Ranger X: The Official Debate Thread

[Keranu]

Since GUTS has so cowardly avoided my challenge, further proving he's a coward by trying to start the debate again over AIM, lets make a new thread here and settle it.

This debate first started in a AIM chat one night between RuninRuder, GUTS, Zig (AKA, Emerald Rocker), and myself. It started off with some small talk comparing the three major 16-bit console's hardware when later GUTS boldly claims "there is no way in hell the pce could do ranger x", which is a pretty damn serious way to put it. To read through the debate, click here . (Emerald Rocker is known as Exaxxion22 in the chat)

Let the debate of the century begin.

Here are some outrageous comments by GUTS and his very close friend, Emerald Rocker/Zig?Exaxxion in the chat for those who don't wish to read through it:

About PCE and Ranger X:

(01:03:40) Mr Grumplesworth: there is no way in hell the pce could do ranger x
Exaxxion22: Ranger-X does more than parallax
(01:03:49) Exaxxion22: I bet the PCE can absolutely not do Ranger-X
(01:03:51) Exaxxion22: no way in hell

(01:07:06) Mr Grumplesworth: the guys who did Ranger X could do ANY pce game
(01:08:37) Mr Grumplesworth: so we're supposed to believe that even though the VIRTUAL BOY had games that pushed it's power, the ol PCE was left out

(01:09:33) Keranu: "PCE can't do it" yet you list no specs.
(01:09:43) Mr Grumplesworth: yeah i am, the released library for both systems is my hard facts

(01:10:06) Keranu: What is it about Ranger X that you don't think the PCE can do?
(01:10:06) Mr Grumplesworth: its you revisionist history guys who aren't presenting facts
(01:10:08) Keranu: 3d effects?
(01:10:15) Mr Grumplesworth: everything together
(01:10:24) Mr Grumplesworth: sure the pce could do parts of the game ok, but not the whole package
(01:10:27) Keranu: Well we already now the PCE can do the color parts and sprite sizes.
(01:10:30) Keranu: And resolution.
(01:10:45) Keranu: And any "3d effects"
(01:10:51) Mr Grumplesworth: not as many sprites with as many parallax layers and 3D effects all at once

(01:15:49) Keranu: GUTS, you are basing that on your opinion now.
(01:16:03) Mr Grumplesworth: no i'm basing that on the fact that ranger x has too much for the pce to handle

About PCE programmers:
(01:04:44) Mr Grumplesworth: no, i don't care about what they theorize

(01:05:32) Mr Grumplesworth: a demo isn't shit

(01:10:06) Mr Grumplesworth: its you revisionist history guys who aren't presenting facts

(01:12:15) Mr Grumplesworth: i see a lot of pce "specs" being thrown around, but no proof

(01:13:51) Mr Grumplesworth: i've watched all those "famous" chris covell demos
(01:14:03) Mr Grumplesworth: and they're only impressive if you think that it's a turbo grafx doing it

(01:15:07) Mr Grumplesworth: no they won't, they'll give me a bunch of "blah blah MIPS blah blah" and then fail to provide any proof (referring to programmers)

About polygons:

(01:35:49) Mr Grumplesworth: genesis had games that did polygons
(01:35:54) Keranu: Nuh uh.
(01:35:59) Mr Grumplesworth: yes it did dufus
(01:36:03) Keranu: Tell me one.
(01:36:11) RuninRuder: starfox killed both sapphire and ranger x
(01:36:13) Mr Grumplesworth: lets see, LHX attack chopper, Hard drivin
(01:36:15) RuninRuder: youre all BUMS
(01:36:19) RuninRuder: BAHAHHA LHX!
(01:36:21) Keranu: Pre-rendered.
(01:36:24) Mr Grumplesworth: those are polygons

(01:39:36) Keranu: So just like Donkey Kong Country, LHX is pre-rendered.
(01:39:40) Mr Grumplesworth: HAHAHA
(01:40:04) Mr Grumplesworth: so you're telling me that lhx and dkc use the same tricks

[Odonadon]

K my man, I hate to say it, but those are kinda private conversations, and it looks like some stuff taken out of context.  This is only gonna start another flame war and you may not be in the right.

Having said that, we all know there are lots of programming tricks for all systems to accomplish all sorts of "impossible" hardware effects.

Bottom line graphics are just graphics, a games' enjoyability does not rely on this for most people.  It's blatantly clear to me that the SNES and TG16 are more "colorful" than a Genesis.  It's also clear to me that the SNES's cart music is superior to that of the Genesis or TG16 in terms of instrument samples.  The PCE is superior in terms of quality and depth.  Do I like games on the SNES, Genesis, and TG16?  Hell yeah!  

I even like games on the NES and Atari 2600, even though these system's graphics are unarguably inferior to the TG16.  So what.  Sometimes I get so sick and tired of this argument.  People have their opinions - I happen to like the PCE the best.  Someone else will like the SNES the best, and someone else will like the Genesis best.  Everyone has their own reasons, so it's a very moot topic to be arguing.  There is no right answer

Anyway, since the can of worms is opened, I will go on record and say I think the TG16 can handle any Genesis game you throw at it, except those with extensive paralax (again, there are tricks to get around this).  I also think the TG16 can handle any SNES game you throw at it barring it doesn't use any special in-cart chip (FX) or dependent on excellent scaling and rotation (again, tricks around this).

Each system has it's strengths, and to me the strengths the TG16 exhibits outweigh those of the SNES or Genesis.  I'm not talking graphics which may or may not be superior, I'm talking the games (and music in the CD games )  Whatever the PCE can do technically better than the other systems doesn't matter.  I don't care.  I like it better and that's that.

This doesn't mean I will only like the PCE and will only play PCE games.  It just means I prefer it.  GUTS or whoever else will prefer their system and believe it superior for whatever reason.  There will never be a concrete answer to the graphics debate until the best programmers in the world have a go at both systems and see what they can produce.  This will never happen , therefore this argument will never end and will only result in heartache

OD

[Keranu]

K my man, I hate to say it, but those are kinda private conversations, and it looks like some stuff taken out of context.  This is only gonna start another flame war and you may not be in the right.

These forums have gotten so blocked up with consoles wars lately that I figured I may as well make a thread dedicated to that instead of other threads making 180 turns. Though this thread is manly dedicated to a statement GUTS started, I think we could care less if another war popped up in this thread. So I just say release all the anger in here and lets get some more solid facts in here instead of the silly things GUTS was saying.

[GUTS]

I still think it's hilarious you believe that Donkey Kong Country and LHX have anything in common.

[Keranu]

I haven't played LHX, but if you say it uses polygons than it's probably just pre-rendered 3D. Of course the games more than likely had entirely different graphic artists and probably used different 3D programs, but both games used pre-rendered 3D graphics. What's so hard to believe that LHX was pre-rendered?  

[grendelrt]

Virtua Racing on Genesis used polygons.

[FM-77]

There are several Mega Drive games using polygons. It can natively handle polygons, unlike the SNES and PC Engine.

[Joe Redifer]

I own Ranger X and simply don't understand the fascination with it.  To me it doesn't look too much beyond a regular Genesis game in visuals.  The gameplay is kind of fun if you have a 6-button controller but it is still a game that will spend far more time on my shelf than in my Genesis.

[Black Tiger]

There are several Mega Drive games using polygons. It can natively handle polygons, unlike the SNES and PC Engine.

I didn't realize than Falcon and Gunboat used FX chips!

Aren't polygons, or anything else graphical just complex calculations and don't specialty chips just specialize in certain kinds of calculations/effects so the rest doesn't have to?

In other words, can't any computer like device in theory calculate out almost any effect("natively")? Even if it in some cases it means 1 frame per minute (or whatever) like real CGI machines?

I mean, isn't the Genesis natively handling polygons through shearhorse power? And since the Genesis and PC Engine are more or less identical horsepower-wise, shouldn't the PC Engine be just as natively equipped to generate polygons as the Genesis?

The Genesis had background scrolling built in, I've never heard of polygon rendering built in. And if it can render polygons the old fashioned way, I don't see how built-in background scrolling would be a factor, so the PCE should be more or less equal with the Genesis, unless the MIPS numbers mean anything.

[nodtveidt]

When the SNES did "polygons", they were drawn in software...the FX chip is simply a math coprocessor that frees the CPU up from doing the intensive calculations required by 3D rendering. It's not too different in concept from modern 3D cards...remove the calculations from the CPU for better performance. To do the same thing on the Genesis without any additional hardware would be extremely taxing to achieve anything worthwhile. It would likely be possible with the Sega CD to accomplish this feat, since both processors can operate somewhat independantly...one could function as a math piggyback. Sonic CD was able to use the split CPU method for its bonus stages, although what was used there was a mere floormapper technique that can be accomplished with a simple fixed-point raycaster...quite fast to implement and not very CPU-hungry. Be all that as it may, the singular Genesis CPU is simply not fast enough to handle many "true" 3D calculations AND run game code at a decent framerate (30fps or better). Sure, you could display a few here and there but you're not doing an entire scene like that...but between lack of CPU power and technical details regarding graphics output (trying to do a flatmode APA scheme in planar memory is neither easy nor efficient, but this is absolutely required for a performant true 3D display), you're not doing true 3D on a Genesis or a PC Engine, nor on an unenhanced SNES.

Bottom line: sure, these machines can handle polygons, or even full 3D scenes, but don't expect playable games that are in full 3D because it's never going to happen...and never DID happen either.

To answer the question that this topic is based on: I haven't even played Ranger X, so I have no idea if the PCE could handle it or not. I'll give it a spin when I get the chance and see for myself whether it's possible or not. The fact that no game like it was coded for the PCE is not proof that it could not be done, it's just that it simply wasn't done.

[FM-77]

There's no way the PC Engine could handle Half-Life 2.



 

[Keranu]

I think it could handle it, it would just need a bit of tweaking. Super Grafx on the other hand could handle it no problem, PIXEL PERFECT.

[nodtveidt]

Bleh, I have Half-Life 2 for my ATARI 2600!

       

Oh, what about that Commodore VIC-20 port of Quake? And don't forget about the Intellivision port of Black & White!

[Keranu]

Well the Atari 2600 did get a new first person shooter a couple years ago called Skeleton, which could be argued is just as nice as Half Life 2.

[Black Tiger]

Well the Atari 2600 did get a new first person shooter a couple years ago called Skeleton, which could be argued is just as nice as Half Life 2.

My fav Intellivision game from back in the day is AD&D Treasure Of Tarmin, which is a 3D RPG with animated hallways like Phantasy Star.

So any FPS shooter could be dropped into the same engine.

But it'll still look like an Intv game (which is awesome).