Author Topic: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?  (Read 1393 times)

spenoza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2751
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2012, 04:28:53 AM »
I remember in EGM back in 1989, they were saying the PC-Engine 2 was supposed to have a true 16-Bit CPU, as well as better audio, in addition to better graphics.

Better audio and graphics capabilities would have been nice, but a 16-bit CPU wouldn't have made any difference over a faster 8-bit CPU.
<a href="http://www.pcedaisakusen.net/2/34/103/show-collection.htm" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">My meager PC Engine Collection so far.</a><br><a href="https://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">PC Engine Software Bible</a><br><a href="http://www.racketboy.com/forum/" c

Arkhan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14142
  • Fuck Elmer.
    • Incessant Negativity Software
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2012, 04:52:51 AM »
I remember in EGM back in 1989, they were saying the PC-Engine 2 was supposed to have a true 16-Bit CPU, as well as better audio, in addition to better graphics.

Better audio and graphics capabilities would have been nice, but a 16-bit CPU wouldn't have made any difference over a faster 8-bit CPU.

what if the 16-bit CPU was faster than the 8-bit one.

the 65816 can punch up to 20mhz, as demonstrated by the SuperCPU addon.  Screw the retarded SNES one.

either way, 16-bit capabilities are pretty important.

[Fri 19:34]<nectarsis> been wanting to try that one for awhile now Ope
[Fri 19:33]<Opethian> l;ol huge dong

I'm a max level Forum Warrior.  I'm immortal.
If you're not ready to defend your claims, don't post em.

spenoza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2751
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2012, 10:24:49 AM »
what if the 16-bit CPU was faster than the 8-bit one.

the 65816 can punch up to 20mhz, as demonstrated by the SuperCPU addon.  Screw the retarded SNES one.

either way, 16-bit capabilities are pretty important.



Well, if the 16-bit CPU was faster than the 8-bit one, then yes, it could make a big difference. That said, they could still use an 8-bit core and use certain 16-bit addressing modes if designed properly. I don't think 8 vs 16-bit for the core functions would affect the abilities of the console as much.

Now, the way to make a true-16-bit transition for the PCE might have been to adopt a 16-bit CPU but retain the Hu6280 as an audio co-processor (give it some additional hardware to work with, of course, like a few FM channels and some enhanced sampling functions) and, perhaps, like the SGX, a couple of the VDPs working together. Might be a bit of a bitch to program for, though. Still, I imagine graphics chips are much easier to work with in a parallel configuration than something like a general purpose CPU (ala the Sega Saturn).
<a href="http://www.pcedaisakusen.net/2/34/103/show-collection.htm" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">My meager PC Engine Collection so far.</a><br><a href="https://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">PC Engine Software Bible</a><br><a href="http://www.racketboy.com/forum/" c

Digi.k

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2012, 12:22:41 PM »
its an excellent conversion graphically superior to the megadrive but audio it does lack some oomph..

you could also get the cheaper capcom generations 2 for psx/sega saturn


Digi.k

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2012, 12:25:03 PM »
I've never played it, but watching videos I know they messed up the scrolling of the layers in he beginning of level 3.  What is part of the front layer should be in the background or vice-versa, I forget.

oh that level where you travel upwards then jump along the wiggly tongues.....

Arkhan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14142
  • Fuck Elmer.
    • Incessant Negativity Software
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2012, 12:25:57 PM »
a 16 bit CPU, in this case, say the 65816, is already faster than the 65c02, and has access to all of it's modes and them some.   16 bit mathery is going to benefit from a 16 bit CPU.   You can do shit half as fast basically.  What you describe (8 bit CPU with 16 bit addressing modes) is basically a z80.   Indirect indexed on the 6502 is 16 bit apparently. But f*ck that crap.

and no, it doesn't need a co processor for audio, and some FM.   This isn't a mega drive.
[Fri 19:34]<nectarsis> been wanting to try that one for awhile now Ope
[Fri 19:33]<Opethian> l;ol huge dong

I'm a max level Forum Warrior.  I'm immortal.
If you're not ready to defend your claims, don't post em.

SuperGrafx16

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2012, 01:12:15 PM »
I've never played it, but watching videos I know they messed up the scrolling of the layers in he beginning of level 3.  What is part of the front layer should be in the background or vice-versa, I forget.

oh that level where you travel upwards then jump along the wiggly tongues.....
[/quote

He's talking about the first half of level 3, not the 2nd half.

BigusSchmuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3425
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2012, 05:20:04 PM »
a 16 bit CPU, in this case, say the 65816, is already faster than the 65c02, and has access to all of it's modes and them some.   16 bit mathery is going to benefit from a 16 bit CPU.   You can do shit half as fast basically.  What you describe (8 bit CPU with 16 bit addressing modes) is basically a z80.   Indirect indexed on the 6502 is 16 bit apparently. But f*ck that crap.

and no, it doesn't need a co processor for audio, and some FM.   This isn't a mega drive.

Or just make a x86 based cpu and have loads of fun with pc ports! :P Anyway back on topic, I tend to agree that the SGX version of Ghouls N Ghosts is definitely one of my favorites. Its a shame the damn game costs so much on the bay these days.

nectarsis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2012, 05:34:50 PM »
a 16 bit CPU, in this case, say the 65816, is already faster than the 65c02, and has access to all of it's modes and them some.   16 bit mathery is going to benefit from a 16 bit CPU.   You can do shit half as fast basically.  What you describe (8 bit CPU with 16 bit addressing modes) is basically a z80.   Indirect indexed on the 6502 is 16 bit apparently. But f*ck that crap.

and no, it doesn't need a co processor for audio, and some FM.   This isn't a mega drive.

Or just make a x86 based cpu and have loads of fun with pc ports! :P Anyway back on topic, I tend to agree that the SGX version of Ghouls N Ghosts is definitely one of my favorites. Its a shame the damn game costs so much on the bay these days.


$40-50 on the bay isn't TERRIBLE, though it is a tad high.  I am firmly on the side that SGFX GnG is worth every penny (like Aldynes).
My Blogger profile with all my blogs of wonderment:<br><a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/08066967226239965436" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://www.blogger.com/profile/08066967226239965436</a>

Arkhan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14142
  • Fuck Elmer.
    • Incessant Negativity Software
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2012, 05:47:11 PM »
every game on the SGX is worth it.

i mean, what other system lets you get the whole library for like, 200 bucks.
[Fri 19:34]<nectarsis> been wanting to try that one for awhile now Ope
[Fri 19:33]<Opethian> l;ol huge dong

I'm a max level Forum Warrior.  I'm immortal.
If you're not ready to defend your claims, don't post em.

nectarsis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2012, 05:48:18 PM »
every game on the SGX is worth it.

i mean, what other system lets you get the whole library for like, 200 bucks.

1941 alone may bump that up a bit ;)
My Blogger profile with all my blogs of wonderment:<br><a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/08066967226239965436" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://www.blogger.com/profile/08066967226239965436</a>

Bonknuts

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #41 on: March 20, 2012, 05:25:36 AM »
a 16 bit CPU, in this case, say the 65816, is already faster than the 65c02, and has access to all of it's modes and them some.   16 bit mathery is going to benefit from a 16 bit CPU.   You can do shit half as fast basically.  What you describe (8 bit CPU with 16 bit addressing modes) is basically a z80.   Indirect indexed on the 6502 is 16 bit apparently. But f*ck that crap.

 Both absolute and indirect addressing modes on the 65x are 16bit. 16bit addressing wasn't a stranger to 8bit cpu, it was the norm. If you mean indexing, then yeah - only 8bit. The 6809 cpu has 16bit indexing though.

 The 65816 is a kind of crap cpu though. For two reasons: it was originally made pin compatible with the 6502 and thus 24bit addressing is done through multiplexing the data bus and address bus - you have to use an external register to latch this (using Phase 1 and Phase 2) . This means all roms have to be twice as fast in the cpu clock rate. A 20mhz 65816 would need 40mhz memory. That's really shitty. Even on the snes with it's custom package, those rom speed requirements are still there (that's why there's a option to run the cpu in slower speed, slower speed roms were cheaper). A 7.16mhz 65816 on the SGX would require ~50ns rom (as well as ram) or introduce wait states which would defeat the purpose. Second, the 8bit data bus is pathetic. It hinders the real power of that processor design. It would be incredibly fast if the data bus was 16bit (it's gimped similar to the 68008 8bit data bus 68k, although not as bad). The 65816 is also missing some opcodes from the 65C02 (there are two official revisions of this processor, the second one adds more opcodes - and is what the 6280 version is based off of), so it's only backwards compatible with the 6502, not the 65C02 or 65C02S. And all the 6280 opcode slots are already taken up on the 65816.

 I don't think it's worth having a 16bit cpu (ala 65816) in the SGX if it means breaking compatibility with the PCE. An external DMA controller to take the load off cpu for graphic updates would do good for the system (16bit DMA writes to the VDC for twice the transfer rate as the Txx). The 6280 has a few opcode slots open for upgrades, they could have added additional register (16bit indexing), address to address 16bit math (macro instructions), long 24bit addressing, and such through these. Even chain or paired opcodes, like the z80 prefix opcodes (there have been external hardware upgrades to the original 6502 that did stuff like this). If not done on the processor, it could have been handled via an external controller unit (like the SNES does or the Arcade Card on the PCE); 24bit addressing with self incrementing or decrementing, etc. There's plenty of open bus area in the hardware bank ($ff) for this (it's what the arcade card does).

 I bought the SGX back in early '93 and was a little disappointed that they did nothing to upgrade the sound. It still had the same thin/skinny bottom end as the PCE. Two additional DMA DAC channels would have cleared that up. I would take that sort of upgrade over any cpu upgrade.

soop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #42 on: March 20, 2012, 05:28:21 AM »
I have a spare loose copy of Daimakaimura.  Offers welcome, preferably trade ;)

Arkhan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14142
  • Fuck Elmer.
    • Incessant Negativity Software
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #43 on: March 20, 2012, 06:52:09 AM »
Both absolute and indirect addressing modes on the 65x are 16bit. 16bit addressing wasn't a stranger to 8bit cpu, it was the norm. If you mean indexing, then yeah - only 8bit. The 6809 cpu has 16bit indexing though.
I know that.  My point though was more the fact that the 6502 lacks actual 16 bit registers to do the aforementioned things.  It'd be nice if they used a CPU that did for the SuperGrafx.  I'd venture to guess that it would be fine to use a 65816, since you can kick them into 65c02 emulation mode.  I'd also guess that Hudson would come up with some hybrid thing anyways like they did with the 6280.    

You should see the C64 w/ a SuperCPU.  It's pretty wild.  The one game for it (Metal Dust), pulls things off the C64 crowd could never dream of otherwise.  The game's not exactly great, but it shows the difference you can actually get.   the speed and the 16-bitting help a great deal.   This is why all of those Doom/Wolf3D games for C64/Speccy/etc are pretty rough.  You really need more bittage to achieve those kinds of things.

Imagine what you could do on the SuperGrafx with a 16 bit CPU that is faster than the 6280.  I suppose, if Spenoza's idea of using the 6280 as a coprocessor went into effect too, you wouldn't need to worry about compatibility.

Something similar is often discussed in Amiga land.   People think the Amiga line should have been backwards compatible with the C64/128 line.   They want the exact opposite.  8 bit CPU instead of a 16 bit one... weird.

It's all preference though, and I don't see the point in debating it any further.  SuperGrafx just needed some sort of 16 bit CPU.  It's kind of apparent that the 6280 wasn't powerful enough to deal with everything well.

EDIT: added some C64 nonsense.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 08:01:20 AM by Arkhan »
[Fri 19:34]<nectarsis> been wanting to try that one for awhile now Ope
[Fri 19:33]<Opethian> l;ol huge dong

I'm a max level Forum Warrior.  I'm immortal.
If you're not ready to defend your claims, don't post em.

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Okay so how good is Ghouls 'n Ghosts on SuperGrafx?
« Reply #44 on: March 20, 2012, 01:55:15 PM »
every game on the SGX is worth it.

i mean, what other system lets you get the whole library for like, 200 bucks.

1941 alone may bump that up a bit ;)

and also counting in the two available hybrids, you easily can add a further "0" behind.
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^