Final Fight PCE

ccovell · 07/07/2009, 11:26 AM

Quote from: handygrafx on 07/07/2009, 01:57 AMThe Super Famicom/SNES: released in 1990/1991, but was shown as far back as late 1988. Nintendo changed the specs several times between 1988 and 1990. It would be most fair to say it's 1989 technology.

The only major spec changes were in the amount of onboard RAM. It's 1988 technology, at the latest.

esteban · 07/07/2009, 12:51 PM

Quote from: Spector on 07/07/2009, 04:31 AMRemember I'm saying this as a big PC Engine fan: in terms of amount of memorable games, really between the Spectrum and PC Engine, there is no comparison - the Spectrum wins by a country mile. One problem I've found with PC Engine games is the same with all consoles from that era - you do get a feeling of repeating yourself. You play P-47, then Fantasy Zone and then Ordyne... and in a certain mood, you just feel as if you're playing the same game but with different sprites. You play Cratermaze and then Batman... and it's the same game. Then there are all the interchangeable R-Type-esque shoot-em-ups... The Spectrum had tons of clones too, but in the golden era, they didn't dominate the charts to that extent, no way.

The genres in gaming seemed to narrow as technology improved, and without doubt, as the quality of graphics went up, the ideas went down. I'm being very harsh on the late Eighties scene, but be honest, there's a lot of truth in that.

Spector is pointing out something that is true for any decently supported computer platform during the 80's: if you examine the library (catalog) of games, you'll find a truly wonderful mix of genres and many games that defy the established genres.

Consoles have, unfortunately, been much more narrowly focused when it comes to genre. This is partly due to hardware differences in platforms (keyboard, multiple floppies vs. joystick, cartridges), but I'd say that the market dynamics in the 80's computer scenes (Apple II, C64, English micros, IBM PC, etc.) was robust enough to support a wide, wide range of games (a small computer publisher could be successful with a game that earned good reviews, even niche titles). Enough folks bought these games, across a wide smorgasboard of genres, to allow publishers to take risks every now and then (i.e. niche titles).

Consoles excelled, especially in the 80's, at action (arcade) sorts of games, so it isn't surprising that publishers kept the console's strengths in mind.

Successful consoles would eventually get some niche titles, but these were always a token of what was available on computers.

I don't prefer computers over consoles, but I appreciate the differences in their respective markets, and how that, in turn, affected the sorts of games that publishers released.

Disclaimer: for the past few years, I've been reading Zzzap! and the other micro-centered mags, as well as checking out the games. I honestly can't believe how robust things were over there. Here in the States, the Apple II & C64 were all that mattered for me. Later, my friend got an IBM PC and horizons expanded...

_Paul · 07/07/2009, 06:28 PM

Quote from: CrackTiger on 07/06/2009, 07:35 PMThe NES/Famicom is 1983 technology.

Yes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days. Just look at the difference between the ZX81 (1981) and the Spectrum (1982). But even thought the Speccy wasn't the most technically advanced computer for much of its life, it sure gave the competition a hell of a run for their money. From a UK point of view, the Spectrum is the most influential home computer ever made. The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).

Tatsujin · 07/07/2009, 08:29 PM

QuoteYes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days

yeah..and just watch the amiga 1000 which was released during 1985, seen as that also just few years later but with a sheer unbelievable multiple increase of capacity compared to those "slighty" earlier system.

CrackTiger · 07/13/2009, 03:06 PM

Quote from: guest on 07/07/2009, 06:28 PM
Quote from: CrackTiger on 07/06/2009, 07:35 PMThe NES/Famicom is 1983 technology.
Yes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days. Just look at the difference between the ZX81 (1981) and the Spectrum (1982). But even thought the Speccy wasn't the most technically advanced computer for much of its life, it sure gave the competition a hell of a run for their money. From a UK point of view, the Spectrum is the most influential home computer ever made. The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).

The NES is also a console while the Spectrum is a computer, even if it is that kind of budget computer that was so popular over in Europe. When the Famicom was released, it was the Neo Geo of the time, only without the high price tag for the hardware and games. If the NES had launched across the world in 1983 it likely would've conquered Europe as well.

Adol2009 · 07/14/2009, 06:53 AM

Quote from: guest on 07/07/2009, 06:28 PMThe NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).

Really? In UK, SMS sold more than NES?
I'd be happy to hear it,but i'm surprised though ^^
In France,i'd sya it was more like 60% NES 40% SMS, but i'd be happy SMS won that battle in UK, as i always preferred SMS over NES.

Tatsujin · 07/14/2009, 07:07 AM

swiss was like 95% nes and a minable 5% sms

my frend & I had a sms

_Paul · 07/14/2009, 12:56 PM

Quote from: Adol2009 on 07/14/2009, 06:53 AM
Quote from: guest on 07/07/2009, 06:28 PMThe NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).
Really? In UK, SMS sold more than NES?
I'd be happy to hear it,but i'm surprised though ^^
In France,i'd sya it was more like 60% NES 40% SMS, but i'd be happy SMS won that battle in UK, as i always preferred SMS over NES.

I think it was mostly down to the successful marketing by Mastertronic (who had become a big name by selling budget computer games and later merged with Virgin). The SMS was perceived as a lot 'cooler' - it was sleek and black, unlike Nintendo's grey box, and with more colourful graphics and the backing of some big name arcade titles (and no robot-gimmick in sight) it really pushed ahead of the NES in the UK.

Tatsujin · 07/14/2009, 09:20 PM

yeah..sega UK hired sir richard branson as a promoter.

Spector · 07/14/2009, 10:31 PM

Price had a lot to do with it too - I remember some NES games selling in crappy cardboard boxes for £40! Who in their right mind would pay £40 for an 8-bit game?

CrackTiger · 07/15/2009, 01:33 AM

Quote from: Spector on 07/14/2009, 10:31 PMPrice had a lot to do with it too - I remember some NES games selling in crappy cardboard boxes for £40! Who in their right mind would pay £40 for an 8-bit game?

All console games came in cardboard boxes in North America other than Sega's right through to the 32-bit generation. I don't know what the exchange rate would've been back then, but pre-8-bit games were pricey and not available the way that console games are today. What did SMS games sell for at the time?

_Paul · 07/15/2009, 04:54 AM

I think SMS games were between £25-£30 on average, although I remember really big ones likr Phantasy Star being something like £40 which was a hell of a lot then.

Adol2009 · 07/15/2009, 04:58 AM

It was because of the lithium battery,that was common to add £5-10 because of it...same thing for Zelda on NES.

_Paul · 07/15/2009, 05:59 AM

Quote from: Adol2009 on 07/15/2009, 04:58 AMIt was because of the lithium battery,that was common to add £5-10 because of it...same thing for Zelda on NES.

Yes that and it was a 'Four-mega cartridge', twice the power of something like Space Harrier!

Adol2009 · 07/15/2009, 07:40 AM

Indeed.
all those RPGs were prciey back at the time: Miracle Warriors, Ys,Spellcaster (not a RPg,but well)
Same politics with Phantasy Star 2 on Megadrive,etc..

Spector · 07/15/2009, 01:36 PM

Quote from: guest on 07/15/2009, 01:33 AMAll console games came in cardboard boxes in North America other than Sega's right through to the 32-bit generation. I don't know what the exchange rate would've been back then, but pre-8-bit games were pricey and not available the way that console games are today. What did SMS games sell for at the time?

SMS games were £24-29.99 on average. RPG's like Ultima IV sold for £39.99. However, Sega had a budget range that included early 1 Meg releases such as Ninja that were only £9.99. That must have swayed a lot of people.

Personally, the technical jump from Spectrum 128K to NES/SMS wasn't big enough to excite me. The Megadrive however was a different story.

Oh I forgot, you foreigners called the Megadrive "Genesis".

I remember the story regarding how Nintendo found out about the 16-bit console. Miyamoto phoned up the head of Sega and asked him about a rumoured project titled "Genesis". The Sega bigwig, wanting to keep it secret, replied "Genesis - what's that?"
Miyamoto responded, "DON'T INSULT MY SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE, ADMIRAL!!"

_Paul · 07/15/2009, 01:52 PM

/khaaaaan.jpg

Ceti Alpha · 07/15/2009, 03:45 PM

Quote from: Spector on 07/15/2009, 01:36 PM
Quote from: guest on 07/15/2009, 01:33 AMAll console games came in cardboard boxes in North America other than Sega's right through to the 32-bit generation. I don't know what the exchange rate would've been back then, but pre-8-bit games were pricey and not available the way that console games are today. What did SMS games sell for at the time?
SMS games were £24-29.99 on average. RPG's like Ultima IV sold for £39.99. However, Sega had a budget range that included early 1 Meg releases such as Ninja that were only £9.99. That must have swayed a lot of people.

Personally, the technical jump from Spectrum 128K to NES/SMS wasn't big enough to excite me. The Megadrive however was a different story.

Oh I forgot, you foreigners called the Megadrive "Genesis".

I remember the story regarding how Nintendo found out about the 16-bit console. Miyamoto phoned up the head of Sega and asked him about a rumoured project titled "Genesis". The Sega bigwig, wanting to keep it secret, replied "Genesis - what's that?"
Miyamoto responded, "DON'T INSULT MY SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE, ADMIRAL!!"

Quote from: guest on 07/15/2009, 01:52 PM

...wait, so the Genny's/MD's Blast Processing is powered by the notoriously unstable protomatter?!

shubibiman · 07/24/2009, 07:53 AM

Quote from: Adol2009 on 07/14/2009, 06:53 AMReally? In UK, SMS sold more than NES?
I'd be happy to hear it,but i'm surprised though ^^
In France,i'd sya it was more like 60% NES 40% SMS, but i'd be happy SMS won that battle in UK, as i always preferred SMS over NES.

I always thought that the SMS did better than the NES in France. At least it was closer than that. All we know is that the SMS did way better in Europe than it did in other parts of the world anyway.

Now back on topic : Final Fight for the Amstrad CPC, the most popular 8 bit personal computer in France :

http://amigamuseum.emu-france.info/Fichiers/tests/screenshots/final_fight/

The Spectrum version doesn't look that bad IMO. The sprites are quite big for such an old machine.

esteban · 07/24/2009, 09:00 AM

Quote from: shubibiman on 07/24/2009, 07:53 AMNow back on topic : Final Fight for the Amstrad CPC, the most popular 8 bit personal computer in France :

The Spectrum version doesn't look that bad IMO. The sprites are quite big for such an old machine.

That is quite good (if you ignore Cody's curiously elongated feet--just kidding.)

Next you'll be telling us that Street Fighter II was ported to the Amstrad as well.

shubibiman · 07/24/2009, 09:08 AM

SFII was never released on the CPC.
Actually, I would have liked to find other pics of the CPC version of Final Fight as the one shown above is not a good exemple of how nice the graphics really are compared to what the CPC is able of.

ccovell · 07/24/2009, 09:41 AM

The CPC basically has C-64 resolution but about twice the available colours, but alas, no sprites. The CPC+ gave the graphics a larger master palette (4096 colours) and hardware sprites. If that Final Fight pic is from the regular CPC, then I'd bet it's really jerky once put into motion.

Nazi NecroPhile · 07/24/2009, 10:27 AM

Quote from: ccovell on 07/24/2009, 09:41 AMIf that Final Fight pic is from the regular CPC, then I'd bet it's really jerky once put into motion.

YouTube seems to agree with you. While colorful, the speed of the arcade is totally absent and the character animation sucks hamster fur.

shubibiman · 07/24/2009, 10:58 AM

Yeah, but it's impressive for a CPC game.

esteban · 07/24/2009, 11:50 AM

Quote from: guest on 07/24/2009, 10:27 AM
Quote from: ccovell on 07/24/2009, 09:41 AMIf that Final Fight pic is from the regular CPC, then I'd bet it's really jerky once put into motion.
YouTube seems to agree with you. While colorful, the speed of the arcade is totally absent and the character animation sucks hamster fur.

It's an Amstrad CPC! What do you want, something more along the lines of this...

This is homebrew, but check out all the awesome stuff the mojon twins have come up with.

For example, below is particularly beautiful art that plays defies any constraints of the Spectrum:

Yeah, it's just artwork (Judge Morrow VS Baldo Midget), but tell me how gorgeous that is for the Spectrum.

shubibiman · 07/24/2009, 02:14 PM

Here is a CPC demo. Enjoy ;)

guyjin · 07/24/2009, 03:06 PM

something about the CPCs graphics reminds me of the Game Gear.

Tatsujin · 07/24/2009, 03:19 PM

here's a c64 demo

Enjoy ;) (best with the stereo turned on loudly)

esteban · 07/24/2009, 05:10 PM

Quote from: Tatsujin on 07/24/2009, 03:19 PMhere's a c64 demo
Enjoy ;) (best with the stereo turned on loudly)

No need to go clubbin' when you have a c64. The art by Mermaid is particularly impressive (YouTube doesn't do it justice)... it's crazy.

Love the music, though.

ccovell · 07/24/2009, 05:59 PM

Quote from: esteban on 07/24/2009, 11:50 AM

Aaarrgh!! It's the return of the Incredibly Expanding Euro-border! Once it took over Spectrum games, it wasn't satisfied until it had obscured the screen displays of even Atari and Amiga games! Beware!

guyjin · 07/24/2009, 07:59 PM

Quote from: ccovell on 07/24/2009, 05:59 PMAaarrgh!! It's the return of the Incredibly Expanding Euro-border! Once it took over Spectrum games, it wasn't satisfied until it had obscured the screen displays of even Atari and Amiga games! Beware!

*cough*

esteban · 07/24/2009, 11:38 PM

Quote from: ccovell on 07/24/2009, 05:59 PMAaarrgh!! It's the return of the Incredibly Expanding Euro-border! Once it took over Spectrum games, it wasn't satisfied until it had obscured the screen displays of even Atari and Amiga games! Beware!

Hahahhahahaha

Yeah. It's almost as bad as Burai!

If you check out Mohon Twins' other games, you'll see that screen real estate is used more fruitfully, though.

Hey, what's this...

Tatsujin · 07/25/2009, 07:09 AM

covello leones TONGUE BOY

ccovell · 07/25/2009, 09:14 AM

Full screen, no borders!

I'm not quite sure you understand the point about the awfully large borders (unless that was a facetious joke or something...) There's nothing wrong with building art AROUND a static active playfield, a la Tetris, etc. But too many Euro (and JP PC) games build honkin' huge borders that pen in and obstruct the scrolling image:

There are even worse offenders...

(At least on the Amiga, we had the Atari ST squarely to blame for this.)

_Paul · 07/25/2009, 11:49 AM

I would assume that (at least on the 8-bit computers) the smaller play area would be to increase speed of the game.

TurboXray · 07/25/2009, 12:21 PM

Quote from: guest on 07/25/2009, 11:49 AMI would assume that (at least on the 8-bit computers) the smaller play area would be to increase speed of the game.

And the ST too. ST is like a plus/4 of the 16bit computers.

esteban · 07/25/2009, 01:16 PM

Quote from: ccovell on 07/25/2009, 09:14 AMI'm not quite sure you understand the point about the awfully large borders (unless that was a facetious joke or something...) There's nothing wrong with building art AROUND a static active playfield, a la Tetris, etc. But too many Euro (and JP PC) games build honkin' huge borders that pen in and obstruct the scrolling image...

I hear you. I was just goofin' around when I posted a pic from your game.

Personally, I don't know when restricting the active play area is a means to compensate for hardware limitations (or to preserve dimensions/proportions/ratios) VS. an over-indulgent designer ruining usability. I usually assume the former, but I know it is not always the case.

You see, the playfield for Nanako Descends to Hell is small (but not as bad as Burai on PC-98, PCE, etc., which is the first game I think of as a point of comparison).

In the screenshots you posted, the way the border for Dragon Spirit obstructs the play area (I assume the player's sprite can "hide" under the dragon border art) is plain silly.

ASIDE: This discussion has inspired me. I want to design a shoot-em-up with dash of action RPG dungeon crawling . You begin the game without any items/weapons. Early on, you can discover/purchase a "cosmic lantern" that casts a small circle of light (think Necromancer for PCE) around your ship . The game plays as a standard shoot-em-up, but with limited visibility. To keep things slightly less frustrating, there will be other light sources (of varying strengths) that cast shadows accordingly on all of the sprites/stages. Additionally, you can upgrade the light sources for your ship. Basically, the goal is to have darkness prevent the player from seeing most of the game's stages and objects, despite the fact that these elements are fully-fleshed out. Certain stages/areas/enemies deplete/hinder/destroy your light sources. You have to experiment with different light sources to overcome these challenges (i.e. bioflourescence vs. incandescence vs. LED).

San Soleil, the name for this shoot-em-up, will feature a second loop, where the entire game is visible (completion of the first loop frees the world from darkness, or something like that).

And the name for our hero's vessel?

Edison.

Anyway, now I have to find some TG-16 covers to discuss in the other thread