tl;dr - Parallax is.
The Genesis, SNES, and PCE were made with the hardware capability, from the core system, to reposition any part of the screen at a different scroll point (to divide the screen into different scrolling speeds and direction). That by definition, is hardware assisted parallax. The PCE uses the traditional Hsync interrupt, the Genesis uses scroll ram, and the SNES uses HDMA. They all do the same thing. The Genesis has an addition BG layer allowing for more complex parallax, and the SNES can have up to 3 layers (4 in limited color modes) for even more advance parallax layering.
All these systems are capable of parallax. All these systems do parallax at some level of functionality when the developers make that choice. There is hardware assisting with the parallax in these consoles. There is no "fake" parallax in comparison from one to another, or better said is that they are all fake parallax - but some methods more advance than others. Even software parallax isn't fake. If you see a parallax effect, then it's parallax. The only thing to say about it, is the level of complexity accomplished for the effect. Using sprites, using dynamic tiles, using hsync interrupts, using whatever means necessary - none of that makes it fake.
If parallax is created through palette animation, then it's still parallax. If parallax is created through sprites for star fields, then it's still parallax. If a screen is split into "paper scrolls" (scrolling parts that don't overlap one another), then it's still parallax. Etc.
Sure, all of those are different kinds of parallax, but they are not all equal in how they look, and that's what you don't mention here.
BT, you're getting a little pedantic, but you are, of course, correct. "Hardware" parallax isn't really that. Hardware support for two independent and independently scrolling tile layers is often used to create parallax, just as a strip of sprites is. Both are hardware dependent, and both are functionally very similar. The advantage of the background method is the possibility of occlusion by one of the other tile layers without wasting sprites or inducing flicker in the sprite layer, which, you have to admit, is a really nice bonus.
I often wish the PC Engine had been designed with a little more RAM and another tile layer, but it wasn't. We got what we got and the programmers still did great stuff with it, and the games are still fun. And while the absence of an extra tile layer does sometimes degrade a game's aesthetic, it doesn't affect the fundamental gameplay. With that in mind, I would be lying if I said visuals don't affect the amount of fun I have with a game. And I actually do like some of that "fake" depth BT complains about. These games aren't means to be realistic. They are meant to be spectacles. Much like movies.
Well said. There are very few games which make me say 'that's too much parallax'; maybe Jim Power 3D for SNES, but not much else... and even there the effect is interesting even if it's hard to look at as a result. I like parallax.
When the area "nearest" the viewer flows by more quickly than the area "furthest" from the viewer and the main background area scrolls even slower yet, what else is it? I'm talking about the water that flows along the floor and ceiling, of course; the waterfall islands in the background are indeed just animated water and scroll in step with the rest of the background.
I do see what you mean, yes, and that's why I mentioned it as a parallax-ish effect in the review. However, looking at it again, the problem is that the rocks and the background scroll together. If you only look at the water there is an illusion of depth... but then you notice that the rocks that that water is flowing over are moving at the same exact speed as the background and the effect falls apart. That's the kind of thing having a full parallax background layer allows, but W-Ring doesn't have that.
I suppose in your biased little world the clouds that scroll independently of and overlap the background scenery also aren't parallax. They're just clouds! 
You overstate how biased I am here and understate your own bias, I think...
Getting held up on technicalities only keeps you from genuinely appreciating games as games to play and as art in general. One of the worst thing to happen to 16-bit discussion is all the fanboys who misinterpret spec sheets and argue that there are equations
which prove that their console is the bestest, instead of taking each game at face value.
Yup, this is why I give credit to Genesis games that exhibit "scaling and rotation" even if it is using various tricks to create the illusion. All the matters is what the player experiences. Clever programmers deserve credit for the beautiful illusions they create within constraints.
On the subject of Genesis, SNES, or TG16 games trying to do software scaling and rotation effects, I give credit when they are done well, but not when the framerates and animation are so bad that it's hard to look at. Looking at the Genesis, games like Super Thunder Blade, Space Harrier II, or Super Hang-On aren't going to get much praise from me for trying, not with how nearly unplayable the results are. On the other hand, games which do look and play well, like RoadBlasters or Outrun 2019, do.
The water in Stage 3 is absolutely mesmerizing, as well as the starfields in Galaga 88 and Gradius.
Does Black Falcon ever realize that no one cares about his massive blocks of text? He goes into basically Autism mode every time someone disagrees with a single thing he says. He probably spends hours just proofreading his stupid debate arguments.
Lukester, I enjoy reading his stuff, even if I disagree with parts of it.
I discover how I really feel about things, and I better my own priorities/biases, when I read someone else's views.
I don't mind if he doesn't see things exactly like me, because, to be honest, I have my own quirks and peculiarities.
I enjoy reading your comments, too, by the way.
I understand. Maybe it's a little harsh for me to say that.
But it is exhausting trying to read his posts. Never clear and concise.
In all honesty, I don't want to read a thesis just to hear some points about a game.
I've written and completed a thesis (it's how I got my masters' in history!), so I will take this as praise.
Back on topic though, I am glad this game is getting recognition. It's a very good shooter with some surprising depth, and could easily compete with Thunderforce 3. It's a shorter game, but does have better sound in my opinion, and the crazy extra levels.
Naxat should have brought over this one instead of Paranoia, even though I like both. W-Ring is a AAA shooter all the way. I would love the brothers duomazov to review this one.
If someone actually chose Paranoia over this game... what were they thinking? That game is okay, sure, but this one is a lot better.
