Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate

[PCEngineHell]

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.

[OldTurboBastard]

And 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:

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.

[Turbo D]

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 

[nat]

And 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

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:

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[Turbo D]

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.

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  ). 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 

[esteban]

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).

[Joe Redifer]

Slaughters?  No.  Surpasses?  In many areas, yes.  All areas?  No.

[Turbo D]

Even later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.

very true, like in ninja gaiden 3

Slaughters?  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.

[handygrafx]

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.

[handygrafx]

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.

[Turbo D]

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  .

[ParanoiaDragon]

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).

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.

[TurboXray]

 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).

....

[CrackTiger]

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.

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 crushes the hideous Bonk's Revenge.

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 ).

[esteban]

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).

,

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.

[Turbo D]

for the record I beat it last month, lol.

[esteban]

Ha! I didn't see Joe's post until now. We must have been writing at the same time.

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 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.

[Turbo D]

careful, he'll call you a fanboy 

[CrackTiger]

Good 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'.

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.

[ccovell]

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).

Are you kidding?  I think developer and consumer apathy had much more to do with it.  Here's proof:

IREM   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.

[spenoza]

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.

[PCEngineHell]

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.

[CrackTiger]

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

At least no one is trashing Sega as a (evil!)company.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[awack]

ccovell

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.

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?

[CrackTiger]

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.

[ccovell]

ccovell

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.

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.

[awack]

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.

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.

[OldTurboBastard]

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".

thats probably an extreme description of my stance as well though  .  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  ). 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

[TurboXray]

(snip)

Are you kidding?  I think developer and consumer apathy had much more to do with it.  Here's proof:

IREM   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.

[Turbo D]

I agree, it definitely doesn't make any sense 

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[ccovell]

... 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?

[awack]

ccovell

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.

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.

[TurboXray]

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.

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.

[Keranu]

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.

[Turbo D]

well said 

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[_Paul]

Can 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

[PCEngineHell]

I can!
And even this:

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:

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.

[CrackTiger]

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.

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-



If anything, anyone doing a PCE Sonic or tech demo should be working with tiles from that game.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[handygrafx]

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 has some parallax in some levels.  notably the 5th level



yet it's missing in the biological 2nd level.



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.

[Keranu]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Crap game, though.

NOT crap game! Why does everyone hate that game!? 

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 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.

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.

I agree, I think dithering can be put to great use. Of course like anything overdone, it sucks.

[TurboXray]

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. 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).

[spenoza]

How well did the Turbo deal with memory management compared to the Genesis, you techie types? And how did its memory caches compare.

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[TurboXray]

How 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.

[ccovell]

...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.)

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.

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).

[CrackTiger]

An 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 ).

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.

All the more impressive and just goes to show how nice Genesis colors can be used in original games.

[Keranu]

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?

An 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!