Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate

[OldTurboBastard]

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

[spenoza]

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.

[OldRover]

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.

[ccovell]

Yeah, this is an endless discussion.  You even said so yourself, so why fight the prophecy in trying to end it? 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Standard 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."

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.

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.)

[nat]

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

[OldTurboBastard]

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.

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

[NecroPhile]

I 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. 

[OldRover]

This 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. 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.

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.

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.

Be 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.

[OldTurboBastard]

I 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

[Turbo D]

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.

[awack]

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.

[Turbo D]

great list 

[Keranu]

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.

Really it's not so much the power of each system that makes the difference as it is the art itself.

[GUTS]

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.

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[OldRover]

Genesis 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.

[GUTS]

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?

[PCEngineHell]

or 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.

[Turbo D]

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. 

I think that the PcEngine did a better job on altered beast and afterburner than the Genesis did, haha.

[OldRover]

Oh yes GUTS, I'm so positive that a badly-controlling game like that is just the app killer. The game is okay but nothing to write home about. The graphics are good but nothing we haven't seen ten thousand times before.

I 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.

[runinruder]

I basically agree with GUTS, though I think he's being a little too kind to the Duo. 

or 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.

[CrackTiger]

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

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.

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.

[GUTS]

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.

[PCEngineHell]

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.

[Joe Redifer]

Super 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.

[GUTS]

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.

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[PCEngineHell]

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.

[CrackTiger]

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 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.

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[awack]

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.

ummmm..if you read what i said

these 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.

[Keranu]

I'll take good old hand drawn stuff over technical trash any day.

[PCEngineHell]

Damn

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.

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.

[CrackTiger]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[awack]

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).

I agree with this, another thing that was bad about the pc engine version was the choice of colors in some places.

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[PCEngineHell]

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.

[Joe Redifer]

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.

[CrackTiger]

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.

[Joe Redifer]

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

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?

[TurboXray]

 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 

[ccovell]

The 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.

[Tatsujin]

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..)?

[Joe Redifer]

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.    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.

[TurboXray]

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..)?

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.

[Tatsujin]

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.

[awack]

One of the pc engine games that uses a lot of sprites for parallax scrolling is Dracula x.
here is an example.

[Gentlegamer]

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.

[SNKNostalgia]

The 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!!!!





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.

[Tatsujin]

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.