Also, why are you using Star Breaker as any sort of comparison regarding quality. That is a low production value, corner cutting, plain jane, game.
Compared to what? I quite like it. I was using it as an example because it is very FF/DQ-like, although lower budget.
Really? Compared to what? I take it you haven't play many SCD RPGs then? Star Breaker, with its weak graphics, low colors, poor palette choices, low animation, below average cinema graphics/quality. You mention Star Breaker as if it were something special, it's not. The game might be fun, whatever, but that doesn't detract about the other factors of the game. SO and SO2 are just like Star Breaker (and by the same company). Low production value games (be it fun or not). I don't see how you can make the comparison between those low production value games and top tire titles like FF and DQ on the SFC, as if they're on the same level. Seriously, ACD bi-compatible upgrades to games like I dunno.. Xanadu, Xanadu 2, Ys IV, Emerald Dragon, A Near Earth Story, Monster Maker, just to name a few? And you mention Star Breaker...
And 3x3 eyes ACD support is an after thought. The load routines are extremely unoptimized (like they were assuming/built the game when the ACD was in prototype stages and access was slow). Which continues onto my next point...
And I used 3x3 Eyes as an example because it has, by far, the fanciest cinema in the PCE library. If Star Breaker was as fancy as 3x3 Eyes then...well, that would be pretty cool! But, it would have put Rayforce right the f*ck out of business (sooner) because it never would have made its money back. It would have cost more money to make, and fewer people would have bought it. This is why they made it a Super CD. This is why everyone made Super CDs. The was almost no possibility of full-on AC games making their money back. This was my point all along.
Actually, Gulliver easily beats out 3x3 Eyes for cinemas. But regardless, just because 3x3 Eyes cinemas are the most impressive to you - doesn't mean that's the best the system could do. They took a rather generic approach technically (which I've already given technical reasons why there are superior options). But more importantly, you think some better cinemas would have put Rayforce out of business? Hahahaha. That's asinine. Yes, if a company
is going to do a full ACD only title, it
better be something that clearly can't be done in a ACD/SCD bi-compatible setup. But I fail to see how Rayforce making a bi-compatible ACD/SCD and only using it for cinemas would put them out of business. Rayforce being a low production company though, I don't see the likelihood that they
ever even looked at ACD only projects. Hudson/Falcom or some other bigger companies would be more likely.
I used to think cliche terms like "lazy programmers" was thrown around way too much. But really, it's not. There are plenty designers and programmers that *will* takes the least amount of work/time/money approach to a project. This is called low production value. Good ideas/games on low-to-mid production value schedules. The more I look at games, trace code, look at tile/sprite usage, compression schemes used, the more I shake my head which is obviously corners being cut.
This is because games are made on a budget. If they avoid the budget, it will be the last game they make. The next time your boss tells you to cut corners with some code, tell him to piss off. Tell him that you are going to do it the right way. He may let you work an extra 8 hours every day to pull it off, but I'll bet you'll get sick of that.
You make this exaggerated statement/analogy, yet you haven't a clue how much "relative" time was saved but cutting corners. And you have no idea if unoptimized method actually saved anytime at all. There are plenty of examples on the PCE, where sprites could be compiled and yet they didn't, leading to over occurrence of flicker. And more times than not, it saves time and space. Sprites are just one example. You think it would have taken the programmer responsible for the cinemas in 3x3 Eyes, that much more time to do a proper ACD load route? I took me less than a day to figure the ACD regs out and write my own, faster, load routine. It wasn't voodoo code or magic, it was common sense. Yes, adding additional script control, events, more dialog, etc ala FF2/3 US or ChronoTrigger is more production time than a simple RPG. Or perfecting gameplay mechanics for action/shooter style genres. That part of production value is
higher level design. But I'm talking about stuff that doesn't take a lot of time. I'm was talking about lower level design in that part. These programmers worked at there jobs for I assume at least 9-10 hours a day (being Japan, but even in the US programmers tend to work long hours). If I was coding 10hours a day and 5 days a week, I could sure as hell get a *lot* done on a PCE project - I tell you that. I mean, do you think it took that Red Company programmer sooo much extra time to organize level data into linear sector loads in GOT? But yet Konami goes out of their way with more effort to write a
slower CD read setup for level loading in Rondo. Konami had great high level production value, but consistently had mediocre low level production design (Parodius on the PCE is a good example of this too). Rondo's method more work even, since you have multiple sectors now that you have to read in
vs GOT single sector location per level (also one sector location read for the cinema and one for the ending credits). EU games in general (not on the PCE of course :/ ) of that era are probably the best example of exceptional low level design, but poor high level design.
