PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
NEC TG-16/TE/TurboDuo => TG-16/TE/TurboDuo Discussion => Topic started by: peonpiate on August 04, 2006, 10:44:21 AM
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: peonpiate on August 04, 2006, 10:44:21 AM
Ive been a fan of older systems for a while now, and ive been a gamer since the nes days. one thing i have noticed and always wondered about was how the tg16 was always panned for being a 8 bit system at its heart...and said to be a hyped up nes more or less due to that.
Now, EGM was the main source of that type of information.
However upon looking up its tech specs ive noticed that ts CPU speed is twice the speed of the snes's and equal to the genesis's...even though its 8 bit that raw speed still matters to an extent. and its color capabilities are better than the genesis's and arguably equal to the snes. Its resolution sizes can equal them both aswell and its sound isnt to far off from the genesis though snes murders them both in that area.
So.. unless im missing something here...technically it is more powerful than genesis and slightly weaker than the snes all things considered.
would that be correct ?
for example- PCE SF2 is about the same as the snes port graghics wise Drac X on pce pisses all over the snes version the SNK games tend to be better than the genesis/snes versions etc
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 04, 2006, 11:54:47 AM
This is quite a tricky subject ^__^
I would say its on par with the megadrive/genesis but I think the genny just pips in in the way it hurls sprites around (and my reason for saying that is Treasure games like gunstar heroes). But it displays less colours than the PCE and I would also say that the PCE had better sound chip than the genny.
The SNES isn't what I would call a sprite pusher but for fancy sprite effects like sprite rotation, sprite scaling and transparencies it can't be beaten in the 16 bit console wars. Plus the SNES had a colour palette of 32k colours and an amazing sound chip produced by none other than Sony.
My only complaint about PCE software is that I wished companies like Hudson Soft pushed the system a bit more with their software especially with the HuCARD format. I would say that out of their 60+ HuCARD games only about 10 really pushed the system in terms of graphics .. because at its heart the PCE is a 8bit machine I think some companies just treated it like an 8-bit system.
You can find some fantastic CD stuff though..
I actually think the SNES version of Castlevania 4 was one of the best.. but Dracula X on both systems the PCE version wins hands down because its on CD and has a much larger storage than SNES cartridge and more stuff like intro, redbook audio and voice acting
Can't really say much the SNK ports but I just loved the SNES takara version of Samurai Spirits/showdown.
take a look at some of these videos I think they really demonstrate PC Engine being a competent machine. These vids have been made mostly from ppl from these very forums! (*cough* shameless plug)
Devil Crash/crush
Gradius
magical chase lvl 4
pc genjin2/bonks revenge
parodius stages 6 & 7
pc denjin/air zonk
super star soldier stage 5
dragon spirit stages 7 & 8
dragon saber stage 7
Sunteams videos: R-type
afterburner II
Ninja Spirit's videos:
Genpei Toumaden/Samurai ghost
son son II
bloody wolf
Ninja spirit
You can find a lot more videos on youtube of PC Engine games from other membes and lots on dracula X.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 04, 2006, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: "peonpiate"
and its color capabilities are better than the genesis's and arguably equal to the snes.
Definitely not. The PCE has 512 colors to choose from, while the SNES has 32,768. That's a HUGE difference. Games like Donkey Kong Country would be impossible to make on the PCE.
Oh, and about Chi no Rondo vs Dracula XX -- the PCE game is considered better in terms of gameplay by most (but not me, I gave the SNES game a fair chance, and I find it superior to the PCE game) but it is definitely not even comparable to the SNES game in terms of graphics. The prettiest PCE games just can't win over the prettiest SNES games in terms of graphics.
Quote from: "peonpiate"
So.. unless im missing something here...technically it is more powerful than genesis and slightly weaker than the snes all things considered.
Also not true. The SNES is much more powerful than the PCE. I don't know how the PCE and Mega Drive systems compare, but from the looks of software, the Mega Drive is more powerful. At least in terms of graphics and speed. Or maybe Sega just had better developers.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: merriman_bk on August 04, 2006, 12:53:35 PM
The thing that really makes me like my pce duo better than my snes is that the sound is better for many games, esp. the cd ones (ofc since they're cd quality sound). I mean I loved Street Fighter II as a kid, one of my all time nostalgia favs, I could play it all day I like it that much. And even with it I could tell instantly that the sound of the version for my pce is a lot better than the snes version, made me get into it even more. Plus the graphics are about the same, for how much weaker the turbografx/pce is it's surprising what they were able to accomplish with it (at least with some games).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 04, 2006, 01:14:42 PM
Most of the games for the TurboGrafx/Turbo Duo were exclusives so if someone wanted to play those games, they had to buy the system. I love my Turbo Duo. Of course there were a lot of exclusive Super NEs games that I love to play. The same goes with the genesis. It's all about the games.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 04, 2006, 01:43:28 PM
That's not really what this is about, this is about what the hardware can accomplish, not how good the games are. There are excellent games on all three platforms.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 04, 2006, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: "peonpiate"
even though its 8 bit that raw speed still matters to an extent.
True, and it is a zippy little machine for the most part. A tad bit slower than the Genesis, though.
Quote from: "peonpiate"
its color capabilities are better than the genesis's and arguably equal to the snes.
Well it has the same total number of colors as the Genesis, the only difference is that it can put more on screen. The SNES has a ton more colors to choose from than both, but I think it can only display 256 at any given time.
Quote from: "peonpiate"
Its resolution sizes can equal them both as well
Yes and no. I've never seen the Turbo/PC Engine game with an interlaced mode even on a static screen. This doubles the vertical resolution. Most Turbo games run in 224p or 240p and never in 480i. Sonic 2 on the Genesis' 2 player mode ran in 480i (or 448i to be precise). the SNES supposedly had a 448i mode but I've never heard of any games that ran in it. As far as horizontal resolution goes, yes, it has plenty of cool modes that are rarely used (like the 512 mode).
Quote from: "peonpiate"
its sound isnt to far off from the genesis though snes murders them both in that area.
Murders? I completely disagree. I am a big fan of the TurboGrafx-style of sound (mostly just tone buzzes and whatnot, but still pleasant), but the Genesis has better sound capability as well as cleaner digitized sound reproduction. There isn't anything on the TG-16 that sounds anywhere near as good as the music from Streets of Rage 1 and 2. The SNES has fewer sound channels than the Genesis, but better hardware to make that sound. It sounds better for the most part, but the SNES still sounds like a 16-bit cartridge. The difference isn't mindblowing, and I really hate the overused SNES reverb effect. This all is kind of subjective here.
Quote from: "peonpiate"
So.. unless im missing something here...technically it is more powerful than genesis and slightly weaker than the snes all things considered.
Not more powerful than the Genesis. I'd put it right under the Genesis. The Turbo only has one background screen whereas the Genesis has 2 plus better sprite abilities (the SNES has 4 backgrounds). In order to have overlapping scrolling layers, the Turbo has to use sprites as one of the layers whereas the Genesis does not. Also, the SNES cannot do sprite scaling and rotation. It can only scale and rotate a background plane. The Sega CD can scale/rotate both sprites and background planes.
Quote from: "peonpiate"
PCE SF2 is about the same as the snes port graghics wise
Not really since it is missing at least 1 layer of scrolling that the SNES has.
Quote from: "peonpiate"
Drac X on pce pisses all over the snes version
I agree (I am a HUGE Castlevania fan), but I think it's more from a design perspective than anything to do with either system's capabilities. The SNES version looked really bright and the game shouldn't be bright and cheery. The SNES version also had a lame fire effect in the first level that I do not think looked very good at all. Sure, it was transparent and all that, but that doesn't mean it looks good. the PC Engine version had a lot more space to work with. Each level could have up to 2 megs of power-packed data whereas the entire SNES version only had a wimpy 8 megs. :) Plus I enjoyed the control better on the PCE version, but that's just me.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 04, 2006, 03:13:51 PM
there aren't many genesis games that sound as good as Street of Rage anyway.. but thanks to the magic that is yuzo koshiro the genny sounds wonderful.. makes me wonder what the pce could do if Yuzo used its sound chip.
If you really want to make a fair and decent sound comparison.
You could compare sound and graphics on :
PCE Afterburner II & Genesis version PCE Devil crash/crush & Genesis Dragons Fury PCE Aero Blasters & Genesis version PCE Tatsujin & Genesis Truxton PCE Populous & Genesis version PCE Raiden & genesis version PCE Kyuukyoku Tiger & Genesis version PCE bomberman 94 & Genesis mega bomberman
Those are ones that I can only think of right now where you can make a direct comparison of graphics and sound..
Probably can think of more after I've digested this pizza XD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 04, 2006, 03:18:44 PM
Quote
Also not true. The SNES is much more powerful than the PCE.
Unless you think graphics effecs/colors equal power, I think not.
The MegaDrive CPU is the exact same model from 1979 version - no changes. While the CPU is actually internally 32bit with 32bit arithmic functions, it fairs less then 1.2 MIPS. It has its strengths, but also has many weaknesses. Depending on what your using it for, its slightly faster or slower than the PCE's Huc6280 (1.4 MIPS). Example, the Huc6280 can increment a value in memory in just 6 cycles with a single instruction( 1 byte), while the MC68000 take much more cycles to execute and multiple bytes for each instruction. Huc6280 code is smaller in size in comparison to the MC68000, therefore taking less space (about 2.5-3 times smaller). The MC68000 does have powerful functions, that are not practical or useful for console gaming code.
The SNES CPU is slower in performance than the PCE and the MD.
System strengths-
MD - The FM chip, 2 plains of backgrounds, linear memory address mode, fast cpu, 64k of ram, most games ran in 320x224
SFC - Sony SPC music chip(board), hi-color palette, rotation/scaling, 4 background layers
PCE - Very fast CPU, very fast VDC, 481 colors on screen without any tricks, up to 64x32 sprite size, three resolutions 512,320,256, fast video DMA.
System weaknesses-
MD - PSG(ugh!), only 64k of vram for the two background maps(planes), larger CPU code, 61 colors onscreen - only 30 for sprites
SFC - slow CPU(3.58mhz) - runs even slower when accesssing slow rom(2.68mhz), only 64k for all 4 background planes and sprites( should have been 128k atleast!), non-linear address mode, games ran in 256x224(200) res to save on vram usage
PCE - only 1 background plane - no tile flipping for background map, only 8k of system ram, 256pixel sprite limit for 320 and 512 resolution mode, no FM chip(IMO), non-linear address mode
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 04, 2006, 03:45:59 PM
About SFII': I'm a huge fan of PC Engine, Street Fighter, SFC, and 16-bit in general. I've played...a crapload of Street Fighter, and honestly I think the SFII' HuCard is way way too overrated by PCE fans.
Its a nice version, and more than most people thought possible on the PCE. It was the best version of SFII at the time...but that only lasted about two months (maybe less, I can't remember) until the SFC version of SFII'Turbo came out.
The sound...is a joke. The samples are good, and they sound more like the CPS1 version, but they cancel each other out! If one dude says, "hadouken", and the other dude says, "shouryuken" in the middle of it, you only hear half of the "hadouken". SFII' is really slow of course, so it doesn't stand out as badly as it would in a faster game where the samples are being kicked out more frequently, but its still pretty stark. The music is pretty weak too. Again it sounds more like CPS, but not actually as good as the SNES. I consider the SNES sound chip to be one of the great classic electronic instruments of all time, ranking up there with the Moog Modular, and the TR808. I *love* it. Listen to the music in Earthbound/Mother 2. Just amazing.
As for Dracula X: I have no idea why people compare Dracula X for PCE, and Dracula XX for SFC. They are two different games. One is not a port of the other. The SFC ver. is more like a quasi-sequel, or something. They are both very good. I totally perfer the PCE version, obviously, because the level design is better overall, and of course the CD audio, and cinemas are the big draw. The SFC version is way nicer looking, even if that might not necessarily be a good thing considering the tone of the game.
I love 16-bit, and one of the cool things about it was how the three major systems all had their own good, and bad points. You just cannot do Chrono Trigger, Macross, or Super Mario Kart on the PCE, or MD. Likewise you can't do Gunstar, or Thunderforce 3 on the PCE, or SNES. And of course you can't do Y's IV, of Drac X on the other systems.
Well, actually, the Mega CD could probably do a really good job of Drac X, but it never did so...there you go.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 04, 2006, 03:55:03 PM
But if the Sega CD could do a really good job of Dracula X, then why did the Lords of Thunder port not come out as good as the Duo version?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 04, 2006, 04:21:55 PM
Ask Hudson. The Sega CD Lords of Thunder was a quick and dirty port of the TurboGrafx version, kind of like the Saturn version of Symphony of the Night. The systems could do better (especially in the Saturn's case since it was basically made for 2D games), but the developers chose not to. There was no need to have excruciatingly loud sound effects on the Sega CD version, but the developers chose to and not because of any system limitation. They didn't have to reperform the music, but they did (I love how some Turbophiles say the Sega CD system itself is inferior because of the music issue in this game). And they didn't have to use sprites as one of the background layers for the Sega version, but since it was a quick and sloppy port, they did.
Why does Sega CD Dungeon Explorer play more like a wimpy Gauntlet instead of like, well, Dungeon Explorer? Developers!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 04, 2006, 04:51:19 PM
But the Sega CD could only output 61 colors at a time.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Odonadon on August 04, 2006, 05:48:49 PM
This is definetely tricky as you need to be specific what you are asking for when you talk power. Do you mean graphics capabilities? Most people consider how powerful a machine is by going by it's MIPS value. Does this equal power?
Quote
System strengths-
MD - The FM chip, 2 plains of backgrounds, linear memory address mode, fast cpu, 64k of ram, most games ran in 320x224
I will have to dispute the FM chip as being a strength - I find FM sound unbearable. I think the PCE is far superior to the Genesis in terms of audio simply because I think it sounds better. But does that mean it actually is more powerful?
For me, it breaks down to this in order of what "feels" like it has more power:
PCE SNES Genesis
I rank PCE above all simply because of the CD unit and arcade card. You can claim more power when you have more memory and storage space to work with :)
The SNES is notoriously slow (check out Super R-Type) but has a wonderful colour palette and fantastic sound chip. However, the PCE can display more onscreen colors at a time than either SNES or Genesis, which usually makes games seem more vibrant and cheerier.
The Genesis just gives you a "dull" feeling all around because of it's color pushing limitations and awful FM Sound.
OD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: merriman_bk on August 04, 2006, 06:09:30 PM
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
About SFII': I'm a huge fan of PC Engine, Street Fighter, SFC, and 16-bit in general. I've played...a crapload of Street Fighter, and honestly I think the SFII' HuCard is way way too overrated by PCE fans.
Its a nice version, and more than most people thought possible on the PCE. It was the best version of SFII at the time...but that only lasted about two months (maybe less, I can't remember) until the SFC version of SFII'Turbo came out.
The sound...is a joke. The samples are good, and they sound more like the CPS1 version, but they cancel each other out! If one dude says, "hadouken", and the other dude says, "shouryuken" in the middle of it, you only hear half of the "hadouken".
Yah dude I'm not that picky, I was mainly referring to the background music anyway and nah I don't care if it's overrated -- everybody has their fav ports.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 04, 2006, 06:49:10 PM
Ever-so-slightly off topic: One thing I like about both the Genesis and the SNES (first model at least) is the native RGB output. This goes a long way to get rid of the "blah" look on the Genesis (because its composite sucks). Unfortunately the TurboGrafx is stuck with some very bad composite as well. It shimmers as it scrolls, flickers even on still screen due to the way composite works, etc. It does look fairly sharp, however. I just wish the Turbo supported RGB without requiring me to open up the unit and solder a whole bunch of stuff and build a video-processing amp to make the levels acceptable. The Turbo with RGB (converted to component in my case) looks awesome, no more shimmering or color banding. It's worth the hell you must go through.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 04, 2006, 08:16:29 PM
The Sega/Mega CD was a flop. The scaling and rotation looked very pixelated. The should have invested that money into an palette upgrade instead - especially since they were going for FMV.
Quote from: "Odonadon"
I will have to dispute the FM chip as being a strength - I find FM sound unbearable. I think the PCE is far superior to the Genesis in terms of audio simply because I think it sounds better. But does that mean it actually is more powerful?
Hehe, I figured this might step on some toes. I figured from a technical standpoint - FM is superior to PCE equivalent PSG, even though one might still perfer PCE PSG over the Genesis' FM chip. For me it's a mixed bag - there are some great MD games with awesome FM music and there are some really nasty sound games as well. I do think the Genesis has horrible PSG/white noise effects. I lot of MD games used FM sound channels for game effect because they were much clearer :lol:
Quote
I rank PCE above all simply because of the CD unit and arcade card. You can claim more power when you have more memory and storage space to work with :)
The Genesis just gives you a "dull" feeling all around because of it's color pushing limitations and awful FM Sound.
I think the SCD and arcade card both were excellent upgrades for the PCE that helped a show its potential. I personally love some of the PSG+"adpcm drumkit" non-CD musics (Fiend Hunter) too. When it comes to PCE SCD/AC vs Genesis/MD - the only thing MD has on the PCE CD system is the extra scrolling background layer. Oh SGX, why were you shown no CD love?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: merriman_bk on August 04, 2006, 09:39:21 PM
Yah that's another thing I loved about the PCE, it's the only one I can think of (or at least care about) that was able to keep upgrading just via things like cards with a different bios (of a sort) and more ram. I mean wouldn't it be awesome if modern systems were the same way?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 04, 2006, 11:57:38 PM
Quote
The Sega/Mega CD was a flop. The scaling and rotation looked very pixelated.
I'm not disagreeing with either of those points, but the SNES was really blocky when it scaled and rotated as well. I think it was even blockier than the Sega CD. And the SNES had a transition (used a lot in Mario World) that consisted of nothing BUT blockiness, no actual scaling involved. However I always thought the scaling in the driving portions of Batman Returns and Soul Star were extremely good for their time. I never saw anything like that on the Neo Geo. Too bad so few developers could find their way to the scaling chip of the Mega/Sega CD, and the developers in Japan who found it didn't figure out how to use it very well (Night Striker, anyone?).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 05, 2006, 12:38:34 AM
Quote from: "takashirose"
But if the Sega CD could do a really good job of Dracula X, then why did the Lords of Thunder port not come out as good as the Duo version?
LOT on Sega CD is fine except for the lack of color. Drac X doesn't really have much color to it in the first place. If they wanted to make a ver. of Drac X with everything but the color being perfect, they could have done it.
As with any port that is released not too long after the original game, usually the original is better because the port is just an afterthought to cash in and make some more money. Most of the time the original staff doesn't even work on it.
For a PCE to Mega CD port success story, look at Popful Mail, Cosmic Fantasy, and Snatcher.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 05, 2006, 02:47:52 AM
Quote from: "merriman_bk"
Yah that's another thing I loved about the PCE, it's the only one I can think of (or at least care about) that was able to keep upgrading just via things like cards with a different bios (of a sort) and more ram. I mean wouldn't it be awesome if modern systems were the same way?
This is not a good thing--this is probably one of the reasons the PCE failed. The N64 got criticized because of its Memory Expansion Pak accessory. The PCE had TONS of these, and that's the worst possible thing for a console to have. It makes it like a computer--you can't use all the software because you need to buy extra (and super expensive) accessories. They shouldn't have released the CD add-on either, they should've released the Duo right away.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on August 05, 2006, 05:34:05 AM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Quote from: "merriman_bk"
Yah that's another thing I loved about the PCE, it's the only one I can think of (or at least care about) that was able to keep upgrading just via things like cards with a different bios (of a sort) and more ram. I mean wouldn't it be awesome if modern systems were the same way?
This is not a good thing--this is probably one of the reasons the PCE failed. The N64 got criticized because of its Memory Expansion Pak accessory. The PCE had TONS of these, and that's the worst possible thing for a console to have. It makes it like a computer--you can't use all the software because you need to buy extra (and super expensive) accessories. They shouldn't have released the CD add-on either, they should've released the Duo right away.
No, this is simply the groupthink that has developed in recent years as folks attempt to explain why the House of Sega crashed and burned.
Upgrades are *not* an inherently bad thing for consoles, they simply need to be implemented properly. Sega, unfortunately, did *not* implement its strategy for upgrades properly. I'm not even blaming them, it was simply bad timing on their part (i.e. they shouldn't have released 32X to extend the Genesis when a brand new console was coming out and the expensive Sega-CD upgrade was already available).
Folks tend to look at Sega's case study and make *overly* generalized conclusions. I've never really thought about N64 since it is debatable as to whether the memory expansion packs, in and of themselves, were such a bad idea. N64 is somewhat of a different beast, so I'll stick with the Sega/Mega-CD vs. TG-CD/PCE comparison (which I think parallel each other in many crucial ways and thus creates a reasonable comparative analysis).
First, I don't think you can say the "PCE failed" without qualifying the statement. On what level did the PCE fail? I consider it one of the most long-lived systems -- a difficult feat to accomplish given the incredible competition it faced in Japan (i.e. Famicom!).
The HuCard + CD strategy worked very well, with an ample supply of good titles available on both formats for a long time. The two formats co-existed. The same can't be said of Sega-CD, since the CD library for Sega remained a sore point. The 32X library fared even worse.
The upgraded BIOS cards for PCE was even an *more* successful, an ingenious, strategy for upgrading. Software upgrades have always struck me as a great idea, especially when compared to hardware upgrades.
The reason? NEC didn't abandon any of their customers. There were tons of great HuCards and CDs, etc. for folks with the lowest tier systems. For a small investment, folks could upgrade to SCD. Newcomers would simply get a DUO. Explain to me why this was a bad strategy? I would argue that this is, in fact, one of they key reasons why the PCE *succeeded*.
The ACD was always a specialized niche, which appealed to a select segment of the PCE fanbase... so this only expanded PCE's lifespan, but it certainly did not hinder it.
SuperGrafx was *certainly* a mis-step by NEC. But they quickly abandoned it. They screwed over the folks who bought the system, for sure, but at least it was fully backward compatible, so it wasn't a total loss.
Now, I love you Seldane :), I just had fun thinking about your comment :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 05, 2006, 06:03:15 AM
Consider this: The PCE/TG wasn't a successful system, same goes for Mega-CD and 32X, and people didn't buy the Memory Expansion Pak for the N64 either. The 64DD was a disaster too. I believe most console players use consoles because they don't want upgrades, they want to buy the system and then they want to be able to play everything for it. When this is not the case, the consumers will go elsewhere (nobody bought the TG or the Mega-CD, people went with the SNES instead, because that's all you needed).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Odonadon on August 05, 2006, 07:10:50 AM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Consider this: The PCE/TG wasn't a successful system
The PCE was quite successful, even edging out the Famicom for a couple years. The TG-16 was not - this is a very important distinction :) I consider myself a fan of the PC-Engine English ports, I'm not a real big fan of the TG-16 :)
OD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 05, 2006, 07:20:57 AM
wikipedia says that pc engine sold 5 million units which is pretty good in my books.
Wasn't the last games were like: go go birdie chance and Dead of the Brain 1&2 ?? I think Dead of the Brain was released in 1999. Which is amazing considering the pc engine was released in october 1987.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 05, 2006, 07:42:17 AM
I wanted to point out that TONS of people bought the memory expansion for N64. You can't really compare it though since they gave it away for free with Donkey Kong 64, and even if you wanted to buy one seperately it was only $30 which is chump change.
Also, one thing I've always admired the SNES for was it's ability to do huge full screen backgrounds that don't consist of tiles, for example like in Terranigma and some of the the other later RPGs. I can't think of any Genesis or Turbo games that did that. I wonder why? Was it just a matter of storage space or was it some trick the SNES was capable of?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 05, 2006, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Consider this: The PCE/TG wasn't a successful system, same goes for Mega-CD and 32X, and people didn't buy the Memory Expansion Pak for the N64 either.
In JP the PC Engine was not a flop. It just wasn't. Are you calling it a failure because it isn't still being made? All systems eventuially die. Do you consider the Famcom and 2600 failures too?
The Mega CD/Sega were failures for sure though. More popular in the US this time, so sort of a reverse of the PC situation. A failure no matter how you look at it.
Your basic point, that upgrades limit software sales because every time a new one is released it fractures the userbase, that is correct. The PCE was most popular in the early, HuCard only days. Every ultra expensive as hell upgrade sold for it shrunk the userbase. Manji Maru was the best selling CD, I think, and that was very early on.
N64 however is a totally different thing. The N64 upgrade was *free* with the purchase of the only game that supported it at the time, and pretty cheap to buy later on. I worked at a used game store during the period when people were trading in their N64s in massive quantities, and I can tell you that at least %70 of them had the expasion pack.
This is sort of similar to the Saturn memory expansion, which was packaged with games for about $9 more. There is no doubt that kept the Saturn sales up for a year or so longer.
PCE add-ons were horrendously expensive by comparison, but because they were so significant, they guarenteed the hardcore support, even if they totally kicked out the mainstream fan. These add-ons are the reason the PCE lasted a decade+, but also the reason why the userbase only shrunk as the upgrades came out.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 05, 2006, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: "Digi.k"
I think Dead of the Brain was released in 1999. Which is amazing considering the pc engine was released in october 1987.
Yeah but its lame for one thing. Also, there was a pretty significant gap between it, and the previous PCE release.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 05, 2006, 10:29:36 AM
Quote
Consider this: The PCE/TG wasn't a successful system, same goes for Mega-CD and 32X
One could argue the TG/DUO might have been a successful system in the US, but to say the PCE wasn't successful system is extremely incorrect. Europe doesn't count as it never had offical support, just an import scene for the PCE.
The Mega-CD on the other hand wa a flop - in Japan and the US, I assume EU as well. There are RPGs that I would like to play if anyone gets around to translating them (Illusion City, Fhey area, etc). Popful Mail for the MegaCD wasn't a port of the PCE version, they both were indepent ports of the Falcoms MSX (and NEC PCs) version. From all the reports I've read, the MegaDrive was always in third place in JP, so they decided to bring out the Mega-CD incompetition to PCE-CD. It lacked the support from the developement community it needed. Sega already proved that you could do a lot with 61 colors onscreen and the right artists.
I think the PCE was the most successful console(not computer) in developing add-ons. Sure it had some flops, but its got the best ratio of successful to un-.
As a side note: Hudson's standards were different than Segas' for game developement on their systems. I remember reading that Sega's standards were pretty strict, while Hudson focused on gameplay and simplistic fun.
Later SNES games used high compression and very large carts. Some used special chips to handle the compressed graphics - Star Ocean.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: T2KFreeker on August 05, 2006, 02:45:47 PM
You have decided to ask the cursed question man. I can tell you this much, I love my Turbo Grafx system like no other. The thing here is this, it suffers from alot of the idiotic useless retarded crap that EGM likes to call the math adding crap. Here goes, yes, the Turbo Grafx has two 8 bit chips, but they don't like to tell you that it is running off of a 16 bit archetecture, whicn icludes a 16 bit processore. It's the same thing as the Atari Jaguar, two 16 bit chips and a 32 bit chip running off of a 64 bit processor. It is 64 bit, as well as the Turbo Grafx being 16 bit. If we go by math here, then the NES was only a four bit system as it was two 4 bit chip0s through an 8 bit processor, which means that the NES was only as powerful as the Atari 2600? I think not as EGM continues to prove that they know not a damn thing about Console systems and the power that they do have. Example, I just don't see Splatter House running on the NES. :roll: Same with Battlesphere running on a SNES, will never happen, no matter what the jackasses at EGM want to say.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 05, 2006, 03:03:13 PM
I don't get why everyone calls the Sega CD a flop, sure in Japan it was but so was the Megadrive so what did anyone expect? In the USA it did better than any other add on in history and it had about 150 games made for it. How the hell that is a flop is beyond me.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: T2KFreeker on August 05, 2006, 03:13:22 PM
Quote from: "GUTS"
I don't get why everyone calls the Sega CD a flop, sure in Japan it was but so was the Megadrive so what did anyone expect? In the USA it did better than any other add on in history and it had about 150 games made for it. How the hell that is a flop is beyond me.
Because in the modern world of gaming, if you don't sell as many units as the PSOne did, you flopped, which is bullshit. I laugh when I hear people talk about the Gamecube being a flop, it is sad really as people have no clue what they are talking about.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 05, 2006, 04:43:24 PM
Quote
Here goes, yes, the Turbo Grafx has two 8 bit chips, but they don't like to tell you that it is running off of a 16 bit archetecture, whicn icludes a 16 bit processore. It's the same thing as the Atari Jaguar, two 16 bit chips and a 32 bit chip running off of a 64 bit processor. It is 64 bit, as well as the Turbo Grafx being 16 bit. If we go by math here, then the NES was only a four bit system as it was two 4 bit chip0s through an 8 bit processor, which means that the NES was only as powerful as the Atari 2600?
Wait, EMG printed this dibble? By that logic the TG-16 is a 48bit system( 8bit CPU, 16bit VDC, 16bit VCE) and the genesis is a 48bit system too( 16bit cpu, 16bit VDP, 8bit z80). I don't understand the NES having two 4bit chips - it never had seperate 4bit processors? The TG doesn't have two 8bit processors - it only has one.
The industry refers to a processor by its data BUS (how much bits can be pulled in a single access), not by its internal processing ALU and such. If you refer to a systems bits by it's graphics(colors on screen), the NES is 4bit, Genesis 6bit, SNES 8bit, and PCE is 9bit. If a system is refered by its graphic processor, then the PCE, MD, and SNES are 16bit systems.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 05, 2006, 05:41:10 PM
I remember the day when, for no apparent reason, the Neo-Geo became a 24-bit system because it had an 8-bit Z80 in addition to the 16-bit 68000. Somehow on that same day the Genesis remained a 16-bit system. And all of the magazines and most of the people on the internet bought into/still buy into SNK's 24-bit advertising.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 05, 2006, 06:00:12 PM
Hey Joe, weren't you on the Sega forums? If so did you ever find/get a hold of a MD game shot that had more than 61colors? Just curious. BTW, I remember the advertisement of the NEO-GEO being 24bit :lol:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Odonadon on August 05, 2006, 06:28:41 PM
While we're on this topic, who here really thinks the N64 is 64-bit? :)
OD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 05, 2006, 08:25:31 PM
Quote from: "GUTS"
I don't get why everyone calls the Sega CD a flop, sure in Japan it was but so was the Megadrive so what did anyone expect? In the USA it did better than any other add on in history and it had about 150 games made for it. How the hell that is a flop is beyond me.
Well, of the 150 games few of them sold in the sort of number that carts did, and very very very few of them were good.
The Sega CD was something I really wanted to do well, but it didn't. It certainly fits my own personal definition of "flop" for me because it isn't much fun. The list of "must haves" is depressingly short.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 05, 2006, 09:51:06 PM
Quote
If so did you ever find/get a hold of a MD game shot that had more than 61 colors?
There are a few. Toy Story has 148 or something like that in the static screens. Vectorman has well over 61 colors in every scene even though the game doesn't look very good in my opinion (lots o' colors doesn't always mean great visuals). Interestingly Vectorman 2 has fewer than 61 colors for the entire game.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 06, 2006, 02:36:26 AM
The Mega-CD was pretty popular in Europe, and of course--nobody knew what a Turbo Grafx was. :roll:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on August 06, 2006, 03:51:56 AM
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
Quote from: "GUTS"
I don't get why everyone calls the Sega CD a flop, sure in Japan it was but so was the Megadrive so what did anyone expect? In the USA it did better than any other add on in history and it had about 150 games made for it. How the hell that is a flop is beyond me.
Well, of the 150 games few of them sold in the sort of number that carts did, and very very very few of them were good.
The Sega CD was something I really wanted to do well, but it didn't. It certainly fits my own personal definition of "flop" for me because it isn't much fun. The list of "must haves" is depressingly short.
I agree with Sign. Contrary to what NickEvil argues in his old article (and I love him, but he's an apologist when it comes to Sega-CD), the Sega-CD's library was incredibly weak and rivals the weakest of the weak. I'm not being harsh, just being a little dramatic to underscore my point.
I was an early adopter of the Sega-CD and really, really believed that Sega was going to do a hell of a lot better with the software.
Part of my affinity for crappy games is because I lowered my standards on what I considered "decent" when I was confronted with (and purchased!) so many lame Sega-CD titles.
Am I bitter? No. But have I been affected by plunking down $$$$, "believing" all the hype of the Sega-CD (remember how they hyped the hell out of the hardware upgrades the Sega-CD added to the core Genesis)? You betcha!
I don't hold a grudge, but I have retained a perspective that is rooted in my actual experience with Sega. I did *not* have unrealistic expectations with Sega CD, mind you -- I simply expected to have a bunch of Sega-CD titles that were *at least* as good as the cartridge titles. But at the end of the Genesis era, there were barely any Sega-CD games that were *solid* let alone *must haves*, whereas there were literally TONS of fantastic Genesis carts (even more if you include MegaDrive carts).
I should point out that I am pro-Sega. I'm pro SMS. I totally appreciate the Sega-CD, and I love it as much as I possibly can without being deluded by it.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 06, 2006, 07:40:19 AM
I've loved the Sega CD ever since I first played Eye of the Beholder & Lunar, hell I can name off more good Sega CD games than I can HuCard games honestly. People just need to dig into the library a little deeper than Lunar & Snatcher, there are tons of great games like Android Assault, Heart of the Alien, Road Avenger, Final Fight, Robo Aleste, etc.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Nemo on August 06, 2006, 09:26:18 AM
Quote from: "GUTS"
I've loved the Sega CD ever since I first played Eye of the Beholder & Lunar, hell I can name off more good Sega CD games than I can HuCard games honestly. People just need to dig into the library a little deeper than Lunar & Snatcher, there are tons of great games like Android Assault, Heart of the Alien, Road Avenger, Final Fight, Robo Aleste, etc.
No doubt. It's about quality, not quantity with the Sega CD. Add Popful Mail, Vay, Time Gal, and Revenge of the Ninja.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: TR0N on August 06, 2006, 10:17:45 AM
Quote from: "malducci"
BTW, I remember the advertisement of the NEO-GEO being 24bit :lol:
I was fooled by that add as well back in the day :oops:
That was of corse untile i discover "neo-geo.com" and i got real deal on that it was realy a 16-bit system.
Still companys like to brag just to boost there sales.
Heck i remember when the, DC frist launch debates pop up wether it was a ture 128-bit system or not :lol:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 06, 2006, 10:20:05 AM
I don't have a Sega CD yet, but I liked that period. My favourite period was the first half of the 1990s. The Turbo Duo was part of it. Regarding, which system was more powerful, they all were. But one thing I liked about the TurboGrafx-16/Turbo Duo was that you could upgrade the system without having thousands of cumbersome add ons connected to it enlarging it. The Turbo Duo is the brightest point in Turbo Grafx history. I am looking forward to the Wii now.
I wonder if the PS3 will be the next Turbo Duo because it looks like it a little bit and is misunderstood because of the price. The thing that kills me is the tax for that thing and insurance, which is necessary for a Sony system from now on. In addition it looks to be ahead of its time. Though for the money the Xbox 360 is a better deal as a gamer. A little off topic, but I just wanted to say it.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: T2KFreeker on August 06, 2006, 01:35:41 PM
Quote from: "takashirose"
I don't have a Sega CD yet, but I liked that period. My favourite period was the first half of the 1990s. The Turbo Duo was part of it. Regarding, which system was more powerful, they all were. But one thing I liked about the TurboGrafx-16/Turbo Duo was that you could upgrade the system without having thousands of cumbersome add ons connected to it enlarging it. The Turbo Duo is the brightest point in Turbo Grafx history. I am looking forward to the Wii now.
I wonder if the PS3 will be the next Turbo Duo because it looks like it a little bit and is misunderstood because of the price. The thing that kills me is the tax for that thing and insurance, which is necessary for a Sony system from now on. In addition it looks to be ahead of its time. Though for the money the Xbox 360 is a better deal as a gamer. A little off topic, but I just wanted to say it.
I am officially not allowed to speak of the PS3 as I just getreally angry with it. :roll:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 06, 2006, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: "takashirose"
I wonder if the PS3 will be the next Turbo Duo because it looks like it a little bit and is misunderstood because of the price.
I think I understand the PS3 totally, and I have no interest in it.
I don't think there will be a "next Turbo Duo" any time soon. The way the industry is now, everything is just too "big time". Every game for the PS3, at least for the first few years, will big a mega production with 2000 man dev teams, and $100 million advertising budgets. In short, the exact opposite of Kuni-kun, or Peach Boy, or Bonk. All budget, no soul.
An example: This was on Magic Box the other day:
"SNK Playmore marketing manager Yoshihito Koyama said that their first PS3 title probably won't reach the market until 2009, the reason is that the development cost and initial investment is really high and the user base will not be high enough for their games to sell."
Obviously SNK isn't as significant as it once was, but still they are hardly a small time developer/publisher. If they can't affort PS3, then you can count out anything like a modern day version of Naxat, Technos, Laser Soft, etc.
Its shit like Full Spectrum Warrior, GTA, Star Wars, and Madden from here on out.
Title: a reply from me..yay!
Post by: _joshuaTurbo on August 06, 2006, 03:06:53 PM
Off-Topic: I have heard a HELL of alot of "This system flopped" or "That failed" but truly in my humble opinion, very few consoles in history failed. Systems like the CDi, The Virtual Boy, and the 32X are indeed failures. Even the PCFX should be considered a failure.
Quote
Because in the modern world of gaming, if you don't sell as many units as the PSOne did, you flopped, which is bullshit. I laugh when I hear people talk about the Gamecube being a flop, it is sad really as people have no clue what they are talking about.
EXACTLY!! Many of the systems that people call failures have moved off of shelves very well!!
Back on Topic: Back in the 16-bit wars I owned a SNES and a TG16. never really found a reason to invest in the genny. Allthough there are some bright spots in Sega's 16-bitter. Gunstar Heroes, Warriors of the Eternal Sun, Phantasy Star IV, Streets of Rage(all).
If I had to rate sound, this is how it would go- The SNES sound chip is AMAZING!!! I like SNES music better than N64's! Games like Rock'nRoll Racing, Super Adventure Island, and Actraiser have crazy good music! Then the Genesis closely followed by TG16. Unless of course if you're counting CD and SCD games, then Turbo Kills all! Lords of Thunder, Riot Zone, Ys- BEST SOUNDTRACKS IN GAMING HISTORY.
If I had to rate on Graffics, the SNES has amazing grafx, the Genesis would come in second, but the Turbo comes in a close third. Like mentioned above, its a shame the system was never truly pushed to its limits. this is just judging by cart format of course, because if you consider the Super CD and ACD games, then the Turbo and SNES are equals!
Now heres something that I hadn't seen people consider: The GamePads. The Genesis(original) gamepad was terrible, The TurboGrafx was pretty unorigina, but did the job. Impossible to play SFII with, but still worked 99% of the time with other games. But I consider the SNES pads to be one of the best gamepads ever made. You never needed to buy another gamepad, it worked with everything, except the super scope games(lol)
wow, this post is long...sorry...
TurboSage, shoving my opinion down yall's throats!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 06, 2006, 04:07:33 PM
I am one of those guys that puts all of the upgrades for the TurboGrafx and DUo in one group. I love my turbo Duo. I love all the systems we are comparing now. They all hold different memories. Of course I did not own a Turbo Duo back then, but I am the first owner of mine.
I actually like the turbografx controller because it reminds me of the nes controller and it's not a complicated one. Of course for Street Fighter II, I would get the Avenue 6 or another 6 button pad.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on August 06, 2006, 04:53:30 PM
Quote from: "Nemo"
Quote from: "GUTS"
I've loved the Sega CD ever since I first played Eye of the Beholder & Lunar, hell I can name off more good Sega CD games than I can HuCard games honestly. People just need to dig into the library a little deeper than Lunar & Snatcher, there are tons of great games like Android Assault, Heart of the Alien, Road Avenger, Final Fight, Robo Aleste, etc.
No doubt. It's about quality, not quantity with the Sega CD. Add Popful Mail, Vay, Time Gal, and Revenge of the Ninja.
As I said, I am pro-Sega and love the Sega-CD, but the list of games I return to in the Sega-CD library is incredibly small.
I've explored the entire libary (though, to be honest, I've only checked out the FMV titles in the last few years since I didn't bother with most of them back in the day. I have yet to play many FMV titles).
I dig games like Dark Wizard, which is totally underappreciated, IMO (I think it scares folks, but it is an amazing game... just don't expect to ever "master" it :) ).
I've played completely through some Japanese games, such as Nostalgia 1907, to get a better appreciation of what we never saw in the States.
Mansion of Hidden Souls is a game that I rarely see mentioned, but it was a little gem in its own right. I don't care what jaded reviewers say: the game delivered some truly enthralling sequences and I loved the entire atmosphere and mood that it evoked. Seriousy, folks today are probably too jaded, but back when this game came out, it was friggin' amazing to experience. It will always hold a special place in my heart and is one of the most over-looked treats of the Sega-CD. Yes, it was easy and rather short, but I loved it nonetheless.
Since we have been discussing WD in another thread, I should mention that I consider WD to be one of the *saving graces* of Sega-CD. Not to repeat myself ad nauseum, but it's worth owning Sega-CD just for WD's offerings.
Title: Re: a reply from me..yay!
Post by: esteban on August 06, 2006, 04:58:51 PM
Quote from: "turbo_sage"
Now heres something that I hadn't seen people consider: The GamePads. The Genesis(original) gamepad was terrible, The TurboGrafx was pretty unorigina, but did the job. Impossible to play SFII with, but still worked 99% of the time with other games. But I consider the SNES pads to be one of the best gamepads ever made. You never needed to buy another gamepad, it worked with everything, except the super scope games(lol)
In the past we've discussed this :)
The only thing I disliked about the Genny were the crap controllers. I hated the design... they were horrible and sloppy. I bought 3rd. party pads and was much happier. Otherwise, I loved Genny.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: grahf on August 06, 2006, 05:08:23 PM
You know they might have worked terrible, but the Genesis pads did look f'in awesome. As for the SNES pads, i also think they are the best console pad ever produced (besides with fighting games, which should be played with a stick anyhow). A very close second to best pad ever, would be the Gamecube Wavebird. Those are BADASS pads, period. The PCE/TG16 pads may look really basic, but you never notice them while playing- Which is a good thing. My only gripe is the d-pad on them is a tiny stiff.
I know this isnt on topic, but i dont have much to add that already hasnt been said..
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 06, 2006, 06:24:33 PM
Quote
In the past we've discussed this
And now we'll discuss it again! :)
Back when the Genesis first came out, I was pretty happy with the included controller. I was constantly saying how much more awesome it was than the NES or TurboGrafx at school since it had a whole extra button. But since the Sega 6-button pad came out for the Genesis, that's all I can use. Going back and holding one of the original controllers is now completely uncomfortable and unacceptable! Ug! The SNES has a good controller and I don't really have any gripes with it other than I prefer two rows of three buttons over a diamond configuration. Also I could never quite grasp why the buttons were labeled in a backwards manner. I just figured Nintendo was retarded or illiterate or something. The original TurboGrafx controller is quite adequate, but once I got the NEC Avenue 6-button controller, I find the original controller a bit too small and/or cumbersome.
PS - I HATE the Playstation controller, especially the d-pad. Hate. With much passion.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 06, 2006, 07:17:26 PM
I'm not even going to try to comment on the original topic of this thread, since there're already way too many personal opinions being put forward which won't be swayed and a lot of stuff thats definately bogus.
All I'll say is no system will ever reach it's potential limit and the common denominator for any performance is the programmer. Potential 'power' doesn't mean anything if someone doesn't know how to work with it.
And its all about art anyway. You can render the most visually amazing graphics without taxing a system or grind it a halt with an ugly mess depending on your skills.
According to the "common knowledge" thats out there, like most of the crap printed in classic game mags(I'm not going to list any of the hilarious samples I've come accross lately reading old mags), everything Chris Covell (an 'amateur' programmer with no proffessional tools/official dev kit) has done on the PC Engine is not only "impossible", but several times over so and therefore doesn't really exist(he's fooled us all!).
The bottom line is, the Genesis can display very colorful looking graphics, the SNES can push a ton of sprites with no flicker or slowdown and the PC Engine can move any number of independant scrolling bg's and parallax.
And they all sound cool.
In the grand scheme of things, when you look at Odyssey up through XBox 360, the 16-bitters are all pretty much identical.
Quote from: "takashirose"
But if the Sega CD could do a really good job of Dracula X, then why did the Lords of Thunder port not come out as good as the Duo version?
This is just a myth, The Sega CD version is an awesome port, which loses very little considering it's a port of a top quality PCE CD title.
The main difference is the loss of color(more dramatic than most people think if you run them both on emulator) on a technical level, but the result is still a beutiful game.
Its got 95% of the original scrolling bg's and adds in some new ones. Show both versions to any non-gamer and they'll think they're looking at the same game.
The music and sfx may be a little 'less-good' overall, but are still great.
If a quality port of Drac X was made for Mega CD, it'd probably wind up around the same deal, losing a little and adding a little.
Quote
Off-Topic: I have heard a HELL of alot of "This system flopped" or "That failed" but truly in my humble opinion, very few consoles in history failed. Systems like the CDi, The Virtual Boy, and the 32X are indeed failures. Even the PCFX should be considered a failure.
Don't forget the SuperGrafx! ...unless you coun't the entire PC Engine catalog as part of it's library. :D
Quote
For a PCE to Mega CD port success story, look at Popful Mail, Cosmic Fantasy, and Snatcher.
Popful Mail is actually a completely original game on Sega-CD. Some other PCE CD to Mega-CD success stories though: Space Adventure Cobra, Lords Of Thunder and Burai. And of course there are all the cross format success stories (CD-cart, Cart <-> Hu, Cart - CD).
Quote
Oh, almost forgot...someone had mentioned the SNES' "scaling without scaling" thing that was used a lot in SMB...that effect is called a mosaic pattern. It was a popular, albeit cheesy, effect used in the 90s as a transition. Of course, the SNES was limited even in this effect...it could only affect the background layer, it couldn't affect sprites. However, here's an interesting tidbit for ya...Final Fantasy VI used the mosaic pattern effect for various parts of the game, such as when Tina (Terra) was trying to escape the guards in the beginning and fell down the hole. On the SNES version, you see the background go mosaic, but her sprite remains static. On the Playstation port of the game, the whole screen goes mosaic.
New Adventure Island does a simple version of that effect at the beginning of each level and it's also only the background. I don't hate it(the SNES effect), but it did get overused.
I remember noticing in later SNES games how it would cycle transparencies, since in theory, it can only do one layer. Like when you use a special move/spell in Chrono Trigger and all the shadows and other effects on screen would dissappear right before the spell and then quickly fade back in right after.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 06, 2006, 07:18:52 PM
Quote from: "stevek666"
I dig games like Dark Wizard, which is totally underappreciated, IMO (I think it scares folks, but it is an amazing game... just don't expect to ever "master" it :) ).
Meet Mr Dark Wizard himself...ME! :D I even own the darkwizard.org domain which was originally a complete information site on the game. :) I have to put it up again someday...
Anyways...this thread's kinda funny, but it seems that almost everyone is ignoring the real technical details of the three systems and focusing on the software that was produced for them and trying to compare them that way...furthermore, each of the three has their strengths and weaknesses, so you cannot go on a single issue, because if you do, each system can beat any of the others at any given time! (Well, the Genesis can't really beat the other two on ANY issue, really...but I'll assume it can just to be fair and to make my point). Each of the systems have technical limitations that are mostly incomparable, or that simply cancel each other out. The color one is the easiest to look at...two 9-bit palettes versus a 15-bit palette...one of the 9-bit palettes is generally limited to only 6 bits of its spectrum without hardware tricks (Genesis), while one is free to run its whole 9-bit spectrum effortlessly (PCE). But wait! What about that 15-bit palette (SNES)? Oh, hang on...it's limited to only 8 bits of its spectrum. What looks like an advantage is cancelled by a technical limitation. And that's just one issue...if you look deeply at the capabilities of each machine, you'll find more and more of these oddities.
So to answer the question of whether the PCE could hold its own against the other two on a technical level...of course it could. Despite being the oldest of the three, it was developed by a group of smart people who knew their stuff and weren't happy settling for stock technology...they understood the concept of the console life cycle and built a machine that would last for a long time, unlike their competitors who simply wanted to cash in on the reinvigorated video game market as cheaply as possible.
EDIT: Oh, almost forgot...someone had mentioned the SNES' "scaling without scaling" thing that was used a lot in SMB...that effect is called a mosaic pattern. It was a popular, albeit cheesy, effect used in the 90s as a transition. Of course, the SNES was limited even in this effect...it could only affect the background layer, it couldn't affect sprites. However, here's an interesting tidbit for ya...Final Fantasy VI used the mosaic pattern effect for various parts of the game, such as when Tina (Terra) was trying to escape the guards in the beginning and fell down the hole. On the SNES version, you see the background go mosaic, but her sprite remains static. On the Playstation port of the game, the whole screen goes mosaic. :D
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 07, 2006, 12:54:56 AM
Whoever said Popful Mail om Mega-CD was a PCE->MCD port is wrong. Popful Mail on Mega-CD is a remake entirely developed by Sega themselves. Sega - the master developers.
The PCE version is a port of the original PC-8801 version.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 07, 2006, 07:07:01 AM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Whoever said Popful Mail om Mega-CD was a PCE->MCD port is wrong. Popful Mail on Mega-CD is a remake entirely developed by Sega themselves. Sega - the master developers.
The PCE version is a port of the original PC-8801 version.
Kinda like Ys IV PCE. Hudson - the other master developer. :D
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 07, 2006, 07:38:22 AM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
Quote from: "Seldane"
Whoever said Popful Mail om Mega-CD was a PCE->MCD port is wrong. Popful Mail on Mega-CD is a remake entirely developed by Sega themselves. Sega - the master developers.
The PCE version is a port of the original PC-8801 version.
Kinda like Ys IV PCE. Hudson - the other master developer. :D
Yeah, definitely! :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 07, 2006, 12:33:52 PM
Quote
Well, the Genesis can't really beat the other two on ANY issue, really.
Bias often? :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 08, 2006, 01:47:16 AM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
Bias often? :)
I knew someone would come back with that. It has nothing to do with bias, I have programmed all three consoles so I have knowledge above and beyond most and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Genesis has no single advantage over the other two, for any advantage it may have over one is overpowered by the other (example: Genesis has a faster CPU than the SNES but a slower CPU than the PCE...Genesis has more background planes than the PCE but fewer than the SNES, etc etc etc...it has no single technical advantage, and this is due mainly due to Sega's move to use cheap stock components). So call it bias if you like, but it's not true.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Odonadon on August 08, 2006, 04:06:07 AM
Quote
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Genesis has no single advantage over the other two
I'm going to have to dispute this - the Genesis is the coolest looking console (probably of all time) :)
OD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 08, 2006, 04:15:33 AM
Ahem, the TurboDuo is.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: grahf on August 08, 2006, 05:03:40 AM
The original PC Engine is the best looking console ever, 2nd place is a toss up between the Genesis and the Super Famicom.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 08, 2006, 05:15:49 AM
The tiny PS2 is the awesomest console ever. Perfection!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 08, 2006, 05:22:46 AM
The tiny ps2 seems that I could just snap it in half without any effort.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 08, 2006, 03:45:31 PM
Quote from: "Odonadon"
I'm going to have to dispute this - the Genesis is the coolest looking console (probably of all time) :)
Perhaps, but the case design lends very little to its technical ability...actually, even that's questionable...the poor old Genny tended to smash if dropped from even short heights, while the other two consoles were a lot more sturdy (my old TG16 really took a beating and still worked).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Odonadon on August 08, 2006, 04:38:12 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
Quote from: "Odonadon"
I'm going to have to dispute this - the Genesis is the coolest looking console (probably of all time) :)
Perhaps, but the case design lends very little to its technical ability...actually, even that's questionable...the poor old Genny tended to smash if dropped from even short heights, while the other two consoles were a lot more sturdy (my old TG16 really took a beating and still worked).
Well that I won't dispute. I didn't say it was a technical advantage :)
Grahf, I don't know how you can compare the Super Famicom with the Mega Drive for looks!? The Famicoms have always been on the ugly side.
OD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 08, 2006, 06:41:10 PM
I don't know what you consider a short height, but the first model Genesis was just as sturdily built as the other 2 systems. The second one was much cheaper though.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 08, 2006, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
...the poor old Genny tended to smash if dropped from even short heights, while the other two consoles were a lot more sturdy (my old TG16 really took a beating and still worked).
Back in the day I often used to bang my fist against my Genesis 1 (launch unit) when I got angry at a game because it wouldn't let me win or was being unfair. I have zero tolerance when things do not go my way, especially again and again and again. Obviously violence is the only answer. My Genesis has nary a scratch to this day! I had to replace my TurboGrafx CD player, though (for free under warranty). I have since learned not to beat up the systems, but instead innocent people nearby. Much more gratifying, but I have to be careful that my parole officer doesn't catch me. :D
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 09, 2006, 02:23:23 AM
People actually managed to destroy their Mega Drives? I'm amazed! That thing is like ... invincible! The Duo-R, on the other hand... wow. That has to be the cheapest thing ever!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 09, 2006, 02:49:30 AM
I tend to not hit my video game systems because it costs me money to get the systems. I think the Super NES should be named the most durable because it has the thickest plastic around. The plastic is around ten times thicker than the NES' plastic.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: grahf on August 09, 2006, 03:34:09 AM
All cd based systems are going to be more fragile than cartridge based ones, for the most part. Anything with tiny moving parts is going to wear and break easily. Try dropping a duo and a ps2 from 2 feet. See which one survives.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 09, 2006, 03:58:39 AM
but if you drop both, none will survive.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 09, 2006, 04:07:10 AM
Someone tripped on the cables for my Gamecube so it smashed into the floor . Nothing happened to it.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: sunteam_paul on August 09, 2006, 06:49:09 AM
I swear you could beat beat an army of men to death with a Sega Master System, then use it as a battering ram and snowboard down a mountain on it and it would still work. SMS is built like a brick.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 09, 2006, 09:13:56 AM
I'm not one of those guys who likes to test a system's durability unless I have ten of them. I am a gamer who has standards of system condition, which makes me as a collector, I guess. Most of my games are played by me and not sealed. I have a handful of sealed copies of games that I play. Some happened by accident like birthday presents, while others because I ordered them before buying a system that came bundled with it.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: handygrafx on August 09, 2006, 10:23:22 AM
peonpiate: this is a tough subject to say definitively.
all three consoles have various strengths and weaknesses.
the PC-Engine was out first (1987) the SNES came out 3 years later in Japan.
certainly the PC-Engine's on-screen simultaneous color capabilities are far superior to that of the Genesis, released in 1988 in Japan (as the MegaDrive) which must have been very embarrasing for SEGA since overall, the MD-Genesis is more powerful than the PC-Engine (CPU, Sprites, Audio). how Sega could end up with a mere fraction of the on-screen colors compared to the PC-Engine ( 64 vs hundreds) is beyond me.
only with the arrival of the 32X upgrade in 1994, a 32-bit machine, did Sega have the ability to paint more colors on the screen in hardware (without resorting to tricks like HAM), than NEC-Hudson's consoles.
IMO, the MegaDrive / Genesis should've had the same color capability as its big arcade brother, the System16 board; which could do something like 1500~2048 colors on-screen out of 32,768 possible. Also, Sega should've not cut out the scaling chip that was originally supposedly supposed to be in the MD-Genesis. We had to wait until 1991-1992 when the SegaCD added full hardware scaling & rotation.
in the end, there is no clear complete winner in hardware, even when adding in the souped up PC-Engine, the SuperGrafx.
the only hardware that's clearly superior to all of them is the NEO-GEO, minus a couple of effects that NEO-GEO did not have that SNES did, which could be made up in software thanks to NEO-GEO's fast CPU.
I wish NEC-Hudson had released a real 16-bit PC-Engine 2 that competed with the NEO-GEO technically, but at an affordable price.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 09, 2006, 10:26:19 AM
Games like Light Crusader would be impossible to do on the PC Engine.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 09, 2006, 12:40:10 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Games like Light Crusader would be impossible to do on the PC Engine.
Although I can see how some people might pick out particular titles that they feel would be hard to pull off on a different system, why do you think Light Crusader would be impossible to do on the PC Engine?
It seems to me to be a very un-Megadrivey game that if anything, would be easier for the PC Engine. I never played too far into it, but is there like a cool side-scrolling section later on with like 20 layers of parallax or something?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 09, 2006, 01:05:16 PM
Quote
the only hardware that's clearly superior to all of them is the NEO-GEO, minus a couple of effects that NEO-GEO did not have that SNES did, which could be made up in software thanks to NEO-GEO's fast CPU.
I am a big Neo Geo fan and I love my AES and its pricey games. But it is kind of interesting to compare the machine to the SNES and even the Sega CD. Obviously the Neo kills the SNES with its speed. And even though the Neo Geo had twice as many colors to choose from than the SNES and could put 16 times as many onscreen simultaneously (4,096 vs 256), Neo Geo games didn't often look a great deal more colorful than SNES games. I don't think I've ever seen any Neo Geo game with over 512 simulataneous colors in any part. On a side note, Space Harrier's option screen for the 32X has 4,221 simultaneous colors. Also I've never seen the Neo Geo do anything like Mode 7 (scaling with actual perspectives). Nor have I seen it do rotation. Compared to the Sega CD's scaling and rotation capabilities, the Neo Geo has never done anything even remotely approaching the quality of the scaling and rotation in Batman Returns (driving sequences) and Soul Star.
In my opinion, the Neo Geo is what the stand-alone Mega Drive should have been in the first place.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 09, 2006, 01:36:54 PM
I've never seen a PCE game that makes me go "wow", I think they all look either like early Mega Drive games or late NES games. I'm talking about graphics here. Show me one awesome-looking PCE game right here and now:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 09, 2006, 01:53:07 PM
Now when you say PC-Engine, do you mean without any cd-rom and upgrade cards?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 09, 2006, 01:59:00 PM
My friend was borrowing a DUO unit from another friend who went to boot camp (he was older than us). I swear that Duo went flying and crash into the floor more than ten times, still works to this day. The Duo card was short and his dog would come running out of nowhere and not the unit from about 3 feet off the ground. I was amazed to say the least and I also hated that dog to this day.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 09, 2006, 02:05:10 PM
Quote from: "takashirose"
Now when you say PC-Engine, do you mean without any cd-rom and upgrade cards?
Yes, but I'd like to see the prettiest CD games and games using various accessories too.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Nemo on August 09, 2006, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Games like Light Crusader would be impossible to do on the PC Engine.
In what regard? And Gotzendiener is the closest thing I've seen to LC (not that it really matters since I don't like LC to begin with :lol: ).
Quote from: "Seldane"
I've never seen a PCE game that makes me go "wow", I think they all look either like early Mega Drive games or late NES games. I'm talking about graphics here. Show me one awesome-looking PCE game right here and now:
Sapphire, though that the soundtrack are the only things that it has going for it.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 09, 2006, 02:20:24 PM
Well you could say that Lords of Thunder and gate of Thunder are one of the pretiest Super Cd-Rom games and don't forget Dracula X. Strider using the Arcade is very pretty. SuperGrafx's Daimakaimura. A lot of the Hu card ports of genesis games look better than on the genesis. But do you really care?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 09, 2006, 02:36:05 PM
Quote from: "takashirose"
A lot of the Hu card ports of genesis games look better than on the genesis.
Perhaps, but they never looked good in the first place. :wink:
Yep I care. Interesting to see the most graphically impressive games on various systems. But I don't think Dracula X looks that nice. Not as nice as Castlevania The New Generation on MD.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 09, 2006, 02:44:44 PM
You're telling me that Castlevania on the Genesis/MD looks better than Dracula X on the PC-Engine Super CD-Rom2? I doubt it. Especially the amounts of colour. Though I do like and have the MD Castlevania, which I like.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 09, 2006, 04:31:49 PM
I'd agree with Seldane, Castlevania Bloodlines looks much better than Dracula X. Drac X was a nice looking game, but Bloodlines just has way more stuff going on. Same with Contra, the Genesis Contra absolutely smokes the SNES Contra in every way. Konami really knew what they were doing on the few Genesis games they made, their graphics were always pretty phenominal.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 09, 2006, 06:12:59 PM
Quote
But I don't think Dracula X looks that nice. Not as nice as Castlevania The New Generation on MD.
I am a huge Genesis fan. In fact some moron on this forum said that I "hate everything except Genesis" after reading my article comparing Devil's Crush and Dragon's Fury over on Sega-16. When Dracula X was first released for the PC Engine in Japan, I bought it right away and played through it to 100%. I loved it. After that is when Castlevania Bloodlines came out for the Genesis. It looked so bad in comparison to what I was used to with Dracula X (I refuse to call it "Rhondo" because that just sounds super-mega retarded). Bloodlines has better visual effects than Dracula X with the psuedo-rotation, reflections and whatnot, but the actual design and artwork was so much better in Dracula X. I don't attribute that to the PCE's power or abilities, but the designers of said games. Don't get me wrong, I freakin' love Bloodlines and it is better from a technical standpoint, but not an aesthetic one in my opinion. Kind of like SNES sound. Technically it is better than the Genesis, but to me most SNES games sound extremely muffled with next to no high-end or treble. I prefer Genesis sound aesthetically.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on August 09, 2006, 07:16:36 PM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
I don't attribute that to the PCE's power or abilities, but the designers of said games. Don't get me wrong, I freakin' love Bloodlines and it is better from a technical standpoint, but not an aesthetic one in my opinion. Kind of like SNES sound. Technically it is better than the Genesis, but to me most SNES games sound extremely muffled with next to no high-end or treble. I prefer Genesis sound aesthetically.
Indeed, but I'd say SNES suffers from lack of bass, if anything.
To follow-up on a minor point: As I've said in the past, the SNES often sounds "too perfect" and "too polished" for me... I guess I like my chip tunes a little more "raw". Perhaps we should dig up the old thread if we want to discuss music, but I prefer most NES / Famicom tunes over SNES tunes. The limitations of the older hardware was a "virtue" as far as my tastes are concerned. Don't get me wrong, I actually love SNES soundtracks in-and-of-themselves, but they can't compete with the tunes pumped out by the aforementioned consoles, IMO. :)
On nice-looking games: I always thought "Legendary Axe II" had some of the nicest, most polished graphics in the PCE library. I don't think this game would make Seldane go "wow!", but I thought I'd mention it. Even if you think the character designs are goofy, do you think the graphics are impressive? It's OK to laugh at me :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 10, 2006, 03:13:45 AM
Yeah, Legendary Axe II looks pretty nice. Definitely one of the nicest-looking PCE games I've seen, but it's not really "impressive."
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 10, 2006, 03:56:38 AM
It depends what is "impressive." For me when I booted up "Gate of Thunder" for the very first time, I thought, "WOW!" They don't make this anymore. they should have remade Lords of thunder as a Sega 32X CD game. Now that would have been impressive. It would have blown the original away.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: torgo on August 10, 2006, 04:08:49 AM
Not really. The 32X's color palette "technically" was better than the Duo, but in reality the TG16 still blew it away graphically. I believe only one or 2 games ever used both processors, and most never used the Genesis hardware except for sound channels. The Lords of Thunder for the Sega CD didn't compare at all, and a 32X version wouldn't have been much better.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 10, 2006, 04:14:59 AM
If people knew how to use the 32X, it would have been good. They did an arcade perfect Space Harrier on the 32X, but that game was already old by then. I love the hard rock music on the Cd games for the TurboGrafx/Duo. Regardless of graphics it's the music that always blows me away. When I find a tune in a game that is memorable like in gate of Thunder, that means it's that good. I love music. You could have the best graphics, but if the music's bad, then all the fun is sucked out. Imagine if gate of Thunder was techno. Not the same.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 10, 2006, 04:26:50 AM
Quote
I believe only one or 2 [32X] games ever used both processors, and most never used the Genesis hardware except for sound channels.
Are you kidding? I think most 32X games used the 68000 as the main CPU and barely used the 32X at all. This is because Sega sent out incomplete development kits for the 32X games, which didn't allow most companies to take much advantage of the unit.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 10, 2006, 05:47:11 AM
I was extremely impressed by the graphics in LA2 the first time I popped it into my TG. To that point, it had the best graphics of any game I'd played on any console. Granted, no game on the PCE will blow you away graphically these days...no game for ANY 16-bit console will.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 10, 2006, 07:00:07 AM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
no game for ANY 16-bit console will.
For me it does. A nice-looking 16-bit game is much more impressive than a nice-looking PS2 game in my opinion. Donkey Kong Country 2 & 3 will never stop amazing me.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: takashirose on August 10, 2006, 08:33:50 AM
A game like gate of Thunder could still blow me away. I just have to look at it at a different perspective.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 10, 2006, 12:17:50 PM
When I first played GOT, I was very impressed. My friend at the time who had a Sega CD immediately went out and bought a DUO after playing it. To this day he's a Duo fan. His favorite cartridge system is the Genesis, but his favorite CD system is the Duo - for 16bit era. I might catch some flak for this comment, but to me - the Sega Saturn was the next generation Duo/PCE-SCD. It has that Duo spirit.
Back to Duo. GOT is pretty impressive in comparison to other titles on the system, but did not push the system to its limits. The load times are short, the graphics are great, the action is non-stop, each enemy/sprite has a good amount of frames, nice use of parallax scrolls, etc. BUT, Lords of Thunder is technically superior to GOT.
For MegaDrive, I think the most impressive game for me was Gaiares - might be my fav shooter of all time. Gunstar heroes and ThunderForce4 are in the top list. Exranza had some impressive parts, but not overall. I wasn't impressed with Revenge of Shinobi - I perfer Ninja Spirit over it even though they are completely different games.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 10, 2006, 12:23:23 PM
I'm actually pretty sure I read something about that years ago about pc engine owners selecting the saturn as their next gaming system..
I kinda think thats reflected on the software companies that went to produce/publish games on it.
Plus just like the pc engine the Saturn was also home to a lot of anime games.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: guyjin on August 10, 2006, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: "takashirose"
If people knew how to use the 32X, it would have been good. They did an arcade perfect Space Harrier on the 32X, but that game was already old by then.
The 32X space harrier (and the later saturn version) while good, are not arcade perfect.
The biggest difference I can think of is the 'bush bug', where harry does not collide with bushes on the ground like he should.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 10, 2006, 05:35:32 PM
I am probably one of the biggest Space Harrier fans in the world. The 32X version is close but not quite perfect. The frame rate stutters and the game is masked off on the top and the bottom. I notice no difference when Harrier runs into a bush though. He still trips and says "ouch!", just like the arcade. The Saturn version is arcade exact unless you get super anal and pick out things like "There are no coin slots on my Saturn and the arcade didn't have an options screen and you couldn't pause the arcade so therefore it is not exactly the same!"
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 11, 2006, 10:27:13 AM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
The Saturn version is arcade exact unless you get super anal and pick out things like "There are no coin slots on my Saturn and the arcade didn't have an options screen and you couldn't pause the arcade so therefore it is not exactly the same!"
Anyone who says such things needs to be hung by their coin finger to a broken Pac-Man machine.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 11, 2006, 11:13:32 AM
haha I used to to be really dissapointed with the PCE version of Space Harrier not having the checkerboard effect on the ground..
but speaking of graphics I'm still amazed with magical chase and super star soldier
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 14, 2006, 03:49:56 AM
Quote from: "peonpiate"
its sound isnt to far off from the genesis though snes murders them both in that area.
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
Murders? I completely disagree. I am a big fan of the TurboGrafx-style of sound (mostly just tone buzzes and whatnot, but still pleasant), but the Genesis has better sound capability as well as cleaner digitized sound reproduction. There isn't anything on the TG-16 that sounds anywhere near as good as the music from Streets of Rage 1 and 2. The SNES has fewer sound channels than the Genesis, but better hardware to make that sound. It sounds better for the most part, but the SNES still sounds like a 16-bit cartridge. The difference isn't mindblowing, and I really hate the overused SNES reverb effect. This all is kind of subjective here.
I was listening to the music HES file of the pc engine version of Batman and I gotta say thats pretty amazing.. I just wished that Sunsoft made a better game and made more music tracks.. but I'm pretty sure you will be blown away with the music on this game too as well as Hudson's Soldier and Gunhed/blazing lazers games).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 14, 2006, 06:26:23 AM
The quality of music hardware is only reflected by the skill level of the musicians that program it. There are a good number of SNES games with terrible soundtracks, despite having a technically superior music processor.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 14, 2006, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: "torgo"
Not really. The 32X's color palette "technically" was better than the Duo, but in reality the TG16 still blew it away graphically. I believe only one or 2 games ever used both processors, and most never used the Genesis hardware except for sound channels. The Lords of Thunder for the Sega CD didn't compare at all, and a 32X version wouldn't have been much better.
Hold on a second, did you just say that the Sega version "doesn't even compare!"? :lol:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 14, 2006, 03:30:26 PM
It DOESN'T compare...I have both versions myself and the Sega CD version of LoT is so subpar versus even the US release, it's not even funny. It's a shame such a beautiful game would be reduced to such a flickery, slowdown-prone overdithered washed-out-looking game that was missing a few things, was too easy, and overall felt "cheapened" by the weird, amateur effects they used in parts of it. If you'd never played the original, then sure, the Sega CD version would probably be quite the kickass game, but compare it to the original and it falls on its face.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 15, 2006, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
It DOESN'T compare...I have both versions myself and the Sega CD version of LoT is so subpar versus even the US release, it's not even funny. It's a shame such a beautiful game would be reduced to such a flickery, slowdown-prone overdithered washed-out-looking game that was missing a few things, was too easy, and overall felt "cheapened" by the weird, amateur effects they used in parts of it. If you'd never played the original, then sure, the Sega CD version would probably be quite the kickass game, but compare it to the original and it falls on its face.
So, basically you're saying that the Turbo version has the arcade feel and is much more intense?
Not to mention that the Turbo version was available before SEGA's was...
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: grahf on August 15, 2006, 05:35:14 PM
haha, that Lords of Thunder promo is awesome. On the subject of promotional videos (and snes), did anyone else receive the Donkey Kong Country promo video in the early 90s? I stumbled across it on google, and it brought back memories. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7511271855512729880&q=donkey+kong+country
"Its like, totally awesome dude!"
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 15, 2006, 05:52:40 PM
Haha at Black_Tiger, awesome, I actually laughed out loud at that. Good times!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 15, 2006, 08:02:35 PM
Quote
"doesn't even compare!"
ahhh, good to hear Tallerico-isms making their way through the net. Live on, Tallerico-isms! Live free..
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 16, 2006, 02:43:16 AM
Quote from: "grahf"
haha, that Lords of Thunder promo is awesome. On the subject of promotional videos (and snes), did anyone else receive the Donkey Kong Country promo video in the early 90s? I stumbled across it on google, and it brought back memories. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7511271855512729880&q=donkey+kong+country
"Its like, totally awesome dude!"
I got one, even though my subscription to Nintendo Power had expired years earlier.
I think that I recieved other spam from Nintendo through the mail over the years as well.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Odonadon on August 16, 2006, 01:13:55 PM
Quote from: "malducci"
Quote
"doesn't even compare!"
ahhh, good to hear Tallerico-isms making their way through the net. Live on, Tallerico-isms! Live free..
Somebody watches a lot of EP... :)
OD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on August 18, 2006, 09:48:20 PM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
I think that I recieved other spam from Nintendo through the mail over the years as well.
Killer Kutz (Cuts? Kuts?) anyone? It was a music CD for some SNES game whose title escapes me at the moment. Generic techno/dance tracks from what I recall... but I must admit I am curious as to how I would rate the music nowadays. I kinda wish I kept it, if only to rekindle a loathing for it.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 19, 2006, 02:20:54 AM
Quote from: "stevek666"
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
I think that I recieved other spam from Nintendo through the mail over the years as well.
Killer Kutz (Cuts? Kuts?) anyone? It was a music CD for some SNES game whose title escapes me at the moment. Generic techno/dance tracks from what I recall... but I must admit I am curious as to how I would rate the music nowadays. I kinda wish I kept it, if only to rekindle a loathing for it.
Killer Kuts is the OST for Killer Instinct. It came with the game, but I don't recall anyone getting it as regular Nintendo spam.
I have it. Its hella rare. I'll sell it to you for $180. OOP, MIB, WTF!
I had a VHS tape they sent me to promote Diddy Kong Racing. It was narated by John Lovitz, I think. I eventually chucked it. Stupid I guess, I clearly could have gotten $375 for it on eBay.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 19, 2006, 03:11:37 AM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
So, basically you're saying that the Turbo version has the arcade feel and is much more intense?
Neither version had a true arcade feel, but then again, you don't get the arcade feel even from playing MAME on your computer. :D But yes though, the original is a lot more intense for sure, it's way more challenging and the music is a lot better.
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
Not to mention that the Turbo version was available before SEGA's was...
Inconsequential. The PCE/TG version of Exile was made before the Genesis version and is far FAR superior. A similar comparison could be made for both console's versions of Cadash.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 19, 2006, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
The PCE/TG version of Exile was made before the Genesis version and is far FAR superior. A similar comparison could be made for both console's versions of Cadash.
And yet, both are horrible, super ugly games and they don't take advantage of their hardware at all. Both of them look like NES games.
I'm talking about both the PCE and MD versions.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 19, 2006, 05:27:27 AM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
Neither version had a true arcade feel, but then again, you don't get the arcade feel even from playing MAME on your computer. :D But yes though, the original is a lot more intense for sure, it's way more challenging and the music is a lot better.
I've heard this before, and I always wondered how this could be the case. Its LoT we are talking about, right? The game with CD music?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 19, 2006, 05:30:52 AM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
The quality of music hardware is only reflected by the skill level of the musicians that program it. There are a good number of SNES games with terrible soundtracks, despite having a technically superior music processor.
Well, honestly, part of a musician's tallent lies in choosing the right instrument. The score of FFVI wouldn't impress anyone on the MD, and it isn't because its a mediocre score. Uematsu, and the rest of his company, chose the SFC, and it was a good choice.
I do see what you are saying. Stage 2 of Aeroblasters would sound good on just about anything.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 19, 2006, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
I've heard this before, and I always wondered how this could be the case. Its LoT we are talking about, right? The game with CD music?
Yes, LoT.
Quote from: "Seldane"
And yet, both are horrible, super ugly games and they don't take advantage of their hardware at all. Both of them look like NES games.
Neither of them look like NES games but neither of them are very spectacular either. None of them are horrible unless you're a "ZOMG DIS GAEM GOTSTA HAEV DA BESTEST GFX OR ELZ IT IS TEH SUX0RZ" kind of gamer...
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 19, 2006, 05:07:18 PM
Quote
Both of them look like NES games
:shock: If you can't tell the difference between Exile graphics and other NES games, then I suggest some new glasses :lol:
Seriously though, Exile has some good-to-nice graphics.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 19, 2006, 05:23:17 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
I've heard this before, and I always wondered how this could be the case. Its LoT we are talking about, right? The game with CD music?
Yes, LoT.
OK, so what's the difference?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 20, 2006, 10:56:31 AM
He he, at this board, the PCE fanboys are protecting their system, and at the Sega boards (click) (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1655) the Sega fanboys are protecting their system. I find it rather amusing that people are still having these fanboy discussions about ancient video game systems.
Xbox 360 vs PS3, sure, but PCE vs MD? :D
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 20, 2006, 12:00:32 PM
Glad I'm not a fanboy then...
SignOfZeta: The Sega CD version of LoT had its difficulty greatly reduced (I guess people thought the original was too hard), the soundtrack was changed (it sounded similar but it was wussed out a lot), the sound effects were quite grating and out-of-balance with the music (easily fixable on an original Sega CD but not so on the model 2 setup), there were a few things taken out (probably to aid in reducing the difficulty), and the graphics...this is where it took a dump...dithering everywhere because they couldn't keep up with the original's colour spec, and the game had a lot of flicker (especially in the ice level) and quite a bit of slowdown (especially in the underwater level). Even on "Super" difficulty, I had no problem whipping the Sega CD version's ass seven ways till Sunday. I've yet to beat the original version on Super.
What really kills the Sega CD version for me isn't the gross dithering, the weak-ass soundtrack, the unbalanced sound effects, the slowdown, or the flicker...it's the wimpy difficulty. The game is a cakewalk. The original version WILL hand you your ass on Super even if you're good, but if you know the game (if you can beat Hard on the original without breaking something), you can crush Super on the Sega CD version without breaking a sweat.
And yes...I own both versions.
There's only one other very minor gripe about the Sega CD version...where's the friggin credit scroll at the end??? :shock:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 20, 2006, 12:43:05 PM
That "ary incorparated" is a complete idiot. I can not understand half of what he's written on that board.
It's a cool board - with a few MD vs SNES gripes. The genesis(cart) has good amount of awesome titles, but snes is better overall - not taking tech specs into account but just quality and fun games.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 20, 2006, 01:09:54 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
Glad I'm not a fanboy then...
SignOfZeta: The Sega CD version of LoT had its difficulty greatly reduced (I guess people thought the original was too hard), the soundtrack was changed (it sounded similar but it was wussed out a lot)...
I know about all that other stuff, I'm just trying to figure out what went on with the music. Is is a different soundtrack? Is it too quiet, or what?
Since both systems just play the music from audio sections of the CD, I'm trying to understantd WTF could have possibly happened. If you put each game in a CD player and just play the tracks as audio CDs, do they sound different?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 20, 2006, 01:48:10 PM
It's a different soundtrack...basically, all the soundtracks were remade. The tracks are all basically the same, but the "newer" versions are just very weak compared to the original ones. I guess you could say that the Sega CD had lower-quality covers of the original tracks....compare the tracks on Kidz Bop to the originals...the Sega CD version is the Kidz Bop. :D
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Odonadon on August 20, 2006, 02:17:50 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
compare the tracks on Kidz Bop to the originals...the Sega CD version is the Kidz Bop. :D
LOL - great comparison. :)
OD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 20, 2006, 03:05:16 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
...the Sega CD version is the Kidz Bop. :D
Oh that is for shit. I wonder why they did that? My guess would be that T's Music would need to be payed again, and Hudson cheaped out. Pretty terrible, IMO. That sort of thing would really weaken LoT.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 20, 2006, 03:05:24 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
So, basically you're saying that the Turbo version has the arcade feel and is much more intense?
Neither version had a true arcade feel, but then again, you don't get the arcade feel even from playing MAME on your computer. :D But yes though, the original is a lot more intense for sure, it's way more challenging and the music is a lot better.
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
Not to mention that the Turbo version was available before SEGA's was...
Inconsequential. The PCE/TG version of Exile was made before the Genesis version and is far FAR superior. A similar comparison could be made for both console's versions of Cadash.
Plus the Sega-CD version doesn't even work without the Genesis system. 8)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 20, 2006, 04:58:16 PM
You know what the Turbo CD never had was a good Dragon's Lair animated FMV game like Road Avenger or Revenge of the Ninja. I wonder if a game like that was even possible on the CD? It seems like they would have made at least one game like that for it (I mean other than those JB Harold & Sherlock holmes games which don't really count because the video playback is so bad).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 20, 2006, 05:37:46 PM
I dunno, I'd say probably not since the Sega CD had hardware assist for FMV unlike the PCE CD system. Gulliver Boy has the best video on PCE CD (with Yuna bonus CD being as very close second), but still not full screen.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 20, 2006, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: "GUTS"
You know what the Turbo CD never had was a good Dragon's Lair animated FMV game like Road Avenger or Revenge of the Ninja. I wonder if a game like that was even possible on the CD? It seems like they would have made at least one game like that for it (I mean other than those JB Harold & Sherlock holmes games which don't really count because the video playback is so bad).
Gunbuster came pretty close, but animated everything in realtime and (from what I remember) had cinemas, so it wasn't just non-stop 1-of-4-directions-pushing.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 20, 2006, 05:43:42 PM
Quote from: "malducci"
I dunno, I'd say probably not since the Sega CD had hardware assist for FMV unlike the PCE CD system. Gulliver Boy has the best video on PCE CD (with Yuna bonus CD being as very close second), but still not full screen.
What hardware assistance does the Sega-CD have other than 6 megs of ram?
Although I know that there are other bottle-necks involved, wouldn't the Arcade Card's 18 megs allow for some decent fmv?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 20, 2006, 07:18:00 PM
Quote
other than those JB Harold & Sherlock holmes games which don't really count because the video playback is so bad
JB Harold didn't feature any video playback at all, only digitized stills. This is a common misconception that I think maybe even NEC made in their advertisings if I remember.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 20, 2006, 07:29:16 PM
Quote
What hardware assistance does the Sega-CD have other than 6 megs of ram?
The SegaCDs additional CPU (68000 @ 12.5mhz) can stream data from the CD and decode the compression scheme while the main CPU is free to do other tasks. The SegaCD CPU can also do tasks the main CPU normally does(and faster) or work simultaneously with it. It's a pretty powerful setup.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 21, 2006, 12:12:06 AM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
Although I know that there are other bottle-necks involved, wouldn't the Arcade Card's 18 megs allow for some decent fmv?
Yeah, it does, which is why 3x3 eyes has such nice FMV. Its still not full screen though. Even most of the 32-bit machines didn't have full screen FMV.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 21, 2006, 02:01:18 AM
Quote from: "malducci"
Quote
What hardware assistance does the Sega-CD have other than 6 megs of ram?
The SegaCDs additional CPU (68000 @ 12.5mhz) can stream data from the CD and decode the compression scheme while the main CPU is free to do other tasks. The SegaCD CPU can also do tasks the main CPU normally does(and faster) or work simultaneously with it. It's a pretty powerful setup.
You know, I had always thought that the Sega-CD only raised the Genesis to 12.5mhz. Even though I'm again assuming that it's not as simple as it functioning as a second suped-up Genesis(bottlenecks, eblah, blah, blah...), that's still a lot of processor speed.
Sega must've either restricted how the Sega-CD's resources could be used(ala Supergrafx) or come up with some real bunk development libraries, 'cause that's a lot of processing speed.
After looking up it's specs again, I saw that supposedly, only one game used full screen fmv. I'm assuming then that all the other games that I seem to remember looking full screen were scaled up. Which would be another fmv assisting hardware advantage of the Sega-CD.
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
Yeah, it does, which is why 3x3 eyes has such nice FMV. Its still not full screen though. Even most of the 32-bit machines didn't have full screen FMV.
So 3x3 Eyes actually has real fmv? I thought that it was all realtime cinemas.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 21, 2006, 02:53:33 AM
Quote
Yeah, it does, which is why 3x3 eyes has such nice FMV. Its still not full screen though. Even most of the 32-bit machines didn't have full screen FMV.
Ehh.. I wouldn't consider it FMV - more like really fluid animation stored in the AC memory. FMV is streamed to the video display in realtime. 3x3 eyes doesn't do this. SignOfZeta, check out Gulliver Boy. Now that's impressive.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 21, 2006, 04:27:11 AM
Quote
Sega must've either restricted how the Sega-CD's resources could be used(ala Supergrafx) or come up with some real bunk development libraries, 'cause that's a lot of processing speed.
I think probably both. They did it with the 32X, too. Although somehow Core was able to find the correct path to the scaling chip inside the unit with Soul Star, Thunder Hawk/Strike, etc. I think there might be an option #3... the machine was a bitch to work with (which of course is beget by the first two scenarios).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: grahf on August 21, 2006, 07:34:26 AM
Quote from: "malducci"
Ehh.. I wouldn't consider it FMV - more like really fluid animation stored in the AC memory. FMV is streamed to the video display in realtime. 3x3 eyes doesn't do this. SignOfZeta, check out Gulliver Boy. Now that's impressive.
Besides the huvideo, is the game itself any good? I actually just bought a copy on the cheap.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 21, 2006, 09:03:34 AM
Holy shit yeah, Core was able to pump out some amazing visuals in their Sega CD games. Soulstar looks absolutely incredible for a 16bit game, Sega should really have funded those guys to make some first party games and they probably wouldn't have had to release the 32x. Hell Soulstar looks better than most of the 32x games in my opinion.
I'll have to check out Gulliver Boy, I've always wanted to play a Duo game with actual FMV for some reason. I remember reading that Hudson had come up with some impressive video compression scheme or something called HuVideo for that game and at least one more.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 21, 2006, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: "grahf"
Quote from: "malducci"
Ehh.. I wouldn't consider it FMV - more like really fluid animation stored in the AC memory. FMV is streamed to the video display in realtime. 3x3 eyes doesn't do this. SignOfZeta, check out Gulliver Boy. Now that's impressive.
Besides the huvideo, is the game itself any good? I actually just bought a copy on the cheap.
Gulliver Boy is an awesome game. It's a Hudson/RED deal like the Tengai Makyou, Bonk and 'Thunder series'. Its hard to get through(I made it far and then got stuck) because it's fairly non-linear, but its fun.
There's a scene where you wind up in a colloseum and have to battle your way out in a mech which you ram through enemies Ys style.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: grahf on August 21, 2006, 12:19:07 PM
Sounds pretty good. Is it heavy on kanji? I can handle hiragana and katakana, but i only know about 1% kanji :P For this reason, i was thinking about trying to play through Tenjai Makyou Zero on SFC instead of Manji or Kabuki, since Zero is pretty devoid of kanji.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 21, 2006, 01:46:24 PM
Quote from: "malducci"
Ehh.. I wouldn't consider it FMV - more like really fluid animation stored in the AC memory. FMV is streamed to the video display in realtime. 3x3 eyes doesn't do this. SignOfZeta, check out Gulliver Boy. Now that's impressive.
If the video comes from RAM, or a disk, its still video. 3x3 eyes definitely has video, and its much more impressive with the AC than when its just running as a Super CD.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 21, 2006, 01:52:46 PM
Quote
Is it heavy on kanji?
If I remember, not anymore than your average '94-95 title. There's a walkthrough for the game - < here (http://pcedev.net/walkthroughs/gulliver_boy.txt) >. I played good amount of game, it has beautiful graphics. I kid you not when I say " super nintendo graphics" - atleast IMO.]
The weird thing is - back in the day I prefered heavily used kanji over hirogana/katakana. To me it was easier to translate as all of the hirogana had not spaces, so I couldn't tell were a word would begin and end. With kanji, the hriogana was used as a prefix or a suffix so it was easer to translate. I still have a few of my translated notes from Xanadu and Ys IV :lol:
Quote
If the video comes from RAM, or a disk, its still video. 3x3 eyes definitely has video, and its much more impressive with the AC than when its just running as a Super CD.
Eveything is video in the end :D But yeah, it's still not FMV - although it's damn fluid. I do have the arcade card, but man it takes for ever to buffer the scenes/animation. I actually like to play this on the emu though as the loading is hellava lot quicker 8)
Edit: Oh yeah, make no mistake - Gulliverboy is on my list of games to translate.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 22, 2006, 03:33:08 PM
Wow, this thread is a mess. I'll briefly sum up my thoughts on all the subjects talked about in this thread :D .
1. ) "Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?" - Most definitely, malducci and nodtveidt's posts give proof of that and shows how the PCE also has some advantages over both.
2. ) Memory expansions - PCE was far from being a failure in Japan and the reason it failed in the USA really had nothing to do with the memory expansions. In fact, the memory expansions for the PCE only helped it more in Japan, with the exception of the Arcade Card maybe. Memory expansions also didn't hurt the N64 sales either and the N64 still lived on quite well.
3. ) Sega CD - Sega CD is awesome. Lots of neat shooters and RPGs for it and if you are into cheese like me, you have a shit load of FMV titles to enjoy :) .
4. ) Best looking console - For me it's a tie between NES and PCE with CDROM2 briefcase. 80's-tastic.
5. ) Sturdiest console - Model 1 Genesis' are pretty good (though I have had a couple problems with them before), but the model 2's are absolute shite. My PCE and Duo have worked great ever since I got them. I only have a second model SNES, which has a couple of annoying problems, but I imagine the original models are a lot better.
6. ) Impressive-looking PC Engine games - There's plenty, here's a small list: Bomberman '94, Gates of Thunder (level 3, 5, 6 especially. They have my favorite backgrounds than any shooter), Lords of Thunder, Sapphire, Ys IV, Dodge Danpei, Shape Shifter, both Legend of Xanadus.
7. ) Legendary Axe II graphics - I always admired the unique graphic style in this game a lot.
8. ) Black_Tiger's Johnny Turbo references - lol
9. ) Exile has NES-level graphics - Big lol. I really like the graphics in the Turbo version of Exile, especially the parts with waterfalls but saying it looks like NES graphics is sooooo wrong :lol: . The Genesis version looks a lot worse than the Turbo version but it's still definitely a lot above NES level.
10. ) FMV Games - Everyone knows I love to play these, but what makes me mad is how everyone will STRONGLY diss a FMV game like Sewer Shark, yet rate a game like Revenge of the Ninja so awesomely when they essentially share the same gameplay. I know most people won't find Sewer Shark's style as appealing as Revenge of the Ninja, but c'mon you should at least respect it somewhat if you are going to rate Revenge of the Ninja or Dragon's Lair so high :( .
11. ) Gulliver Boy - Wow I didn't know this game used FMV and thanks for making this game sound sweet. I will have to check this game out now.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 22, 2006, 06:29:54 PM
Sewer Shark is an ugly mess, if I'm going to watch video and press a button every few seconds I want something cool to look at, not the same length of grainy sewer over and over. The Sega CD version of Road Avenger is the BEST fmv game ever made, btw. Nothing is cooler than that intro song, it gets me so pumped to get revenge.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 22, 2006, 07:44:21 PM
I think Sewer Shark is cool to look at and it's hilariously cheesy. I like Revenge of the Ninja as well, but I prefer Shark's cheesy style over it any day.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 22, 2006, 10:09:07 PM
Quote from: "GUTS"
Sewer Shark is an ugly mess, if I'm going to watch video and press a button every few seconds I want something cool to look at, not the same length of grainy sewer over and over. The Sega CD version of Road Avenger is the BEST fmv game ever made, btw. Nothing is cooler than that intro song, it gets me so pumped to get revenge.
Agreed on all counts. Road Avenger makes me play it again and again because it is so "crazy insane". Driving through hotels and whatnot plus you destroy several helicoptors before the game ends. I bought the Saturn version which has MUCH weaker audio throughout the game and is also missing the song. I did create a Quicktime video just for fun that uses the Saturn opening video but with the Sega CD audio for the opening song. I also created a DVD for a friend that had a "subtitle" option for the opening lyrics.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 23, 2006, 01:38:18 AM
Quote from: "grahf"
Sounds pretty good. Is it heavy on kanji? I can handle hiragana and katakana, but i only know about 1% kanji :P For this reason, i was thinking about trying to play through Tenjai Makyou Zero on SFC instead of Manji or Kabuki, since Zero is pretty devoid of kanji.
TMII and Kabuki Den are the most Gaijin friendly TM RPG's, language-wise as well as in other aspects.
Both games have large easy to read text with english names(listed at the top of the screen) for pretty much every item written in katakana in the menu screen.
Ziria and Zero use small hiragana for most things and Zero in particular, models it's menues after SNES Final Fantasy's and has the highest number(like 30 to 1) of non-essential items that make it very hard for people without any Japanese language skills.
TMII & Kabuki Den are easier to figure out on your own and are reasonably straight forward. Ziria has some tricky spots that could get you stuck forever without a walkthrough.
Zero is ridiculously non-straight forward. It can be really confusing and overwhelming for real gaijins, compared to TMII and Kabuki Den.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: grahf on August 23, 2006, 02:05:15 AM
thanks for the heads up.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 23, 2006, 03:50:05 AM
Keranu: Why do you think The Legend of Xanadu is graphically impressive? Sure, there are some pretty pictures in it, but in-game - it's an NES game. Looks almost exactly like DQ1-4.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 23, 2006, 04:21:40 AM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
TMII and Kabuki Den are the most Gaijin friendly TM RPG's, language-wise as well as in other aspects.
Both games have large easy to read text with english names(listed at the top of the screen) for pretty much every item written in katakana in the menu screen.
Are we talking about the same games? I have TMII for PCE, and GC, and I have to say its the most Japanese-heavy Japanese RPG I've ever seen.
For a TM game, maybe its not bad, but it's vastly more dificult to play for people with very little Japanese knowlege than, say, Final Fantasy.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 23, 2006, 04:27:20 AM
Quote from: "Seldane"
but in-game - it's an NES game. Looks almost exactly like DQ1-4.
I can't beleive you think that. Sure the chars might be small but in no way does that game look like DQ1-4. Yeah, 3 color sprites from a 64 washed out palette of the nes - that exactly what Xanadu looks like :roll: :lol:
But you're right, it's not awesome :wink: Unless Kenaru was refering to Legend of Xanadu II?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 08:21:07 AM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Keranu: Why do you think The Legend of Xanadu is graphically impressive? Sure, there are some pretty pictures in it, but in-game - it's an NES game. Looks almost exactly like DQ1-4.
Seldane I must ask, have you ever played a NES game :D ? NES games generally use 10-20 colors on screen while I am sure the LoX games are in the 40-70 range and you can easily tell the difference when it comes to games like that. Sorry to pick on you here, but lets do a small comparison :D :
Nice looking overhead NES game (and I even used one of your example, Dragon Warrior IV):
I kind of find it funny how I was able to take a screenshot in Dragon Warrior IV that turned out so similar to the layout of the LoX screenshot :lol: . Anyways, that Dragon Warrior IV screenshot is using 17 colors while the LoX screenshot is using an impressive 85, cleary a huge difference and the difference can easily be seen. Even the nicest looking overhead on Genesis wouldn't be able to look quite as sharp as that LoX screen since it uses 21 more colors than the Genesis can use, but that's a different story.
Here is a comparison of the side scrolling screens using Mario 3, a very nice looking NES game, compared to another LoX screen:
Once again, huge difference but then again these two games have completely different styles. 12 colors for the Mario 3 screenshot and 64 for the LoX one.
Some think LoX2 graphics are even more impressive, but I won't bother throwing in those screenshots for comparison. Also, I have a soft spot for the graphics in the first LoX :) .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 23, 2006, 08:41:11 AM
Okay sure, there are more colors, but design-wise, it looks like an NES game. A Super CD-ROM game from 1994!
Here are some nice overhead Mega Drive games. I find all of these much nicer-looking than LoX: (in fact, LoX doesn't even compare to them)
Hmm, looking at these screenshots, I haven't seen ANY overhead PCE game that looks better than these games. LoX2 and Ys IV are in the same league, but they aren't really better-looking (and they are SCD games!)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 08:47:06 AM
Seldane, you're just crazy - that's all I have to say :lol: . I'm sure I am far from being the only one to think that Legend of Xanadu looks nothing close to a NES game :D .
Nice looking Genesis games, but keep in mind the PCE could handle those with no problems.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 23, 2006, 08:49:54 AM
Quote from: "Keranu"
Nice looking Genesis games, but keep in mind the PCE could handle those with no problems.
Maybe. But why didn't they make any?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 09:00:29 AM
They made plenty, but maybe they just didn't fit the tastes of a certain person located in Sweden (or should I say Esteria instead?) :lol: .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 23, 2006, 09:04:44 AM
Show me. One is enough. :P
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: grahf on August 23, 2006, 11:41:34 AM
One could argue that design-wise, all those genesis games you posted look like NES titles also.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 23, 2006, 12:47:05 PM
Those Genesis games look way better than any overhead Duo game, easily. Beyond Oasis alone is way beyond what the PC Engine was capable of, hell Gotzendeiner is one of the most graphically impressive PC Engine games and it chugs when there are more than a few sprites on screen and they're not even close to as big as the ones in Beyond Oasis.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 23, 2006, 12:54:43 PM
Keranu where are you getting the extra color from in your screen shots? I counted only 16 colors for the NES DQ game (the maximum it could put on the screen out of a total palette of 52) and 84 for the PCE Xanadu game. Granted 1 color isn't a big deal I am just curious what method you are using to count the colors. Maybe your method is counting the transparency channel of the PNG format as a color? By the way the Super Mario 3 shot you posted only has 8 colors, not 12.
Anyway I will admit that most PCE and Turbo overhead games seemed to have more of a "tiled" or "patterned" look than the Genesis and SNES overhead games. Doesn't mean they aren't fun.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Show me. One is enough. :P
No matter what I show you, you might just say it's not good enough for your tastes. It's hard to please everyone's opinions, but the general opinions for the graphics of games like Sapphire is that it looks outstanding. :) It's kind of like a Matrix situation; I can't show you what you are looking for, you'll have to find what it is you are looking for ;) .
Quote from: "GUTS"
Those Genesis games look way better than any overhead Duo game, easily. Beyond Oasis alone is way beyond what the PC Engine was capable of, hell Gotzendeiner is one of the most graphically impressive PC Engine games and it chugs when there are more than a few sprites on screen and they're not even close to as big as the ones in Beyond Oasis.
I believe it's fair enough to say that anything the Genesis can do, the PCE can do, except something like sound since their soundchips are so different. Especially when it comes to colors because the Genesis and PCE palette are very similar from what I know and the PCE doesn't suffer the severe color limitations. 32 colors for background and 32 colors for sprites, ouch.
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
Keranu where are you getting the extra color from in your screen shots? I counted only 16 colors for the NES DQ game (the maximum it could put on the screen out of a total palette of 52) and 84 for the PCE Xanadu game. Granted 1 color isn't a big deal I am just curious what method you are using to count the colors. Maybe your method is counting the transparency channel of the PNG format as a color? By the way the Super Mario 3 shot you posted only has 8 colors, not 12.
Got the color counts from pasting the image into Tile Studio and using the color count tool. It's probably including the invisible colors too, so that's more than likely where the one extra color is coming from.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 23, 2006, 01:54:10 PM
Put the developers of those Genesis games on the PCE hardware and you'd see the same game appearance on the PCE. Why? Because back then, it was all about developer skill, not hardware capabilities. As we've already seen, each of the systems of that generation had their advantages and disadvantages, and that was what this thread was really all about...hardware ability, not the ability of the game developers. Bad or slow algorithms, sloppy code, and a lack of dedication will always affect the product, and the PCE had more of these developers than any of the consoles of that time.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 23, 2006, 02:04:01 PM
What are some good examples of PCE/Turbo overhead games that do NOT feature a tiled or patterned look like Xanadu does? The screenshots don't have to be good enough for me or Seldane or anyone else. I am just curious.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 02:13:32 PM
Anearth Fantasy Stories (Seldane you might want to check this one out for graphics, it looks amazing. It's hard to find screenshots for it though), Fray in Magical Adventure, and Ys IV could qualify for what you are looking for, I guess. It's hard to find overhead games back from then in general that didn't really repeat tiles.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 23, 2006, 03:02:31 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Okay sure, there are more colors, but design-wise, it looks like an NES game. A Super CD-ROM game from 1994!
Here are some nice overhead Mega Drive games. I find all of these much nicer-looking than LoX: (in fact, LoX doesn't even compare to them)
Hmm, looking at these screenshots, I haven't seen ANY overhead PCE game that looks better than these games. LoX2 and Ys IV are in the same league, but they aren't really better-looking (and they are SCD games!)
I still find the original Phantasy Star better looking than the Genesis versions.
Gameplay-wise, I find overhead games in general, especially 3/4 perspective ones, as well as 3D games aren't as good as sidescrolling/2D gameplay.
As for good graphics in an overhead game, -the PC Engine didn't get as many overhead games. It's like comparing Genesis sports games to PC Engine sports games.
If you just want to go by nice looking graphics in general, then even any fanboy has to admit that at the very least, the PC Engine has games with as-good-as anything on Genesis graphics.
And the games in those pics aren't the best examples of Genesis graphics, especially PSIV's overhead. The Genesis has way better looking games art/detail & technical/graphics(cleaned up)-wise. And so does the PC Engine(Magical Chase alone trumps them all).
I could've put up some decent Anearth Fantasy Stories pics, but my Magic Engine key doesn't work anymore and there's more than 5 minutes of people standing around talking at the beginning.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 03:33:21 PM
I took a bunch a good pics of Anearth Fantasy Stories once (which included the battle system, which you can never find pics of online :D ) and emailed them to a friend, but I don't have them saved anymore :( . I can't even remember what the battle system was like in that game, I just remember it looked waaaay cool.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 23, 2006, 03:39:04 PM
I hope some people don't mind me borrowing some of their screenies for this...
ok so we like to look at nice pics then I guess when you come to looking at the pc engine and dismissing it as underpowered you sure don't look hard enough ^__^
haha someone post some genesis screenies of Afterburner and compare it. (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/kwoksta/afterburner.jpg)
games from IREM run in one of the pc engine's higher resolutions. (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/kwoksta/ninjaspirit.jpg)
I sure like to find a genesis/megadrive shooter that looks as nice and colourful as this: (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/kwoksta/parodius.jpg)
or this. (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/kwoksta/twinbee.jpg)
Need I mention the colour of these pc engine's screenies compared to the Genesis/megadrive's...
and as I've said from somewhere else before .. not bad considering the pc engine's cpu isn't much faster than the NES's.. but in terms of graphics its far from the NES..
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: runinruder on August 23, 2006, 03:58:25 PM
Beyond Oasis is the type of crap that seems graphically impressive in screenshots only to reveal itself as graphically limited in action. Yeah, the ogre guy looks really cool when you see him in screens. Then you play the game and realize you have to fight him and two other guys seven hundred freakin' times during a repetitive, mediocre five-hour adventure that forces you to tread through a lot of dull, drab, similar-looking environments. Look at a few screens and you've seen all there is to see. Wow, what a remarkable technological achievement.
Xanadu 2 was the opposite for me in that it looked pretty good in screens, but breathtaking in action. I think its environments contain a lot more beauty and variety than BO's.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 04:06:05 PM
Quote from: "Digi.k"
and as I've said from somewhere else before .. not bad considering the pc engine's cpu isn't much faster than the NES's.. but in terms of graphics its far from the NES..
I hope you don't mind if I correct this, but PCE CPU is a helluva lot faster than NES' and it's close to the speed of the Genesis. In fact, programmers (I am not one, so bare with me) will tell you that the PCE CPU is technically faster than Genesis CPU because it uses less clock cycles or whatever, check out nod's posts in the earlier pages of this thread. Yay for PCE :) .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 23, 2006, 04:18:01 PM
Quote from: "Keranu"
Quote from: "Digi.k"
and as I've said from somewhere else before .. not bad considering the pc engine's cpu isn't much faster than the NES's.. but in terms of graphics its far from the NES..
I hope you don't mind if I correct this, but PCE CPU is a helluva lot faster than NES' and it's close to the speed of the Genesis. In fact, programmers (I am not one, so bare with me) will tell you that the PCE CPU is technically faster than Genesis CPU because it uses less clock cycles or whatever, check out nod's posts in the earlier pages of this thread. Yay for PCE :) .
ok thats cool with me, thats another plus that the pc engine has over the genny.
I think im gonna post some more games tomorrow.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 23, 2006, 04:40:47 PM
Beyond Oasis absolutely smokes Xanadu, I'll take similar looking environments over ridiculous amounts of fetch quests and crappy tiled overhead view graphics anyday. Now compared to say BLOOD GEAR it's not even a contest, BLOOD GEAR plays better than both of those games.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 23, 2006, 04:42:27 PM
A note on PS IV - it looks much better on the real hardware than on any emulator. On emu it looks like a dithered mess, but on the Gens TV output it blends oh os nicely :wink: I like the look of PS II over PS 4 - just slightly though, but that could change since I've haven't logged more than 6 hours on PS4.
I think Gotzendeiner look average at best - not impressive from what I've seen - it's play control is too sloppy for me.
Seldane, those pics are awesome examples of great Gen games. But we all know that any graphics the Gen can display(colors and res), the PCE can do as well - OK sans shadow/highlight since it display colors not available in the 512 palette - see Charles Macdonalds 1536+ color demo for MD.
I agree with Nod, Sega had strict requires for granting a license to any given game to be published, while Hudson was much more leaniant. I remember reading a statement by Hudson saying they knew they couldn't complete with Sega and Nintendo so they focused and simple gameplay and fun (I wish I could remember the source).
Sega was one of the kings of the arcade business - I think this is the most determining factor to Sega's success in the 16bit era (3rd in Japan, but #1 and/or #2 in the US depending on who you ask).
Anearth Fantasy (looks a lot like Ys I & II artwork...) (http://pcedev.net/pics/recent/64.png)
De Ja (no reason really to post it, but ...) (http://pcedev.net/pics/recent/21.png)
Quote
not bad considering the pc engine's cpu isn't much faster than the NES's.. but in terms of graphics its far from the NES..
The NES cpu is based on the original 6502, the PCE based on the w65s02 - there's a noticable difference alone right there - not to mention the PCE runs at 7.16mhz and the NES runs at 1.79mhz. Besides, the PCE's huc6280 CPU is even faster than the Gens 68k in a bit of the same operations - MIPS(millions instructions per second) wise it's faster than the NES, SNES, and a hair faster then the MD. It's all in how you use it :wink: Actually the 68000 isn't famous for it's speed, but it's architecture and cost - very popular in embedded systems with its orthogonal instruction set and wide address range. The 68k is useful for operations that aren't that crucial in 16 bit games, i.e 32bit add/sub, 32bit multiply/div, etc.
Agree with runinruder with BO. It looks awesome, but average at best game - couldn't get into it. The wasn't there a Zelda clone for Gen or was BO susposed to be it?
Quote
I sure like to find a genesis/megadrive shooter that looks as nice and colourful as this:
Sorry, but the MD has some great shooters. Gaiares is graphically the most impressive use of 64colors IMO.
There are plenty of awesome graphics on the MD, sega sure knew how to make use of those onscreen 61 colors.
BTW: I'm stuck in Anearth Fantasy - nobody answers the babies cries int he beginning :x
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 04:57:45 PM
Great post, malducci; I pretty much agree with everything you said. I also wanted to point out that last pic you posted of Legend of Xanadu II with the random roman characters... were you trying to translate it or something? :lol: If so, lemme know! And keep me up with your other projects.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: runinruder on August 23, 2006, 05:07:39 PM
I agree that even the mighty Xanadu 2 can't top Blood Gear.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Odonadon on August 23, 2006, 05:12:17 PM
Piping in myself, there are a lot of PCE games that look worse than Genesis games color-wize. So again, comparing games to games is futile, especially in a hardware discussion :)
When you ask most serious coders what really defines performance, you'll get MIPS as your answer. No matter how many special backgrounds you can push, it all comes down to a MIPS facter at the end of the day. Mind you that is today, and "back then" everyone defined power by "bits", but keeping Malducci's latest post in mind (the PCE boasts MIPS figures higher than SNES and Genny), I think it's fair to say that the PCE is more powerful :P
OD
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 23, 2006, 05:25:51 PM
Keranu: Yeah, I was working the LoX:II translation. I put it on hold since the S-JIS text is compressed. Dave(Shadoff) took a look at the compression scheme and noted that it wasn't the same as Ys IV or Emerald Dragon, though he did offer assistance for when I start working on it again. I'm working on Auleria currently and rapping up Spriggan Mark 2 - just waiting for the script from akamichi . Star Breaker is in the works as well - Motaw gave me the translated script from his old project.
Runinruder: Do you have some pics of the game? It looks pretty cool, but I haven't gotten far. I was looking at the S-JIS text, seems to have a simple compression scheme.
Odonadon: Hehe, there's plenty of examples how the CPU was carelessly coded - i.e. slowdown. Then again same with SNES and MD. I actually learned some optimizing techniques from debugging game code. I have to be fair though, the 68000 has some advantages over huc6280 but there more of convience of coding or ease of use. The 68000 was very popular so more programmer were familiar with it too. The linear address is nice (no bank switching) as is the nice line of registers, but the huc6280 has zeropage (256 fast accessible slots in memory / pseudo regs) so I guess its a good trade off.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 23, 2006, 05:30:54 PM
Quote
Agree with runinruder with BO. It looks awesome, but average at best game - couldn't get into it. The wasn't there a Zelda clone for Gen or was BO susposed to be it?
Raguna Centy/Crusader of Centy is the best most Zelda-y game for Genesis/MD that I can think of.
I haven't actually gotten around to playing it yet, but from what I know/seen about it, it's pretty close to the Zelda's, where as the Thor/Oasis games are more unique and/or Final Fight-y.
Keranu- I think that Anearth's battle system was reasonably traditional, but I didn't get too far into it the one time I played it.
But the battles look like Tales Of Phantasia, with large animated characters running across the screen to attack enemies. And I don't remember if TOP had it, but Anearth uses 3D'y warping floors like Street Fighter II.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 05:52:02 PM
What's that Zelda rip off for Genesis that's about the Bible? My friend was writing a walkthrough for that game or something, but I think stopped. Now that was a 16-bit game with NES graphics.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: PC Gaijin on August 23, 2006, 06:14:58 PM
Quote from: "malducci"
BTW: I'm stuck in Anearth Fantasy - nobody answers the babies cries int he beginning :x
It's been so long since I played Anearth, but I fired it up just to take a look at the graphics since Keranu mentioned it. Are you talking about right after the opening cutscene? Where the baby is left at the door of the church on a snowy night? Because a priest came out eventually and got the baby, then FF a few years to the baby as a young boy, and the game started. Maybe your copy is messed up?
Also, why are people using MIPS to compare performance between two different CPU architectures?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 23, 2006, 06:22:28 PM
Quote from: "Digi.k"
haha someone post some genesis screenies of Afterburner and compare it.
haha ok:
(http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/ab1.png)
(http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/ab2.png)
(http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/ab3.png)
(http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/ab4.png)
(http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/ab5.png)
Now before you start doing handsprings while singing "Genesis sucks" be aware that these two games here really don't take much advantage of either system. Both could do much, much better.
Quote from: "malducci"
But we all know that any graphics the Gen can display(colors and res), the PCE can do as well
For still screens, definitely. But what people seem to forget often on this board is that the Genesis could display an extra background whereas the Turbo had to use sprites to accomplish the same effects. Because of this I think flicker was more prevelant in Turbo games that did this (***waits for someone to bring up Lords of Thunder***) and the Genesis didn't need to spend unnecessary sprites. But if all you look at are colors and resolution, of course the Turbo can match and exceed the Genesis by quite a noticeable amount.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 06:31:28 PM
Man, I always knew the PCE version of After Burner II looked nicer, but I wasn't aware of the Genesis version missing that much detail. But that goes without saying for a lot of early arcade ports for consoles.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 23, 2006, 06:33:26 PM
Quote from: "Keranu"
Man, I always knew the PCE version of After Burner II looked nicer, but I wasn't aware of the Genesis version missing that much detail. But that goes without saying for a lot of early arcade ports for consoles.
The PCE version is also smoother(maybe just the screen spinning), which stands out the most when firing up one after the other.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 06:35:00 PM
Yeah I have compared them before and noticed the PCE version was smoother. I also like the music a lot more in the PCE one, but that's more of a personal preference.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 23, 2006, 06:36:38 PM
The spinning screen is smooth on both, but the Genesis version rotates slowly (though still smoothly) when not in a barrel roll. On still pictures the only real advantage the PCE has is the nice gradients at the horizon that are completely missing from the Genesis version. The PCE has some nice (but slow) scaling of the Sega Enterprise and the refuel jets. The landing strip isn't even in the Genesis version.
Both suck balls compared to the 32X version, anyway.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 23, 2006, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: "Keranu"
Yeah I have compared them before and noticed the PCE version was smoother. I also like the music a lot more in the PCE one, but that's more of a personal preference.
Yeah, I like the music in both versions and am glad that they're so different. I almost bought the Saturn version a few minutes ago during a Saturn shopping spree(if only to here the "arcade" music).
If anyone's intersted in hearing the soundtracks, both are up on my site(and currently in my car stereo). :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 06:47:43 PM
Sweet I haven't checked your site in awhile, I didn't know you had the soundtracks for both of those. Last time I checked you had the Aero Blasters soundtrack up, which was nice. Keep up the fantastic work on the site, dude!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 23, 2006, 06:55:16 PM
I have the Saturn version as well as the 32X version (the sound is almost identical between the two). I also have the Genesis version and the Master System version which has the melodies. Does the PCE version have the melodies? I really hate how they removed the melodies from After Burner 2.
Oh, and just for fun, more colors simultaneously doesn't always equal spooge-fest graphics. It is probably more important to have better colors to choose from in the first place. Here are some pics of a couple of Genesis games that put more than 64 colors onscreen simultaneously:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 23, 2006, 07:43:40 PM
Quote
Also, why are people using MIPS to compare performance between two different CPU architectures?
Because games/systems in the 16bit era were not CPU intensive in the way it would be on a PC or MAC or even PS 2. Games in the 16bit era in general performed mostly of non complex instructions - alot of read/compare/add-sub/store. These can easily be converted to MIPS - average cycle of all instuctions divided by the number of cycles per second. It's not the end all, but it's a very good point of reference for speed between the two architectures since it applies more true to these games systems.
But your right, they are two different architectures - each with there own strengths and weaknesses. Ofcourse anyway you look at it, the PCE and MD CPUs still faster than the NES and SNES.
Quote
For still screens, definitely. But what people seem to forget often on this board is that the Genesis could display an extra background whereas the Turbo had to use sprites to accomplish the same effects.
Yeah, that's the PCE's achilles heel. That's why I love the SGX :D Another thing the Gen had was priority setting on the BG tiles. The PCE has to do a detection routine and use a sprite mask when the main sprite gets with in a few pixels of it - i.e. Ys I&II when Adol goes behind the BG parts - pillars, trees, etc.
Quote
Because of this I think flicker was more prevelant in Turbo games that did this (***waits for someone to bring up Lords of Thunder***) and the Genesis didn't need to spend unnecessary sprites. But if all you look at are colors and resolution, of course the Turbo can match and exceed the Genesis by quite a noticeable amount.
Gen also ran standard in 340/320 x 224 mode which really helped it out. Both has the same sprite to scanline limit, but the Gen can have 8x8 sprite size. This seems like a dis-advantage, but it's not. The PCE can have 16 16x16(min) sprites and the Gen 20 8x8(min) sprites. On the PCe if you have a bullet the size of 4x4, it takes the whole 16x16 space. So on a shooter with 8x8 or smaller bullets, the Gen could have more smaller sprites on a scanline before flicker starts to happen. GOT and LOT are good examples of designing around limitation, instead of just running a scripted game without concern for limitations.
There are some plus' on the PCE side video side - you can write to the video memory at any time, the video processor has it's own DMA independent of the CPU, the tile map can address a tile anywhere in video memory, sprites size up to 32x64, sprites have there own palette (256colors) that is seperate than the back ground palette entry(256), background tile map up to 128x64(1024x512 pixels), block transfer (DMA) instruction to and from video memory.
Joe: Besides the vectorman pics, the others look good.
Quote
Because a priest came out eventually and got the baby, then FF a few years to the baby as a young boy, and the game started. Maybe your copy is messed up?
Hehe, maybe I didn't wait long enough.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 23, 2006, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: "malducci"
Joe: Besides the vectorman pics, the others look good.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Vectorman looks like ass, yet it has 70 colors or more onscreen pretty much throughout the entire game.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: T2KFreeker on August 23, 2006, 09:09:20 PM
Truthfully, I could care less which machine is more powerful than the other, I just like my Turbo machines more, again, personal preference, but it's the truth, it had better games for the most part, at least I thought so. Of all three, the SNES is my least favorite as it stunk of Corporate America, well here in the US at least, and corporate isn't always good, and usually never is! :evil:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 23, 2006, 09:12:42 PM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
Yeah, that's what I mean. Vectorman looks like ass, yet it has 70 colors or more onscreen pretty much throughout the entire game.
There are also plenty of games that us more than 64 colors that look great too. By the way, I though Vectorman looked kinda nice, though a bit dithery. The sequel looks nicer.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 23, 2006, 11:01:32 PM
Vectorman 2 actually uses less than 61 colors at all times from what I've seen. Probably because it is so dark. I refuse to play any game that does not put at least 40 colors on the first screen I see after pressing START (or RUN).
(Kidding, by the way).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 24, 2006, 02:10:53 AM
Quote
Oh, and just for fun, more colors simultaneously doesn't always equal spooge-fest graphics. It is probably more important to have better colors to choose from in the first place. Here are some pics of a couple of Genesis games that put more than 64 colors onscreen simultaneously:
It really depends on the comparison.
Like say, if you gave the NES a 16 million color pallete. The games would still be limited by per sprite color restrictions, number of colors onscreen overall etc.
Finally, the Genesis is so far off from the PC Engine color display-wise, that even if you gave it a 16 million color pallete, the PC Engine would still have the potential for better screen shot graphics overall.
But if well reproduced beutiful art isn't what someone judges "good graphics" by, say someone like Dave Halverson from Gamefan/Play magazines...
-and instead your brain is mainly stimulated by moving slates(no matter how bland), or some kind of simple warping effect that you've been told once was hard(or impossible) to do(or in the current gen, feet that slant on hills)...
-then it doesn't really matter and taking an bland NES game and super-charging it with 50 layers of parallax and 15 independant scrolling bg's and scaling/rotating sprites and throwing in a 'special' sound(ing) chip... all with under 18 unique colors onscreen and some crude art...
-would impress them more than any Capcom or Neo Geo arcade game with any bg layers turned static.
And I'm not going to say matter-of-factly that well-reproduced art = good graphics(even though I can argue that everyone agrees so outside of systems wars scenarios, like say judging an arcade game standing on it's own).
Because there are a lot of people out there(especially on internet rant pages) who really have no taste(good or bad) in art and really do judge all game graphics by self-percieved technicalities or single particulars, like:
"all 16-bit games must use parallax or they look like NES!"
"all 32-bit games must be 3D and use (what I deem to be)true light sourcing or the they look like 32X( tehy sux)!"
"all '128-bit' games must use any kind of 'mapping' that I happen to think up of while playing a particular game, particularly if one or two other consoles don't render it in hardware(and therefore by my definition not at all), or it loos like PSX graffix!"
....now, back to the whole pallete thing.
The SNES is supposed to always have the bestest graphics, no matter what(!), 'cuz its got a bigger pallete and can display 256 onscreen. But when you look at so many of those OMG games that you remember looking so hot back in the day on an emulator (or S-Video) today... you can now see that a lot are kinda drab color-wise and often don't use too many colors in their fantastic bg's.
I used to beleive that the PC Engine had a crappy pallete like the Genesis and that SNES had to ALWAYS be better(!). But now I see how vibrant the colors are in most decent PCE games, even the lower color ones.
Finally, the Genesis doesn't seem to be bottle necked by the 64 colors onscreen thing so much as other 'per colors limits. I amateurly say this because there so many(all?) quality ports to Genesis, where the same game also appears on SNES or TG/PCE... and in both/all versions, there are less than 64 colors(thats a lot of colors!) onscreen in all versions... but the Genesis version still noticibly recycles colors and winds up showing slightly less shading than the other(s).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: T2KFreeker on August 24, 2006, 09:24:27 AM
Going by certain theories that have been thrown around for a long time, I have such a hard tinme taking anything that any videogame magazine or corpoately sponsored videogam web site has to say. I am one of those people that looks at what limitations that a system may have and try to see the amazing things that it does, and this can get hard, especially when you are a fan of the underdog systems. Alot of the people I know talk so much shit about perfectly good systems like the Atari Jaguar, 32-X, and Saturn, I still don't see the point. Each of the systems mentioned has awesome games that take advantage of what the hardware can do, and each has been "Tricked" into doing siome amazing stff. Example; Ever seen Rayman on the Jaguar? Blows both the Playstation and Saturn versions out of the water. The 32-X actually has some of the nicest games I've seen from that generation of gaming, right at the tail end of the death of 16 bit, it still was an awesome little piece of Hardware that was never really pushed, and I still think that it is sad. As far as the Turbo Grafx/Duo/PCE, this system just has some of the most amazing games ever made. It may not have the most colors on screen, or all the junk that the SNES has, or "Blast Processing" :roll: like the Genesis, but it does what it is supposed to do, and does it well. It plays games, and that was what it was supposed to do. NEC was able to revolutionize gaming as a whole so much with one system. I remember when everyone in the industry was laughing at them for using the CD Rom on their machine. Well, we know where that went. nThat right there is a huge factor to look at when looking at this system. Even though the first batch of games wasn't the best in the world, look at later releases like Shape Shifter, Y's, Shadow Of The Beast, and God help us, Beyond Shadowgate. These are amazing examples of games that were just awesome as hell. Splatterhouse on the PC Engine is still far better than either of the Genesis games, and then we have Bonk, great stuff. I don't know about you all, but I HATED Bonk on the SNES, it was horrid.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 24, 2006, 11:52:52 AM
Quote from: "T2KFreeker"
Going by certain theories that have been thrown around for a long time, I have such a hard tinme taking anything that any videogame magazine or corpoately sponsored videogam web site has to say. I am one of those people that looks at what limitations that a system may have and try to see the amazing things that it does, and this can get hard, especially when you are a fan of the underdog systems. Alot of the people I know talk so much shit about perfectly good systems like the Atari Jaguar, 32-X, and Saturn, I still don't see the point. Each of the systems mentioned has awesome games that take advantage of what the hardware can do, and each has been "Tricked" into doing siome amazing stff. Example; Ever seen Rayman on the Jaguar? Blows both the Playstation and Saturn versions out of the water. The 32-X actually has some of the nicest games I've seen from that generation of gaming, right at the tail end of the death of 16 bit, it still was an awesome little piece of Hardware that was never really pushed, and I still think that it is sad. As far as the Turbo Grafx/Duo/PCE, this system just has some of the most amazing games ever made. It may not have the most colors on screen, or all the junk that the SNES has, or "Blast Processing" :roll: like the Genesis, but it does what it is supposed to do, and does it well. It plays games, and that was what it was supposed to do. NEC was able to revolutionize gaming as a whole so much with one system. I remember when everyone in the industry was laughing at them for using the CD Rom on their machine. Well, we know where that went. nThat right there is a huge factor to look at when looking at this system. Even though the first batch of games wasn't the best in the world, look at later releases like Shape Shifter, Y's, Shadow Of The Beast, and God help us, Beyond Shadowgate. These are amazing examples of games that were just awesome as hell. Splatterhouse on the PC Engine is still far better than either of the Genesis games, and then we have Bonk, great stuff. I don't know about you all, but I HATED Bonk on the SNES, it was horrid.
I loved the 32X. It was my first and main Doom experience. It was worth it alone for that one game.
I also loved Virtua Racing and had wanted to play the game for less than $1 per credit ever since I first came across an arcade unit during a trip to a big city.
I got both games and the 32X at X-Mas/my birthday and I had fun with it for months after(I still don't know what happend to it, lost in a move?)
I also didn't like SNES Bonk and didn't give the SFC game a chance after helicoptering through a maze as a chicken for way too long.
Quote
I have the Saturn version as well as the 32X version (the sound is almost identical between the two). I also have the Genesis version and the Master System version which has the melodies. Does the PCE version have the melodies? I really hate how they removed the melodies from After Burner 2.
The PCE version definately has more than the Genesis version, but I don't know if there is still some missing from the arcade.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: T2KFreeker on August 24, 2006, 12:10:29 PM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
Quote from: "T2KFreeker"
Going by certain theories that have been thrown around for a long time, I have such a hard tinme taking anything that any videogame magazine or corpoately sponsored videogam web site has to say. I am one of those people that looks at what limitations that a system may have and try to see the amazing things that it does, and this can get hard, especially when you are a fan of the underdog systems. Alot of the people I know talk so much shit about perfectly good systems like the Atari Jaguar, 32-X, and Saturn, I still don't see the point. Each of the systems mentioned has awesome games that take advantage of what the hardware can do, and each has been "Tricked" into doing siome amazing stff. Example; Ever seen Rayman on the Jaguar? Blows both the Playstation and Saturn versions out of the water. The 32-X actually has some of the nicest games I've seen from that generation of gaming, right at the tail end of the death of 16 bit, it still was an awesome little piece of Hardware that was never really pushed, and I still think that it is sad. As far as the Turbo Grafx/Duo/PCE, this system just has some of the most amazing games ever made. It may not have the most colors on screen, or all the junk that the SNES has, or "Blast Processing" :roll: like the Genesis, but it does what it is supposed to do, and does it well. It plays games, and that was what it was supposed to do. NEC was able to revolutionize gaming as a whole so much with one system. I remember when everyone in the industry was laughing at them for using the CD Rom on their machine. Well, we know where that went. nThat right there is a huge factor to look at when looking at this system. Even though the first batch of games wasn't the best in the world, look at later releases like Shape Shifter, Y's, Shadow Of The Beast, and God help us, Beyond Shadowgate. These are amazing examples of games that were just awesome as hell. Splatterhouse on the PC Engine is still far better than either of the Genesis games, and then we have Bonk, great stuff. I don't know about you all, but I HATED Bonk on the SNES, it was horrid.
I loved the 32X. It was my first and main Doom experience. It was worth it alone for that one game.
I also loved Virtua Racing and had wanted to play the game for less than $1 per credit ever since I first came across an arcade unit during a trip to a big city.
I got both games and the 32X at X-Mas/my birthday and I had fun with it for months after(I still don't know what happend to it, lost in a move?)
I also didn't like SNES Bonk and didn't give the SFC game a chance after helicoptering through a maze as a chicken for way too long.
Great, sounds like a nightmare! :roll:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 24, 2006, 01:05:00 PM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
The PCE version definately has more [melody] than the Genesis version, but I don't know if there is still some missing from the arcade.
Yes, I was able to listen to it on your site. That's how After Burner 1 sounds... which is MUCH better in my opinion. That's not to say After Burner 2's music sucks, but I really do like the additional melodies. There aren't any melodies in the PCE version that are missing from the (After Burner 1) arcade. In fact I think it added a couple at the end of Final Take Off. The Sega CD After Burner 3 has the melodies, but unfortunately it also has some really bad sounding fake trumpets or horns of some type that really aren't very appropriate for the music. Otherwise it sounds godly.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Tatsujin on August 24, 2006, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: "malducci"
I think the SCD and arcade card both were excellent upgrades for the PCE that helped a show its potential.
When it comes to PCE SCD/AC vs Genesis/MD - the only thing MD has on the PCE CD system is the extra scrolling background layer. Oh SGX, why were you shown no CD love?
so truly true, dude! you've seeing it in the right and correct way!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 24, 2006, 05:30:19 PM
Quote from: "malducci"
Oh SGX, why were you shown no CD love?
Making SGX CDROM games is very possible, but I have no idea why this was never done. I believe there are some PCE hax0rs who've already experimented with this...PD and I were going to test the concept out since he has the entire setup but we never got to it... :cry:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 24, 2006, 05:55:17 PM
I'm still waiting for us to make some demos via SGC CD :D . Super Grafx + CD + Arcade Card... just imagine the possibilites :) .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 24, 2006, 06:01:46 PM
Didn't the SuperGrafx have some sort of problem which prohibited it from operating at its full potential? I can't remember what it is eactly, but something about how memory must be shared and graphics or some such thing. I also heard the SuperGrafx had many more colors but I've never seen evidence of this by any screen shots... none of them looked like anything the PCE couldn't do aside from the extra scrolling layer. They should have included the extra SuperGrafx chipset on the Super System Card 3.0... for free.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Tatsujin on August 24, 2006, 06:09:09 PM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
should have included the extra SuperGrafx chipset on the Super System Card 3.0... for free.
and hou you think this should have been possible?
more they should have included the chipset into the DUO itself.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 24, 2006, 06:09:48 PM
Don't recall hearing the SGX having problems like that, but I'm not the person who would know the answer for that. The SGX has no color differences from the regular PCE, as far as I know.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Tatsujin on August 24, 2006, 06:19:59 PM
only double of the vram and different sprite option (size or amount), i believe.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: T2KFreeker on August 24, 2006, 06:30:38 PM
I can say that as far at the Arcade Card goes, Strider was amazing as all Hell on the Turbo/PCE. I still rmember playing it and drooling over the game, it was just amazing, period. Even though the Genesis version was awesome for it's time, the Arcade Card versiobn stomps all over it!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 24, 2006, 06:33:39 PM
Ah yes, I remember now. It was the extra video chip. It had to be controlled by the regular old CPU which did not see any increase in speed, thus giving it a heavier workload than the PC Engine normally had to deal with. It didn't have it's own graphic controller or anything of the like. A faster CPU would have probably solved that, but a graphics GPU may have been cheaper.... not sure.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Tatsujin on August 24, 2006, 06:40:27 PM
for me the arcade hiryû strider is the most disapointed version exist on consoles! the fact that the scrolling is struggling with a horrible frame rate/scrolling, and the gameplay also couldn't reach even the MD standard and as well as most of the parts palette is looking awfull (ex. the ball in the gravity room). allthough an advantage is the sometime nice drawed back grounds (ex. the astrodome of the russian parlament in the 1st stage..) which appears in a huger and closer way to the arcade! the rest just suckz! :cry:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 24, 2006, 08:41:43 PM
Tatsujin's right on the money with Strider for AC - what a huge let down. I have a friend who's dying to play it, but I won't let him as I don't want him to experience such a tragedy :P
Quote
Ah yes, I remember now. It was the extra video chip. It had to be controlled by the regular old CPU which did not see any increase in speed, thus giving it a heavier workload than the PC Engine normally had to deal with. It didn't have it's own graphic controller or anything of the like. A faster CPU would have probably solved that, but a graphics GPU may have been cheaper.... not sure.
Not quite :wink: It's funny really, when you read all the rumors of the SGX. I've written some demos/test code and SGX lib for HuC compiler. I don't want to type another 10 paragraphs so I'll try to make this short( it's getting late here).
Basically- saying the SGX CPU is under powered by the additional VDC(GPU) is like saying the Genesis CPU is also under powered by the additional BG scroll/layer and larger sprite buffer(80). It takes all of 30 cycles to update the background position of the second VDC - out of a possible 120,000 every 1/60 of a second(frame). Taxing? Hardly.
The SGX has an addition Video Display Controller with it's own 64k or vram and it's own set of sprites(64) just like the original VDC. So the SGX has 4 planes/layers - BG2, BG1, Sprite 2, Sprite 1. You can set priorities to rearrange the order(on the fly with Hsync interrupts too). And either VDC does not require the CPU to maintain display. There's also this neat(limited) little transparency effect you can do too - ala Jack Chan but cooler.
The SGX has a total of 128k of vram which is twice that of MD and SNES, so it wouldn't require as much dynamic updating (e.x. Sonic). And even though the SGX divides the 128k into two seperate 64k chucks, updating isn't really a problem because you can write to either display(vram) pretty much at any time.
The other parts of the SGX include 24k more ram for a total of 32k system ram (more important for hu-cards) and a Video Priority Controller(VPC) which handles priorities between overlaping sprites and backgrounds of the two VDCs as well as clipping options and turning on/off the second VDC output.
Two interesting things about the SGX is the VCE - another 16bit processer that handles the color, palette, resolution, and composite/RGB output. The SGX version has an 'A' revision that nobody seems to know what the changes are as well as the CPU having an 'A' revision. Probably nothing much, but I figured I'd mention it.
.....
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 24, 2006, 08:46:19 PM
Malducci is the Super Grafx king, haha. 8)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 24, 2006, 11:17:53 PM
Do you think it would have been possible for Hudson/NEC to have made the SuperGrafx into a card for the existing CD-ROM, kind of like the 32X works as a giant expansion cartridge or the SNES with its FX chips? Granted, it would have cost a bit more than the standard System Card 3.0 update for existing PCE and TG-16 users (and it could have been built right in to the Duo as mentioned before), but I think it would have been worth it.
But then again I am a complete geek so I love things others may not. :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 25, 2006, 02:54:11 AM
Often times in IC manufacture, "A" and later revisions are slightly redesigned to drain less. Perhaps they were planning on using the same power source but there was too much drain with the original spec, so hence the "A" revision. The PCE itself has quite a heavy drain from its three core ICs so I imagine that's what they did. Can anyone give the specs on the power adapter used for the SGX?
I doubt it would be possible to build the extra circuitry into a system card, and even if it was, it's unlikely that it'd be a performant as the real setup. I'm not sure the cartridge port has the means to do this but I couldn't say for sure...but I do know from my time in electronics that it wouldn't work as well as the original setup.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 25, 2006, 03:24:53 AM
It's possible to make an SGX add-on through the back BUS of the system - excluding the Duo units since it's an all in one unit. If I can find another SGX for cheap, I would try to make one. Talking with Charles, he said you'd probably need an additional VCE on the add-on and not use the original output of the onboard VCE. Everything - every pin and address line is rerouted to the back bus, it's amazing - that they never took advantage of it.
You can't do this through the cart port, but you could add additional hardware to interface to the system via the card port. You could add additional processors or logic ICs. The AC has a(hardware) small 3 byte adder and a 4 byte roller that could be cleverly used for other things such a decompression routine, etc.
Nod- Remember the Jack Chan tranparency trick? You can do two other tricks similar but cooler then that with the extra VDC in the SGX :D
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: guyjin on August 25, 2006, 05:57:18 AM
Does the PCE/TG16 epansion bus exist inside the duo, or did it get replaced with something else? Could you make a 'breakout cable' to get access to it?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 25, 2006, 08:14:40 AM
There's no exp port on the Duo-R, but you can supposedly make one yourself if you like soldering. :wink:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: guyjin on August 25, 2006, 09:53:09 AM
I was thinking about the possibility of a SGX add on today, and I have to say I'm skeptical.
NEC was obviously not shy about selling add-ons. If an SGX add-on was possible, they would have released the add on first; that's kind of like releasing the duo before the separate CD add on.
I suspect you will run into compatibility problems if you try this - but this is one case where I would love to be proven wrong. :D
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 25, 2006, 02:02:34 PM
Quote
NEC was obviously not shy about selling add-ons. If an SGX add-on was possible, they would have released the add on first; that's kind of like releasing the duo before the separate CD add on.
I'm not so sure. There's alot mystery was why the system was quickly abandoned even after they had already spent the money on developement and had a working system on the market. They could have included it in the Duo design, but obviously they didn't - not even empty sockets on the board or such. I think it had a something to do with internal politics conflict between NEC and Hudson. Maybe the PC-FX was supposed to be released earlier than it evenually did and they didn't want to steer attention away from it. I dunno. I believe "HE" stands for Hudson Electronics or Hudson Entertainment - is this logo anywere on the PC-FX?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 25, 2006, 04:26:45 PM
I don't know man, seeing the Saturn mentioned in such a way, as if it were kindred spirits with the 32X and Jag...that's just insulting.
The Saturn was a 1st rate system all the way. It had world class titles in every genre. Hundreds of games were made for it. I had a Saturn when the system was new, and I'm *still* finding little undiscovered jems on eBay, and from trades with friends. If I could only have one system...it would be a handheld probably, but if I could only have one system, and it had to be a TV console, it would probably be the Saturn or PCE.
The 32X was mearly left over detritus from SOA versus SOJ infighting. I'm a huge Sega fan, but the 32X to me is one of the most embarrassing, disappointing, poorly conceived, and useless add-ons/systems ever made. The Jag...the Jag just sucked. It sucked so bad it makes the 32X look good. How many good Jag games are there? I mean actually good games. Good games that a non-nostalgic person can have fun with if they were introduced to them today? Two...maybe? Rayman, and that isometric Rally game. That's all I can think of.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: GUTS on August 25, 2006, 05:46:17 PM
Haha, yeah the Jag is worse than the Virtual Boy. I've bought one a few times and tried to enjoy the games, but between the god-f*cking-awful controller and total shit they call games on that system it's impossible to enjoy. Every game that's any good on the jag can be played on another system without the phone-controller.
Hell, I even really had a blast with my 3DO and found a bunch of good games on that, but the Jag is easily the worst system of all time unless you need to make a phone call while playing.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 25, 2006, 06:02:48 PM
I'm pretty unexperienced with Jaguar, but from the games I have played for it, I enjoy it. I do plan on getting a Jaguar eventually and one of the main resons is because of the amazing homebrew support it gets. Even if I end up buying a whole bunch of games for it that I'll only end up playing one or two of, I can still have hope for new games to come out for it and from the looks of the home brew games that have came out for it and are coming out, they look pretty neat.
Here's a question I have about the Jaguar though, how come the Jaguar gets so much homebrew support? I know there are a lot of hardcore Atari fans out there, but isn't programming on the Jaguar suppose to be excruciating?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 26, 2006, 12:13:07 AM
Keranu, because Hasbro decided to "open" the console to anyone, so anyone can legally dev for it.
The machine had a few good games, to be sure...Tempest 2000 and the port of Wolf3D come to mind.
Title: Jag Vs. 32X
Post by: _joshuaTurbo on August 26, 2006, 06:37:55 AM
Hmm, The 32X vs. The Jagg was a heated topic over in Digital Press. My Opinion: The 32X sucked. The Jagg was pretty crappy, but a few games were pretty cool. Tempest. AVP, and Flip Out! are a few games I was very happy to play. Kasumi Ninja, and Ultra Vortek are a couple Cheese-Tastic fighters that are cool to make fun of. (For some reason I see Keranu loving Kasumi!)
Anyway- BACK ON TRACK!
The TurboGrafx is amazing! ITs 16-bit, the reason why most TG16 games look like first generation Genesis titles is because most Turbo Companies moved onto CD and Super CD games when they became avaliable. You know they actually moved on to the better hardware and supported it! Just think if Sega actually gave two shits about the Sega CD....
TurboSage
One things for sure: the 16-bit wars ruled!! I loved that time in gaming!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 26, 2006, 09:25:56 AM
Hehe, I've never actually got to play Kasumi Ninja because the only way I have tried playing it was with a emulator and it freezes after you select your character. I did dig the character select screen a lot though :D .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: torgo on August 26, 2006, 11:30:03 AM
Kasumi Ninja was gorgeous, but a HORRIBLE, unplayable game. One of the lead designers was a total prick at the CES right before they released it. He would just pwn everyone at it, then get a smarmy attitude about it.
Ultra Vortek is still a fun game to play. Fight for Life had a LOT of promise. The lead designer (who had previously worked on Virtua Fighters) was a pretty cool guy, and you could tell that he really wanted to make a great game. It sounds like he got rushed by Atari though.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 26, 2006, 03:27:16 PM
I owned Kasumi Ninja when I owned my Jaguar. Yeah, it looked great but yeah, it played like shit.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 26, 2006, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: "nodtveidt"
Keranu, because Hasbro decided to "open" the console to anyone, so anyone can legally dev for it.
Oh yeah that's right, I totally forgot about that.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 30, 2006, 01:51:20 AM
Quote from: "Digi.k"
I sure like to find a genesis/megadrive shooter that looks as nice
hmmm what was I on that night... I think it was like 3am for me when I was typing this but .. I think it was the comment before about the PC Engine games that looked like NES games that sparked me off.. but then there are some NES games that even give the pc engine and megadrive a run for their money.. Gradius II and Crisis Force anyone? And yes the Megadrive is a fantastic piece of 2D hardware but the pc engine isn't any slouch in this section either.
Two games that still look great today as they did back in their days.. (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/kwoksta/magical.jpg)
and as I've said from somewhere else before .. not bad considering the pc engine's cpu isn't much faster than the NES's..
I got that info from some site that is dedicated to the pc engine.. I don't remember which one though but that was the authors comment.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on August 30, 2006, 03:24:40 AM
That author was on crackers then...in clock speed alone, the PCE's processor is 4 times the speed, plus since it's based on the later model 65C02, it has some bugfixes from the original spec that cleaned up software design a bit, which also helped performance.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 30, 2006, 08:57:33 AM
Ahh, I forgot how nice Magical Chase looked. I've seen screenshots for the Gameboy Color one and it also looked very nice.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 31, 2006, 11:43:27 AM
Quote from: "Digi.k"
Quote from: "Digi.k"
I sure like to find a genesis/megadrive shooter that looks as nice
hmmm what was I on that night... I think it was like 3am for me when I was typing this but .. I think it was the comment before about the PC Engine games that looked like NES games that sparked me off.. but then there are some NES games that even give the pc engine and megadrive a run for their money.. Gradius II and Crisis Force anyone? And yes the Megadrive is a fantastic piece of 2D hardware but the pc engine isn't any slouch in this section either.
Two games that still look great today as they did back in their days.. (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/kwoksta/magical.jpg)
and as I've said from somewhere else before .. not bad considering the pc engine's cpu isn't much faster than the NES's..
I got that info from some site that is dedicated to the pc engine.. I don't remember which one though but that was the authors comment.
From what I've read online, the average Genesis-fanboy "knows" that the Genesis/Megadrive version of Devils's Crash has better graphics and sound (especially music, -none of that TG-16 "pops & hisses") all-round.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on August 31, 2006, 12:40:43 PM
Clicky! (http://www.sega-16.com/Side By Side- Devils Crush.php)
Wow, the PCE version doesn't even compare to its Mega Drive equivalent. I mean seriously, how can anyone claim the PCE game looks better? :?:
(http://www.sega-16.com/Features/Side by Side/Dragon%27s Fury/Comparison 1.gif) (http://www.sega-16.com/Features/Side by Side/Dragon%27s Fury/Comparison 3.gif)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 31, 2006, 12:51:32 PM
I'm not sure why the "edge" was given to the Genesis in the graphics department when I remember writing "draw" (or nothing at all). The main playfield is definitely better looking on the PCE/Turbo. The bonus rounds are definitely better looking on the Genesis.
PS - That page seems to be filled with broken image links. WTF?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 31, 2006, 01:10:39 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Clicky! (http://www.sega-16.com/Side By Side- Devils Crush.php)
Wow, the PCE version doesn't even compare to its Mega Drive equivalent. I mean seriously, how can anyone claim the PCE game looks better? :?:
(http://www.sega-16.com/Features/Side by Side/Dragon%27s Fury/Comparison 1.gif) (http://www.sega-16.com/Features/Side by Side/Dragon%27s Fury/Comparison 3.gif)
You said it. It doesn't even compare!
Although I don't know why anyone would judge the graphics in ports solely on bonus stages(those "SEGA-16" images are linked to bonus stage pics), especially when the version with the apparently superior bonus stage graphics/art isn't quite as nice graphically in the real playing feild where 90% of the game is spent.
I mean, I can think of a couple reasons why... but it makes about as much sense as these-
By this logic, Golden Axe PCE is by far the greatest version because all the other versions' cinemas suck in comparison and don't feature CD music.
And Strider ACD pwns the competition for the same reasons.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 31, 2006, 02:05:37 PM
Nicely written review Joe :D I did notice the draw wasn't written in the index caption. Although I like the TG music alot, the genesis version sounds great - it has those genesis yamaha instruments I just love. I noticed the gorgeous bonus 6 on the genesis version is a symetrical image(split done the center) other than a few tiles that to try an hide it - sneaky.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 31, 2006, 02:07:47 PM
Read my real review on Devil's Crush for the TG-16 which was written before the Sega-16 article.
Although I don't think the Sega-16 article is biased in any way (a huge Turbo fanboy might see it differently), articles tend to be edited when submitted to Sega 16, much to my chagrin.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 31, 2006, 02:18:34 PM
Quote
hmmm what was I on that night... I think it was like 3am for me when I was typing this but .. I think it was the comment before about the PC Engine games that looked like NES games that sparked me off.. but then there are some NES games that even give the pc engine and megadrive a run for their money.. Gradius II and Crisis Force anyone? And yes the Megadrive is a fantastic piece of 2D hardware but the pc engine isn't any slouch in this section either.
You know what NES game I was amazed by? Gremlins 2!
Other than a limited pallete (it still shades everything nicely, recycling colors Genesis style), it's pretty much impressively 16-bit enough for me.
Quote
Although I don't think the Sega-16 article is biased in any way (a huge Turbo fanboy might see it differently), articles tend to be edited when submitted to Sega 16, much to my chagrin.
It's definately one of, or the most unbiased comparison reviews on Sega-16, but the author stills refers to the music in the TG-16 version as "typical Turbo Grafx, with your PSG-heavy hums and buzzes" and says "Believe it or not, these voices sound much better on the TurboGrafx-16".
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on August 31, 2006, 02:22:05 PM
Quote
articles tend to be edited when submitted to Sega 16, much to my chagrin.
That's total crap! They should edit anything in anyway. BTW, I keep forgetting to ask on the Sega16 forums, but is there a Fhey Area(faeria?) walkthough - anywere!? I have a friend who's been looking for one for ages. I'd like to try it out too, but won't touch it without a walkthrough.
Black_Tiger: That MegaDrive vs Arcade video is the funniest thing I've seen in a while - funnier than "All your snakes are belong to us" vid and that was pretty funny. You're such a boc for doing that vid!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 31, 2006, 02:36:54 PM
well I was unable to get the bonus round screenshots for the Megadrive version of Devil Crush but they do look far nicer than the pc engines' bonus screens.... but here's a comparison..
That guys side by side pics ... the colours on the megadrive version do no way do they look that when I run it on my megadrive emulator and I'm using fusion.
now if only I can figure a way to record the main in-game theme music of both versions into MP3's and upload them..
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on August 31, 2006, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: "Digi.k"
well I was unable to get the bonus round screenshots for the Megadrive version of Devil Crush but they do look far nicer than the pc engines' bonus screens.... but here's a comparison..
That guys side by side pics ... the colours on the megadrive version do no way do they look that when I run it on my megadrive emulator and I'm using fusion.
now if only I can figure a way to record the main in-game theme music of both versions into MP3's and upload them..
Here ya go-
http://superpcenginegrafx.com/audiodm1.html
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Digi.k on August 31, 2006, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
Here ya go-
http://superpcenginegrafx.com/audiodm1.html
haha thanks I forgot you put that up already in another thread ^^
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on August 31, 2006, 06:15:30 PM
Quote
but the author stills refers to the music in the TG-16 version as "typical Turbo Grafx, with your PSG-heavy hums and buzzes" and says "Believe it or not, these voices sound much better on the TurboGrafx-16".
That's a pretty good description on TG-16 sound. Doesn't mean it is bad.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on August 31, 2006, 06:25:00 PM
Not another TG16 vs Genesis version debate :P . Sega, I love you but your fans are crude to the Turbo fans :( .
Black_Tiger certainly hit the nail with the hammer about the graphics between each version of Devil's Crush. When 90% of the game takes place on the main board, the Genesis version shouldn't get the "edge" just because the bonus stages look nicer. And on top of things, there are some different bonus stages in the Genesis version anyways and the designs of the bonus stages are a lot different to begin with, so they can't even really be compared.
I've posted about my thoughts on each version before and give the "edge" the Turbo version on nearly all aspects, but I did like the new bonus stages in the Genesis version a lot. Maybe I'll do a comparison in the future as well for my site.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on September 01, 2006, 03:19:35 AM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
I mean, I can think of a couple reasons why... but it makes about as much sense as these-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DW52Uboel6g
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QXh0y8IobrQ
Haahhahaahahhhahahhhahahaa. Holy crap, that is the funniest dig at what's-his-name that I've seen yet! Insanity :). Sorry AirRaidX (if memory serves me).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on September 01, 2006, 06:18:23 AM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
Quote
but the author stills refers to the music in the TG-16 version as "typical Turbo Grafx, with your PSG-heavy hums and buzzes" and says "Believe it or not, these voices sound much better on the TurboGrafx-16".
That's a pretty good description on TG-16 sound. Doesn't mean it is bad.
"Beleive it or not" is a reference to the idea that it's unbeleivable for the TG-16 to match or top the mighty Genesis.
As for refering to the TG-16 music as "typical", it's not. It may work with the vanilla PSG sounds that most earlier PCE games do, but it does some amazing things with them, both effects-wise and in composition. Then it's all balanced with some of the best use of samples in a TG-16 PSG soundtrack.
The main reason I prefer the TG-16 music, is the actual 'performance'. The Genesis version has some really cool sounds and effects of it's own(and some negatives that I won't get into), but almost every track which appears in both versions sounds like it's being played by a band of souless skilled robots instead of a group of talented humans putting real emotion into it.
It's kinda like the difference with Lords Of Thunder. The Sega-CD version has a heavier sounding more modern recording and although messing with the timing of a song can really improve it, as many bands do in live versions, instead it loses a lot and although all the notes are there, it's just not performed as well.
It's also kinda like when someone programs a midi that contains every note and although they seem to have technically gotten the timing reasonably correct in each channel/instrument, somehow it just doesn't sound right as it alls comes together.
But, there isn't a huge difference between the TG-16 vs Genesis games' soundtracks(this is probably the closest any TG-16 & Genesis port will ever come), I'm just trying to explain the main reason(along with how the Genesis version's tracks aren't as balanced) why for me, the TG-16 version has the edge. I love them both.
Anyways, as for the slight bias, the author either forgot, or had his review edited to remove comments like "just another one of these wavy warbley sounding Genesis games" and "Surprisingly for a Genesis game, the new art in bonus rounds actually looks somewhat colorful."
Quote from: "stevek666"
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
I mean, I can think of a couple reasons why... but it makes about as much sense as these-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DW52Uboel6g
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QXh0y8IobrQ
Haahhahaahahhhahahhhahahaa. Holy crap, that is the funniest dig at what's-his-name that I've seen yet! Insanity :). Sorry AirRaidX (if memory serves me).
Hey, the SMS vs Arcade description uses 97% of his own words. If it is a dig, he only makes himself sound crazy.
Of course, that's how he wound up on YouTube taking swipes at the message boards that he got booted from. :lol:
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 01, 2006, 09:28:54 AM
Actually the bonus rounds do look good for a Genesis game. Or even a SNES game.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on September 01, 2006, 01:00:52 PM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
...but almost every track which appears in both versions sounds like it's being played by a band of souless skilled robots instead of a group of talented humans putting real emotion into it.
God you're the greatest :lol: .
Excellent points made by Black_Tiger and also I loved the SMS Ghost n' Ghouls comparison video :D !
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on September 01, 2006, 06:42:24 PM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
...but almost every track which appears in both versions sounds like it's being played by a band of souless skilled robots instead of a group of talented humans putting real emotion into it.
Soulless robots? Of course! This is FEKA, after all.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 01, 2006, 08:01:31 PM
Well obviously the Turbo version will destroy the Sega version because the Turbo is better than the Genesis is every conceivable way. That's why Noriyuki Iwadare did the music for the Turbo version of Devil's Crush but refused to lend a hand in the Genesis version. Instead a skilled robot ported the music and was programmed to assign only soulless instruments to it. So since the music was done by a robot, it is more efficient, but lacks all of the emtional charge of the original. And what an emotional trip it was! Nothing ever brought forth emotions like the score in Devil's Crush.
(J/K by the way ... just having a bit of stupid fun here)
In all honesty, Dragon's Fury was TechnoSoft's least impressive Genesis game in every respect, including sound. I am amazed that Herzog Zwei sounds so much better, but DF sounds rough in comparison. And yes, I am a huge Thunder Force 2 fan. Love the game. Do you hate it? I'm trying to care, but I can't. I love it.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on September 01, 2006, 10:07:20 PM
I might be the only person in the world who can't stand Techno Soft's sound on the Genesis, it sounds just as bad as some American rubbish like Chakan to me :o .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 01, 2006, 10:14:29 PM
Selective listening, I guess. Chakan will make your ears bleed, and mine are already bleeding just thinking about it. So are my eyes. Thanks.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 02, 2006, 02:06:37 AM
It's supposed to sound like crap! I love crappy chip music! Cd music is totally lame especially considering they're never using real instruments!
Title: ouch!
Post by: _joshuaTurbo on September 02, 2006, 07:33:11 AM
Not to throw more salt into Feka's wounds ( I love my genny).
But did you guys notice that the Genesis Version came out in 1992? And the Turbo Version was released TWO years before!
So they ported a 2 year old Turbo game over to the Genesis and couldn't even have full-screen playing area?
Sad!
Damn Sad!
TurboSage
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 02, 2006, 07:56:05 AM
turbo_sage: Lame game (virtual pinball!), lame developer.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on September 02, 2006, 09:13:21 AM
Seldane's opinions once again used as facts :P .
Seriously, Devil's Crush is awesome and the vast majority will probably agree.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 02, 2006, 10:02:28 AM
I never said it was a fact, I just said lame game. I said it, it's my opinion. :wink:
Seriously though - pinball videogames? I think not!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 02, 2006, 12:29:57 PM
Quote from: "turbo_sage"
So they ported a 2 year old Turbo game over to the Genesis and couldn't even have full-screen playing area?
That's because they ported the playfield over pixel-for-pixel (before tweaking it to make it look more contrasty) and used a higher resolution than the Turbo version. That's like playing an emulator in full screen mode on your computer, saving a screenshot, and then opening it up to see it barely takes up any space on the monitor and blaming your computer for not being able to display it full screen (OK not the greatest analogy but it works). It's not like they couldn't have made it full screen, it's that they didn't. The Genesis has a resolution mode that is the same as the Turbo game (which would have given you your full screen), but I don't think Technosoft has ever used that mode. Alternatively they could have (should have) just redrawn the graphics in the higher resolution mode and made it full screen.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on September 02, 2006, 06:40:48 PM
I agree and think it would've been better just to use the standard 256x224 PCE resolution for the Genesis version or just made full screen use out of the default Genesis resolution they decided to use. I wasn't a fan of that side bar :( .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on September 02, 2006, 07:39:57 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"
I never said it was a fact, I just said lame game. I said it, it's my opinion. :wink:
Seriously though - pinball videogames? I think not!
:) Seldane, I love reading your comments, since you're such an antagonist :).
Some pinball games are sterile and clinical and I can understand your distaste for them.
I prefer real pinball, myself. But pinball video games like Devil's Crush are gems: the mood, atmosphere, control and feel of the game might even convince you to give pinball another chance!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on September 03, 2006, 06:19:19 PM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
Quote from: "turbo_sage"
So they ported a 2 year old Turbo game over to the Genesis and couldn't even have full-screen playing area?
That's because they ported the playfield over pixel-for-pixel (before tweaking it to make it look more contrasty) and used a higher resolution than the Turbo version. That's like playing an emulator in full screen mode on your computer, saving a screenshot, and then opening it up to see it barely takes up any space on the monitor and blaming your computer for not being able to display it full screen (OK not the greatest analogy but it works). It's not like they couldn't have made it full screen, it's that they didn't. The Genesis has a resolution mode that is the same as the Turbo game (which would have given you your full screen), but I don't think Technosoft has ever used that mode. Alternatively they could have (should have) just redrawn the graphics in the higher resolution mode and made it full screen.
If you look closely, they actually redrew all the graphics/art from scratch. Which makes it weird that they'd add a side boarder, but in the end, both versions look and sound cool and neither one is a good all-round benchmark for their system. I don't know if there even is such a game (benchmarker) for any system. People will always find things to nitpick about. That's what makes hobbies like this fun for so many people.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 03, 2006, 10:41:39 PM
One thing that always chapped my ass (until the Duo came along, anyway) was the fact that it was necessary to buy extra equipment if you wanted stereo sound and simple composite video. That was just plain stupid of NEC or Hudson or whoever decided that would be a fantastic idea. Also stupid was the fact that they limited themselves to composite unless you hack open the console. The Sega Master System even had RGB which can easily be converted into S-video or component. I wish they would have at least had a real RGB jack. I was so happy when I modded mine for RGB. Finally that flickering hair at the end of the Ys opening scene no longer flickers at all! The scrolling is no longer fuzzy in Legendary Axe and every other game. Fantasy Zone no longer causes epileptic fits due to the flickering sky. You know you've got some bad composite when it's flickering and it looks like it's supposed to be flickering.
(http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/ys.gif) Evil flickering! Begone! With RGB, it is gone.
Somebody should go back in time and fix these issues. C'mon, the Genesis and SNES had composite and RGB out of the box.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on September 03, 2006, 10:52:49 PM
I assume the main reason the PCE didn't have composite out was space issues, though they were able to fit it just fine in the Core Grafx systems. For Turbo Grafx 16, I assume it's because they assumed if the PCE didn't have it, they shouldn't have it.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 03, 2006, 11:02:22 PM
Isn't the CoreGrafx the same exact thing as the PC Engine, just a different color, name, and outputs?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 04:13:19 AM
Yes, the PC Engine natively outputs a horrible picture. The composite output is much worse than anything else I have ever seen. Walking past houses in Ys IV makes the rooftops flicker, for example, really weird.
Since the PC Engine's video chip natively outputs composite (and to some degree, RGB), they could've easily put a connector on it, but instead they chose to release an "add-on" (here are the add-ons again) to output a picture pretty much just as bad as rf. Ridiculous!
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on September 04, 2006, 05:25:34 AM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
Isn't the CoreGrafx the same exact thing as the PC Engine, just a different color, name, and outputs?
This issue he's refering to being fixed with the Coregrafx's is the need to use an add-on just to get composite, since they use the same video cable as the Duo's and SuperGrafx.
Although I can understand why they would've released the original PC Engine as-is, I still think that by the time the Duo came out, or maybe at least with the SuperGrafx, they should given it an RGB upgrade of some sort.
At least with an A/V or Turbo Booster you had Stereo ready to go, instead of having to line it through an earphone jack.
As for the Sega Master System, it was at least as ahead of it's time that the PC Engine.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: malducci on September 04, 2006, 06:01:39 AM
Quote
At least with an A/V or Turbo Booster you had Stereo ready to go, instead of having to line it through an earphone jack.
I'm not sure what you mean. The Duo had stereo output via the RCA cables - the earphone jack was for earphones. Or were you refering to the Gen/MD?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on September 04, 2006, 06:17:29 AM
Quote from: "malducci"
Quote
At least with an A/V or Turbo Booster you had Stereo ready to go, instead of having to line it through an earphone jack.
I'm not sure what you mean. The Duo had stereo output via the RCA cables - the earphone jack was for earphones. Or were you refering to the Gen/MD?
Yeah, I was refering to the original MD. Was stereo sound not a big deal to Japanese gamers or something? Why did the MDII and Multi Mega come with mono video cables when the North American version came with stereo ones?
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 04, 2006, 06:23:50 AM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
One thing that always chapped my ass (until the Duo came along, anyway) was the fact that it was necessary to buy extra equipment if you wanted stereo sound and simple composite video. That was just plain stupid of NEC or Hudson or whoever decided that would be a fantastic idea. Also stupid was the fact that they limited themselves to composite unless you hack open the console. The Sega Master System even had RGB which can easily be converted into S-video or component. I wish they would have at least had a real RGB jack. I was so happy when I modded mine for RGB. Finally that flickering hair at the end of the Ys opening scene no longer flickers at all! The scrolling is no longer fuzzy in Legendary Axe and every other game. Fantasy Zone no longer causes epileptic fits due to the flickering sky. You know you've got some bad composite when it's flickering and it looks like it's supposed to be flickering.
Somebody should go back in time and fix these issues. C'mon, the Genesis and SNES had composite and RGB out of the box.
Again? This isn't the first time I've seen people fault console output choices from ages ago. The PCE is from 1987. What kind of inputs did you have on your TV in 1987? In 1987 my TV still had a 13 channel rotory changer on it!
In 1987 S-Video was just starting to come into use, but it was exclusive to VCRs that cost $1000+. I have a top of the line Pioneer professional LD player from 1988, and it doesn't have s-video on it. Why should it be on a kid's toy?
Composite was more common, but still nowhere near as common as RF, which was the only input for %99.999 of the TVs on the planet at that time.
RGB was exclusive to TVs in Japan, and parts of Europe (where the PCE wasn't really availible), and still it was missing from most of the budget sets. RGB is nice because it can be converted to component, but component wasn't invented for another *decade*.
Either way NEC obviously thought that RF out only was a bad idea, and so they changed it to composite rather early on. Only the TG-16, and white PCE are RF only, both were upgradable, and all the other variants that came after had composite.
Additionally, I don't get flickering hair in the Y's intro while using composite. You need to buy a TV with a better comb filter.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 06:25:41 AM
You can only see the flickering if you have a TV with a really sharp and nice picture.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 04, 2006, 06:52:27 AM
Quote from: "Seldane"
You can only see the flickering if you have a TV with a really sharp and nice picture.
So...a 36" Wega isn't good enough? I've seen the flicker before, but only on my older, crapier sets.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 06:58:20 AM
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
So...a 36" Wega isn't good enough? I've seen the flicker before, but only on my older, crapier sets.
I have no idea. I have only seen the flicker once (in Ys IV). I RGB modded my system right after that.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on September 04, 2006, 09:42:39 AM
SignofZeta's post about TVs in 1987 was something I was meaning to post ab out as well. Back when I was a kid, I used to always use RF for my video games since it was the most common output I had to use. Eventually I would normally use AVs, but that wasn't until later. So I think if you asked someone back in 1987-1990 about TG16/PCE not having composite out built in, they wouldn't really care, unless they were some super technical nerd :P .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 09:59:50 AM
Same thing as people complaining about the Wii not having HDTV-support.
Really, composite was definitely NOT hi-tech in 1987. It is over fifty years old just as coaxial (rf) is.
Also, children/old folks tend to use rf and stuff because they don't know about other options. Just saying.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on September 04, 2006, 10:02:14 AM
Exactly, so the PCE and TG16 being RF only back in 1987 and 1989 wasn't a big deal at all :) .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 04, 2006, 10:05:13 AM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
At least with an A/V or Turbo Booster you had Stereo ready to go, instead of having to line it through an earphone jack.
I know, what's up with that? If you use the AV cable, you only get the right channel, not even a mono mixdown of both channels! Furthermore the headphone jack on the MD1/Genesis1 is the ONLY way to get stereo out of the system. Hook up a Sega CD and you get some nice RCA jacks BUT you still need to run a wire from the headphone jack into the Sega CD (which is really stupid being as how they could have routed sound through the connection. Power, too. No need for 15 different AC Adaptors). Or you can get all of the Sega CD and Genesis audio straight out of the headphone jack as long as you don't hook anything into the mixing jack of the Sega CD, but no matter what, the headphone jack must be used.
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
What kind of inputs did you have on your TV in 1987?
RF and composite. That's how I hooked my Sega Master System up (composite). I didn't have an NES at the time, but when friends would bring theirs over, we'd hook it up with composite. Also whenever I'd take my SMS over to my dad's house or wherever, I'd hook it up in composite as well. Everyone had composite. Composite rocked our world. I wasn't saying the Turbo/PCE should have had S-video built right in to the console, but composite would have been nice. A booster that provided s-video would have kicked so much ass I probably would have done several back handsprings when buying it.
As for the flickering, I have had a bunch of really nice Sony TVs myself and currently own one of the best Sony CRTs ever made. The flickering is there. It's in the signal output by the graphics chip. If the TV is "combing" it out, then it is altering the signal. The TV cannot add detail that is not there. My animated GIF of the flickering is not TV dependent. And it went through a very high end ($500) Sony capture device. Anyway you may notice that the PCE's composite signal looks a tad sharper than the Genesis/MD's composite signal. I think the flickering is a trade off. The Genesis didn't have fuzzy scrolling or video flickering caused by the composite cable, but it looked noticeably softer despite the usually-higher resolution used on their games. Genesis composite did have thse awful vertical bars of color, though. Those are present in the PCE/Turbo signal as well, though to a much lesser extent.
Moral of the story: Composite sucks. :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 10:17:14 AM
Slightly heated discussion. I like. :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 04, 2006, 11:00:55 AM
This really isn't that heated. It's "spirited". It is fun. :) I really do like this thread because lots of smart people bring up great points on all sides.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on September 04, 2006, 11:12:37 AM
As folks have said, RF input / output was exceedingly common for televsion sets in the U.S. I don't know how the consumer electronics market was for Seldane in Esteria, but here in the States the main selling point for televisions was the screen size (25" was friggin' awesome) and features (picture in picture, baby!).
Joe was lucky to have composite readily available on his own (and all his friends') television sets in 1987. Growing up in a working class area, it would be at least five more years until RCA jacks (A/V) was in widespread use by my relatives and friends (and these are folks who bought newer televsions, lots of folks just kept their old TV's until they died, like my family did).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Keranu on September 04, 2006, 11:25:15 AM
Steve, tell them about the old black and white TV you used to have to use for years :D .
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 11:54:37 AM
I played my games on an ancient (well, 70's) TV with no SCART/AV or anything. I connected all the video game systems via the VCR. That is, until the TV died and I got a new one with SCART (but without RGB support, cheap stuff).
My current (third, actually) TV has AV, S-video, SCART, RGB and all that stuff. No HD support, of course. I don't want to mess up my precious games with that kinda stuff. :)
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: nodtveidt on September 04, 2006, 12:12:54 PM
I have no idea what would cause such weird flicker in that part of Ys. I've played that game on five different televisions and never noticed anything like that, and rarely do such details escape me (as a lifelong game programmer, I have an unnatural eye for detail that will notice things even a pixel off...such a problem would not go unnoticed by me).
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 04, 2006, 12:16:24 PM
The flicker is actually much faster than the GIF I posted shows. It is as fast as interlace flicker, or 1/60th of a second per "flick".
I would like to see some of your TVs with that screen and no flicker, but I can't think of any way for anyone to reliably prove that it does or doesn't flicker in that spot other that to see it with our own eyes. Maybe it doesn't flicker there in PAL lands.
Title: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 12:22:49 PM
I recommend walking up and down in any village in Ys IV looking at the rooftops. Now that's some high quality flickering! :wink:
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: dougal on July 15, 2013, 10:40:45 AM
I know its an old thread but here is my non technical opinion of the 3 systems.
Firstly, ALL 3 systems have excellent game exclusives. Though I would probably say my favorites for exclusives would be 1st the SNES, 2nd Mega Drive and very VERY close 3rd the PCE.
Graphics-wise, 1st SNES and Mega Drive & PCE I would probably put on roughly the same level.
Sound-wise, 1st SNES and 2nd both PCE and Megadrive equally. I say this because whilst its true most PCE sounds are pretty basic the sounds in SFII are WAY BETTER on the PCE than they are on the MD. The voices on PCE are clear and like the arcade version but on the Mega Drive they just sound croaky / froggy.
Looks-wise, The Megadrive is the winner. It looks great in black and great design. The PCE is 2nd as its so small and well designed. SNES is pretty ugly compared to the other two.
I have all 3 systems, have had a SNES since I was 11 years old and Megadrive since age 15. I got my PCE recently. I love all 3 systems and for the last few weeks all I have been playing is PCE but overall, all things considered I think the best system is the SNES but kudos to the PCE for being so good that it is comparable to the 16 bit SNES and Megadrive even though it is an 8 Bit console.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: ProfessorProfessorson on July 15, 2013, 12:47:00 PM
Christ, f*cking noobs and their necroposting threads........
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: VenomMacbeth on July 15, 2013, 01:12:49 PM
Though I would probably say my favorites for exclusives would be 1st the SNES, 2nd Mega Drive and very VERY close 3rd the PCE.
Blasphemer :P
But it ranked very high conidering you have absolute no nostalgic feelings for it. So I would assume, that PCE would be your absolute #1 if you had it back in time.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: dougal on July 15, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
Though I would probably say my favorites for exclusives would be 1st the SNES, 2nd Mega Drive and very VERY close 3rd the PCE.
Blasphemer :P
But it ranked very high conidering you have absolute no nostalgic feelings for it. So I would assume, that PCE would be your absolute #1 if you had it back in time.
Totally! I have almost every console and if I want to generalize I actually prefer the PCE to many consoles I have owned as a kid like the PS1, Saturn and NES.
And no matter what anybody says Ninja Gaiden is MUCH nicer on the PCE than it is on the NES. Much nicer colors and the music in my opinion is 10 times nicer than the NES version.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on July 16, 2013, 06:45:59 AM
I know its an old thread but here is my non technical opinion of the 3 systems.
Firstly, ALL 3 systems have excellent game exclusives. Though I would probably say my favorites for exclusives would be 1st the SNES, 2nd Mega Drive and very VERY close 3rd the PCE.
Graphics-wise, 1st SNES and Mega Drive & PCE I would probably put on roughly the same level.
Sound-wise, 1st SNES and 2nd both PCE and Megadrive equally. I say this because whilst its true most PCE sounds are pretty basic the sounds in SFII are WAY BETTER on the PCE than they are on the MD. The voices on PCE are clear and like the arcade version but on the Mega Drive they just sound croaky / froggy.
Looks-wise, The Megadrive is the winner. It looks great in black and great design. The PCE is 2nd as its so small and well designed. SNES is pretty ugly compared to the other two.
I have all 3 systems, have had a SNES since I was 11 years old and Megadrive since age 15. I got my PCE recently. I love all 3 systems and for the last few weeks all I have been playing is PCE but overall, all things considered I think the best system is the SNES but kudos to the PCE for being so good that it is comparable to the 16 bit SNES and Megadrive even though it is an 8 Bit console.
The PCE has CD sound and warble-free adpcm. What SNES game sounds nearly as good as Tengai Makyou Fuun Kabuki Den?
Have you played through Anearth Fantasy Stories, Legend of Xanadu I & II, Gulliver Boy, Cosmic Fantasy 4, Ai Cho Aniki, World Heroes 2, Fatal Fury Special, 3x3 Eyes, DE JA, Beyond Shadowgate, Tenchi Muyo, Spriggan, Kiaidan 00, etc?
The PCE is the only console hardware of that generation that can handle 16-bit sprites like the 16-bit arcade hardware of the time. The SNES and Genesis just fake large sprites, but the PCE almost always does huge sprites for real. Kudos to the other consoles for tacking "Super" and "16-bit" on their hardware, but they do big sprites the exact same way as the NES and SMS.
The SNES still has crippling slowdown even while using FAKE sprites. It's basically just a colorful NES with a couple special effects thrown in. Just compare Gradius II for Famicom and Gradius III SNES. Games like Dragon Slayer and Dragon Quest V prove how solid ths SNES is within 8-bit generation quality. Even the better looking games still use Gameboy-quality graphics.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: BigusSchmuck on July 16, 2013, 08:36:42 AM
Why is there even a thread arguing about these systems on a pcengine/turbografx forum? Its like posting DVDs have better sound than Laserdiscs on a Laserdisc forum... In short, its always has been about the games and that is how it should be.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Black Tiger on July 16, 2013, 01:16:51 PM
Why is there even a thread arguing about these systems on a pcengine/turbografx forum? Its like posting DVDs have better sound than Laserdiscs on a Laserdisc forum... In short, its always has been about the games and that is how it should be.
So..., care to tell us in English which games the screenshots come from?
I recognize 7 of those, and a couple more seem somewhat familiar, but I would appreciate knowing which games go with which screenshots.
Ditto
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: ParanoiaDragon on July 17, 2013, 06:02:18 AM
On the PC Engine side, I'd say going down...Legend of Xanadu 2, Dragon Knight 3 or Dragon Knight & Graffitti, Panic Bomber, Legend of Xanadu, Gulliver Boy, Super Darius 2, Anearth Fantasy Stories, Fatal Fury 2 or FF2 Special, Rayxamber 2, World Heroes 2, Beyond Shadowgate, Ys 3.
On the Snes, Zelda 3, not sure, Super Mario 4, Super Mario 4, not sure, Darius Twin, Mother 2?, Pit Fighter, Uniracers, not sure, not sure, Dragon Slayer LOH.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: BigusSchmuck on July 17, 2013, 06:36:51 AM
Why is there even a thread arguing about these systems on a pcengine/turbografx forum? Its like posting DVDs have better sound than Laserdiscs on a Laserdisc forum... In short, its always has been about the games and that is how it should be.
So..., care to tell us in English which games the screenshots come from?
I recognize 7 of those, and a couple more seem somewhat familiar, but I would appreciate knowing which games go with which screenshots.
Unlike you, I have an internet connection. Therefore, I own all the games, therefore I have played all the games, therefore I know all about all the games, including all of the ones like Super Zelda 3, Super Mario Bro IV, Super Ninja Boy, Super Secret of the Stars, Super Darius Twins, Super Earthbound, Super Pit Fighters, Super Unicycles, Super Street Kombat, Super Drankon and Super Dragon Slayers I, -which show the limitations of the SNES hardware. If the hardware wasn't so limited, then these games WOULD NOT exist. This is indisputable proof than even fanboys can't deny.
I personally feel that the SNES is like a Super charged 2600 and sits on the boarder between Odyssey and real 16-bit consoles like Intellivision. The thing required a freaking SATELLITE upgrade just to keep up with real video game systems, let alone all of the gun upgrades, mouse upgrades, etc. It has more hardware revisions than any console ever released and is impossible for real people to figure out.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Necromancer on July 17, 2013, 08:10:51 AM
Ha! You crack me up, BT, but will people like zippy ever get it? :lol:
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: turboswimbz on July 17, 2013, 08:21:08 AM
:clap: :lol:
BT you just won the forums
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Nando on July 17, 2013, 09:07:13 AM
It has more hardware revisions than any console ever released and is impossible for real people to figure out.
You sure the Genesis isn't more applicable there? :lol
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: esteban on July 17, 2013, 12:23:53 PM
FRENCH IS THE LANGUAGE OF LOVERS. (http://junk.tg-16.com/images/pcgs.png)
FACT: When it comes to aesthetics of consoles, the MegaDrive/Genesis is BUTT UGLY GOOFY KIDS TOY. Seriously.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Mathius on July 17, 2013, 04:22:34 PM
I just read all 21 pages. I enjoyed it thoroughly. BT's exaggerated rant at the end left me irked, speechless, then amused. :)
Honestly I kind of wish I hadn't read this thread. Now I feel I need to get my Duo-R RGB or S-Video modded. After I read Joe Red's post about the PCE's flickering backgrounds (Fantasy Zone) I immediately got up to see for myself. I guess I could live with it. Though I don't want to.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: fraggore on July 18, 2013, 06:31:37 AM
The Mega-CD was pretty popular in Europe, and of course--nobody knew what a Turbo Grafx was. :roll:
Being from the uk it was known as a pc engine in this neck of the woods at lease as far as i was concerned, the turbo was mythical story of intrigue mystery of release dates, pictures in magazines and tele games saying the uk version is here, but never seeing a consoles or games anywhere its only like 20 years later you can buy them on ebay.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Tatsujin on July 18, 2013, 12:08:21 PM
It's strange , i went to london in '96 and and accidentally found a gamestore with a wand full of PCE games and to my surprise, even quite cheap.
Bought about 20 games there.
but going to some UK retro-forums, the PCE is almost inexistent.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Joe Redifer on July 18, 2013, 02:27:32 PM
Pfffttt you are all complete losers. PC Engine is better than everything!
graphcis: PC Engine has more colors more sprites mroe backgronds and more awsome visuals. No Super Nitnedo. no TurboGrafx-16 or Geneiss game looks as good as any PC Engine game. Go to hell if you di You maybe think that the SNES has more colros but they are fake colors not real genesis has fake sprites we should laugh at genesis
(http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/pcevseverything.jpg) Tell me that the PCE doesn't look like the best grfix this is the evidence pictures odnt lie
audo sound: PC engine is once again best with better audio higher qulity and mbetter musics. u may think gensis and snes has more channels and more modern audio but pce is betetr because it can play tru stereo voice vlcps. Don't even bring TurboGrafx-16 into the argument beciause PCE detroyes TG-16 audio. TG-16 sounds like beefed up NES but PCE sounds like areola man. only losers would
CPU: The central processing unti in the PCE is much better than eithe the SNES, Gensis or TurboGrafx-16. The PCE CPU processes real number in real time to make better games grpahcis and sounds but the other snes turbo and Genesis processors have to process slowly and with darkness and they suck and can't play games aat least not good ones.
controll" pC Engine has the best controller with the fasteest presponse time and the other feel. snes geensis are like crap and have lsow response time they are suck. TuboGrafx-16 controller sucks because it has backwards numbers they can't even count in the correct direction but PCE has them in order because in Japan they read from right to left. anythibg in japan is betetr ythan everything in th eusa no exception
gamepaly: The games play much better on PC Engine because of the hyper speed 1-6-bit power it's the only tru 16-bit system of the world. The games are also much more
the Games: The PC Engine has the best game liebary as well snes and Genesis only have games that are not any fun at all and play like crap athat nobody wants to play but every PC engine game is a winner which has the fun to extreme.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Mathius on July 18, 2013, 02:38:14 PM
Oh my! It must be fanboy mating season. The amount of "Nerdosterone" in this thread just jumped by 256%! :P
Actually I would really like to know what the game in the lower right hand corner is. It's making my nipples hard.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Tatsujin on July 18, 2013, 02:54:09 PM
Visually a rather nice game, bur lacks some pepp and good gameplay imo.
Wow, I played that game awhile back, I guess it never really sunk in on how nice it looked!
Mythic Formula looks and plays nice in some parts, but there are many segments of the game that are not particularly great/impressive.
But who cares about the aesthetics when the game itself SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ENGAGING. I agree with the person who said Mystic Formula was lacking "pep"... it is a damn, shame, too. The cinemas seem nicely done (from what I remember).
DISCLAIMER: This game was on my " want" list for years, so I may be somewhat critical/tough on it.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: roflmao on July 30, 2013, 04:04:41 PM
This thread is win.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Gillian Seed on August 03, 2013, 06:55:11 PM
Though I would probably say my favorites for exclusives would be 1st the SNES, 2nd Mega Drive and very VERY close 3rd the PCE.
Blasphemer :P
But it ranked very high conidering you have absolute no nostalgic feelings for it. So I would assume, that PCE would be your absolute #1 if you had it back in time.
I'm actually someone who has no nostalgia toward any of the 3. I *get ready for this* skipped out on the 16-bit gen. I owned only a NES until the 32/64-bit gen, and only played mostly Genesis and some SNES at friend's places. I finally got a SNES when I was 15 by trading a friend for my PSOne, a Genesis was given to me on my 17th birthday by my now sister-in-law, and I've only owned a PC Engine Duo for about a year and a half.
For me personally, I actually like the PC Engine the most. I also have to admit a lot of the reason for it being my favourite is how much more interesting the console is itself. All the hardware variations, the HuCard format, the great CD sound and cutscenes. How can you not be a fan of the console?
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Tatsujin on August 03, 2013, 07:09:25 PM
Some peeps are not a fan of PCE for pure jaleousy reasons. Just talked to one recently.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: MottZilla on August 04, 2013, 09:06:14 AM
Some people aren't fans of PCE cause they just don't know it exists. I had never heard of the TG16 or PCE until around 2000 or so when emulation was getting popular. Or perhaps they just don't know about some of the amazing games that were made for it. I imagine perhaps one of the most well known games would be Castlevania Dracula X. One of my favorites is Lords of Thunder. However I have no idea how or when I found out about it. It may have been from stumbling across a Turbo DUO promo video that featured it.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Gillian Seed on August 04, 2013, 09:26:44 AM
I was really young at the time (I'm only as old as Sonic the Hedgehog :P), but I know I didn't know much about the TG-16/PCE until about the same time as well. The only thing I really remember about the TG-16 from the 90s' are seeing Bonk ads in magazines and wanting to play it. I don't know if the media just didn't pay it enough attention or if I just skimmed through everything that wasn't a mascot (pretty sure this isn't true though, since I played many games back then).
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: EvilEvoIX on August 04, 2013, 09:41:46 AM
This thread is hilarious.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: EvilEvoIX on August 04, 2013, 09:46:13 AM
So..., care to tell us in English which games the screenshots come from?
I recognize 7 of those, and a couple more seem somewhat familiar, but I would appreciate knowing which games go with which screenshots.
Unlike you, I have an internet connection. Therefore, I own all the games, therefore I have played all the games, therefore I know all about all the games, including all of the ones like Super Zelda 3, Super Mario Bro IV, Super Ninja Boy, Super Secret of the Stars, Super Darius Twins, Super Earthbound, Super Pit Fighters, Super Unicycles, Super Street Kombat, Super Drankon and Super Dragon Slayers I, -which show the limitations of the SNES hardware. If the hardware wasn't so limited, then these games WOULD NOT exist. This is indisputable proof than even fanboys can't deny.
I personally feel that the SNES is like a Super charged 2600 and sits on the boarder between Odyssey and real 16-bit consoles like Intellivision. The thing required a freaking SATELLITE upgrade just to keep up with real video game systems, let alone all of the gun upgrades, mouse upgrades, etc. It has more hardware revisions than any console ever released and is impossible for real people to figure out.
This guy is speaking my LANGUAGE!!!! The SNES actually did have some sort of Satellite upgrade in Japan. Most of us knew about the Satellaview, but it just produced more fake sprites.
Title: Re: Pc engine on par technically with snes / genesis ?
Post by: Tatsujin on August 04, 2013, 05:05:44 PM