more sprites and more color, as well as scaling & rotation on par with Sega's Super-Scaler boards like the 'X Board' used for AfterBurner and Super Monaco GP.
I wish there were more games for the Sega Cd that weren't awful fmv, it seems that they were the majority. I love Sonic Cd, why couldn't there be more titles like that one :wink:.
Quote from: esteban on 09/14/2007, 08:10 PMFour semi-related statements follow:
I always thought that parallax scrolling was more commonly found / more extensively employed in Genesis games relative to TG-16/Duo games in North America.
I say this having played a bazillion games over the years.
Even later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.
I thought the third stage of Vigilante (on the bridge) was pretty kool because of the subtle parallax scrolling. I thought it would have been neat if other stages in the game had incorporated the effect as well (such as the junkyard, IIRC).
Actually, the last stage has the same effect.......have you gotten to the last stage of Vigilante? I do wish it would've been done in the junkyard though.
HackTiger: You should start a hardware/software thread over in the DEB section. It's interesting to know how things work on the PCE when they do able via normal hardware methods. Take LOT desert level(default as first level), that giant sand crawler is part of the BG yet the fake BG behind it still has parallax scrolls.
OldTurboBastard: I know exactly where your coming from. A lot of PCE games don't do parallax or multilayers indepth like the Genesis does. Development cost was a very good one reason (other than lack of *dedicated* hardware). Why go the extra mile when current games as selling great as they are. Some obviously did to compete amongst other games on the same system (talking about PCE), but nothing of the fierce driving force between to manufactures.
In Japan the PCE wasn't directly competing with the MegaDrive. The MegaDrive was trying to compete with the PCE and the Famicom inwhich the PCE was starting to lead over the FC as it progressed. I bet this is the very reason why the FC system was pushing to its limits and beyond, and why we saw such amazing things from FC system. When the SFC came out is around the time that MD games starting getting even more advanced in GFX effects. While the PCE did compete with the SFC, it was nothing like the SEGA VS Nintendo thing happening in the US. Matter of fact the PCE had already shifted into the CD platform which it had no real competition. Also remember Hudson and Nintendo had a very close relationship. Hudson actually wrote software and games for the FC (even had a hand in translating games form FC to NES). Hudson was Nintendo's very first third party developer when they opened up the FC to third party companies early on. Hudson also handle and wrote other DEV software for Nintendo. I'm more sure this had a hand in killing the SGX, which was meant as direction competition to the SFC, than anything publicly mentioned (the facts don't stack up).
Anyway, my point is that the PCE wasn't really pushed to it limits like the MD, NES, and SFC were until late in it's life, and at that there's still more it can do. I'm not delusional in thinking it *can* do anything the Genesis can *identically* on every occasion because that's just not true. But a game developed around it's limitation can show some pretty amazing/convincing effects. Time/cost played a big factor in what developer did on the PCE. I don't think it was matter of laziness. In general the PCE doesn't/didn't have a reputation for more technical savvy games despite some of it's exceptional titles. Especially in North America. I think it was regarded as more of an NES with exceptional color abilities - nothing to take too seriously from '91 and up in the console wars.
Just to note: I've seen some pretty impressive collision detection in action on the PCE with some shooters. Moving around a bunch of sprites onscreen is pretty standard stuff, but doing a lot of collision maps for interactive objects at a fast pace without slowing down it pretty impressive. TF4 is a perfect example of game that slows down from this processing. While the Star Soldier series is a impressive example. Note: anything that doesn't not interactive with another object does not use a collision map, i.e. explosions, flying/falling bullet shells, enemies falling/action after being destroyed, smoke from missiles, etc.
Oh and for the record, I'd say the PCE could handle/fake those BGs from Mystic Defender. They're pretty simple in design and easily lend themselves to dynamic tile method. But more complicated Genesis game examples are either a straight "no" or would have to be watered down. Also don't forget it takes additional CPU resource to fake BG layers like that (hsync ones not so).
....
Quote from: ccovell on 09/14/2007, 09:36 AMHow Magical Chase does it is pretty simple, and any game can have the same effect; the sections of the background in Stage 3 of Magical Chase are just unbroken horizontal bars (sky, clouds, a wooden floor and ceiling) -- these can be moved around at will just like the sections of a slide rule. The wooden stumps, turrets, rivets, etc that poke out from the floor and ceiling are sprites. It's the same technique that is done on countless other shmups.
So sections of a single background can scroll over the rest of the same background?
Bonknuts just stated much of what I've brought up in the past, about how the PC Engine wasn't competing in the same market as the Genesis/SNES and it's users were looking for different kinds of games.
On CD, quantity was pushed/sought after over short effects laden games. The Genesis and SNES were battling for supremecy in North America and games with gimmicks were most popular. Where as a decent game on PC Engine, that had lots of graphical variety, cinemas, CD music, etc sold well enough that developers didn't need to figure out how to do effects that required more than the 'flick of a switch'.
We still got tons of games with cool effects, but thats not moved CD units. In cart games effects are often a shortcut to save on animation. Too many SNES games used scaling and rotation to do in realtime what would look much better with prerendered animation.
The problem with this thread, is that people started arguing for the PC Engine against the point of view that layered bgs are the most important aspect of graphics, and that
actual graphics are further down the list. The PC Engine's strongest aspect will always be producing great graphics. If parallax and the like really outweigh the actual graphics so much, by that logic Jungle Hunt (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yvG_YtU7aZA) crushes the hideous Bonk's Revenge (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FUgT5GjtCLY).
The Genesis, SNES and PC Engine all have tecgnical advantages over one another. The same logic that says that the PCE is weak because the Genesis can scroll a bg in hardware says that the Genesis sux cuz the SNES can do transparency or hardware scaling & rotation.
You can't convince someone who judges games by Genesis features that the PC Engine is better, because its not the Genesis. Just as people who care more about colorful detailed graphics can't be convinced that the Genesis can do anything the PC Engine can.
And when judging the 16-bitters by their existing catalogues instead of theoretical capabilities, they each have beautiful games that excel on their consoles features. All three systems are so different, that has a clear software advantage over the others. Its all a matter of personal taste, but each has something for everybody(except U.S. sports fans :wink:).
Quote from: ParanoiaDragon on 09/14/2007, 09:05 PMQuote from: esteban on 09/14/2007, 08:10 PMFour semi-related statements follow:
I always thought that parallax scrolling was more commonly found / more extensively employed in Genesis games relative to TG-16/Duo games in North America.
I say this having played a bazillion games over the years.
Even later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.
I thought the third stage of Vigilante (on the bridge) was pretty kool because of the subtle parallax scrolling. I thought it would have been neat if other stages in the game had incorporated the effect as well (such as the junkyard, IIRC).
,
Actually, the last stage has the same effect.......have you gotten to the last stage of Vigilante? I do wish it would've been done in the junkyard though.
The last stage doesn't look as kool as the bridge stage, because the background added a lot of depth to the "bridge scene", but in the last stage it looked like two flat planes sliding past each other. I like the last stage, but parallax scrolling didn't provide as much "oompffff" in that stage.
For the record, I first beat Vigilante during xmas vacation '89. :)
for the record I beat it last month, lol.
Ha! I didn't see Joe's post until now. We must have been writing at the same time.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/14/2007, 08:01 PMIf you're 100% about the art and not about things that move like parallax and scaling/rotation, then why would you even play games? Just pause it and stare at the still screen. Yes, good art definitely helps, but it's not the only thing. A game needs to move well. Adding depth via parallax helps achieve cool visuals.
I don't think you're lumping me in with the folks you criticize in this thread, but I just wanted to stress that my earlier point, lamenting the high rate of uninspired art direction, was in reference to ALL video games. When I play PCE, along with all other platforms, I am often critical of the art direction, first and foremost. Parallax and special effects are nice, but they are not as crucial as you think they are.
careful, he'll call you a fanboy 8-[
Quote from: PCEngineHell on 09/14/2007, 12:09 PMGood video to watch so you can see how the Pc-Engine handled the Neo stuff the best
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BHSKgOFUwio
That stage on Neo Geo had a seperate scrolling background. But none of the 'home' console ports did. I guess its
not always so easy for 'lazy Genesis programmers'. :wink:
But even if the Genesis and SNES versions had the extra scrolling bg, no one in their right mind can say that it tops the
actual graphics of the PC Engine version.
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/14/2007, 09:24 PMHudson also handle and wrote other DEV software for Nintendo. I'm more sure this had a hand in killing the SGX, which was meant as direction competition to the SFC, than anything publicly mentioned (the facts don't stack up).
Are you kidding? I think developer and consumer apathy had much more to do with it. Here's proof:
QuoteIREM Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
NEC Avenue A machine without excess fat. Development will be interesting. But the machine's appearance...
Sunsoft The price is slightly strange for something that only increases the amount of RAM. I had expected more secrets in there.
Taito It's too early to comment. We hope to make games that use its powerful graphic functions.
Data East Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
Naxat Since it's early, it [SGX] is like a sheet of blank paper. But in terms of graphics, the current PC-Engine is good enough, I think.
Namco We will watch the market calmly for a little while. We will enter [the SGX market] after considering it well.
Nichibutsu Since the SGX is downward compatible with the PC-Engine, we are developing software aimed at the current PC-Engine.
FACE Since the current PC-Engine market is growing, for the time being, we are concentrating our resources on the present PC-Engine.
Hudson Since this is a big brother to the PC-Engine, it gives software houses a good chance to try. Development pays the maximum reward.
Once again, from here: https://www.chrismcovell.com/sgxreactions.html
As a part of my early SFC page: https://www.chrismcovell.com/secrets11.html
You guys are being a bit hard on Old Turbo Bastard. I agree with him. I think the Genesis is more capable than the PCE overall, even though the PCE may excel at some points. The reason I love the PCE is its games, of course, not its hardware, but if I were to look at each system as a programmer and choose one that could give me the best-looking, or at least most impressive games, I'd choose the Genesis for its backgrounds, shadow effects, and column-scrolling. But Hell, I might as well just jump over to the SNES.
I'd like to add additional light to Chris's much earlier comment as well. The MC68000 series CPU was probably the most used CPU in arcade machines around that time. In fact, it might be the most used arcade CPU in history, and given it was used in the original Macintosh, the original Amiga, and super high end HP calculators there were definitely lots of comfortable programmers out there. The PC Engine likely had a smaller pool of programmers comfortable with the core CPU architecture, and while specialty graphics hardware and sprite blitters means that CPU coding wasn't everything, it would probably be foolish to discount architecture familiarity as a major factor for much of what was produced on the Genesis.
I like both systems,but visually I do feel the Pc-Engine/Cd gave more graphically in the overall selection both US and Jap wise then the Genesis /Megadrive plus Cd. Thats just opinion however,opinion isn't really fact. There are some real gems on the Megadrive however that push the limits and yet I care nothing for those games,like Alien Soldier. It was very detailed and fast moving,but I just didn't like the art direction. One of a few Treasure titles I actually did not like. It def comes down to personal taste and the titles you enjoy playing the most. Id rather play R-Type or Gradius 2 any day of the week over any Thunderforce shooter. Does not mean I don't like that series,I just feel the others are better,and happen to be on Nec/Hudsons system,not Segas 16-bitter.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/14/2007, 08:01 PMI do enjoy how a lot of Turbo fans discount anything that isn't built in to the system as "unnecessary". If the Turbo can't do it, it doesn't matter. That's always been the attitude.
There's still a big difference between "unnecessary" and "essential". I agree that its amusing how particular 'console fans' are quick to discount what they percieve as competition. Like how some crazed Genesis fans discount high color graphics in SNES games and how Snerds believe that the SNES is untouchable in
every way.
QuoteBut just look at this thread. Parallax is obviously a huge issue that many of you have opinions about. If it wasn't much of an issue, I don't think there would really be much of a debate
Although its true that some people are insisting that the Turbo can do "anything!", I think that what got most people riled up was OldTurboBastard taking the opposite extreme from the get go, discounting
any kind of parallax on the Turbo as an anomaly and every flat games as proof of "weakness".
QuoteA couple of you like Turbo D would rather murder your own mother than play (much less enjoy) a Genesis game. Fanboyism runs strong here indeed.
At least no one is trashing Sega as a (evil!)company. :wink:
QuoteI generally prefer the Genesis simply because there are more games available in the style that I want to play, but I'd be a fool to say something like the fact that it can't properly do scaling and rotation doesn't matter. Lots of games like Super Thunder Blade, Space Harrier 2 and many others look like crap without it. Sure, it can do some great scaling and rotation in the software, but I won't kid myself. The Genesis is weak in this area. But you won't see me on Sega-16 moaning at how scaling doesn't add anything and doesn't make or break a game.
True, but the SNES having scaling & rotation built-in doesn't discount the Genesis altogether, or at the very least SNES games don't make Genesis games feel weak.
QuoteWhile there is some truth to that, eye candy counts for a lot and can indeed make games more enjoyable. If you're 100% about the art and not about things that move like parallax and scaling/rotation, then why would you even play games? Just pause it and stare at the still screen. Yes, good art definitely helps, but it's not the only thing. A game needs to move well. Adding depth via parallax helps achieve cool visuals.
I don't think that anyone's
really 100% about anything when it comes to enjoying games, it just sounds like it when they take a stance on a game issue. Me, I like flicker transparencies and although I appreciate technical feats like scaling in games, sprites flying towards the screen through animation is still impressive. :)
One thing you have to keep in mind Joe, while you have personal preferences, you're much less biased than the average video game forum poster. :P
ccovell
Quotebut if I were to look at each system as a programmer and choose one that could give me the best-looking, or at least most impressive games, I'd choose the Genesis for its backgrounds, shadow effects, and column-scrolling. But Hell, I might as well just jump over to the SNES.
Is this strictly a hypothetical as in backgrounds that you would be able to produce or do you think that developers actually produced games for the genesis that have better backgrounds than anything on the pc engine/duo?
Something I realized recently is that up until learning solid details of the PC Engine's specs/capabilities during the last few years, I never really noticed parallax type effects in Turbo/PCE games as much.
If a game had some moving bg parts, it'd look kinda cool sometimes, but I just took it for granted and never thought anything of it if some sections did or didn't use bg scrolling.
Now that I have a much clearer idea of how most effects are achieved and that "technically" the PCE only has one bg layer, I can't help but notice when a game does use them (at all).
I liked it better when I was in the dark and only good parallax stood out (like on Genesis & SNES) and I never thought, "Its cool that they added that" just because I now know it takes more work than on other systems. :|
Quote from: awack on 09/14/2007, 11:28 PMccovell
Quotebut if I were to look at each system as a programmer and choose one that could give me the best-looking, or at least most impressive games, I'd choose the Genesis for its backgrounds, shadow effects, and column-scrolling. But Hell, I might as well just jump over to the SNES.
Is this strictly a hypothetical as in backgrounds that you would be able to produce or do you think that developers actually produced games for the genesis that have better backgrounds than anything on the pc engine/duo?
This is hypothetical... as in what I would choose if I were a programmer, or a game planner, or whatever. Strictly speaking, for late-80s and early-90s arcade conversions (or arcade-style games), the 64-colour limit imposed by the Genesis' hardware is far less damning than the lack of a 2nd background plane of the PCE.
Quote from: CrackTigerSomething I realized recently is that up until learning solid details of the PC Engine's specs/capabilities during the last few years, I never really noticed parallax type effects in Turbo/PCE games as much.
haha...yeah, me too, when i first started playing the turo grafx back in 1990 i didnt think it could do any type of parallax scrolling until i started playing the same turbo games again in 2001, now if i had played something like rondo or legend of xanadu back then i damn well would have noticed parallax srolling.
Quote from: guest on 09/14/2007, 10:58 PMAlthough its true that some people are insisting that the Turbo can do "anything!", I think that what got most people riled up was OldTurboBastard taking the opposite extreme from the get go, discounting any kind of parallax on the Turbo as an anomaly and every flat games as proof of "weakness".
thats probably an extreme description of my stance as well though [-X. I 'm not discounting the cool scrolling effects that did eventually show up on the turbo, just pointing out that it was'nt all that common (especially early on when in mattered for me, an early turbografx-16 owner - sorry i was not importing games back then or ponying up my allowance for a doomed system - the duo). I'm impressed with the parallax in alot of the later games that I have seen (more so by the fact that they pulled it off than anything). As for "any flat games being proof of weakness" - only in the dual background dept - and as so many have stated here, thats not all there is to the game - which I acknowledge. I enjoyed my turbo immensely back in the day and was probably a fan boy that would never admit to the shortcomings (like none seem to be here :dance:). It's easy to see things a little more objectively these days. Both systems have alot to offer but i've always thought the turbo games just had that 'fun' quality (MOTOROADER cough!) that was laking from so many genesis games - I do think the genesis had some killer background effects - wish the turbo games could have pulled it off as easily...and supergrafx don't count!!!
PEACE, brother
-Nino
(snip)
Quote from: ccovellAre you kidding? I think developer and consumer apathy had much more to do with it. Here's proof:
QuoteIREM Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
NEC Avenue A machine without excess fat. Development will be interesting. But the machine's appearance...
Sunsoft The price is slightly strange for something that only increases the amount of RAM. I had expected more secrets in there.
Taito It's too early to comment. We hope to make games that use its powerful graphic functions.
Data East Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
Naxat Since it's early, it [SGX] is like a sheet of blank paper. But in terms of graphics, the current PC-Engine is good enough, I think.
Namco We will watch the market calmly for a little while. We will enter [the SGX market] after considering it well.
Nichibutsu Since the SGX is downward compatible with the PC-Engine, we are developing software aimed at the current PC-Engine.
FACE Since the current PC-Engine market is growing, for the time being, we are concentrating our resources on the present PC-Engine.
Hudson Since this is a big brother to the PC-Engine, it gives software houses a good chance to try. Development pays the maximum reward.
Once again, from here: https://www.chrismcovell.com/sgxreactions.html
As a part of my early SFC page: https://www.chrismcovell.com/secrets11.html
I call bullshit. Like I said, publicly and privately are two different situations. The SGX reached the market in what, mid to late '89? Obviously they had already fab'd the priority chip and the two A revisions(if they were even needed). The technology was already developed, it could have been easily incorporated into the Duo "all in one system". A system developed, released, and a handful of games spanning 2 years? From a company who had a leading system? If they wanted to push the system sales, they could have *easily* by dropping the price and giving incentives to game companies. Hell, Hudson themselves *already* did a lot of software development for the PCE - there isn't really a reason they couldn't have devoted resource in SGX development to get it off the ground. Or NEC for that matter. To go to all the trouble to make a system, release it, and then not support it? It's not like NEC/Hudson was an unknown contender releasing a new system. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make any sense. Not in the least.
Someone mentioned that when turbo fans see parallax or multilayer on the PCE, there quick to point it out where as a genesis fan wouldn't think twice. I agree. It's cool to see the prowess of a system that "wasn't" supposed to do that. I see the reverse situation over at Sega-16 forums. Any game that looks like it displays "more" color is quickly pointed out and merited.
For me, I'd rather take 32 palettes and a single BG for the PCE than 4 palettes and an extra scroll. Thought the Genesis' 8x8 sprite mode coupled with a 20sprite/320pixel sure is nice, more so than the verical section scroll regs and the shadow/highlight - in that order.
I agree, it definitely doesn't make any sense :-k
The SGX was like Sega's 32X, only it was an entire system unto itself. A similar analogy might be made that the Genesis can play SMS games, but the Genesis was an entirely new platform. The SGX wasn't. It was a PCE with an extra background and some more memory. Not much else. It would have been better as a System Card (if possible). The SGX, like the 32X, was a mistake. There was no reason for it to exist other than for us collectors and geeks to awe in how awesome it is even if it only had a handful of games.
Michael keeps mentioning Gradius 2. Ug. While I did grow to love Gradius 5 on the PS2 and I really dig Life Force, I cannot stand any other Gradius game. Too slow. Too boring. Fantastic music, though! However the repetitive 30 second (or less) tracks on the PCE CD version leave worlds to be desired. I'd rather play R-Type than Gradius. R-Type is the bomb. Gradius Gaiden was OK I guess.
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/15/2007, 12:38 AM... then not support it? It's not like NEC/Hudson was an unknown contender releasing a new system. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make any sense. Not in the least.
Sorry, Bonknuts, I don't quite follow you or see the point you are trying to make. NEC pushed out the SGX as an improvement upon the PCE in order to deflate hype from the upcoming Super Famicom, and Hudson and NEC Avenue had little choice but to develop for it. Other developers, on the other hand, publicly showed little enthusiasm for it, citing its high price (39,800 yen) and lack of overwhelming features for the investment that the consumer was expected to make. Of course, NEC hyped the [obviously unneeded and unwanted] SGX, but with noncommital 3rd-party developers, it was clearly destined to suffer a fate worse than the Virtual Boy.
What's the part that doesn't make any sense, again?
ccovell
QuoteThis is hypothetical... as in what I would choose if I were a programmer, or a game planner, or whatever. Strictly speaking, for late-80s and early-90s arcade conversions (or arcade-style games), the 64-colour limit imposed by the Genesis' hardware is far less damning than the lack of a 2nd background plane of the PCE.
Ah, i see, if i were a programmer and I'm not, i would choose in this order : 1 pc engine arcade card: 2 snes/pc engine super cd: 3 genesis: 4 pc engine hucard, for the snes i would like to see what i could do with its 32.000 color pallet, for the super cd i would like to see how i could strategically place load times, most cd games place the cd access at the beginning of each level and don't access it again until the beginning of the next level.
One example of what I'm talking about is in Dracula x, the part where you fight shaft there is a short load time, Dracula x does this sort of thing through out the game, which is why i think its so amazingly detailed.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/15/2007, 12:45 AMThe SGX was like Sega's 32X, only it was an entire system unto itself. A similar analogy might be made that the Genesis can play SMS games, but the Genesis was an entirely new platform. The SGX wasn't. It was a PCE with an extra background and some more memory. Not much else. It would have been better as a System Card (if possible). The SGX, like the 32X, was a mistake. There was no reason for it to exist other than for us collectors and geeks to awe in how awesome it is even if it only had a handful of games.
Michael keeps mentioning Gradius 2. Ug. While I did grow to love Gradius 5 on the PS2 and I really dig Life Force, I cannot stand any other Gradius game. Too slow. Too boring. Fantastic music, though! However the repetitive 30 second (or less) tracks on the PCE CD version leave worlds to be desired. I'd rather play R-Type than Gradius. R-Type is the bomb. Gradius Gaiden was OK I guess.
The 32x wasn't in the same situation. The 32x wasn't too little too late, it was just too late. If Sega had release the 32x in '92 or '93 skipping the SegaCD altogether, I'd bet it would have been a pretty good success. Sega already burned their fans with the disappointing and costly segacd.
The SGX wasn't just a PCE with an extra BG layer and some ram. It has two VDCs, than means double the sprites to 128, double the sprite per scanline limit from 16sprites/256pixels to 32sprites/512pixels, a second BG layer with it's own 64k vram and map size (up 1024x512 pixel map). Plus an additional video controller that could add different priority modes and pixel length variable window clipping (which the PCE didn't have). Everything the PCE was missing. Also the SGX couldn't have been done as an addon on the card slot - though a scaling/rotation processor could have been added in the same manner as the segacd, to the card slot.
Chris: If it was meant as competition for SFC, then why did they kept supporting the PCE and not the SGX? They continued to bring out new PCE systems (core, shuttle, core 2, duo, dou-r/x) after the fact. They could have discounted the existing PCE unit and replaced it with the SGX. If price was an issue, they could have reduced it. They had a number of options. Instead they released it and pretty much ignored it.
Looks like it all comes down to people's preference in hand drawn visuals or technical visuals.
I myself prefer the former, which is why I generally prefer the Turbo's graphics over Genesis. But not only that though, I think the Turbo did just as good of a job showing off parallax as Genesis did, so that's just a bonus for me.
Also when people say it required developers more work and time to create parallax for the Turbo than it does for the Genesis, I think the same can be said about the Genesis in terms of color. When you're limited to only 32 colors per background and sprite layer, that's a real killer as a graphic artist in the 16-bit era. I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to draw a complex stage and find out that you have to sacriface some colors off some sprites or tiles because it exceeds the limit ](*,) . I'm a graphic artist myself, so naturally I prefer the Turbo's color advantage over Genesis' parallax advantage, but perhaps I would say the opposite if I was a programmer.
Really, I think any game for either system would handle extremely well on the other. If you were to port a parallax heavy Genesis game or something to the Turbo, you might miss a layer or two of parallax and if you were to port a color heavy Turbo game to the Genesis, the colors might look a little drab.
well said :)
I pretty much agree with Keranu. I am a big fan of smooth color gradients. I'm not sure why I don't find most SNES games appealing. I guess I like detail in my color gradients, like on Rayxanber 3. Lookeee nice! I also like the use of shading and whatnot since I myself am a super-awesome artist. However I am also impressed with depth, animation and motion so parallax is very important to me as is color and detail. Seeing the scrolling in the SMS Choplifter was a major turning point in my life artistically. I started noticing depth and how things behaved as I moved much, much more. Parallax just for the sake of parallax adds next to nothing, but it can help make a game look cool. The first time I played the arcade version of Atomic Robo Kid I was blown away by 3 independent BGs. It just looked so darn cool and detailed as a result. Neither the Turbo or the Genesis versions match it. Crap game, though.
Quote from: NecroPhile on 09/14/2007, 12:30 PMCan you name a single game on the Genesis that could not be done on the Engine?
I can!
Try this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X8N4iKigWm4
Or this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F1yTzR61A9A
And even this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R5OHr9H4yrU
Quote from: guest on 09/15/2007, 10:04 AMI can!
And even this: http://youtu.be/R5OHr9H4yrU
Yea,only the might of the MegaDrive can do a giant cock monster boss.
Also,Cotton on Duo has a similar background effect on one of its stages,but not to the same degree.
It shows it on this video:
http://youtu.be/E75b-4MdM-Y
I think the Pc-Engine,at least with cd as a fall back,could have done a Earthworm Jim.
The Pc-Engine already proved it can do nicely animated sprites.
Sonic 2,yea I will give you that for sure,but at the same stroke I have yet to see anything as nice
looking as Bonk 2-3,or Rayxanber 3 on MegaDrive. But also,I like Devil Crash visually more on MegaDrive. Half and half,def depends on the game being presented and your personal preference.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/15/2007, 02:15 AMI pretty much agree with Keranu. I am a big fan of smooth color gradients. I'm not sure why I don't find most SNES games appealing. I guess I like detail in my color gradients, like on Rayxanber 3. Lookeee nice! I also like the use of shading and whatnot since I myself am a super-awesome artist. However I am also impressed with depth, animation and motion so parallax is very important to me as is color and detail. Seeing the scrolling in the SMS Choplifter was a major turning point in my life artistically. I started noticing depth and how things behaved as I moved much, much more. Parallax just for the sake of parallax adds next to nothing, but it can help make a game look cool. The first time I played the arcade version of Atomic Robo Kid I was blown away by 3 independent BGs. It just looked so darn cool and detailed as a result. Neither the Turbo or the Genesis versions match it. Crap game, though.
Many SNES games look weird to me as well. Too often, drab colors are used, particularly on sprites. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the palettes to choose from, because even some cartoony games have cool or warm/pastel colored characters that look out of place. I think that the PCE's color appears so vibrant because it has a good set of colors for its limited display(compared to modern technology).
An overall palette of like 32000 colors can be put to good use in an image of hundreds or more colors. But when you're working with objects that are shaded with a few colors at a time, you'd need to pick the best ones to stand out. Its no good having 50 colors of a particular shade of blue if you have to pick one near either end plus one in the middle for best results. When you can only put around 100 colors on screen in a video game, vibrant ones look best since they stand out.
I think that the Genesis's on screen color limit isn't much of a handy cap, since 40 colors makes a really nice image. I think that its sub palettes are more of a bottle neck. Many ports feature unusually colored sprites or bg sections, even though the games won't be pushing much past the 40 color mark. It doesn't come into play so much in original Genesis games, which are taylor made for the Genesis' palettes and look as good as colorful games on SNES and PCE.
I agree that parallax should only be put to good use. Lots of games in arcade or 16-bit consoles have "flat" sections in the middle of parallax heavy games that look just fine, because extra scrolling wasn't necessary in those areas.
Personally, I didn't like the over use of h-sync scrolling in Air Zonk when I first played it. Much of it looks cool, but much of it looks too gimmicky. Kinda like Coryoon's tunnel vision. Although I don't think that Dead Moon is the best looking game around, it did a much better job shamelessly exploiting that effect.
As for Sonic on PC Engine. Aside from the different ways I can think of to keep some bg scrolling intact or improved, even a completely flat bg version would look very cool taylor made for the PCE, shaded with vibrant tiles like the nicer parts of Knuckles Chatotix-
(https://web.archive.org/web/20211102050322im_/https://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/img/kcs16.gif)
If anything, anyone doing a PCE Sonic or tech demo should be working with tiles from that game.
QuoteAlso when people say it required developers more work and time to create parallax for the Turbo than it does for the Genesis, I think the same can be said about the Genesis in terms of color. When you're limited to only 32 colors per background and sprite layer, that's a real killer as a graphic artist in the 16-bit era.
I think that the dithering that developers did in later Genesis games must've been a lot of work and very time consuming. Although many people use it as a dig at the Genesis, I like good use of dithering. Its only the games with large two tone sections dithered to shit that look ugly.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/15/2007, 12:45 AMThe SGX was like Sega's 32X, only it was an entire system unto itself. A similar analogy might be made that the Genesis can play SMS games, but the Genesis was an entirely new platform. The SGX wasn't. It was a PCE with an extra background and some more memory. Not much else. It would have been better as a System Card (if possible). The SGX, like the 32X, was a mistake. There was no reason for it to exist other than for us collectors and geeks to awe in how awesome it is even if it only had a handful of games.
Although its not the same kind of hardware upgrade, I think of the Arcade Card as the PC Engine's equivalent of the 32X, since it was new format with a few great games that was the victim of the emerging of the next gen and we never got to see its full potential.
Bonknuts: I agree that they should've incorporated the SuperGrafx hardware when they made the Duo. Hudson and NEC could continue to pump out some decent SGX games until the Duo sales numbers were high enough to convince other developers to give it a try.
I think that if the SGX was in the Duo and Hudson made a few quality SGX CD games, then it wouldn't take long for others to at least give SGX CD development a try. We probably would've seen a bunch more bicompatible games too. I think that even if NEC still did a shitty port of Strider, it'd be cool to see how it would turn out as a SGX ACD game. :)
Quote from: awack on 09/15/2007, 12:17 AMhaha...yeah, me too, when i first started playing the turo grafx back in 1990 i didnt think it could do any type of parallax scrolling until i started playing the same turbo games again in 2001, now if i had played something like rondo or legend of xanadu back then i damn well would have noticed parallax srolling.
I actually had the
opposite experience. Back in the day, if a game made good use of parallax like Drac X, it was cool. But otherwise, I didn't think much of the odd scrolling bg effect. But today everything stands out.
parallax scrolling seems to be a big part of the discussion in this and similar threads, and for good reason, it looks awesome when done right. the thing is, even the Famicom/NES pulled off parallax scrolling in some games. Metalstorm and Ninja Gaiden 3 are prime examples.
PC-Engine/TurboGrafx-16 R-Type (http://shmups.com/reviews/rtype/index.html) has some parallax in some levels. notably the 5th level
(https://web.archive.org/web/20131126010230im_/http://www.shmups.com/reviews/rtype/images/rtype4.gif)
yet it's missing in the biological 2nd level.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20050116132103im_/http://www.thundercross.freeserve.co.uk/images/rtype/rtype_2.gif)
the arcade had very basic looking parallax scolling in the that level, nothing fancy. just the blue background behind the biological containers and crustations on the top & bottem. but in the PCE/TG16 R-Type everything is on one plane.
Now if you've played the Sharp X68000 computer version of R-Type, which is both better and worse than the TG16 version, you'd notice the parallax is there in the 2nd level and where ever the arcade had it. with that said, it's not that the PCE/TG16 couldn't handle that parallax, since of course we all know the machine can be forced to do it. I think it was just a matter of programmer choice, or time/budget since PCE R-Type was done in early-mid 1988, done in two parts, then merged onto a single HuCard for release on TG16 in 1989.
IIRC the later Irem-developed R-Type Complete CD also lacked parallax scrolling in the 2nd level.
parallax scrolling in general is interesting. on machines that only have one background layer in hardware, when parallax scrolling is done, we typically only 1 (maybe 2) layers of scrolling.
on machines that have 2 or more background layers, we often see multipul layers of parallax scrolling done.
there are exceptions to this rule though. the Amiga. it didn't have any hardware scrolling background layers, yet in games like Shadow of the Beast and Lionheart programmers achived many (more than 3-4) layers.
I'm trying to think of any games in the PCE family (any format) that use many layers. never played Shadow of the Beast on Duo, maybe there's a youtube vid of it.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/15/2007, 02:15 AMI pretty much agree with Keranu. I am a big fan of smooth color gradients. I'm not sure why I don't find most SNES games appealing. I guess I like detail in my color gradients, like on Rayxanber 3. Lookeee nice! I also like the use of shading and whatnot since I myself am a super-awesome artist.
Agreed. I'm not fond of the faded look a lot of SNES games have, but some games look outstanding (Secret of Mana, FFVI, Chrono Trigger, though some parts in those games still have that faded look). Rayxamber III is an awesome example of well done shading.
Quote from: Joe RediferHowever I am also impressed with depth, animation and motion so parallax is very important to me as is color and detail. Seeing the scrolling in the SMS Choplifter was a major turning point in my life artistically. I started noticing depth and how things behaved as I moved much, much more. Parallax just for the sake of parallax adds next to nothing, but it can help make a game look cool. The first time I played the arcade version of Atomic Robo Kid I was blown away by 3 independent BGs. It just looked so darn cool and detailed as a result. Neither the Turbo or the Genesis versions match it.
Don't get me wrong, I love all of those things as well. But for me, it's the actual art itself that really sells to me and it's something I've admired of Turbo games ever since I got into it.
Quote from: Joe, come in, JoeCrap game, though.
NOT crap game! Why does everyone hate that game!? ](*,)
Quote from: CrackTigerI think that the Genesis's on screen color limit isn't much of a handy cap, since 40 colors makes a really nice image. I think that its sub palettes are more of a bottle neck. Many ports feature unusually colored sprites or bg sections, even though the games won't be pushing much past the 40 color mark. It doesn't come into play so much in original Genesis games, which are taylor made for the Genesis' palettes and look as good as colorful games on SNES and PCE.
I think some people misunderstand the whole "colors on screen" craze. Over the years, I've learned that it's not so much the actual amount of colors on screen, it's the color limitation. If a Genesis game has 40 colors on screen, a lot of colors probably had to have been reused for other things which might throw off the shading of something (like if there was a sprite that was supposed to have three shades of brown, it might have to swap a shade with a green that's being used). For Turbo games though, there is practically no need to worry about limitations except the actual 16 colors per sprite/tile limit, like the other 16-bit systems.
Quote from: Black_PantherI think that the dithering that developers did in later Genesis games must've been a lot of work and very time consuming. Although many people use it as a dig at the Genesis, I like good use of dithering. Its only the games with large two tone sections dithered to shit that look ugly.
I agree, I think dithering can be put to great use. Of course like anything overdone, it sucks.
Quote from: guestI think that the Genesis's on screen color limit isn't much of a handy cap, since 40 colors makes a really nice image. I think that its sub palettes are more of a bottle neck. Many ports feature unusually colored sprites or bg sections, even though the games won't be pushing much past the 40 color mark. It doesn't come into play so much in original Genesis games, which are taylor made for the Genesis' palettes and look as good as colorful games on SNES and PCE.
I agree. If it were a traditional bitmap style display, 64 colors would be very flexable. But that's misleading on tile based system. The Genesis having only 4 palettes of 15 colors (16th color is transparent BG color). Not 4 for BG and 4 for sprites, but 4 for BG and Sprites. For instance a sprite couldn't have 8 colors from one palette and 4 colors from another palette. You run out of packs of colors pretty quickly (on trick is to overlay one sprite onto another to make up for some the colors the first sprite couldn't access, but this increases the chance of flicker and and a little more CPU resource).
That's really limiting and pretty amazing as to what some of the artists did on the Genesis. Games designed around the genesis hardware did a better job of hiding it and the blurry video help smooth pixels/colors. If the Genesis video was sharp than games wouldn't have used dither as much as they started to do in the mid-to-later generation. Funny that the PCE's mid res (352) doesn't blur like the Genesis 40 cell mode(320) even though it's a slightly higher res - dithering it more noticeable on it than the genesis.
The PCE has 32 palettes each with its own 15 colors. One set of 16 palettes is reserved for the BG and the other set of 16 is reserved for Sprites. It's really nice to develop gfx with. Since it can show so many colors per screen, the size of the palette starts to become its weakness. A 4096 color palette would have better suited the large number palette structure of the PCE. The SNES normal modes (non mode-7) only had 8 palettes for BG and 8 for sprites, each holding 15 colors, but the huge palette 32000 colors is what your seeing on screen. Note: Mode-7 has 1 palette for the BG which is 256 colors; each tile in the BG can access anyone of the 256colors (this absence is one limiting factor on the SegaCD IMO, the other being VRAM bandwidth).
How well did the Turbo deal with memory management compared to the Genesis, you techie types? And how did its memory caches compare.
Quote(https://web.archive.org/web/20211102050322im_/https://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/img/kcs16.gif)
What's interesting about Chaotix is that the 32X is only responsible for the sprites. The Genesis draws all of the backgrounds 100% with its own colors.
Quote from: guest on 09/15/2007, 05:48 PMHow well did the Turbo deal with memory management compared to the Genesis, you techie types? And how did its memory caches compare.
There wasn't any L1 or L2 cache for those systems. Memory management on the PCE is handle in banks of 8k internally with CPU mapping registers and on the Genesis the memory is layout is linear (no bank mechanism - though they did use an on cart one for the game larger than 32megs). Without extra hardware, the PCE can access 16 megabits with 8 being for the hucard port/rom (they don't go higher because of possible conflicts with the base 64k CD memory being attached), and on the Genesis the CPU can address 32megabits of rom space. The 68000 has less access overhead, is less complicated, and just easy to use because of the linear layout, but the downside is storing bytes as words to avoid resource penalty causing some arrays to bloat. The PCE bank system is more complex, accessing "far" data/code means a slight overhead and slight code increase, and overall not as nice as a linear layout. Also arrays with odd byte size segments are not a problem and doesn't require bloating the array segment size since the PCE is byte alignment, though accessing word or double word data is not as smooth and adds more code than the 68000.
If you're wondering about the Arcade card, it's port based access with 4 individual ports that can overlap. There's no overhead of a bank system when accessing the data directly making access to large arrays pretty convenient, but the access is sequential (with different size incrementers). And there are 4 8k banks that correspond to each AC port so you can transfer memory directly from the AC to VRAM via DMA, or have the CD read functions load directly to AC mem for convenience. It also have a 32bit signed rotated register for fast address calcution or for your own use.
Btw - your current x86 programs pad arrays and data structures to 32bit segments to gain speed as well but it's not as important since memory is huge in comparison these days.
Quote from: handygrafx on 09/15/2007, 02:35 PM...the parallax is there in the 2nd level and where ever the arcade had it. with that said, it's not that the PCE/TG16 couldn't handle that parallax, since of course we all know the machine can be forced to do it.
Not to defend lazy programmers or anything, but the types of parallax in stage 2 and 5 of R-Type are different, and the type of parallax on stage 5 has been pointed out again and again to be a simple hsync scroll, without some people here "getting it" that it's not the same as true parallax. It'd be tough to "force" the PCE to do true parallax with two different layers of graphics such as the ones on stage 2, but I guess the easiest way to do it would be VRAM animation, which (since the blue BG seems to tile at 32 or 64 pixels) would eat up a lot of VRAM. Or just ROM, if the programmers were good enough to manage VRAM animation from ROM (rather than a VRAM-to-VRAM copy.)
Quote from: handygrafx on 09/15/2007, 02:35 PMthere are exceptions to this rule though. the Amiga. it didn't have any hardware scrolling background layers, yet in games like Shadow of the Beast and Lionheart programmers achived many (more than 3-4) layers.
ref:
http://hol.abime.net/1891/screenshot
http://hol.abime.net/894/screenshot
The Amiga (ECS chipset) can indeed have two completely independent background layers. The games Menace and Agony (and I'm sure countless others) use it to create the appearance of several backgrounds, layered on top of each other. I just looked again at the screenshots of Shadow of the Beast, and that's the mode that I believe the game is running in most of the time. Probably Lionheart too.
The main limitation to the dual-BG mode of the Amiga is that each background can have only 3 bitplanes (8 colours per BG), while the regular single BG mode of the Amiga can have 6 bitplanes (32 colours +halfbrite if needed).
An example I gave early on was Super Darius (https://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/superdarius.avi).
It scrolls the top and bottom of the bg and uses sprites to overlap inbetween and it works perfectly. This type of effect would recreate R-Type's stage 2 parallax no problem.
I think that it shows that pretty much any kind of horizontal scrolling dual layered bg can be done well on PC Engine.
The second stage in that Darius video is the best example. I left the third stage in just for fun, even though it doesn't have any overlapping. I would've added a some more, but the game mysteriously crashed at the end of that third stage(
first time its happened to me in over 15 years :P).
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/15/2007, 06:23 PMWhat's interesting about Chaotix is that the 32X is only responsible for the sprites. The Genesis draws all of the backgrounds 100% with its own colors.
All the more impressive and just goes to show how nice Genesis colors can be used in original games. 8)
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/15/2007, 06:23 PMQuote(https://web.archive.org/web/20211102050322im_/https://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/img/kcs16.gif)
What's interesting about Chaotix is that the 32X is only responsible for the sprites. The Genesis draws all of the backgrounds 100% with its own colors.
Impressive! That's really interesting that the Genesis does the backgrounds, is there a reason for that?
Quote from: Hack_TigerAn example I gave early on was Super Darius.
It scrolls the top and bottom of the bg and uses sprites to overlap inbetween and it works perfectly. This type of effect would recreate R-Type's stage 2 parallax no problem.
I think that it shows that pretty much any kind of horizontal scrolling dual layered bg can be done well on PC Engine.
The second stage in that Darius video is the best example. I left the third stage in just for fun, even though it doesn't have any overlapping. I would've added a some more, but the game mysteriously crashed at the end of that third stage(first time its happened to me in over 15 years ).
Very nice!
Quote from: ccovell on 09/15/2007, 08:58 PMQuote from: handygrafx on 09/15/2007, 02:35 PM...the parallax is there in the 2nd level and where ever the arcade had it. with that said, it's not that the PCE/TG16 couldn't handle that parallax, since of course we all know the machine can be forced to do it.
Not to defend lazy programmers or anything, but the types of parallax in stage 2 and 5 of R-Type are different, and the type of parallax on stage 5 has been pointed out again and again to be a simple hsync scroll, without some people here "getting it" that it's not the same as true parallax. It'd be tough to "force" the PCE to do true parallax with two different layers of graphics such as the ones on stage 2, but I guess the easiest way to do it would be VRAM animation, which (since the blue BG seems to tile at 32 or 64 pixels) would eat up a lot of VRAM. Or just ROM, if the programmers were good enough to manage VRAM animation from ROM (rather than a VRAM-to-VRAM copy.)
Quote from: handygrafx on 09/15/2007, 02:35 PMthere are exceptions to this rule though. the Amiga. it didn't have any hardware scrolling background layers, yet in games like Shadow of the Beast and Lionheart programmers achived many (more than 3-4) layers.
ref:
http://hol.abime.net/1891/screenshot
http://hol.abime.net/894/screenshot
The Amiga (ECS chipset) can indeed have two completely independent background layers. The games Menace and Agony (and I'm sure countless others) use it to create the appearance of several backgrounds, layered on top of each other. I just looked again at the screenshots of Shadow of the Beast, and that's the mode that I believe the game is running in most of the time. Probably Lionheart too.
The main limitation to the dual-BG mode of the Amiga is that each background can have only 3 bitplanes (8 colours per BG), while the regular single BG mode of the Amiga can have 6 bitplanes (32 colours +halfbrite if needed).
ah, thanks for correcting me on the details of parallax scrolling. obviously I don't have much knowledge on the subject. Also about the capabilities of the Amiga chipset.
We shouldn't think that the standard 16 bit genesis can do the exact same graphics that are in knuckles and chatotix though since the only 3 screenshots Ive seen of it range from 80 to 90 colors which is higher than any ingame genesis screenshot that i have seen, having said that, there are regular genesis games that look just as good to me :D
if only the Genesis had the color capabilities of Sega's System 16 arcade hardware. Close to 2000 colors (or at least 1500) on screen out of 32,768. not as much as NEO-GEO but more than PC-Engine, and more colors on-screen than SNES.
I just love the colors & shading of System 16 games
/alteredbeastsystem16mb1.png
Yeah, I know the PC-Engine was able to reproduce the colors/shading of System 16 games better than Sega's own console.
Actually, I wanted the Genesis to have all the capabilities of the System 16B, including scaling.
While not as powerful as Sega's various high-end, multi-68000 boards with Super-Scaler technology, the System 16B as a midrange powered board from the mid 1980s was really nice. It concievably could have been used as the basis for Genesis. I could be wrong but I think a common misconception is that the Genesis was based on System 16. I don't think it was, other than having *some* of the same basic capabilities (16-bit 68000 CPU, two background layers). I suppose a Genesis based directly off of System 16 would've cost too much -- On the other hand, maybe not, given the 2-3 year timeframe Sega would have had to shrink a midrange board from mid-80s into a console for '88/'89.
Now here's a fun poll:
What do you think would've benefitted more? The Turbo Grafx 16 having an extra background layer or the Genesis having palette capabilities as the TG16 :mrgreen: ? We sorta already have a TG16 with an extra background layer thanks to the Super Grafx, but I'd like to hear comments regarding this :) .
I'd say that sega and nec should get together and release a next gen console :wink:
Quote from: turbo D on 09/16/2007, 12:52 AMI'd say that sega and nec should get together and release a next gen console :wink:
They did,it was called the Dreamcast.
Quote from: KeranuQuote(https://web.archive.org/web/20211102050322im_/https://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/img/kcs16.gif)
Impressive! That's really interesting that the Genesis does the backgrounds, is there a reason for that?
Yes. That's just how the 32X worked. It genlocked its video over or under (or both) onto the Genesis video. The video output from the Genesis actually goes into the 32X, and then the video out jack on the 32X went to the TV. Since the video was transmitted via RGB from the Genesis, composite video with a 32X playing a regular Genesis game looks much better than composite video from the Genesis itself. No more vertical rainbow stripes. Less fuzziness. Much better. In short, just having a 32X attached and hooked up properly fixes all of the Genesis' composite video shortcomings.
Anyway, for Knuckles' Chaotix, the 32X just drew the sprites and the polygonal parts of the bonus stages. The Genesis used its own colors for all of the backgrounds. Unfortunately the 32X cannot give the Genesis extra colors to use for its layers. In Kolibri the 32X does the sprites as well as a background layer and the Genesis does the furthest background layers with sprite tricks to simulate 3 BGs in addition to the 32X BG for a total of 4 BGs in the first stage. In Space Harrier, the 32X does EVERYTHING except the background... but even the background has super smooth color gradients that are done by the 32X. That's a great example of 32X putting stuff in front of and behind Genesis graphics simultaneously.
Quote from: PCEngineHell on 09/16/2007, 12:55 AMQuote from: turbo D on 09/16/2007, 12:52 AMI'd say that sega and nec should get together and release a next gen console :wink:
They did,it was called the Dreamcast.
I didn't know that nec had anything to do with the dreamcast :-k
Yeah. They did the grafx. Seriously.
:o wow, I have a new respect for my dreamcast.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/16/2007, 01:11 AMYes. That's just how the 32X worked. It genlocked its video over or under (or both) onto the Genesis video. The video output from the Genesis actually goes into the 32X, and then the video out jack on the 32X went to the TV. Since the video was transmitted via RGB from the Genesis, composite video with a 32X playing a regular Genesis game looks much better than composite video from the Genesis itself. No more vertical rainbow stripes. Less fuzziness. Much better. In short, just having a 32X attached and hooked up properly fixes all of the Genesis' composite video shortcomings.
Anyway, for Knuckles' Chaotix, the 32X just drew the sprites and the polygonal parts of the bonus stages. The Genesis used its own colors for all of the backgrounds. Unfortunately the 32X cannot give the Genesis extra colors to use for its layers. In Kolibri the 32X does the sprites as well as a background layer and the Genesis does the furthest background layers with sprite tricks to simulate 3 BGs in addition to the 32X BG for a total of 4 BGs in the first stage. In Space Harrier, the 32X does EVERYTHING except the background... but even the background has super smooth color gradients that are done by the 32X. That's a great example of 32X putting stuff in front of and behind Genesis graphics simultaneously.
Wow I never knew that, that's pretty amazing. I really need to get a 32X! I'm still curious though, does the 32X have any of it's own background layers? I don't get how Kolibri worked if the 32x didn't have it's own background layer(s), unless they faked them with sprites or something.
By the way, I removed all the sprites from the Knuckles Chaotic screenshot that I could find and the color count was like 40 something, which is more than Genesis backgrounds can handle. Maybe the Genesis was producing sprites in that shot as well or something? I'm not doubting what you said or anything, but any info regarding that would be appreciated! Anyway, I really need to get a 32x! :D
Joe's right about the difference the 32x makes to genesis games, check out the link below.
http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SSF2compare.htm (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SSF2compare.htm)
The 32X does one background in Kolibri, usually the one closest to your face (re: on top). How did you "remove" the sprites from the Knuckles' Chaotix pic? Just blanking them out with black? Don't forget to remove the sparklies, rings and the score as well. It is possible that they supplemented the BG with sprites.
Quote from: awack on 09/16/2007, 02:20 AMJoe's right about the difference the 32x makes to genesis games, check out the link below.
http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SSF2compare.htm (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SSF2compare.htm)
A little "note" about those screenshots. You might think the 32X ones look way too saturated. I have noticed that when recording 32X video to my computer, it is extremely saturated for some reason and I can't figure out why. But this is not the case when playing on a TV or recording to a VCR. I'll try and post a good side-by-side.
QuoteBut this is not the case when playing on a TV or recording to a VCR. I'll try and post a good side-by-side.
Cool, i always wanted to get a 32x for the video improvement it would give to regular genesis games but always thought that the colors looked bad from the screenshots i have seen, like the color is set way to high on the tv, i might have to get one now.
Here is another comparison, look at the vertical bars.
http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/ShinobiIIIcompare.htm (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/ShinobiIIIcompare.htm)
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/16/2007, 02:21 AMThe 32X does one background in Kolibri, usually the one closest to your face (re: on top). How did you "remove" the sprites from the Knuckles' Chaotix pic? Just blanking them out with black? Don't forget to remove the sparklies, rings and the score as well. It is possible that they supplemented the BG with sprites.
I removed Knuckles, the sparkles, the rings, the score, and some other creature that was on the screen by blanking them out. I'll have to check out the ROM some time.
Great links, awack! You can really see the rainbows in the Shinobi comparison.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/16/2007, 01:11 AMSince the video was transmitted via RGB from the Genesis, composite video with a 32X playing a regular Genesis game looks much better than composite video from the Genesis itself. No more vertical rainbow stripes. Less fuzziness. Much better. In short, just having a 32X attached and hooked up properly fixes all of the Genesis' composite video shortcomings.
Does the 32X really make a difference with any Genesis, or just the original model?
How the heck do I use a 32x to make my genesis games look better, I thought that only 32x games fit in its socket :-k
The 32X has it's own NTSC video encoder. It works with any Genesis... except the Genesis 3 or the Nomad. I don't recall if the Genesis 2 has the vertical bars in composite or not. If you have a Genesis modded for s-video, you will not be able to use the s-video with the 32X since the RGB video from the Genesis is sent to the 32X before it is output. You would see the Genesis-only video through the s-video.
Here are some pics I took with a digital camera due to the aforementioned saturation issue. All connections are composite:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20131205185841im_/http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/segacomposite.jpg)
Pretty big difference if you ask me.
And some other stuff just for fun:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20131205185532im_/http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/kolibro.jpg)
Kolibri with and without the 32X video applied. Just run the composite cable straight from the Genesis to see this instead of from the 32X.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20131205185049im_/http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/chaotix2.jpg)
Knuckles' Chaotix, same thing.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20131205185951im_/http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/spaceharrier32x.jpg)
Space Harrier.
QuoteHow the heck do I use a 32x to make my genesis games look better, I thought that only 32x games fit in its socket
Genesis games fit in the 32X slot. That would suck to have to remove the thing.
haha..the last space harrier comparison rules. only the background in the horizont came from the MD :mrgreen:
so the 32X has its own s-video output? which also normal MD games can be played and displayed on the screen via the 32X? great news :D
Awesome screens, Joe! That's really awesome just by switching the cable around you can just the Genesis graphics! It's really amazing how Kolibri turned out with just the Genesis graphics.
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/16/2007, 11:46 AMhaha..the last space harrier comparison rules. only the background in the horizont came from the MD :mrgreen:
so the 32X has its own s-video output? which also normal MD games can be played and displayed on the screen via the 32X? great news :D
No, the 32X has the same output connection as the Genesis II. The only way you can get anything better than composite out of it is to either use an XMD-2 or line RGB out and convert it to S-Video or Component.
ah ha! I too think that's an awesome comparison, Joe.
It's cool to see what the Megadrive/Genesis does as far as graphics in each of those 32X games. it does more in Kolibri than I expected.
I did the same thing with AfterBurner Complete. The Genesis (IIRC) did the score, and the horizon bar indicator and maybe the rest of the stats while 32x did everything related to the graphics.
as for NEC's involvement with the Dreamcast -- it's not what some of you might think. they didn't really design any of the hardware. they didn't design the graphics chip. Videologic designed the PowerVR2DC graphics in Dreamcast, NEC only manufactured it. NEC also manufactured (but did not designed) the ArtX-designed Flipper GPU in Gamecube.
IIRC NEC also manufactures the ATI-designed Hollywood GPU in Wii.
NEC had/has less ties to the Dreamcast and Gamecube (and Wii) than the did with the
PC-Engine ~ TurboGrafx-16 ~ CD-ROM, SuperGrafx, Duo (etc) and FX systems, which they were directly involved with those systems success (or lack of it)... NEC was probably more involved with the design of the hardware (even though Hudson did most of the work) on their systems. with Sega and Nintendo systems, NEC was just the company that fabbed the graphics and embedded memory chips.
Quote from: Keranu on 09/16/2007, 12:46 AMNow here's a fun poll:
What do you think would've benefitted more? The Turbo Grafx 16 having an extra background layer or the Genesis having palette capabilities as the TG16 :mrgreen: ? We sorta already have a TG16 with an extra background layer thanks to the Super Grafx, but I'd like to hear comments regarding this :) .
ohhh I like this one. I'd have to think about it more..... my first reaction would be to say Genesis with TG16's palette capabilities (including on-screen colors at once)...
Quote from: handygrafx on 09/16/2007, 05:21 PMas for NEC's involvement with the Dreamcast -- it's not what some of you might think. they didn't really design any of the hardware. they didn't design the graphics chip. Videologic designed the PowerVR2DC graphics in Dreamcast, NEC only manufactured it. NEC also manufactured (but did not designed) the ArtX-designed Flipper GPU in Gamecube.
IIRC NEC also manufactures the ATI-designed Hollywood GPU in Wii.
NEC had/has less ties to the Dreamcast and Gamecube (and Wii) than the did with the
PC-Engine ~ TurboGrafx-16 ~ CD-ROM, SuperGrafx, Duo (etc) and FX systems, which they were directly involved with those systems success (or lack of it)... NEC was probably more involved with the design of the hardware (even though Hudson did most of the work) on their systems. with Sega and Nintendo systems, NEC was just the company that fabbed the graphics and embedded memory chips.
NEC did the CD hardware for the base unit, the main system arch is Hudsons design (all hudson designed and fab'd chips). From what I've read, Hudson licensed the design/system arch to NEC.
Quote from: Keranu on 09/16/2007, 12:46 AMNow here's a fun poll:
What do you think would've benefitted more? The Turbo Grafx 16 having an extra background layer or the Genesis having palette capabilities as the TG16 :mrgreen: ? We sorta already have a TG16 with an extra background layer thanks to the Super Grafx, but I'd like to hear comments regarding this :) .
i'd have to toss my hat into the "genesis with tg16 palette" ring.
i'm a sucker for rich color work, so any palette enhancement option is always going to get my vote :)
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/16/2007, 06:15 PMQuote from: handygrafx on 09/16/2007, 05:21 PMas for NEC's involvement with the Dreamcast -- it's not what some of you might think. they didn't really design any of the hardware. they didn't design the graphics chip. Videologic designed the PowerVR2DC graphics in Dreamcast, NEC only manufactured it. NEC also manufactured (but did not designed) the ArtX-designed Flipper GPU in Gamecube.
IIRC NEC also manufactures the ATI-designed Hollywood GPU in Wii.
NEC had/has less ties to the Dreamcast and Gamecube (and Wii) than the did with the
PC-Engine ~ TurboGrafx-16 ~ CD-ROM, SuperGrafx, Duo (etc) and FX systems, which they were directly involved with those systems success (or lack of it)... NEC was probably more involved with the design of the hardware (even though Hudson did most of the work) on their systems. with Sega and Nintendo systems, NEC was just the company that fabbed the graphics and embedded memory chips.
NEC did the CD hardware for the base unit, the main system arch is Hudsons design (all hudson designed and fab'd chips). From what I've read, Hudson licensed the design/system arch to NEC.
that sounds right.
Quote from: guest on 09/16/2007, 02:50 PMQuote from: Tatsujin on 09/16/2007, 11:46 AMhaha..the last space harrier comparison rules. only the background in the horizont came from the MD :mrgreen:
so the 32X has its own s-video output? which also normal MD games can be played and displayed on the screen via the 32X? great news :D
No, the 32X has the same output connection as the Genesis II. The only way you can get anything better than composite out of it is to either use an XMD-2 or line RGB out and convert it to S-Video or Component.
thanks, now i got the post from red above. a shame, i was already hoping for a very cheap way, how to put my MD on the the TV set via S-Video :cry:
Quote from: guest on 09/15/2007, 10:04 AMQuote from: NecroPhile on 09/14/2007, 12:30 PMCan you name a single game on the Genesis that could not be done on the Engine?
I can!
Try this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X8N4iKigWm4
Or this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F1yTzR61A9A
And even this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R5OHr9H4yrU
I don't remember anything too spectacular in Earthworm Jim 2, so I think the PC Engine could pull it off (it's been about 84 years since I played it and I don't see anything amazing on the youtube vids). I'll give you Sonic, and I don't know if a good port of Gynoug could be done and I don't care. That background looks like shit, though maybe it looks better on a real system. :)
I didn't mean to imply that the PCE can do everything that the Genesis can, though my post certainly sounded like I did. If I were capable of forming consistently coherent posts, I would have asserted that
most Genny games could be done on the PCE with only minor variation and visa versa, most PCE games could be competently done on the Genesis. The two systems are pretty close graphics wise (in my opinion, of course), so I have a problem with O.T.B.'s blanket statement that the Turbo's graphics are 'not up to snuff'. It's just as fanboyish as saying that the Genesis graphics suck when compared to the Engine just because the PCE can produce more colors. Sure, it'd be nice if the Engine had a second background layer, but quite a few games have nice parallax despite this limitation.
Quote from: Keranu on 09/16/2007, 12:46 AMNow here's a fun poll:
What do you think would've benefitted more? The Turbo Grafx 16 having an extra background layer or the Genesis having palette capabilities as the TG16 :mrgreen: ? We sorta already have a TG16 with an extra background layer thanks to the Super Grafx, but I'd like to hear comments regarding this :) .
Interesting question, Keranu. Original Genesis games are often nicely colored, since the developers didn't have to try and match colors to something else. A better palette wouldn't really matter in some of my favorite Genny games, but would certainly help out some dully colored ports. On the other hand, the Turbo getting the extra background layer would be great (hardware scaling and rotation would be even better). Some games did a good job of faking the backgrounds, so not much would be gained in some cases. I don't know which would really make a bigger impact, so I'll flip a coin. It came up heads, so I'm voting for the Turbo gaining a second background plane.
Quote from: Keranu on 09/16/2007, 12:46 AMNow here's a fun poll:
What do you think would've benefitted more? The Turbo Grafx 16 having an extra background layer or the Genesis having palette capabilities as the TG16 :mrgreen: ? We sorta already have a TG16 with an extra background layer thanks to the Super Grafx, but I'd like to hear comments regarding this :) .
Of course I'd say the turbo with the extra BG plane (i'd better after this thread...) but the genesis could have definitetly used the extra color. Alot of games came off "dark" or maybe "dim" is the better term on the genesis, even when using the bright colors.
Too bad we could'nt have seen more from the supergrafx. The backgrounds in Aldynes did'nt take great advantage really, yeah they were multi-plane but not all that impressive (maybe this is because I knew it was no longer a challenge to pull off...hmmmmm), although some of the giant bosses were cool (not sure if any actually used the second BG plane) . Ghouls and Ghosts was cool, but we'd seen it before...Would have been great to see some more original shoot 'em up stuff on there having so many sprites and the dual BG layer.
Here is an oversaturated looping animated GIF of Kolibri scrolling that I created for no reason other than to piss off dial up users :)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20131205185530im_/http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/kolibri.gif)
PS - It's really not that jerky. It lost something in the Quicktime-to-GIF conversion. I apologize. Please don't ban me!
QuoteToo bad we could'nt have seen more from the supergrafx.
I agree. It's a shame that the Supergrafx had such a short shelf life. Seems like such a waste to only have a handful of games for a system. NEC/TTI really should have concentrated solely on the next 32 bit (PC FX) or even a 64 bit system. I mean NEC should by all rights be running the gaming show at this stage of the game. They had already figured out the CD format before other companies had even thought about it. It just seems like they were spreading themselves thin releasing a bunch of different versions of the PC Engine and PC Engine Duo, the Supergrafx and whatnot. I would have really liked to have seen a 3D Bonk game in the likes of Super Mario World, or a 3D Dungeon Explorer. :-({|=
they just should've made the DUO based on the SGFX technology, then all would've be fine!!
Quotethey just should've made the DUO based on the SGFX technology, then all would've be fine!!
Indeed. Though I wonder why NEC just didn't put a 16-bit processor in the Supergrafx. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through building a new machine to only make it a little better than the PC Engine. I guess that's why it failed. :(
I just remember seeing the Supergrafx for sale in the gaming magazines of the day and thinking it was so mysterious. What was it like? What were the games like? There was only ever a tiny picture of it in the advertising pages so it was hard to tell how big it was and the finer details of it.
I guess the only reason I would ever want one is if for nostalgia's sake. But I would have to find a pretty sweet deal.
Quote from: ceti alphaIndeed. Though I wonder why NEC just didn't put a 16-bit processor in the Supergrafx. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through building a new machine to only make it a little better than the PC Engine. I guess that's why it failed. :(
Why? That would make it
not backwards compatible. The original processor in the PC Engine is fast enough - much faster than the SNES CPU and its video arch was much more complex than the SGX. I'd take an increase palette over a processor upgrade. Actually the PC-FX is sort of what the SGX (or PC-Engine 2) was supposed to be = increased palette, new processor, twin VDCs (the same as the SGX), scaling/rotation BG layer. It even has the same PSG audio system. Maybe PC Engine 2 was upgraded into a PC-FX (new processor and iDCT for MPEG) and the SGX was stripped and released to buy them some time until the PC-FX could be released? I wouldn't doubt that since the SCD was doing so good, that they delayed the release of the PC-FX (in whatever state/revision it was in), but that's just pure speculation.
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/18/2007, 09:23 AMWhy? That would make it not backwards compatible. The original processor in the PC Engine is fast enough - much faster than the SNES CPU and its video arch was much more complex than the SGX.
Agreed, but could they have jacked up the 6280's speed but left it switchable to the original speed? I'm guessing that the original processor will choke if it has to handle 128 sprites at once (*cough* snes slowdown *cough*).
Quote from: TurboXray on 09/18/2007, 09:23 AMMaybe PC Engine 2 was upgraded into a PC-FX (new processor and iDCT for MPEG) and the SGX was stripped and released to buy them some time until the PC-FX could be released?
I doubt it, as there's five years between the two. The PC-FX is far too advanced for '89, and would've been far too expensive. Even NEC wouldn't have been dumb enough to develop such a failure.... wait, that's exactly what they did. Twice, though their failures weren't due to price.
QuoteThat would make it not backwards compatible.
I see your point, but this goes back to my original point a few posts up. Why did NEC even bother with the Supergrafx in the first place? They didn't need to buy time until the PC-FX because the PC Engine was still holding its own. People didn't want to shell out coin for a new system that had crazy expensive games. This is all speculation, but I tend to believe that if NEC played their cards better not only in North America, but in Japan as well, they would one of the big names in the gaming industry today. But there's obviously no way to prove that. :P
This may sound like Greek but give it some thought:
White Elephants to Take the Wind out of the Opponent's Sails
QuoteWhite Elephants to Take the Wind out of the Opponent's Sails
OK, I'm probably misinterpreting your statement here, but from what I can gather you are saying that the Supergrafx is the "White Elephant". I am able to see the Supergrafx as a white elephant. It is at the same time a blessing and a curse - excellent graphics yet of no real practical use. There are only a handful of games and the hardware is underutilized due to technical issues. But yet the games it does have are better than its opponents.
Is that what you're saying here? Or am I way off? hehe :-#
I believe that Chris is saying that NEC wanted to steal some of Nintendo's thunder by rushing the SuperGrafx out the door ahead of the SNES. It makes sense to me: they got a little of the big N's media attention for themselves and then abandoned the SuperGrafx once it served its purpose.
QuoteI believe that Chris is saying that NEC wanted to steal some of Nintendo's thunder by rushing the SuperGrafx out the door ahead of the SNES. It makes sense to me: they got a little of the big N's media attention for themselves and then abandoned the SuperGrafx once it served its purpose.
Ah, OK. hehe. Yeah, true. I guess I've always underestimated the effect Supergrafx had on the Super Famicon in Japan. Did it really take that much wind out of the SF's sails?
Quote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 05:47 PMQuote from: guest on 09/12/2007, 05:31 PMQuote from: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 08:53 AMI see alot on here with folks trying to declare the turbo as having more impressive graphics than the genesis.
The Turbo could replicate the missing extra plane by using sprites, but the Genesis couldn't do anything about the lack of colors (which resulted in nicely detailed games with washed out colors).
but the turbo struggled to pull it off and sacrificed sprites to do it half as well. After hearing from some others in here, that's still the main (and perhaps only) disavantage of the turbo, but it's a big one in my book that. I don't think i've ever looked at a genesis game and siad "this would great if i had three more shades of aqua #3". I have definitely fired up a turbo game (forgotten worlds etc) and said "where' the parallax?" or better yet noticed the background flickering in psychosis cause it's really an extra sprite that the turbo can't handle.
having said all this, I still love the Turbo as i said before the games sem to have a quality that makes them more fun to play.
That a refund on the 2 cents :P
mortal kombat on the genesis made me wish for more color.
SuperGrafx could not have been the PC-FX in 1989 or even 1990. that would not be possible or practical.
what the SuperGrafx should have been, IMO, is something more like a "Super X68000" in a console, with a faster clocked 68000. without the floppy disc drives, with more colors on screen (4096) the same palette (65,536) the addition of true hardware scaling & rotation. maybe more sprites (say 256 16x16). something roughly as powerful as Sega's highend boards with Super-Scaler technology. a real leap above the PC-Engine, something with more power than the SNES, more or less on par with the NEO-GEO, though more reasonably priced with games costing no more than $90. also the "Super CD-ROM" should've been a CD-ROM for this SuperGrafx. the regular PC-Engine would use CD-ROM2 system card 1.0 2.0, 3.0 etc but leave Super-CD-ROM exclusive to SuperGrafx. even if only say 50 or 40 or so SuperGrafx SHu-Cards and SCDs came out, if the quality of the games remained very high, it would've been so much more worthwhile.
My understanding of the super grafx thang is that it was made in anticipation of the release of the super famicom which they (NEC/HUDSON) thought was going to be much more powerful than it turned out to be.
They must have thought that the pc engine + cd with future memory upgrades could easily compete with the super famicom, hell, look at the two games that were released on regular pc engine hucard and the super famicom, raiden and street fighter 2, raiden being superior and street fighter is up in the air.
I doubt the SuperGrafx-16 took much wind out of the Super Famicom's sails. It had much more in common with the Mega Drive than it did with the SFC. It couldn't even perform the state-of-the-art space-age cutting-edge MODE 7 that the Super Famicom could do. The Japanese laughed at the SGX because it was perceived to be weak compared to the SFC which was more powerful than motherfuckin' Buddha hisself. Did other magazines report good things about the SuperGrafx-16? I highly doubt it. The only magazine with relevance in Japan seems to be Famitsu. Just look at the name of that magazine. Famitsu. Translated to English, it literally means "We love the fucking Famicom and everything Nintendo makes or does. If you want to talk about something other than Nintendo, then GTFO and STFU". The more accurate translation does not contain the "GTFO" part but does contain "STFU". The magazine's name wasn't Enginitsu. It's almost like Nintendo Power singing praises of the TurboGrafx.
Joe is full of wisdom, I love his commentary on Japanese translations! :mrgreen:
Quote from: handygrafxSuperGrafx could not have been the PC-FX in 1989 or even 1990. that would not be possible or practical.
I didn't say the SGX was the PC-FX. I was speculating the SGX was the stripped down version of the PC Engine 2, released to buy some time/stall the competition, while work on the PC Engine 2 evolved - eventually into the PC-FX.
It's not hard to see the similarity.
The PCE is made up of: CPU(huc6280), PSGPCM unit(on the CPU die), VCE (video & color/palette generation), and a VDC(sprites/BG).
The SGX is made up of: CPU(6280). PSGPCM(on CPU die), a VCE, two VDCs, and a priority controller for the VDCs.
The PC-FX is made up of: v810 32bit RISC CPU by NEC (not hudson this time), a VCE (a newer version but still a VCE), two VDCs(nothing different than the SGX or PCE), a video priority controller (a little more complex than the SGXs), and KING ( it's own BG unit that can scale and rotate only it's own BG, not sprites or BGs from the VDCs), an iDCT for decoding MPEG frames and RLE bitmaps (RAINBOW), and two ADPCM controllers(the same as the PCE CD unit). I've also been told the SCSI interface (proprietary SCSI version) is *very* similar to the PCE CD's. It even uses the same MCU from the CD unit that the original PCE CD used (probably with updated rom though).
You can see the similarity to the SGX with its two VDCs, a VCE, and a PSG unit. The priority controller was integrated into the VCE (makes sense). The ADPCM is the same type as the PCE CD used as is the CD MCU(SCSI). KING (Hudson's chip) handled the scaling and rotation of it's
own BG layers (up to 4). The 32bit RISC CPU was available in 1990 so it that puts it in the time frame. IMO, the PC-FX was definitely doable in '90-92. Heh- besides the CPU it seems at the support chips are Hudson's.
Also notice the name progressions:
Original VCE -huc6260, FX VCE - huc6261
Original VDC -huc6270, FX KING VDC -huc6272 (huc6271 is the mpeg/bitmap layer of RAINBOW - a VDC chip).
The Huc6273 was the 3D chip for the addon card. There are no skips in the naming progression.
Does anyone have some specs/links/or scans of the PC Engine 2 articles?
Quote from: handygrafx on 09/18/2007, 04:14 PMSuperGrafx could not have been the PC-FX in 1989 or even 1990. that would not be possible or practical.
what the SuperGrafx should have been, IMO, is something more like a "Super X68000" in a console, with a faster clocked 68000. without the floppy disc drives, with more colors on screen (4096) the same palette (65,536) the addition of true hardware scaling & rotation. maybe more sprites (say 256 16x16). something roughly as powerful as Sega's highend boards with Super-Scaler technology. a real leap above the PC-Engine, something with more power than the SNES, more or less on par with the NEO-GEO, though more reasonably priced with games costing no more than $90. also the "Super CD-ROM" should've been a CD-ROM for this SuperGrafx. the regular PC-Engine would use CD-ROM2 system card 1.0 2.0, 3.0 etc but leave Super-CD-ROM exclusive to SuperGrafx. even if only say 50 or 40 or so SuperGrafx SHu-Cards and SCDs came out, if the quality of the games remained very high, it would've been so much more worthwhile.
that sounds like something Fujitsu did with their marty but didn't succeed either, even with a typical PCE soft lineup (> some very great shooter, RPGs, mah jong, erotic [and more..], div. mixed genres etc..
but i see your point. NEC had the great chance to create a following successor to th PCE because its already big popularity at that time as a game manufacturer, but didn't choose the right time. 1990 was too early, coz the PCE was still on its top, and when they came up with the PC-FX, the 32-Bit Polygon era was just a little step ahead.
Quote from: Keranu on 09/18/2007, 07:48 PMJoe is full of wisdom, I love his commentary on Japanese translations! :mrgreen:
yeah, that one was a great fun :lol:
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/18/2007, 09:17 PMQuote from: handygrafx on 09/18/2007, 04:14 PMSuperGrafx could not have been the PC-FX in 1989 or even 1990. that would not be possible or practical.
what the SuperGrafx should have been, IMO, is something more like a "Super X68000" in a console, with a faster clocked 68000. without the floppy disc drives, with more colors on screen (4096) the same palette (65,536) the addition of true hardware scaling & rotation. maybe more sprites (say 256 16x16). something roughly as powerful as Sega's highend boards with Super-Scaler technology. a real leap above the PC-Engine, something with more power than the SNES, more or less on par with the NEO-GEO, though more reasonably priced with games costing no more than $90. also the "Super CD-ROM" should've been a CD-ROM for this SuperGrafx. the regular PC-Engine would use CD-ROM2 system card 1.0 2.0, 3.0 etc but leave Super-CD-ROM exclusive to SuperGrafx. even if only say 50 or 40 or so SuperGrafx SHu-Cards and SCDs came out, if the quality of the games remained very high, it would've been so much more worthwhile.
that sounds like something Fujitsu did with their marty but didn't succeed either, even with a typical PCE soft lineup (> some very great shooter, RPGs, mah jong, erotic [and more..], div. mixed genres etc..
but i see your point. NEC had the great chance to create a following successor to th PCE because its already big popularity at that time as a game manufacturer, but didn't choose the right time. 1990 was too early, coz the PCE was still on its top, and when they came up with the PC-FX, the 32-Bit Polygon era was just a little step ahead.
yup. I was proposing a SuperGrafx that had all of the abilities of the X68000 plus somewhat beyond since it X68000 was out in 1987, while the SuperGrafx could've been held until early to mid 1990. I was thinking of a machine a bit less powerful than the NEO-GEO yet
almost as powerful and actually stronger in the areas of scaling & rotation -- like the SNES when combined with DSP accelerator chips. Though not SuperFX chip or anything else with polygon capabilities or anything close to PC-FX. basicly nothing more than what we read in those old EGM news clips.
*16-bit CPU
*more power than MegaDrive or Super Famicom
*scaling & rotation
*better sound than PCE
Screw that. Here's how the SuperGrafx should have been:
SPECS:
1024 Bit CPU with 9,000 15THz cores
12 TB main RAM
128 GB Video RAM
16 quintillion colors with up to 47 quadrillion on screen at once (more with programming tricks)
Max resolution: 300,000 x 168,750 (16:9 aspect)
16 million independent backgrounds (all simultaneous)
900,002 sprites per scanline, up to a total of 16 million onscreen at once
Sprite size 1x1 to 100,000x100,000
Scaling, rotation, morphing, transparency, on all backgrounds and sprites
Mode 7 AND Mode 8... up to Mode 32.
128-Bit Z-80+Alpha CPU with 32,768 512Ghz cores to control sound
12,000 PSG sound channels, 65,535 ADPCM sound channels with 64KHz 32-bit sampling, 6 FM sound channels and 1 white noise channel
INPUT/OUTPUT
AV connectors built in:
-RF (channels 3, 4, or 5. No other system offers this many channel choices)
-Composite video RCA connector
-S-Video connector
-Component RCA connectors
-VGA connector
-HDMI version 9.3 connectors
-Stereo sound RCA jacks
-Headphone jack with slider volume control for maximum enjoyment
-TOS-Link optical out
-Coaxial digital out
CONTROLLERS:
-7 button design plus START, SELECT and 9 way d-pad (1 more direction than any other competing system)
-Controllers can be merged (like Voltron) if any game requires more buttons.
-Up to 600 controllers can be connected at once with the optional SuperTap.
MEDIA:
-8 megabit HuCard.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/19/2007, 05:51 AMScrew that. Here's how the SuperGrafx should have been:
SPECS:
1024 Bit CPU with 9,000 15THz cores
...
CONTROLLERS:
-7 button design plus START, SELECT and 9 way d-pad (1 more direction than any other competing system)
-Controllers can be merged (like Voltron) if any game requires more buttons.
-Up to 600 controllers can be connected at once with the optional SuperTap.
What, no synaptic link?
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/19/2007, 05:51 AMScrew that. Here's how the SuperGrafx should have been:
Insert lots of stuff here.
You forgot that the controller's cord length would be stretched to a full 50 centimeters, and where's the Blast Processing
TM v2.0?
Quoteand where's the Blast ProcessingTM v2.0?
hehe. I guess Sega would have conceded and joined the NEC developing team. :)
Be realistic, guys. The SuperGrafx couldn't have everything! Sega Genesis would still be better than the SuperGrafx due to the high quality and intense power of Blast Processing™.
QuoteSega Genesis would still be better than the SuperGrafx due to the high quality and intense power of Blast Processing™.
Bwwwahahaha!! :D
Funny. But the TG-16 didn't need blast processing because its "wee" 8-Bit CPU destroyed the competition. :P =;
The PCE had Bust Processing, for all those hentai CD games. I betcha Sega didn't have that!
It is a known fact that Blodia had a special chip installed in it's HuCard that supported Blast Processing™.
I think they should have just taken the pc engine, added a second bg layer, reduce the colors it could put on screen at once to 64, gave it a sound chip that produced music which sounded like two tin cans being rub together and released a bunch of hockey, football, basketball and baseball games for it and nothing but FMV games for the cd side of things.....this would have sold like hotcakes in the US :P
yeah..here some ohter facts maybe some of you guys didn't know yet.
http://nfggames.com/games/pce/
LOL @ awack's response!
Yeah, since he mentioned the Genesis sports games in here, I'll chime in and say this is why I love the Turbo in the first place despite the Genesis' technical superiority. Back in the day, the Turbografx was well-represented in the game genres that I particularly loved: platformers, action games, shooters, arcade conversions. It was also very Japanese and that quality shone through.
The Genesis, on the other hand, was laden with 2 things I loathed back in the day: horrible US-developed games with drab graphics and croaky sound, and sports games. Sometimes both in the same title.
I'd take my bright, cute graphically-enhanced versions of my NES favourites any day.
I got into the TurboGrafx-16 for various reasons at first. But it was the Turbo & PCE RPGs that made it my favorite early on. :)
I love the Genesis but still hate most of the western-developed stuff and most of the sports games as well. But they did what sold. Sonic 2 was probably the best western-developed game.
I would say it's more a case of a master Japanese director filming on location in America. :wink:
Yeah, with half the crew being American. I'm still not sure why they decided the game needed to be made like that. Was Sonic 1 too Japanese? I sure didn't think so.
American power.
GENESIS DOES!
SuperThunderBlade.avif
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/20/2007, 09:01 PMGENESIS DOES!
SuperThunderBlade.avif
OMFG SUPER THUNDER BLADE!
Gotta love those intense blocky 3D graphics!
Hell yeah! Only the Genesis is powerful enough to change the number of windows (and possibly floors) on each building as it approaches.
It is not, however, powerful enough to display grass. Rapidly changing buildings, yes, but not grass. I bet the Turbo can display grass.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/21/2007, 09:39 PMHell yeah! Only the Genesis is powerful enough to change the number of windows (and possibly floors) on each building as it approaches.
Hahaha, I didn't even notice that!
Quote from: guestI bet the Turbo can display grass.
Well the Genesis might not be able to display grass, but... but... JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!!!! *runs away*
My grass is a solid-nuclear green block, so it looks good to me.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/20/2007, 09:01 PMGENESIS DOES!
SuperThunderBlade.avif
Another Sega game that I thought was done better on the PCE. And Thunderblad is a POS anyways
so that's not saying too much. :lol:
Quote from: ccovell on 09/19/2007, 11:04 PMLOL @ awack's response!
Yeah, since he mentioned the Genesis sports games in here, I'll chime in and say this is why I love the Turbo in the first place despite the Genesis' technical superiority. Back in the day, the Turbografx was well-represented in the game genres that I particularly loved: platformers, action games, shooters, arcade conversions. It was also very Japanese and that quality shone through.
The Genesis, on the other hand, was laden with 2 things I loathed back in the day: horrible US-developed games with drab graphics and croaky sound, and sports games. Sometimes both in the same title.
I'd take my bright, cute graphically-enhanced versions of my NES favourites any day.
Hahahhaa. Yes, awack's response was the funniest thing in this thread :)
Put me in with Chris and Joe on this issue: I wasn't playing the Genesis for the sports games. I don't think all of the western-developed games for Genesis were bad, but many of them had a lot to be desired. That said, you have to admit that Genesis got a bunch of neat ports (Star Control, King's Bounty, etc.) that make it a lot easier to dismiss the crappy stuff.
Anyway, whatever happened to loving these consoles? Why do I feel ashamed to admit that I love SNES here at pcefx? :)
QuoteAnyway, whatever happened to loving these consoles? Why do I feel ashamed to admit that I love SNES here at pcefx? Smile
hehe. How can you not love the SNES?! :P It's no Turbografx, but I'm biased. Basically I would rate the Turbografx and the SNES equally. Preference is up to the individual. The Turbo has charm and little to no slowdown. The SNES has the Nintendo charm, but has slowdown. However, it does have scaling and rotation hardware built into the machine.
Quote from: esteban on 09/22/2007, 01:22 PMThat said, you have to admit that Genesis got a bunch of neat ports (Star Control, King's Bounty, etc.) that make it a lot easier to dismiss the crappy stuff.
YES, KING'S BOUNTY PRAISE! One of my favorite games!
Gee, I always thought I was strange for not having as much fondness for the SNES. The TG-16/PCE has always been my first gaming love and is tied with the Sega Saturn as my most ardent gaming love.
Ardent may not be the most appropriate word in this context...
The SNES sounds so great on paper, but the reality seems pretty lacking.
The CPU is slow as shit, so games of my favorite genre (shooters) are constantly dragging. I enjoy the Thunder Force III SNES port, but it slows down at the drop of a hat. Same with Super R-Type. For me this is a big deal. Mode 7 can kiss my ass-- I'm not sure it was put to good use more than once or twice. Most of the time it was used as a gimmick that slowed down the framerate. The high color count is nice, but really, most games don't look any more colorful than Turbo/PCE games. And I prefer the Turbo's color palette.
The sound is probably the biggest disappointed. While the SNES has a sound chip technically superior to both the Genesis and Turbo, I find most of the music all sounds so generic and same-y. Another forum member put it nicely when he said the SNES's music is kind of in a funny limbo between "real" music and chip music.
I like the SNES for great games like Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger and a couple dozen others. But the system just seems so slow and muffled to me that it is hard to get behind it as a whole. It's like playing games in thick pea soup with lots of colors.
Lost: joeredifer .com/reviews/supermetroid3.jpg
The SNES the best graphics!
I just bought Chrono Trigger the other day. I haven't done much with it yet.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/22/2007, 07:06 PMI like the SNES for great games like Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger and a couple dozen others. But the system just seems so slow and muffled to me that it is hard to get behind it as a whole. It's like playing games in thick pea soup with lots of colors.
joeredifer .com/reviews/supermetroid3.jpg
The SNES the best graphics!
I never understood why the hell they scaled the BG to the point of atari-ness and beyond. I mean really, it just a BG layer. Just fade at the point where is doesn't look like ass or something.
Also, pea soup is nasty.
Split pea soup kicks ass, you pea soup nay-sayers!
And yes, Mode 7 was cool in theory, but in reality when things scaled they didn't get more detailed, just blockier.
QuoteIt's like playing games in thick pea soup with lots of colors.
hehe. Well said. 8)
Whatever I say about the SNES is based on memory from over 10 years ago and Youtube, but games like Star Fox kicked ass. :dance: In fact, Star Fox blew me away. :shock: I think the muddy sound really played well in that game. But yeah, for shmups the slowdown was pretty terrible. Super R-Type is definitely a prime example of that as Nat mentioned before.
Star Fox had shit sound, but awesome arrangement. It's too bad they lost the liscensing to the SNES music, because except for the "Star Fox Theme" all the other music sucks.
Especially SNES Corneria and Meteor. Those songs kick so much ass and Nintendo was a damn fool to let them slip by.
Didn't the star fox cartridge have extra chips in it so it could pull off the polygons, i'm sure i heard that somewhere....
I have heard scarce rumors of a similar nature, but more in-depth scientific research is necessary before the truth can be revealed.
Quote from: Tablet on 09/23/2007, 05:34 AMDidn't the star fox cartridge have extra chips in it so it could pull off the polygons, i'm sure i heard that somewhere....
Yes, it was the cause of the Great Potato Shortage of 1993.
Quote from: esteban on 09/22/2007, 01:22 PMPut me in with Chris and Joe on this issue: I wasn't playing the Genesis for the sports games. I don't think all of the western-developed games for Genesis were bad, but many of them had a lot to be desired. That said, you have to admit that Genesis got a bunch of neat ports (Star Control, King's Bounty, etc.) that make it a lot easier to dismiss the crappy stuff.
What first attracted me to the TurboGrafx-16 as a Genesis owner, was the 'original'/console games like Neutopia and Dungeon Explorer. I've always loved arcade games and it was cool to have faithful home ports of some, but I wanted some great SMS/NES games with next gen aesthetics. I liked stuff like Revenge of Shinobi, PSII, Sword of Vermillion and Last Battle more than GnG, Golden Axe and Strider.
I had a passing interest in the TG-16 from what little I'd seen of it, I really liked some of the colorful grafx. One day an aquantence of mine (
real game nerd) invited me over to see his new TG-16 in action. He was playing Neutopia and Dungeon Explorer mainly that night. I didn't pay DE much attention, since it looked like a Gauntlet rip-off and I hated Gauntlet. Neutopia looked cool, but again I kinda brushed it off probably from console-bias of being a Genesis player.
But in the weeks that followed I started thinking about those games and couldn't get them out of mind. I quickly realized that they were
exactly what I wanted (
long questy 16-bit games). I got a TG-16 that X-Mas/Birthday and not long afterwards I found an ad in the newspaper in which that guy was selling both Neutopia and Dungeon Explorer.
Although I'd ocassionally sell and later buy new Genesis & SNES systems over the years, the TG-16/PCE is the one console I've always hung onto from that time onward.
dammit. just played altered beast on the PCE today and this game is a real bitch! even couldn't pass stage one. this game really sucks big dicks in hell. what an awful gameplay. after three tries you like to smash your whole pce set on the next wall. fortunately i just tried twice.
have to say that the MD port is light years better than that crap here!
Quote from: guest on 09/23/2007, 12:30 PMBut in the weeks that followed I started thinking about those games and couldn't get them out of mind.
Haha, I love this line.
Yes, the TG-16 is insipid. It seeps into the mind and doesn't go away. :P
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/23/2007, 01:54 PMdammit. just played altered beast on the PCE today and this game is a real bitch! even couldn't pass stage one. this game really sucks big dicks in hell. what an awful gameplay. after three tries you like to smash your whole pce set on the next wall. fortunately i just tried twice.
have to say that the MD port is light years better than that crap here!
One version is ridiculously hard and the other is supposed to be fairly easy.
I'm guessing that you're playing the hard one(HuCard?).
I've only played the HuCard one and yeah it's a bitch to play! The main problem is with the jumping since you have to press UP to jump and the jumping itself in Altered Beast is very rough, so it makes really hard to perform jump kicks and such.
I enjoyed both formats of Altered Beast on PCE. My only gripes are that you only get like 2 continues and on the CD version the gameplay pauses
two or three times in a stage to load data(usually around mid-way and before & after boss)... kills the flow of the game.
Altered Beast on CD offers two difficulty levels: Normal and Hard. The HuCard doesn't offer either of those difficulties. It is stuck on "Bleeding Anus" difficulty. I broke a controller while playing it. You can beat the CD version with any system card as long as you never turn in to a beast. That means you have to meet up with Neff 3 times before he will fight you.
You can fight him as a human? I never knew that :)
I had no idea the cart version was harder than the CD. I always thought the CD version was identical to the cart but with some generous load times thrown in for good measure.
I only own the cart and it's not that hard! I've never beat it though. I can make it to stage 4.
I wonder how they made the game easier for the CD? I can't really see anything making it easier unless they rewrote the control code.
I actually like the game. The graphics are nice and crisp and the songs sound nice on the Turbo's sound chip.
Quote from: turbo D on 09/23/2007, 07:51 PMYou can fight him as a human? I never knew that :)
Neither did I! Now I'm gonna have to try playing through the game like that! :mrgreen:
Quote from: natI actually like the game. The graphics are nice and crisp and the songs sound nice on the Turbo's sound chip.
Yeah same here. When I first got into the PCE, Altered Beast was one of the first games I played and I thought the graphics looked really polished compared to the Genesis version from memory. I also dug the music in the PCE version, but what really hurt the PCE version is the lack of voices! That's one of the main reasons why I play the game in the first place!
The CD version has the voices though. CD version is a strange port. The changed some of tiles, but they don't look any better and some look worse. I never realized before, but the PCE CD version has better (sprite) gfx than I thought. At first glance you wouldn't think so.
some comparison pics. PCE has green BG, and MD has blue BG.
pcedev .net/altered_beast/PCE_first_level_set.png
pcedev .net/altered_beast/MD_first_level_set.png
pcedev .net/altered_beast/PCE_first_boss.png
pcedev .net/altered_beast/MD_first_boss.png
pcedev .net/altered_beast/PCE_first_boss_2.png
pcedev .net/altered_beast/MD_first_boss_2.png
The genesis one uses 320pixel mode while the PCE use 256pixel mode, but the PCE has more shades and doesn't repeat colors as much. Plus, it has the animation of the debris similar to the arcade, instead of generic "clumps" of stuff. Too bad the backgrounds are pretty generic (atleast for the first stage).
I also noticed poor use of sprites for some of the enemy parts- they overlay a second and third set of sprites to save animation, but increases flicker. The zombies arms and the headless-purple-dress-guy's head are some examples.
Great comparison, the Wolf's kicking stances look way cooler in the PCE version. There are a few sprites I prefer on the Genesis version though. It's funny you mention the clouds because when I first played the PCE version, it was those clouds that made me notice what I thought gave the PCE version a more polished look.
Great comparison :) I've always liked the grafx in the pce version better. Especially that kicking stance :wink:
wow..yes..great comparison there. just a shame, the BGs in the PCE version didn't look that great as well and then the horrible gameplay :(
Quote from: KeranuGreat comparison, the Wolf's kicking stances look way cooler in the PCE version.
That's probably because the kicking stance isn't even in the Genesis version. It was either include the kicking stance or include "Wise fwum your gwave". Something had to give.
a great thing in the PCE version as well is, the splattered zombie-parts which throwing out the screen. they don't zoom as in the arcade pendant, but at least they there.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/24/2007, 02:43 AMQuote from: KeranuGreat comparison, the Wolf's kicking stances look way cooler in the PCE version.
That's probably because the kicking stance isn't even in the Genesis version. It was either include the kicking stance or include "Wise fwum your gwave". Something had to give.
In that case, I'd take "Wise fwum yor gwave" any day 8) .
haha, I'd like to have it all. I'll have to play the arcade :wink:
I must have a hearing problem because the "Rise from your grave" command in the Genesis Altered Beast has always sounded clear and intelligible to me. :lol:
gonna play now the CD version with my system card v1.o
:edit:
damn..is there a cheat out for that one? can't find one.
/compalteredbeast01nx2.gif
/compalteredbeast02bu6.gif
/compalteredbeast03ae6.gif
Well at least the PCE version got the black and white part right for the second level boss ;) .
They got that part right for every boss. The Genesis isn't powerful enough to do black and white. Piece of shit.
Anyway, if you increase the difficulty on the Genesis version, you'll get more crap on the screen like the arcade. The Genesis wins in backgrounds (except when they should be B&W) and the PC Engine wins at sprites.
I would definitely give it up for the Genesis on the first level. The backgrounds on the Gen/MD are obviously more like the arcade and have better detail than the PCE. After level 1 though, at least from these screenshots, the differences are much less noticeable and are really a matter of preference.
Quote from: Tatsujin on 09/24/2007, 03:49 AMgonna play now the CD version with my system card v1.o
:edit:
damn..is there a cheat out for that one? can't find one.
If you have a tototek card, you can use the system card 1.0 rom. The tototek card also lets you enable and disable cheats with side switch, though you'll have to look for the tototek cheat code (check out the tototek forums for a list of codes).
don't have a so called tototek card :cry: only systemcard 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, arcade duo, pro. that's it.
Quotegonna play now the CD version with my system card v1.o
Cool. What are the differences between the HuCard version and the CD version? :-k With other games that are on both formats it seems the developers just remix the music and leave the graphics alone. Is this the case with Altered Beast?
Quote from: ceti alpha on 09/27/2007, 11:31 AMQuotegonna play now the CD version with my system card v1.o
Cool. What are the differences between the HuCard version and the CD version? :-k With other games that are on both formats it seems the developers just remix the music and leave the graphics alone. Is this the case with Altered Beast?
The music on the CD version is chip generated. They were too lazy to even give us a proper soundtrack.
QuoteThe music on the CD version is chip generated. They were too lazy to even give us a proper soundtrack.
So there's no difference at all between the two then? :-s
Quote from: ceti alpha on 09/27/2007, 03:09 PMQuoteThe music on the CD version is chip generated. They were too lazy to even give us a proper soundtrack.
So there's no difference at all between the two then? :-s
Besides the cinemas? I noticed a difference in the background tiles between the two. They weren't really an upgrade as they were a change. The tree's are blue instead of green in the CD version - don't know why. Also, the CD version pauses the scrolling stage to load more of the game. It's definitely not the best use/configuration of the old CD layout (pre 3.0).
hmm...
The CD version also has all of the voices from the arcade in full ADPCM glory. There is an opening cinema on the CD music with music from the arcade version. Other than that, they're pretty much the same for the most part. The CD version is more playable due to the lack of ridiculous difficulty.
QuoteThe CD version also has all of the voices from the arcade in full ADPCM glory.
Well, that IS a significant improvement. How can you have Altered Beast without "Welcome to your doom!". 8)
Here's an example of the colour difference
/alteredbeast002cm9.gif
Quote from: ceti alpha on 09/27/2007, 04:13 PMQuoteThe CD version also has all of the voices from the arcade in full ADPCM glory.
Well, that IS a significant improvement. How can you have Altered Beast without "Welcome to your doom!". 8)
Agreed!
And those screenshots paul posted really help because I was wondering why they decided to choose that brown color as water in the HuCard version!
Oh man. The graphics are way sharper on the CD version. And yeah, the colours make much more sense. heh :)
Here's another interesting comparison
/abeastcomparexh6.gif
/abeastcompare2ey5.gif
/abeastcompare3dv8.gif
Those are interesting comparisons! The water is brown in the HuCard version because it is full of diarrhea to represent the quality of that version. The thing that bugs me most about both versions is the sky in the first stage. On the bottom it is bright, then it starts to get gradually darker as it goes towards the top, then at the score BAM it's full brightness again. It looks really bad like that.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/27/2007, 07:24 PMThose are interesting comparisons! The water is brown in the HuCard version because it is full of diarrhea to represent the quality of that version. The thing that bugs me most about both versions is the sky in the first stage. On the bottom it is bright, then it starts to get gradually darker as it goes towards the top, then at the score BAM it's full brightness again. It looks really bad like that.
I don't think the area behind the score is supposed to be part of the sky/background. I'm pretty sure it's just a "status bar".
You're probably right, but it would look better as a giant black bar like most other NEC Avenue games. They love the bar.
QuoteYou're probably right, but it would look better as a giant black bar like most other NEC Avenue games. They love the bar.
I agree. If they were going to use that space as a status bar then why make it the same colour as the rest of the screen? Oh well, doesn't really matter because the game in whatever format on whatever system isn't much to write home about. It's just fun to compare Genesis/MD and Turbo/PCE. hehe :)
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 09/27/2007, 04:05 PMThere is an opening cinema on the CD music with music from the arcade version.
i watched that load of shit this week. they better had concentrated to improve the game to its max (grafx, gameplay, loading issues..) instead of wasting time and money for that useless and boring crap.
Quote from: guest on 09/27/2007, 06:46 PMHere's another interesting comparison
/abeastcomparexh6.gif
/abeastcompare2ey5.gif
/abeastcompare3dv8.gif
Wow, amazing differences! Some changes in the CD version's backgrounds look better, but other parts look worse (like that little statue shrine - ugly!)
amazing how paul managed to take a pixel exact shot of the 2nd and 3rd comparison :)
I think it's because the screens are stopped at those points.
Quote from: Keranu on 09/27/2007, 10:27 PMI think it's because the screens are stopped at those points.
i think so too my friend :D anyway nice catch^^
Quote from: Keranu on 09/27/2007, 10:27 PMI think it's because the screens are stopped at those points.
This is true :P
Quote from: guest on 09/27/2007, 06:46 PMHere's another interesting comparison
That's the single greatest screenshot comparison i've ever seen...nice
ya, its a great comparison :wink:
I agree with what everyone has said thus far: these differences are pretty interesting, if not mind-boggling. The changes hardly seem worthwhile, but, as Keranu noted, some aspects of the CD version aren't better.
Crazy.
Quote from: guest on 09/23/2007, 12:30 PMQuote from: esteban on 09/22/2007, 01:22 PMPut me in with Chris and Joe on this issue: I wasn't playing the Genesis for the sports games. I don't think all of the western-developed games for Genesis were bad, but many of them had a lot to be desired. That said, you have to admit that Genesis got a bunch of neat ports (Star Control, King's Bounty, etc.) that make it a lot easier to dismiss the crappy stuff.
What first attracted me to the TurboGrafx-16 as a Genesis owner, was the 'original'/console games like Neutopia and Dungeon Explorer. I've always loved arcade games and it was cool to have faithful home ports of some, but I wanted some great SMS/NES games with next gen aesthetics. I liked stuff like Revenge of Shinobi, PSII, Sword of Vermillion and Last Battle more than GnG, Golden Axe and Strider.
I had a passing interest in the TG-16 from what little I'd seen of it, I really liked some of the colorful grafx. One day an aquantence of mine (real game nerd) invited me over to see his new TG-16 in action. He was playing Neutopia and Dungeon Explorer mainly that night. I didn't pay DE much attention, since it looked like a Gauntlet rip-off and I hated Gauntlet. Neutopia looked cool, but again I kinda brushed it off probably from console-bias of being a Genesis player.
But in the weeks that followed I started thinking about those games and couldn't get them out of mind. I quickly realized that they were exactly what I wanted (long questy 16-bit games). I got a TG-16 that X-Mas/Birthday and not long afterwards I found an ad in the newspaper in which that guy was selling both Neutopia and Dungeon Explorer.
Although I'd ocassionally sell and later buy new Genesis & SNES systems over the years, the TG-16/PCE is the one console I've always hung onto from that time onward.
Hahahhahahaha. Awesome. I hear you about the draw of original console titles. I hung on to the TG-16 as well, even though I really liked Genesis and SNES (and NES) as well.
Come to think of it, I am going to be so bold (and wacky) as to proclaim that the early 90's was the TRUE GOLDEN ERA of home consoles, at least for me. NES was still viable and great games were being released. TG-16 and Genny were new... then the SNES appeared. As far as I was concerned, there were FOUR VIABLE CONSOLES "co-existing" at the same time. Great games released for each system in the same span of a few years. If you add in the novelty of CD-ROM games (TG-CD, SegaCD), other eras just can't compare.
:) I'm having fun.
Quote from: esteban on 09/30/2007, 10:27 AMI agree with what everyone has said thus far: these differences are pretty interesting, if not mind-boggling. The changes hardly seem worthwhile, but, as Keranu noted, some aspects of the CD version aren't better.
Crazy.
if the HuCard version had the voices (which shouldn't have been a big issue) plus a better gameplay (like the MD had), the game would be a decade better than what we got.
reality is most here are kids and are not from the 16 bit generation or are just uneducated to the facts the fact is the turbografx is more powerful than snes or sega back in the 80s not many understood the technical aspects of game consoles so they just judged power based on bits today we know ram clock speed etc are more important mips stands for machine instructions per second the turbo has higher mips than the genesis all of you speaking on resolution are painfully wrong the fact is that the turbografx 16 could get resolutions of 512- thats more than snes sega neogeo ps1 even n64 and dont say it wasnt used infact both sherlock holmes games on the turbo used it the turbos 8 bit cpu was faster than segas 16 and yes paralex scrolling was possible on the turbo just more taxing infact games like gates of thunder used more paralex than sega did what gamres released on both systems look better on the sega i ask you? only 1 golden axe and it was ported by a third party streetfighter 2 the most powerful game at the time is rated better on turbo than snes or sega more colorful sharper clearer sound cadash on turbo 4 players on sega 2 on turbo better graphics shinobi the sega game actually is rated higher on pc engine all the valis games exile etc almost all games released on all 3 systems are better looking and sounding on turbo and lets not forget its the oldest of the 3 colors mattered most in the 2d era like neogeo turbo could put up big colors the sega coundnt plus turbos 2 16 bit graphics chips could go beyond the sega or snes in mips as i stated thats why dracula x couldnt be made on sega cd turbo shooters on sega cd have slowdown too
I have a headache.
Quote from: mikeexpert233 on 01/08/2009, 05:36 AMreality is most here are kids and are not from the 16 bit generation or are just uneducated to the facts the fact is the turbografx is more powerful than snes or sega back in the 80s not many understood the technical aspects of game consoles so they just judged power based on bits today we know ram clock speed etc are more important mips stands for machine instructions per second the turbo has higher mips than the genesis all of you speaking on resolution are painfully wrong the fact is that the turbografx 16 could get resolutions of 512- thats more than snes sega neogeo ps1 even n64 and dont say it wasnt used infact both sherlock holmes games on the turbo used it the turbos 8 bit cpu was faster than segas 16 and yes paralex scrolling was possible on the turbo just more taxing infact games like gates of thunder used more paralex than sega did what gamres released on both systems look better on the sega i ask you? only 1 golden axe and it was ported by a third party streetfighter 2 the most powerful game at the time is rated better on turbo than snes or sega more colorful sharper clearer sound cadash on turbo 4 players on sega 2 on turbo better graphics shinobi the sega game actually is rated higher on pc engine all the valis games exile etc almost all games released on all 3 systems are better looking and sounding on turbo and lets not forget its the oldest of the 3 colors mattered most in the 2d era like neogeo turbo could put up big colors the sega coundnt plus turbos 2 16 bit graphics chips could go beyond the sega or snes in mips as i stated thats why dracula x couldnt be made on sega cd turbo shooters on sega cd have slowdown too
whoever taught you english should be fired.
I don't think Turbo would have handled a game like Gunstar Heroes or Alien Soldier even with that Arcade Card Duo.
Quote from: Psycho Alt-Nintega on 01/08/2009, 09:29 AMI don't think Turbo would have handled a game like Gunstar Heroes or Alien Soldier even with that Arcade Card Duo.
Both those games look cool, but I don't see where the PC Engine would be unable to replicate, if not improve on.
Quote from: Psycho Alt-Nintega on 01/08/2009, 09:29 AMI don't think Turbo would have handled a game like Gunstar Heroes or Alien Soldier even with that Arcade Card Duo.
but neither the md would have handled a game like sapphire ;)
and colorwise it smokes both games on just one 8-bit databus with ease :P
If anyone thinks the Turbo could replicate, say, Gunstar Heroes without any loss whatsoever then they are fooling themselves. That being said, anyone who thinks the Genesis could replicate , say, Air Zonk exactly would also be a fool.
The MD couldn't handle Sapphire, but the Sega CD could (with the requisite color loss, of course). I'd like to see the Arcade Card handle Batman Returns or Soul Star. Or Super Castlevania IV. Can't be done, not even close. But really, who cares?
what the MD never would have been able to replicate exactly was a simple R-Type. the palette just wouldn't have been sufficient. and that was an almost release titel on the pce.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 01/08/2009, 11:20 AMIf anyone thinks the Turbo could replicate, say, Gunstar Heroes without any loss whatsoever then they are fooling themselves. That being said, anyone who thinks the Genesis could replicate , say, Air Zonk exactly would also be a fool.
The MD couldn't handle Sapphire, but the Sega CD could (with the requisite color loss, of course). I'd like to see the Arcade Card handle Batman Returns or Soul Star. Or Super Castlevania IV. Can't be done. But really, who cares?
Well, you could very well be right. But I think the Turbo could have improved in some features of the game, like the voices. As you say, each system has its own specialties.
They do, but I think the Genesis is capable of the better voice. There's a discussion along with examples somewhere around here (the Turbo still has great voice). If the Turbo wasn't the Turbo, it wouldn't be as cool!
What we have here is empirical evidence vs theoretical or faith based evidence as far as what one system can or can not do, for Gunstar Heroes or Alien Soldier and the arcade card, well, there are no Treasure developed platform shooters on the pc engine, we only have system specs to go by, but we have direct evidence of how ACD games such as Art of Fighting, Fatal Fury 2, Fatal Fury Special, (World heroes2/World heroes) Strider and Maduo Monogatari turned out on each system.
As for Sapphire on the sega cd, again if we look at all the missing detail and animation of Art of Fighting(sega cd), i would say no.
With all the Mode 7 and transparencies, a direct port of Super Castlevania IV could not be done on the pc engine, but what about a remake, well, who knows, but we do know how a remake of Dracula X would turn out on the snes, going back to the Gunstar Heroes/Alien Soldier question, its interesting to note that Rondo when using Maria is a much faster game than SCIV, Bloodlines or Dracula X.
All said and done, we also have to take into consideration the competence of the developer, the experience with a particular system and how much effort is put into it.
Quote from: Psycho Alt-Nintega on 01/08/2009, 09:29 AMI don't think Turbo would have handled a game like Gunstar Heroes or Alien Soldier even with that Arcade Card Duo.
Likely not, but who cares NINTEGA.
The 68000 is gonna set your ass on fire.
GET LOST. NO ONE WANTS YOU HERE. EVER.
Quote from: mikeexpert233 on 01/08/2009, 05:36 AMreality is most here are kids and are not from the 16 bit generation or are just uneducated to the facts the fact is the turbografx is more powerful than snes or sega back in the 80s not many understood the technical aspects of game consoles so they just judged power based on bits today we know ram clock speed etc are more important mips stands for machine instructions per second the turbo has higher mips than the genesis all of you speaking on resolution are painfully wrong the fact is that the turbografx 16 could get resolutions of 512- thats more than snes sega neogeo ps1 even n64 and dont say it wasnt used infact both sherlock holmes games on the turbo used it the turbos 8 bit cpu was faster than segas 16 and yes paralex scrolling was possible on the turbo just more taxing infact games like gates of thunder used more paralex than sega did what gamres released on both systems look better on the sega i ask you? only 1 golden axe and it was ported by a third party streetfighter 2 the most powerful game at the time is rated better on turbo than snes or sega more colorful sharper clearer sound cadash on turbo 4 players on sega 2 on turbo better graphics shinobi the sega game actually is rated higher on pc engine all the valis games exile etc almost all games released on all 3 systems are better looking and sounding on turbo and lets not forget its the oldest of the 3 colors mattered most in the 2d era like neogeo turbo could put up big colors the sega coundnt plus turbos 2 16 bit graphics chips could go beyond the sega or snes in mips as i stated thats why dracula x couldnt be made on sega cd turbo shooters on sega cd have slowdown too
Do you really, truly, undeniably, with certainty know what you are talking about?
He must, his name says it all :wink: :twisted:
Quote from: guyjin on 01/08/2009, 09:16 AMwhoever taught you english should be fired.
..... he said while failing to follow the rules of capitalization? :lol:
Quote from: oldskool on 01/09/2009, 12:00 AMDo you really, truly, undeniably, with certainty know what you are talking about?
Obviously not, else he would've read the 20 pages of discussion and seen that those points had already been covered, nor would he attempt to prove the Turbo's prowess by comparing resolution, especially considering that he's wrong. I'm not an expert, but 512x240 is
not greater than 512x478 (SNES) or 640x480 (PS1 and N64). Even if he were correct, the awesomeness factor of the TG-16 most certainly doesn't hinge upon Sherlock Holmes so who gives a shit?
Quote from: quoth09 on 01/08/2009, 09:23 PMQuote from: Psycho Alt-Nintega on 01/08/2009, 09:29 AMI don't think Turbo would have handled a game like Gunstar Heroes or Alien Soldier even with that Arcade Card Duo.
Likely not, but who cares NINTEGA.
The 68000 is gonna set your ass on fire.
GET LOST. NO ONE WANTS YOU HERE. EVER.
Be nice.
Quote from: guest on 01/09/2009, 01:06 AM..... he said while failing to follow the rules of capitalization? :lol:
Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. must be my Clinton-era upbringing.
And MIPS = "Microprocessor without Interlocked Pipeline Stages", machines instructions per second? LOL.
Also, MIPS initially was a 32 bit architecture, since when was the Turbografx 32 bits? Sure would be nice!
Another definition of MIPS = "Millions of Instructions Per Second" - which is more commonly used.
Do some research before jabbering your fingers...
MIPS Architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture
MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second)
http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid80_gci214097,00.html
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 01/09/2009, 03:08 AMQuote from: quoth09 on 01/08/2009, 09:23 PMQuote from: Psycho Alt-Nintega on 01/08/2009, 09:29 AMI don't think Turbo would have handled a game like Gunstar Heroes or Alien Soldier even with that Arcade Card Duo.
Likely not, but who cares NINTEGA.
The 68000 is gonna set your ass on fire.
GET LOST. NO ONE WANTS YOU HERE. EVER.
Be nice.
Thank you Redifer.
QuoteAnother definition of MIPS = "Millions of Instructions Per Second" - which is more commonly used.
I,m guessing thats the definition he is using, I'm kinda pulling these numbers outmybutt, but for the Genesis it is .8 MIPS and 1.5 MIPS for the PCE.
For resolution, i would put the Genesis 1st since more of its games use a higher(medium) resolution than the pce or snes, the Pce would be 2nd, more of its games use the higher (medium) resolution than i initially thought, it also has the high (512) resolution and the ability to switch between different resolutions on the fly, like in Art of Fighting. I put the snes dead last, because i don't know of single game that uses the higher resolutions.
QuoteI,m guessing thats the definition he is using, I'm kinda pulling these numbers outmybutt, but for the Genesis it is .8 MIPS and 1.5 MIPS for the PCE.
The average PCE game runs about MIPS is 1.8. There are a lot of 2 cycle instructions that make up that higher number. The MAX MIPS is 3.58. It'll never reach that high, but it can go higher than 1.8 depending on the code. IIRC, an emulator author clocked Genesis games running at 0.8+ MIPS. Most sites like clock/8 for 68k MIPS, but it's closer to clock/9.
The two processors are drastically different. So you can see that the MIPS rating doesn't show the true performance. If you coded the 68k like you would a 6280, it would run pretty slow - and vice versa (less so). The 68k is not fast per se and has slower memory fetch cycles, but it has more powerful addressing and register modes. It's easy to code for and has instructions that get more done in less
overall cycles.
I can't mention any details at the moment(I can later on), but I've seen the code for Art of Fighting port on the PCE. Funny that they translated quite a bit 68k code line for line by hand to the 6280 (you could see 68k line commented on the side). That might give some idea of the strength of the 6280
Personally, I'd say the Genesis strength is in its sprite size configurability. Its greater than the SNES. In what I mean is, that you can really optimize a sprite sizes to reduce flicker. Streets of Rage 3 is thee most perfect example. That character
art is optimized to the pixel, per row. Well, that and the AI keeps the 'stand by' characters out of the mother flickering way ;)
It's the number of sub-palettes that's embarrassing on the Genesis (4). Even the NES had more sub-palettes ( 8 ). Sega has no excuse. The SNES has 16(8+8) and the PCE has 32(16+16). Since all three 16bit systems have 16 color tiles, it's the sub-palettes that really matter for colors on screen since these are tile base systems.
What seems clear to be is the completely different approaches taken by all 3 systems. The SNES is heavily dependent upon its specialized chips to the point that the CPU is anemic at times. The Genesis seems to be all about managing sprites with a flexible, efficient CPU, with the primary weakness being color palettes and inconsistent hardware build quality. The PCE, on the other hand, reveals itself as the earliest design of the three as probably the most general system. The PCE seems to be the most like the NES in many ways, and as such seems to be an extension of that philosophy. Just make a robust general system that can do lots of stuff and leave it to the programmers to sort stuff out.
The popularity and awesomeness of a console has never, and I mean never, been tied to it's system specs. For example, look at the most popular/successful system of each era:
Original Era:
The 2600 is the most popular and successful console of the era by a huge margin, and it is vastly outclassed by the Intellivision and Colecovision.
8-Bit Era
The NES stomps the Master System, even though it is slightly less capable.
16-bit Era
A close match (in the US) with the Geny and SNES, though the Geny is somewhat inferior to the SNES
32-bit Era
Playstation wins over the far superior N64 by a mile, and topples the Big N from it's perch.
Last Gen
PS2 trounces the competition, and is the most inferior technically of the three.
Current Gen
The Wii. A console that could have been released ten years ago, and it's beating ALL the next gen stuff. The most capable console, the PS3 sinks like a lead brick.
At the end of the day, it's THE GAMES, not the capabilities of the system, that win. It's never been about capability. It's about accessability, affordability, and library size. The TG-16 and the Geny are very close technically. The Geny did well here, and the TG/PCE did well in Japan. Both systems have excellent games, though I personally favor the TG/PCE. If a system has fun games, regardless of the 'wow' factor, it will do well. Wii Sports anyone?
People want affordable fun. The system with the most affordable fun wins. Everytime. :D
Interesting point, Lord Thag! I'm surprised I never thought of that before.
Come to think of it, it can be applied even more to handhelds:
Gameboy destroyed all competition for an entire decade, despite being in black and white! Lynx was the first to step up against it and was far more technologically imrpessive, but didn't have a chance. Turbo Express, Game Gear (though did well enough on it's own), Nomad, Neo Geo Pocket, Game.com; none of them could stop it.
Gameboy Color beat out Neo Geo Pocket Color by a long shot, though I'm not sure if the NGPC was any more powerful (I always thought it was personally).
By the time of Gameboy Advance, I guess other companies realized there wasn't much of a chance of taking away the crown from the Gameboy series. So uhh, I guess you could say N-Gage here? Wonderswan Color maybe?
Nintendo DS is constantly breaking sales records, despite being known for being less powerful than PSP.
wonderswan color was much more a gameboy color competitor than to the GBA.
nintendo just always had the success on their side. the name, the image, the prestigious software developers and a just as possible compact as well easy to handle hardware at the time. technology was always secondary in the handheld biz.
Quote from: Lord Thag on 01/13/2009, 05:25 PMPlaystation wins over the far superior N64 by a mile, and topples the Big N from it's perch.
:-k
I absolutely agree that the specifications of a system don't really matter as long as the games are good. But the public doesn't always seem to think so. If they did, we'd still be playing 16-bit era consoles. I chose 16-bit era because that generation had some of the most playable games and the technology allowed it to do more things vs Atari2600 technology or even NES technology. Saturn and Playstation allowed for 3D gameplay, but it is debatable whether that really adds anything. I guess it does, since certain games could not exist without 3D. But then again, we stepped up to Xbox 360, etc from normal Xbox, etc, didn't we? The new consoles don't really offer any new gameplay compared to the previous generation, so people must want the graphics! Then there's the Wii...
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 01/08/2009, 01:05 PMThey do, but I think the Genesis is capable of the better voice. There's a discussion along with examples somewhere around here (the Turbo still has great voice). If the Turbo wasn't the Turbo, it wouldn't be as cool!
The Genesis and TG-16 are both capable of samples clear enough that it doesn't matter what difference there may be technically. The Genesis has a better variety of voice samples in published games, but I still think that the PCE Lunar voice sample sound as good as or better than anything on Genesis or SNES.
Although it went underused, sample sounds (quality + channels) are one of the biggest strengths the TG-16 has over Genesis and arguably the SNES (quality-wise). The Genesis's single sample channel is the only major weakness other than the palette restrictions. If the Genesis had the same 512 master palette, but sub-palettes more like the SNES and the ability to do even just 2 - 4 samples at a time, most people would probably have thought that the Genesis was the most powerful system of the 16-bit era and the SNES' gimmicks wouldn't have been enough to sway opinions (even if EGM were to still call the SNES teh best(!) for the rest of its lifespan).
I do wish there were more HuCards that took better advantage of sampled sounds. I am forever grateful that the thing didn't have a reverb chip, though. :)
QuotePlaystation wins over the far superior N64 by a mile, and topples the Big N from it's perch
Technically speaking, I mean. :lol:
I agree, I hate the N64, but it did 3D WAY better than the PS1.
Yes and no. I would concede that it can move more polygons, but it was also way more foggy. Granted the PS1 was hyper-grainy so I guess I really don't have much to go on here.
Most of the technical information I've read indicated that the Playstation could display more polygons than the N64. The N64 probably had a more powerful CPU overall, but it was also damned hard to code for. And the 4 KB texture limitations on the N64 also hamstrung developers.
I think it's safe to say the PS1 was the complete opposite of the PS2 in that it was relatively easy to program for and followed a VERY traditional 3D paradigm. And in that sense the N64 was almost more a harbinger of the PS2 than the PS1 was.
What PCE games used polygonal graphics? Didn't Gunboat?
Yeah, Gunboat does and so does Falcon. Sapphire. There is one scene in Legend of Xanadu with a rotating three dimensional diamond, and I've never been able to tell whether that is made from polygons or not.
Quote from: Lord Thag on 01/13/2009, 05:25 PMAt the end of the day, it's THE GAMES, not the capabilities of the system, that win. It's never been about capability. It's about accessability, affordability, and library size.
Agreed, though it doesn't seem applicable to the current gen systems; the 360 is easier to find, cheaper, and has a much larger library. In this case, I think it
is the capabilities of the system (specifically the motion sensing gimmick) coupled with good marketing and a hatred for shoddy build quality and all things MS.
Quote from: nat on 01/14/2009, 09:45 PMSapphire.
Those were all pre-rendered sprites, though, weren't they? Faceball pumps 'em out real-time, just like a PS3!
Were they all? I thought the primitive ones were "real." But, what do I know?!
yeah..i thought those blue rotating primitive ships were rendered in real time, since you also can't see any color-compressions on those as you can see it on the bigger, more poligonal sprites. but, what do I know?!
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 01/14/2009, 07:52 PMYes and no. I would concede that it can move more polygons, but it was also way more foggy. Granted the PS1 was hyper-grainy so I guess I really don't have much to go on here.
The graphics on N64 were always boring & lifeless to me with a lack of detail, with the PS1's gfx being choppier but more detailed.
Sapphire's polygons were pre-rendered, as far as I know. They probably just drew them that way to fool people into thinking that they were running real time. There's been debate here before whether the ships in Silpheed for Sega CD were pre-rendered or not.
In Silpheed all the background stuff going on was prerendered. Your ship and the other stuff you were shooting was real time.
Actually in Silpheed the enemies are prerendered sprites.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 01/15/2009, 10:15 AMActually in Silpheed the enemies are prerendered sprites.
Have you even played Silpheed CD? There's a polygon test right there in the options menu. The sprites, at least, are generated real-time.
Quote from: ccovell on 01/15/2009, 06:28 PMQuote from: Joe Redifer on 01/15/2009, 10:15 AMActually in Silpheed the enemies are prerendered sprites.
Have you even played Silpheed CD? There's a polygon test right there in the options menu. The sprites, at least, are generated real-time.
Aww you beated me to it.
In terms of this debate. I honestly aint reading 20932409234 pages of it.... but heres my two cents.
They both kick ass.
hard.
They are also so amazingly similar to each other that its scary at times. Lunar totally would have been equally sweet on a PCE SCD.
And then there were some times were PCE outclasses it, like Shadow of the Beast. The genesis cartridge sucks compared to the super CD.
same with exile....
but for the most part, they both get my thumbs up and :dance:
Quote from: ccovell on 01/15/2009, 06:28 PMQuote from: Joe Redifer on 01/15/2009, 10:15 AMActually in Silpheed the enemies are prerendered sprites.
Have you even played Silpheed CD? There's a polygon test right there in the options menu. The sprites, at least, are generated real-time.
In the test option, but in game they are rendered to a set of frames to be uses as simple 2D animation. It isn't rendered realtime, it's cache frames (usually interleaved). 2D sprites is moved along a fixed axis and cycles through the frame cache every 4-5 frames - yet still 'sliding'. You get multiple enemies because the ones behind the main one(or two) are accessing cached the same cached frames as well. Sometime they are even mirrored.
QuoteSapphire's polygons were pre-rendered, as far as I know.
They are. You can see them with a sprite editor in the ISO. To be honest, there's no reason to waste resource rendering a polygon ship/enemy when you can have them as pre-rendered frames and practically access them for free.
Quote from: ccovell on 01/15/2009, 06:28 PMQuote from: Joe Redifer on 01/15/2009, 10:15 AMActually in Silpheed the enemies are prerendered sprites.
Have you even played Silpheed CD? There's a polygon test right there in the options menu. The sprites, at least, are generated real-time.
So did After Burner II for PCE :mrgreen:.
Notice how much slower the polygon test in the Silpheed option screen is compared to the movement in the actual gameplay where there are many, many enemies onscreen at once. Common sense right there demands that something is amiss. Anyway, the enemies are sprites during gameplay, not polygons. Look into the data for yourself and you'll see. :)
I stand multiply corrected. All in the name of knowledge.
Regardless it's amazing what the devs were able to achieve back in the day with such limited hardware. It really was a special time for games.
Quote from: geise on 01/16/2009, 10:15 AMRegardless it's amazing what the devs were able to achieve back in the day with such limited hardware. It really was a special time for games.
Quoted for truth :)
Yes, I was convinced that the backgrounds were polygons back then. There was no graininess to them. I was like "OMG SESEGA CD SOOO POWERFUL!!!!"
not 100%ly. correct for the PCE CD-Rom, but the MEGA-CD would have been capable for much more i believe, but they never really pushed that add-on, packed with a lot more hardware inside than the loose MD just had. i bought a lot of MEGA-CD games recently and i have to say now, that they not really did a great job on the most of the games, regarded what the hardware would have been capable of. not so for the PCE CD-Rom, as we all know just too well. even there was "no" addition hardware packed in.
Some US (well really Euro guys) really pushed the system. Well, they really pushed the ASIC. In Batman, the driving parts supposedly hits the chips threshold for bandwidth.
Quote from: Tatsujin on 01/16/2009, 10:51 AMnot 100%ly. correct for the PCE CD-Rom, but the MEGA-CD would have been capable for much more i believe, but they never really pushed that add-on, packed with a lot more hardware inside than the loose MD just had. i bought a lot of MEGA-CD games recently and i have to say now, that they not really did a great job on the most of the games, regarded what the hardware would have been capable of. not so for the PCE CD-Rom, as we all know just too well. even there was "no" addition hardware packed in.
I think that both the Genesis and Sega-CD were pushed really far, especially compared to the PC Engine (CD or Hu), even though the Sega/Mega-CD doesn't have nearly as many games. From what I understand, like some other consoles the Sega-CD hardware wasn't designed very well to utilize everything under the hood. Kinda like if you opened up your PC Engine and crazy glued in a Pentium 4 chip and closed it up. There may be some powerful components inside, but that doesn't mean that it's the sum of its parts.
But even judging many Sega-CD games by the hardware's tech specs, I think that some of the most technically impressive 16-bit console games are all Sega-CD titles. These games alone (http://youtu.be/k80dODWdj9I) utilize their hardware better than most PCE CD games do. Plus the cinemas in Popful Mail and Lunar EB and all the FMV crap make good use of the CD-ROM format.
We should've seen way more PCE CD games with fully animated cinemas that take up a good portion of the screen, especially for the Arcade Card. And only one japanese developer ever tried fmv. Imagine what could be done after several attempts with the Arcade Card. Not enough PC Engine games pushed or worked around the limits like lining up sprites to maximize the number on screen without hitting horizontal limits. As impressive as the handful of games are that made good use of animated tiles for background layers, they're way in the minority, there's no reason for it given the limitless storage space and so much more could've been done.
There are also few games that pushed the level of detail/shading/color and none do more than dent the hardware's potential. Non-sprite heavy games like RPG's could've made good use of higher resolutions, again especially with the CD space and larger system cards. And the amount of space for ADPCM samples is the same for CD2 games as it is for ACD games, so why hasn't every PCE CD game ever released not been loaded with sampled sfx?
I always felt that Japanese developers never fully pushed the machines as often as they should have. I was always surprised after seeing some new graphical effect or hearing some great sound that others would not try to replicate them. Why were there not sampled drums in every game, for example? Why was there not parallax scrolling everywhere? Of course I didn't realise then that some programmers could actually be lazy/rubbish.
Quote from: guest on 01/16/2009, 06:04 PMI always felt that Japanese developers never fully pushed the machines as often as they should have. I was always surprised after seeing some new graphical effect or hearing some great sound that others would not try to replicate them. Why were there not sampled drums in every game, for example? Why was there not parallax scrolling everywhere? Of course I didn't realise then that some programmers could actually be lazy/rubbish.
Japanese developers in general aren't hardware pushers like the Euro crew were. Euro coders really went above and beyond for their systems,
my god. And US coders? Meh...
what you can see on a Rendering Ranger. Mani pushed the SFC to it's sheer max, even he wasn't such familiar with the hard than may be major developer as konami etc. and even more impressive, he did it all on his own!
but when it comes to classic 8-/16-bit shooter, in 99% of the cases the japanese always had the nose ahead!
Quote from: Tatsujin on 01/17/2009, 02:32 AMwhat you can see on a Rendering Ranger. Mani pushed the SFC to it's sheer max, even he wasn't such familiar with the hard than may be major developer as konami etc. and even more impressive, he did it all on his own!
but when it comes to classic 8-/16-bit shooter, in 99% of the cases the japanese always had the nose ahead!
Don't forget fighting games too. Western stuff like Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct are IMO pretty bad.
At least with the Sega Genesis, US coders were capable of quite a bit. Look at Sega's STI division in the US. They did some very good work with the Genesis. Now, there were so few US and EU coders for the PCE/TG-16 it's probably hard to compare.
What TG-16 developers were US and EU, anyway?
psygnosis?
Quote from: guest on 01/17/2009, 12:53 PMAt least with the Sega Genesis, US coders were capable of quite a bit. Look at Sega's STI division in the US. They did some very good work with the Genesis. Now, there were so few US and EU coders for the PCE/TG-16 it's probably hard to compare.
What TG-16 developers were US and EU, anyway?
Some of these may be the original developer, before someone like Hudson or NEC ported their game to the PC Engine, but I weeded most of those out-
Accolade
Cinemaware
Distinctive Software
Electronic Arts (Canada?)
Excite Software -girly discs
Gremlin Graphics
ICOM Simulations
Incredible Technologies Inc.
Loriciel
LucasArts
Manley & Associates
NEC Technologies
Psygnosis
Spectrum Holobyte
Strategic Simulations, Inc
Tengen
TTI
Quote from: guest on 01/17/2009, 12:53 PMAt least with the Sega Genesis, US coders were capable of quite a bit. Look at Sega's STI division in the US. They did some very good work with the Genesis.
If you look at the team, you'll find EU coders working for US companies ;)
I believe Psygnosis just published the games, but Reflections developed Shadow of the Beast and Ballistix. I might be wrong though, just figured I'd add Reflections to the list. As for Euro and Japanese devs, I think both had great and lazy developers. I have an Amiga 500 and 1200, also an Atari ST . I played a lot of great original games on those computers when I was younger, but there were a lot of games that were bad graphically, and didn't push the hardware at all. When it came to arcade ports devs were really lazy. With the hardware the Amiga had most games should have been fairly close to the arcade. The amiga at the time was fairly similar to the x68000. The x68000 had near arcade perfect ports. Granted it was those same companies porting those games, but still.
At least for Shadow of the Beast, it was DMA Design who did the port. I don't even know what role Reflections ever had in those Psygnosis games...
Oh, and wasn't it "The Code Monkeys" who did the port of Turrican?
Quote from: ccovell on 01/17/2009, 07:09 PMOh, and wasn't it "The Code Monkeys" who did the port of Turrican?
The Code Monkeys did both the TurboGrafx-16 and Sega Genesis ports of Turrican. I believe it was Factor 5 themselves who did the NES port, though.
Reflections designed SotB, and Psygnosis was the publisher.
and for what its worth the PCE CD game is better than even the Amiga original.
Quote from: Tom on 01/17/2009, 03:55 PMQuote from: guest on 01/17/2009, 12:53 PMAt least with the Sega Genesis, US coders were capable of quite a bit. Look at Sega's STI division in the US. They did some very good work with the Genesis.
If you look at the team, you'll find EU coders working for US companies ;)
That doesn't necessarily contradict the premise, which is that I'm relatively certain there were US coders of talent as well.
For the record, the x68000 was much closer to the CPS1 hardware than the Amiga was. More powerful for tile/sprite games than the Amiga.
QuoteThat doesn't necessarily contradict the premise, which is that I'm relatively certain there were US coders of talent as well.
Other than Carmack, I don't haven't heard of anybody. There were some semi-famous guys for the c64 - might be some US guys in that bunch.
Funny that 4 Euro developed games for the PCE and none of them really push the system Euro style :/
Since this is a tech thread, I should mention something that was recently found out about the Arcade card. Development for the card started in '92. It was missing some regs and was a bit slower, but it was functional. It looks like Art of Fighting also started development for the prototype card in '92. It was finished in 3rd quarter '93, but had a delayed release date for some reason.
Quote from: guest on 01/17/2009, 09:46 PMReflections designed SotB, and Psygnosis was the publisher.
and for what its worth the PCE CD game is better than even the Amiga original.
I have mixed emotions about this. There's some missing paralax, that's for sure(like the fence in the field area is gone, no paralax in either underground area's, etc.). I think I even like the clouds in the original better.
Quote from: guest on 01/17/2009, 09:46 PMand for what its worth the PCE CD game is better than even the Amiga original.
if you talking about the BGM, absolutely agreed. for the rest, nooooo way :lol:
Quote from: Tom on 01/17/2009, 10:11 PMOther than Carmack, I don't haven't heard of anybody. There were some semi-famous guys for the c64 - might be some US guys in that bunch.
Funny that 4 Euro developed games for the PCE and none of them really push the system Euro style :/
Honestly, the US didn't often tout contributions from individual developers. I have read a number of articles that suggest there were indeed some kick ass US coders inside STI, for example.
Quote from: Tatsujin on 01/18/2009, 01:00 AMQuote from: guest on 01/17/2009, 09:46 PMand for what its worth the PCE CD game is better than even the Amiga original.
if you talking about the BGM, absolutely agreed. for the rest, nooooo way :lol:
There are some things I like better in the PCE version besides the music. The background in the fortress I like better despite the lack of paralax, the cinemas are awesome, I like some of the sound effects better(like the sound of the Beast running, which isn't in the Amiga version), I like the 2 area's in the undergound being seperate from eachother, & I do like the animation in the background of those levels, but, I wish, since there was no paralax, that they would've done more with that. I know that the Turbo version could've been better then it is. Really though, I can't say any one version of SotB is the best.
yeah..may be here and there something looks better in the pce port. what i recognized was, that some sprites are looking nicer and more colorful in the pce port. but all around and with the missing of a lot of parallaxes, the game just doesn't appear in the full glance and glory as the amiga version did. just check out the pathetic and lots of detail missing background in level 2 (down the tree), compared to the amiga version, this is like day and night.
I can't remember which track it is off the top of my head, but Shadow of the Beast on the Turbo has some hiss in the music that begins maybe 30 seconds or a minute after the music has started. That is annoying and very unprofessional.
also do not know exactly about what you're talking now, but what i can say with certain, the 3 tracks (04) The Plains 1, (07) The Plains 2 & (06) Underwater are some of the best written classic game BGMs in history :)
Joe, I know of the hiss as well... it's most noticeable at the end of the track, as the song fades out but the hiss is still audible. I still think the music is fantastic for something which (I gather) was done by 1 guy at DMA, and not in a professional recording studio.
Quote from: ccovell on 01/19/2009, 02:14 AMJoe, I know of the hiss as well... it's most noticeable at the end of the track, as the song fades out but the hiss is still audible. I still think the music is fantastic for something which (I gather) was done by 1 guy at DMA, and not in a professional recording studio.
all the PCE tracks are done by Tim Wright als known as CoLD SToRAGE. here is his official page -> http://www.coldstorage.org.uk/
a great fellow :)
Regardless of the technical aspects of each game, I think the PCE version plays better. That said, neither are exactly shining examples of game design.
I played a little of the amiga version years ago, i remember it had the same gameplay as most other SOTB games, the punch that you have to time just right to make contact, i do have the genesis version, which has graphics which are very close to the Amiga but not quite as good.
The pce SOTB, definitely has the best gameplay, it is also, from a technical stand point, superior to the genesis version, which might apply to the amiga as well, there are a few exceptions, like the dual layer with the nice tree Bg in the two under ground parts, in the pce SOTB, its replaced with a simple texture, but almost everything else in those two sections are drawn better with more detail. The main character is larger with much better animation, allot of the enemies and bosses are larger, more onscreen colors, more onscreen sprites, better sound fx, line scroll, Bg animations and music.
Allot of the Genesis Bg (Amiga even more so) are stylistically, in my opinion, better, sprites look worse though.
Its interesting to point out that the Megadrive version was changed to look more like the turbo duo/pce version, the main character sprite was redrawn and colored, along with a few enemy/bosses, i don't know if this was done contemporaneously or after some had seen the Turbo duo SOTB.
Make Dailly (http://dailly.blogspot.com/) worked on the PCE CD port, but I don't remember him mentioning working on the Genesis/Megadrive one. You could always ask him, of course.
Yea, i think Mike Daily was the main programer, on the DMA site it says (Mike started what was to be his most hated project)...and that Martin Chudley did all the new graphics.
Wow, the Rockstar North (used to be DMA) web site is probably the least usable web design I've ever experienced in my life. The interaction model is horrible, the labels nearly worthless, and it's impossible to tell what's what. Their web designer should be fired and put on a pedestal as an example of what NEVER to do in designing a web site.
Comparing time!
Amiga: http://youtu.be/r1UZc6j6oyQ
PCE: http://youtu.be/2zZQitKCFmE
MD: http://youtu.be/-F2uXkiL7zM
And here a comparison of all versions:
http://youtu.be/C3b4h-MUjGo
you guys can tell me what you want, but when it comes to the graphical aspects, the amiga version is far superior. and since this is a thread about graphics, don't bother me with gameplay etc. issues.
especially the BGs of the 2nd stage looking very poor on the pce. and the lack of parallax makes it even worse! no compare to the amiga version. and i know, those youtube links aren't the best quality to judge the real deal.
Wow, thanks for the links. :D They sure did a great job with all the SotB ports. Even the SMS version is 16-bit quality. The early computer and Lynx ports also look great and all have parallax. The only two that looked kinda hokey to me are the SNES and FM Towns versions. The japanese Mega Drive version in particular is very well done.
The PC Engine port may be missing some aspects found in other versions, but it also has several exclusive strengths that are better than any other version. The forest area could've used the foreground fence and MD/Amiga cloud art and still run the same though, it's weird that they weren't put in. Still, the game is very impressive on every platform. I've gotta get a copy of the SMS version mow. :P
I am disappointed that the FM Towns version STOLE the music from the PCE version. This angers me. I am going to write my congressman about this! Also, the SNES version was pretty lame with those hokey sound effects for picking up items, etc.
Both the SNES & FM Towns versions should've been better then what they were. As I said, I'm torn on the underground levels, I love the paralax in the Amiga & other versions, but, I do really like the animation added to the BG in the Turbo version, but, still wish there was paralax. I hate the background for the fortress level of the Amiga version, & think that the Turbo version is very appropriate. I love the clouds in the Genesis version I think the most though. The hiss is in the first underground area, it's like they turned a mic on, & didn't bother to re-record. It looks like the FM Towns version was also released by Victor Musical, so, it's no wonder it has the same music. Also, I should note, that the gfx in the FM Towns version, look like the gfx shown for the Turbo version in one of the Turbo/Duo Play's, where the gfx look almost cartoony with a lack of detail.
Something I just noticed on Mike Daily's site, there is a game listed called Paradroid. The was a game for the Turbo, that was being worked on(atleast, according to EGM) called Paradroid! I wonder if there's any connection??
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 01/20/2009, 02:50 AMI am disappointed that the FM Towns version STOLE the music from the PCE version. This angers me. I am going to write my congressman about this!
that's because, for both version tim wright was responsible. and he didn't want to re-compose it just for the lumpy towns version.
I loved Shadow of the Beast on the Amiga. I also loved SotB on the PC-Engine. I still think the Amiga is the superior version. I just remember buying the amiga version when it came out and just being blown away by the sound and graphics. It really was something special to me. Hard to imagine 3 guys made the game. Also I thought David Whittaker did the music for beast1 and Tim did 2 and 3?
It's also crazy just two guys programmed and did the graphics for the original. That's how it was back then.
Quote from: geise on 01/20/2009, 10:09 AMAlso I thought David Whittaker did the music for beast1 and Tim did 2 and 3?
very right so for the amiga versions. but for the pce & marty versions, tim took his hands on it. dunno for the md & sfc versions. anyway, he made a superior job on the pce version. listen to its score sheer weekly, since years now :D
Haha derf =B I totally forgot that David Whittaker mainly did the original beast score, and Tim redid the music for the PC-E and Marty versions. Regardless I miss Psygnosis, and buying the games that came with Roger Dean designed shirts. The amiga, ST, and PC-Engine gave me many good gaming memories.
Quote from: Tatsujin on 01/20/2009, 03:33 AMQuote from: Joe Redifer on 01/20/2009, 02:50 AMI am disappointed that the FM Towns version STOLE the music from the PCE version. This angers me. I am going to write my congressman about this!
that's because, for both version tim wright was responsible. and he didn't want to re-compose it just for the lumpy towns version.
The FM-Towns version was first, probably released late in 1991. Then they recycled Tim's soundtrack for the PC-Engine CD port, released in March 1992.
It's a good soundtrack Tim did so I don't mind the port of the music. If both games were coming out so close to eachother why bother redoing the music. It's like changing the music from a ps3 game to port it to the 360. Doesn't really make sense. Especially when it's the same game.
Why hasn't this Tim guy done any music anywhere even close to the quality of Shadow of the Beast since then?
Could someone link to Mike Daily's site? I'd like to read some of the content there. Thanks.
Quote from: guest on 01/20/2009, 12:58 PMCould someone link to Mike Daily's site? I'd like to read some of the content there. Thanks.
Follow the link from Tom's post and you'll eventually arrive at www.mikedailly.com (http://www.javalemmings.com/miked/). :wink:
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 01/20/2009, 12:58 PMWhy hasn't this Tim guy done any music anywhere even close to the quality of Shadow of the Beast since then?
I like his title tune for Agony (Amiga). A really nice piano track.
youtube .com/watch?v=yX-SpbE1n9Q
Quotethe amiga version is far superior. and since this is a thread about graphics, don't bother me with gameplay etc. issues.
No doubt, the amiga version has the best graphics.
There are some parts that are nice in snes version, but over all i think its poor, i also don't think it had a commercial release.
Below are some shots of the pce and genesis versions.
genesis pc engine
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_030-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-035.png)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_026-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-023.png)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_029-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-030.png)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_027-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-032.png)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_024-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-013.png)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_023-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-006.png)
I find it interesting that the US and Japanese Genesis versions are graphically different. Audibly too, I think.
Anyone have comparison shots of those? Or should I do it? ;)
you should do it! ;)
Here are a couple(not the best comparison shots), the Jpn version seems to be influenced by the turbo duo SOTB, a few things don't look as good as its US counter part but over all i think it looks quite a bit better.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastJ_000-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_023-1.jpg)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastJ_004-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_029-1.jpg)
Terrible colors. :(
OK here is my version:
ShadowOfTheBeastUSvJP.png
Quote from: Tom on 01/20/2009, 09:59 PMQuote from: Tatsujin on 01/20/2009, 09:25 PMyou should do it! ;)
I'll 2nd that ;)
what comes next? I like to 3rd you've 2nd that, now? ;)
Here are the last levels of sotb.
Genesis pc engine
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_033-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-043.png)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_036-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-046.png)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/ShadowoftheBeastUE_040-1.jpg) (http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q13/awack/CD_15628250-051.png)
Thanks guys, btw, for all these comparison shots. Very cool. It's really hard to say which is better.
which the best is, can be said with ease. but which the 2nd best is, is much harder.
QuoteGenesis Zealot: The Genesis has 80 sprites!
Turbo Zealot: Yeah but the Turbo can do 32x64 sprites, whereas the Genesis can only do 32x32 tops!
Genesis Zealot: The Genesis has two background layers! Hah, beat that, Turbonerd!
Turbo Zealot: So does the Supergrafx! And it has twice the RAM! Hah back at you!
Genesis Zealot: Hey that's not fair, no one has a Supergrafx!
Turbo Zealot: Hah! Sucks to be you!
Genesis Zealot: The Genesis has SHADOW MODE!!!!!!*&^!@$#^^
Turbo Zealot: The Turbo has more colors already built in without the need for some stupid hardware hack!
Genesis Zealot: The Genesis has 32 megabit games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111
Turbo Zealot: You need all that extra memory for the wasteful CPU your console has! We don't NEED cartridges that big! Besides, our Street Fighter II kicks your Street Fighter II's stupid ass!
Genesis Zealot: Sega's games on the Turbo look like ass!
Turbo Zealot: WELL NO DUH! They had to make them look like crap on superior hardware (Turbo) so they could sell more of their inferior hardware (Genesis)!
Genesis Zealot: Well suck on this! The Genesis has a 16 bit CPU with a higher clock rate! HAH! Sucks to be your old 8 bit turtle!
Turbo Zealot: The Turbo's CPU is more efficient than your wasteful RISC wanabe CPU! It performs better than your Frankenstein of a CPU!
SNES Zealot: Hey, guys, what's up?
Genesis Zealot: Um, I have to go somewhere... else, now.
Turbo Zealot: Uh, yeah, me too!
Quote from: Tatsujin on 01/21/2009, 09:09 PMwhich the best is, can be said with ease. but which the 2nd best is, is much harder.
hehe
Hey all. I'm new to this forum. I know this is an old thread, but I just had to put in my two cents. I don't know why people on this forum would make such a big deal about graphics! When it comes to games, the graphics are not all that important. It's the game play that counts. If graphics were the be all and end all of gaming, our Turbo and Genesis systems would all be long-forgotten and collecting dust somewhere, or at the dump, and we would only be discussing our Playstation 3's and X-Box 360's. But since someone brought this up, I actually prefer to think of my TG-16 as an 8-bit system, because when you compare it to other 8-bit systems, the graphics are downright miraculous! Eat you heart out, NES and Master System fans!
Quote from: Vic Viper on 02/08/2009, 08:10 PMHey all. I'm new to this forum. I know this is an old thread, but I just had to put in my two cents. I don't know why people on this forum would make such a big deal about graphics! When it comes to games, the graphics are not all that important. It's the game play that counts. If graphics were the be all and end all of gaming, our Turbo and Genesis systems would all be long-forgotten and collecting dust somewhere, or at the dump, and we would only be discussing our Playstation 3's and X-Box 360's. But since someone brought this up, I actually prefer to think of my TG-16 as an 8-bit system, because when you compare it to other 8-bit systems, the graphics are downright miraculous! Eat you heart out, NES and Master System fans!
Back again huh nintega? :-s [-X :-k
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 02/08/2009, 09:02 PMIf this is who I think it is, it is DEFINITELY not Nintega.
Hopefully it's not, but I do remember nin making that same exact argument... And the name. Just sayin' anyways off topic on my part. Sorry 'bout that.
Quote from: Vic Viper on 02/08/2009, 08:10 PMHey all. I'm new to this forum. I know this is an old thread, but I just had to put in my two cents. I don't know why people on this forum would make such a big deal about graphics! When it comes to games, the graphics are not all that important. It's the game play that counts. If graphics were the be all and end all of gaming, our Turbo and Genesis systems would all be long-forgotten and collecting dust somewhere, or at the dump, and we would only be discussing our Playstation 3's and X-Box 360's. But since someone brought this up, I actually prefer to think of my TG-16 as an 8-bit system, because when you compare it to other 8-bit systems, the graphics are downright miraculous! Eat you heart out, NES and Master System fans!
I like to think of my Xbox 360 as an 8-bit console, because it crushes the puny competition even
more so. :dance:
Quote from: guest on 02/08/2009, 11:00 PMI like to think of my Xbox 360 as an 8-bit console, because it crushes the puny competition even more so. :dance:
That's a fun dream, whereas the Turbo REALLY IS an 8-bit console. Last time I heard, the X-box 360 was getting crushed by the lame-assed Wii. No I am not this nintega person. I would never disgrace myself by using a name that has any part of the word nintendo in it.
Quote from: Vic Viper on 02/09/2009, 12:20 AMThat's a fun dream, whereas the Turbo REALLY IS an 8-bit console. Last time I heard, the X-box 360 was getting crushed by the lame-assed Wii. No I am not this nintega person. I would never disgrace myself by using a name that has any part of the word nintendo in it.
The Intellivision REALLY IS a 16-bit console by the same standards. :wink:
Quote from: Vic Viper on 02/09/2009, 12:20 AMQuote from: CrackTiger on 02/08/2009, 11:00 PMI like to think of my Xbox 360 as an 8-bit console, because it crushes the puny competition even more so. :dance:
That's a fun dream, whereas the Turbo REALLY IS an 8-bit console. Last time I heard, the X-box 360 was getting crushed by the lame-assed Wii. No I am not this nintega person. I would never disgrace myself by using a name that has any part of the word nintendo in it.
How do you define bit-ness? The CPU is 8-bit, but the graphics chip is fully 16-bit. Further, the CPU in the Genesis is 16-bit, but I suspect (maybe Tom can clarify) that the data bus is only 8-bit. And really, bit-ness doesn't mean much. The SNES has a 16-bit CPU, but the core design is still very similar to the 8-bit CPU on which it is based. And when you take an objective (well, in a relative sense, anyway) measure of CPU performance, like MIPS or somesuch, you find that the CPUs in the Genesis, SNES, and TG-16 all perform on a similar level. So is an 8-bit CPU that's as "powerful" as a 16-bit CPU a lesser CPU because it is 8-bit? Or is it a peer CPU because it can chug out just as much real-world performance?
See, the whole 8-bit console vs 16-bit console thing is really more about perceptions than technical details. It's about lumping together games of similar style and make rather than technical specifications, ultimately. There's no argument that some of the very early TG-16 games were largely 8-bit in scale and scope and meant clearly to compete with the NES. But the later games on the system were very clearly the peers of any of the titles on the SNES or Genesis. It's hard to argue that games like Art of Fighting, Magical Chase, Aero Blasters, Lords of Thunder, etc... are somehow of the same generation of development, graphics, and audio as the NES. These games are clearly peers to anything released on the "true 16-bit" systems. So in this sense, the PCE is a bridge system. It's the system that connects the 8-bit generation to the 16-bit generation. Just as the Neo Geo bridges the 16-bit generation with the 2D games of the 32-bit generation. The N64, with its 64-bit CPU, is clearly of the 32-bit generation regardless of its technical details, whereas the Dreamcast is considered, at least timing-wise, the bridge system between the 32-bit generation and the following generation (PS2, GC, Xbox).
I know I'm beating a dead horse here, rehashing stuff we all largely agree on. There's no point arguing the bit-ness thing any further. Regardless of particular design decision trade-offs and the lack or presence of a particular capability, the PCE is definitely a peer system to the Genesis and SNES. On this I think there is no meaningful debate. It doesn't matter if any one of us likes one system a little better than the others, they're all clearly in the same ballpark and playing the same game, if you will.
The 68000 is actually a 32-bit processor, at least as far as internal registers and [macro]instructions are concerned. However, over its lifetime, different varieties of the 68000 had data buses ranging from 8 bits wide to 32 bits.
I think that "amazing for only 8-bit!" comments are more appropriate for SMS games, many of which feature graphics and sometimes sound equal to or better than many 16-bit gen console games.
QuoteThere's no argument that some of the very early TG-16 games were largely 8-bit in scale and scope and meant clearly to compete with the NES.
There are many Gen/MD & SNES/SFC games with 8-bit-like aspects, which aren't all early efforts either.
Quote from: ccovell on 02/09/2009, 06:14 PMThe 68000 is actually a 32-bit processor, at least as far as internal registers and [macro]instructions are concerned. However, over its lifetime, different varieties of the 68000 had data buses ranging from 8 bits wide to 32 bits.
I tried to assert something like this some time back and Tom took me to task for over-simplifying. But yes. The 68000 as used in the Genesis and early PC varieties was tied to a 16-bit bus, I believe. Just goes to show how little all this bit-shit actually adds up to...
Quote from: CrackTiger on 02/09/2009, 09:49 PMI think that "amazing for only 8-bit!" comments are more appropriate for SMS games, many of which feature graphics and sometimes sound equal to or better than many 16-bit gen console games.
QuoteThere's no argument that some of the very early TG-16 games were largely 8-bit in scale and scope and meant clearly to compete with the NES.
There are many Gen/MD & SNES/SFC games with 8-bit-like aspects, which aren't all early efforts either.
This is very true. From my perspective, however, there are a greater proportion of games (among chip titles, at least) on the TG-16 which exhibit those qualities. It has less to do with the technical qualities of the system and more to do with the timing of its introduction and the conditions of the market at the time, I suppose.
The whole bit war thing was stupid from the start and had no bearing on how the games were. I've played many an NES game that was superior to anything I've seen on the PS3. The bit thing was just marketing hype that they eventually had to abandon once consoles got too complex to measure in bits.
Quote from: ccovell on 02/09/2009, 06:14 PMThe 68000 is actually a 32-bit processor, at least as far as internal registers and [macro]instructions are concerned.
Even Sega and SNK didn't hype that in marketing :D Paired 16bit regs and a 16bit ALU, never mind the 16bit data bus.
Funny thing, a standard random access memory read, add, store of
32bit element is slower on the 68k(even with its macro instructions) than on the 65816 and that's a 16bit processor on an 8bit bus. And that's with the 65816 using *no* DP/ZP regs. Sequential free incrementing on the 68k though brings the cycle counts ,between the two, even - which is still surprising for the 65816 considering it has no macro instructions or pair 16bit regs or auto-increment. Some people also boast about it having the ability of
moving 32bits at a time for source/destination, yet fail to see the 65816
and 6280 block move instructions are faster at the same clock speed. Among other examples.
I wrote a 68k hsync routine for the PCE. The idea was to drop in a 68k in place of the 6280, to see some direct comparisons. Surprisingly, the 68k code ended up being 49cycles longer or 35% percent slower (93 vs 142). And that was with reserved half the registers of the 68k - which is going to cripple it fairly good for other game code because it's more of a register-register processor than the 65x arch. Realistically, I wouldn't reserve that many registers and the cycle count would go up to about 160+ or more. If that was a full screen sine or such, you'd really start to eat into cpu resource. And my 6280 code could have been 80 something cycles for some instances(if you only need to change the lower 8bit part of the scroll reg) or even 70 something cycles for arcade card optimization. That's
definitely not going to be the case for every situation. But that's a good example how one can optimize for 8bit elements to drive that speed.
QuoteThe whole bit war thing was stupid from the start
Yeah. And it still goes on.
Quote from: OldRover on 02/11/2009, 08:18 PMThe whole bit war thing was stupid from the start and had no bearing on how the games were. I've played many an NES game that was superior to anything I've seen on the PS3. The bit thing was just marketing hype that they eventually had to abandon once consoles got too complex to measure in bits.
It might have been bogus but it wasn't stupid - at least on Sega's part anyway, and on Atari and Commodore's in the computer market. It was a good marketing move that summed up in a single term what made - or was alleged to make - the Genesis better than the competition.
Perhaps NEC shouldn't have pushed it quite so much though. I do wonder how much of it was an attempt to compete with Sega though: by the time NEC started shouting about 16-bit with the Turbo's release in '89, the Japanese Mega Drive with its massive 16-Bit sign had already been out a year. I don't remember ever seeing "16-Bit" being used in relation to the PC Engine. It certainly seems as if pushing the 16-bit angle didn't occur to them until Sega started it.
Putting "16" in the name of the US console was NEC's way of marketing against Sega's 16-Bit campaign. They didn't want to be seen as "less bits" and therefore less powerful Marketing can be a powerful tool.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 02/13/2009, 03:45 AMPutting "16" in the name of the US console was NEC's way of marketing against Sega's 16-Bit campaign. They didn't want to be seen as "less bits" and therefore less powerful Marketing can be a powerful tool.
Now explain the "TurboGrafx" part.
Quote from: Gentlegamer on 02/13/2009, 03:23 PMNow explain the "TurboGrafx" part.
Turbo =
more power and Grafx =
graphics, so TurboGrafx must =
more powerful graphics. What about that isn't obvious? It's not like they named it something completely groundless (such as Xbox or Wii).
Quote from: Gentlegamer on 02/13/2009, 03:23 PMQuote from: Joe Redifer on 02/13/2009, 03:45 AMPutting "16" in the name of the US console was NEC's way of marketing against Sega's 16-Bit campaign. They didn't want to be seen as "less bits" and therefore less powerful Marketing can be a powerful tool.
Now explain the "TurboGrafx" part.
I think that decision came from Japan. I mean, SuperGrafx and CoreGrafx names came out the same time frame as TurboGrafx.
I always thought that TurboGrafx-16 literally translated into "Fast 16-Bit Graphics!!!!" Very descriptive and actually not really deceptive at all.
Actually, I think the TurboGrafx-16 has the best name of the 16 bit consoles: "Super Nintendo entertainment system", while it gets the point across, is not terribly interesting. And "Genesis" doesn't even make sense. Did they want us to think of the Bible or early 80s british bands? what do those things have to do with videogames? "mega drive" was better, but not as cool as "TurboGrafx-16".
"Genesis" was meant to imply "the dawn of 16 bit gaming".
QuoteAnd "Genesis" doesn't even make sense. Did they want us to think of the Bible or early 80s british bands?
No, they wanted us to think that is was so cool that even Khan and Christopher Lloyd would go apeshit over trying to get it.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 02/13/2009, 11:55 PMQuoteAnd "Genesis" doesn't even make sense. Did they want us to think of the Bible or early 80s british bands?
No, they wanted us to think that is was so cool that even Khan and Christopher Lloyd would go apeshit over trying to get it.
haha!! GIVE MEEE GENESIIIISSSSS!!!!
Genesis doesn't make any sense, but it just sounds awesome. Maybe it means like "The beginning of raw video game power", or in other words "blast processing".
According to what Sega told me before it came out, it was meant as their own personal "New beginning", especially since they were marketing it themselves instead of Tonka.
Quote from: Joe Redifer on 02/14/2009, 09:22 PMAccording to what Sega told me before it came out, it was meant as their own personal "New beginning", especially since they were marketing it themselves instead of Tonka.
And that makes sense. Kinda what I always thought of it as - a new beginning after the SMS days.
I'm doing the smart thing and not reading (re-reading) anything in this thread.
Instead, I'll just jump in at the current conversation: "Genesis" was, and remains, a great name for a console.
The only way to trump "Genesis" was if Sega had named its successor "Leviathan".
Awesome.
If only more consoles made biblical references... I'd be stoked.
I personally would prefer if consoles made name references to ninjas.
Quote from: geise on 02/17/2009, 12:37 PMI personally would prefer if consoles made name references to ninjas.
Could you give some examples? :D
Well, there's the Sega Katana (known to its friends as the Dreamcast)
Quote from: esteban on 02/17/2009, 09:24 AMIf only more consoles made biblical references... I'd be stoked.
MS could've named the Xbox
Mary's Virginal Box. I still wouldn't have bought it.
Quote from: Tom on 02/17/2009, 02:44 PMCould you give some examples? :D
How 'bout the Wii nunchuks?
Quote from: estebanThe only way to trump "Genesis" was if Sega had named its successor "Leviathan".
Haha I laughed out loud on that one. An actual, real life LOL. That's hilarious... and AWESOME! The 32-Bit Sega Leviathan!
Fortunately, Sega wasn't all that interested in sending a message to consumers that their next system was big, mean, and ugly. Could you imagine a minicomputer (think Vax) form factor home console?
I prototyped an x86-based console a few years ago called Leviathan. I also designed (but never prototyped) a smaller version called Serpent.
Quote from: The Old Rover on 02/19/2009, 05:49 AMI prototyped an x86-based console a few years ago called Leviathan. I also designed (but never prototyped) a smaller version called Serpent.
Was that for MS? If sounds like the Xbox - the largest or most massive thing of its kind. :lol:
It wasn't for Microsoft...it was prototyped after the Xbox was already released. The system specs were far more impressive than any console of the era, and would have been a real contender even in the current generation. But since I had no corporate backing, I was never able to have it manufactured, let alone released on the open market to compete with the big boys. It used an AMD XP 3200+ processor, 64MB of main RAM, a Geforce 4 graphics chipset, and a Creative Audigy sound system, plus featured an 8x DVD-ROM drive, removable flash storage, a 40GB internal HDD, and two USB ports for keyboards/mice/etc. I designed controllers for it (based largely on the PSX controller scheme) but never made them; the controller interface was a digital dual gamepad port. Serpent was a lesser system, using a 500MHz AMD K6, 32MB of RAM, 8MB of video RAM (no hardware 3D capabilities), a Creative SB Live! chipset, and a 50x CDROM drive. Both systems were designed to boot their operating system from the disc (much like the Dreamcast, which was where I got the idea from), meaning you could theoretically use any x86-compatible OS to make games (provided you respected the hardware details). For Leviathan, I experimented with FreeDOS, Windows 98, and Slackware as bootable OSes. Ironically, I had the best luck with Windows 98. I ran a custom-compiled version of MAME for my system and had great luck with it through Windows 98. Since I never prototyped Serpent, I don't know how well it would have done, though looking at some of the "kiddie consoles" out there today (like the ones made by Leapfrog), I'd say it could have given some of them a run for their money. :D
lol..were or for who do you work TOR? :shock:sounds very interessting :)
Wasn't working for anyone...I designed both consoles in my free time.
but for what purpose? pics please :) game demos please :) lay off everything please :D
Unfortunately, I have neither pics of the machine nor the machine itself anymore. Pics I took of the prototype were on one of the CDROMs that was destroyed a few years back, and I have no idea where the prototype itself went...it might still be in storage in Camuy though...I have to go through storage again anyways so I'll take a look-see. The only "game demo" it would have is the customized MAME version I built so that doesn't help much. :D
And for what purpose? It was designed to be an open-format machine...anyone could dev for it, not just big corporations. Many people have long since dreamed of making such a console and having it run free on the open market...and all attempts thus far have largely failed. Gamepark is the only one to come close to succeeding.
you know, you might want to get in touch with EA and tell them about your projects. I seem to recall that they were bitching about having to develop for so many platforms and having to pay licence fees and all that to the console makers... with your unit, they could kill 2 birds with one stone.
and lose lots of money when it fails. :twisted:
There was another open source Linux-based console in the works around the time of Xbox/Gamecube I think, maybe earlier. I can't remember the name right now, but if I recall it was making great progress, but for whatever reason couldn't make it to the market. Anyone have links to what I'm talking about?
Keranu, that might have been the Tuxbox...
guyjin, fuck EA. Besides, I abandoned Leviathan at the prototype stage.
how do you approach such a project like that as a one man show?
just assemble existing components together?
designing the hardare from scratch (inkl. pcb, layout etc.)?
it ain't easy to do something lonely.
please tell lil'bit more about :)
I found the smallest normal PC motherboard I could find and wrote a custom BIOS for it...yeah bad me, reverse-engineering the original BIOS. :D I used a PCI riser board to fit additional cards, and crafted two plastic rods with grooves cut into them to hold the cards in place, and attached the rods to the motherboard through holes that would normally be used to attach the board to a case. I then fitted the board monstrosity into a plastic shell that I had built at a plastics shop about an hour away. The rest was just basically cutting holes in the shell to attach the additional I/O ports and building risers into the shell to hold the DVD-ROM and HDD. To power the beastie, I found a very efficient, very small 450W power supply and attached an exhaust fan to the back next to it.
The whole process involved finding the smallest components possible that would get the job done to spec. It wasn't easy.
After I had abandoned all hope of mass-producing Leviathan, I attempted to design a handheld...that was even more difficult, because you really have to know computer design...nowhere near the same as building a normal console out of x86-compatible components. Since I was just starting out with "console from scratch" ideas, I based it on the familiar 65C02 and coupled it with a very basic graphics chip (I don't remember which chip I was going to use). For a screen, I found a very nicely done 320x240 pixel LCD screen available pretty cheaply. But after I had finished developing the schematic, I did a power profile and discovered that the machine would require way too much amperage. This was before Li-Ion batteries were widespread and built-in chargers were uncommon, so I had no idea how I would be able to power the damn thing...as it was, it would have required three 9V batteries to run it. So, I scrapped it. :(
Console design really isn't my thing though...I'd rather make games for existing consoles, like the PC Engine. :D
yeah..console designing nowadays is more like puting some preferably cheap but small and powerful pc components together, attach some periferials and I/Os then write a stand alone application for it and call it a console (e.g. xbox etc.)
back in the days, especially for the PC Engine, a hardware was designed from the very scratch an CPU base on. compared to now, this time must have been very exciting for game hardware developers.
still if you want do a handheld today, you can either switch to a already existing mobile application or you can do it from the scratch, which will be a hell of work as well needs a lot of cash and outsourced help to reach such a target. but it must be very exciting to something like that :)
Quote from: OldRover on 02/20/2009, 10:06 PMKeranu, that might have been the Tuxbox...
After searching for Tuxbox, I found out that the Tuxbox was actually the "successor" to the console I was originally thinking of: The Indrema (http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/bill/indrema/).
PCE/TG-16|CD/SGX Discussion => Topic started by: OldTurboBastard on 09/12/2007, 08:53 AM