Ranger X: The Official Debate Thread

[nodtveidt]

The point is to see whether or not the PCE could handle this game, not whether the game is fun or not. The only real issue in handling this game is the graphics, because the PCE can do all the other parts just fine.

There are a few parts that the PCE might have problems with, mainly some of the boss backgrounds.

Boss 2 uses a mirrored skew effect, but also notice that the insides of the chambers are solid in colour. The effect is either produced by h-int magic or a floormapper. The PCE would be able to reproduce this in an acceptable manner but it would require some sprite trickery.

Boss 5 uses both background layers with the same effect. The reason this area is so fast is because the tiles are, again, mirrored. It's currently unknown to me whether this area uses scanline tricks or prerendered tiles...both would work here. The PCE could handle the background but would need sprites for the foreground (the pipe straps) and would need to be updated in realtime, which would likely be rather slow.

The final boss wouldn't really be an issue, we've seen this effect dozens of times before, both in published games and through demos like Chris Covell's.

I noticed, when playing through again, that the first area uses four layers, and at least one is faked with sprites. Also, one of the levels uses what appears to be two distant background layers...very interesting trick, but I also made note of the fact that the Y range was extremely limited here, and that the distant backgrounds did not Y-parallax correctly. Probably would have been too much work to accomplish. This dual background was clearly done with good old h-int trickery.

To sum it up: this game probably collects every known graphical trick the Genesis can handle and rolls them all into one game. While every one of these tricks has been seen countless times before, I've never seen a game which uses them all.

So, after seeing this all, does my answer change? Nope...not at all. The PCE could certainly handle this game for the most part...some of the parallax would work differently (most notably in the regular level 2) but I can honestly say that at least 95% of the game would port to the PCE.

But again...this game proved to be quite dull and redundant for me. It was easier once I had the controls down, but I'd rather play a tighter game with less visual eye-candy like Turrican.

[Joe Redifer]

The lava does some simple palette swapping so it looks like the lava is actually moving, when it's not really.

That's called "color cycling".  I hate that effect.  It looks cheap and lazy.  I've seen 8-bit games do it (by 8-bit I mean NES and SMS, not Turbo).  It is a lame effect that looks very, very bad.  I bet the Atari 2600 could do it.  Real animation is better.

Yes, F-22 Interceptor undoubtedly uses a polygonal 3D display and yes, it looks like incredible shit. And again, yes...the PCE could handle this just fine, as could the SNES (with the FX chip...)

If the SNES needs additional hardware (ie: the FX chip) then it cannot handle it at all.  Any system can handle anything with the help of additional hardware.  Put a PS3 add-on on the Genesis and even the Xbox360 wouldn't be able to compete.  This should be about the basic systems only.

For a Genesis game, [Ranger X has] pretty good graphics.

No, it really doesn't.  It looks pretty drab, color-wise.  I've seen many better looking Genesis games.

To sum it up: this game probably collects every known graphical trick the Genesis can handle and rolls them all into one game.

I don't think so.  I've seen Genesis games that do far more impressive things through evil "tricks" than Ranger X.  I suggest becoming more familiar with the Genesis library before saying things like that.

Nodtveidt -- The Anti-Fanboy.

Would an "anti-fanboy" say things like "for a Genesis game"?

This dual background was clearly done with good old h-int trickery.

h-int?  You mean where the same background scrolls horizontally at several different speeds?  I don't think this is trickery at all.  Even the 8-bit systems could do this without any problems whatsoever.  The Genesis can scroll each individual line at its own independent speed (ie: line scrolling as seen in Thunder Force 3's level 2).  Line scrolling is also used for the floors in Street Fighter 2.  It was also used in the 8-bit Sega Master System game Psycho Fox when you used a certain item.  You see it in just about every racing game even on the 8-bit systems when the road scrolls back and forth.  Line scrolling is oft used, no biggie.  The Turbo can do line scrolling just fine.  The Genesis can also scroll vertically at different speeds on the same layer, but not each individual pixel.  Instead it is limited to 8 or 16 pixel chunks (I forget which).  I imagine the Turbo has similar capabilities.  Why develpors didn't use these capabilities as often as they did on the Genesis is another question entirely.

[Keranu]

That's called "color cycling".  I hate that effect.  It looks cheap and lazy.  I've seen 8-bit games do it (by 8-bit I mean NES and SMS, not Turbo).  It is a lame effect that looks very, very bad.  I bet the Atari 2600 could do it.  Real animation is better.

Blah, same thing as far as I know. I'm not disagreeing with you because I too think real animation is better. You still cannot deny the fact that a ton of 16-bit and earlier games did "color cycling" though.

No, it really doesn't.  It looks pretty drab, color-wise.  I've seen many better looking Genesis games.

I could agree with that, though GUTS and Emerald Rocker don't seem to take color into consideration for good graphics. Give me the Sonics over Ranger X any day (in terms of graphics and actual gameplay, hell music too).

I don't think so.  I've seen Genesis games that do far more impressive things through evil "tricks" than Ranger X.  I suggest becoming more familiar with the Genesis library before saying things like that.

Not trying to argue with you here, but I want to hear your suggestions of Genesis games that do more impressive tricks. Contra: Hard Corps is one that comes into my mind.

Nodtveidt -- The Anti-Fanboy.

Would an "anti-fanboy" say things like "for a Genesis game"?

Not that this applies to me either, but why wouldn't a anti-fanboy say things like "for a Genesis game"? He can say that "for a PCE game" or "for a SNES game" because he's an anti-fanboy .

[Joe Redifer]

Who's denying that a lot of games use color cycling?  It is quick and easy for any system to do.

I want to hear your suggestions of Genesis games that do more impressive tricks.

That is a valid suggestion, but I don't really feel much like thinking about it right now.  What I want to know is what Ranger X does that is impressive besides a bit of fancy line scrolling (the "curved" scrolling, etc) and some vector drawings?  It may have a bit of scaling in the intro as well if I recall.  That's it.  Otherwise the graphics are average.

why wouldn't a anti-fanboy say things like "for a Genesis game"?

Well for an "anti-fanboy" he seems a bit unobjective, especially since he italicized the "for a Genesis game" as if Genesis games usually don't have good graphics because it is teh suX0rz.  He went on and on about how boring Ranger X was when that was never the issue.  Also he seems fairly unfamiliar with the Genesis library.  Also why would someone have to make a claim in their signature that they are anti-fanboy... as if otherwise nobody would know that?  That's like having a sig that says "I'm not gay, really!"

Here is a game the TurboGrafx-16 could not do 100% (graphically) without major sacrifices:
Castle of Illusion starring Mickey Mouse.

Here is a game the Genesis could not do 100% (graphically) without major sacrifices:
Super Castlevania IV

The list(s) go on and on.  It seems to me that many people on this board think that the Turbo can do basically anything the Genesis can do bar none.  My question is this:  Why didn't it and if it did why didn't it more often?  The system was tops in Japan, no?  Therefore it had plenty of developers with plenty of experience, many of them who did interesting tricks on the Genesis.  The PC Engine et al kicks ass... but there are some things it does better than the Genesis (namely color and sometimes horizontal resolution) and things it does worse graphically (scrolling, sprites... though some might argue against this, highlight, shadow, interlace (vertical resolution), etc).

[GUTS]

95% isn't the whole game, so I win.  Ranger X officially cannot be done on the PC Engine, as confirmed by a programmer.

Also Keranu, our argument over pre-rendered vs polygons wasn't whether or not they looked like shit, it was over the fact that the Genesis had games with polygons.  You stated that every game on Genesis that looked like it had polygons was pre-rendered Donkey Kong Country style, I said that Hard Drivin and LHX both had polygons.  Again, I win; the Genesis had games with actual polygons, as confirmed by an programmer.

[Keranu]

Joe, I like you; you have a very interesting side in this debate . You're both defending the Genesis and defending the fact that Ranger X didn't do anything special. Fantastic .

Well for an "anti-fanboy" he seems a bit unobjective, especially since he italicized the "for a Genesis game" as if Genesis games usually don't have good graphics because it is teh suX0rz.  He went on and on about how boring Ranger X was when that was never the issue.  Also he seems fairly unfamiliar with the Genesis library.  Also why would someone have to make a claim in their signature that they are anti-fanboy... as if otherwise nobody would know that?  That's like having a sig that says "I'm not gay, really!"

Is it not possible he could say the same about the Turbo or SNES as well ? I'll let nod speak for himself on this one, it's stupid for me to go on about this, haha.

Here is a game the TurboGrafx-16 could not do 100% (graphically) without major sacrifices:
Castle of Illusion starring Mickey Mouse.

I'm interesting in knowing why. Granted I haven't really played through much of Castle since I was a kid, but this is a very interesting title to choose. I can't think of any "major" sacrifices the Turbo would have to do to port it, but the only minor thing I can think of that Castle does is a seperate plane layer, which the Turbo would have to fake. It might use that transparency trick Genesis has, but once again simple transparency tricks can be faked to look just as good. Other than that, I doubt the game uses more than 64 sprites on screen or anything like that.

Here is a game the Genesis could not do 100% (graphically) without major sacrifices:
Super Castlevania IV

Of course it would suffer some color limitations, but the main problem that comes to mind is that rotating room level, which might be possible but I wouldn't know. We actually discussed if this could be on the Turbo hardware back on the Magic Engine forums and there were some interestings posts.

The list(s) go on and on.  It seems to me that many people on this board think that the Turbo can do basically anything the Genesis can do bar none.

I personally don't think that. I think the Genesis and SNES could handle any game on the Turbo just as well as the Turbo did. I do think that the Turbo might not be able to handle any "mode 7" heavy SNES game, unless maybe you include extra RAM options like Super and Arcade CDROM2 cards. However I suppose it depends on which game really.

My question is this:  Why didn't it and if it did why didn't it more often?  The system was tops in Japan, no?  Therefore it had plenty of developers with plenty of experience, many of them who did interesting tricks on the Genesis.

This is a very good question and I have been wanting to know a solid answer myself. This might sound stupid, but do you think American popularity has anything to do with it? Black_Tiger also pointed out something interesting on that other flame thread that the Genesis was more in competition against SNES, so it tried recreating effects the SNES did, while the PCE kind of had a world of it's own like Gamecube does today.

I think the overall library of Turbo games look more polished than the Genesis library, but it seems developers were really utilizing Genesis and SNES hardware more than they were with the PC Engine.

[Keranu]

95% isn't the whole game, so I win.  Ranger X officially cannot be done on the PC Engine, as confirmed by a programmer.

Ok, then you must admit that probably around 90% of the Turbo library couldn't 100% be ported to the Genesis because they use more than 64 colors on screen or use more than 32 colors for the background or sprite layer.

Also Keranu, our argument over pre-rendered vs polygons wasn't whether or not they looked like shit, it was over the fact that the Genesis had games with polygons.  You stated that every game on Genesis that looked like it had polygons was pre-rendered Donkey Kong Country style, I said that Hard Drivin and LHX both had polygons.  Again, I win; the Genesis had games with actual polygons, as confirmed by an programmer.

Once again, I said I hadn't played those games so I assumed they were pre-rendered like most games were. You also said Silpheed used real polygons, that game looks pre-rendered to me and I've heard another programmer say that was pre-rendered. So the debate might still be open for discussion.

[nodtveidt]

Silpheed is pre-rendered. That's why it maintains such a high framerate and is able to look 3D even when it isn't. There's plenty of memory to take advantage of, and enough CPU horsepower to do the massive data transfer the game requires.

GUTS, the game very well can be done on the PCE, but some modifications would have to be done, as I specified. And like Keranu stated, there's a ton of games that were on the PCE that could never be ported to the Genesis at face value. By your logic, GUTS, Lords Of Thunder cannot be ported to the Genesis, and neither can Dungeon Explorer. But wait, weren't they ported? Of course, but with major changes in order to fit the limitations of the console. So you don't "win" at all. Get off your high horse before it gets sent to the mucilage factory.

Joe, I find your attempts to flame me humorous. But that aside...I agree that Castle Of Illusion couldn't be 100% faithfully duplicated on the PCE due to its two free-scrolling backgrounds. But other than that, it's a pretty basic platformer that any old-school console could handle without difficulty. However, my knowledge of the Genesis library is very good, maybe not as good as some but good nonetheless.

I didn't say that Ranger-X did anything special, in fact I stated just the opposite. I just stated that a lot of the good tricks we've seen on Genesis hardware before were put into a single game.

As for this comment of yours...

"Well for an "anti-fanboy" he seems a bit unobjective, especially since he italicized the "for a Genesis game" as if Genesis games usually don't have good graphics because it is teh suX0rz."

...let's get a little real here, shall we? Many Genesis games, due to hardware limitations, had to go dither-crazy, and this looks like crap on a clear screen (looks fine on a television though). A lot of games use colour-pooling (Sonic 2 for example) which looks like complete crap and yes, the colour output of the Genesis simply isn't as powerful as the PCE so this makes it look even worse. But putting words into my mouth is the quickest way to piss me off. I never stated for a moment that the Genesis was "teh suX0rz". I love the Genesis' library of games and have quite a few favourites (including one you mentioned...Castle Of Illusion). But I cannot stand fanboys at all, or people who make false claims about complete bullshit. So what if the Genesis was technically inferior in many ways? It doesn't mean it didn't produce some great games. They did the best they could with such limited technology. The same applies for all those old consoles. So getting all fanboyish over your favourite console is pretty retarded, and making false claims about a console that isn't your favourite is even more retarded.

[SignOfZeta]

OK, so all this silliness motivated me to go fetch a Ranger X ROM and see what was so special.

Since Guts here is the game's biggest proponent, and he's proven himself to be aesthetically retarded on a several occasions, I expected to find a pretty lame title. I actually like what I played of the game quite a bit though. Its a bit chaotic so its good that you have a long life bar because not getting hit is pretty hard. Your mech is big, the screen scrolls kind of quickly, and that's a recipe for just running into shit constantly. For me anyway. I’ve been thinking about starting a Genesis/MD collection, and if that ever happens (first I need a good deal on a Mk 1 Genesis/Sega CD combo) I’ll be sure to get this game.

As for the graphics and its adaptability to PCE, here's how I see it. I think, maybe, that something more than workable could be done with the PCE and this game. Closer than the Sega port of LoT. Maybe. See, its hard to tell because while nothing in it strikes me as PCE-impossible, yet the game taken as a whole seems to be quite a bit more complex that PCE usually (ever?) are in reality.

What seems to have happened with the PCE is that once the CDROM (Super CDROM really) got a foothold, and it was established that you could sell games with Hal Mikimoto, and Megumi Hayashibara that's what the emphasis became. The SNES couldn't do that sort of thing, and nobody gave a shit about Mega CD, so that's what things started to focus on. Therefore, we were floored with titles like Sapphire, and Kaze Kiri when they did come out because that sort of thing was so rare, even when to be honest there could have been a lot more games like those if everyone wasn't so obsessed with cinemas.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe the PCE could do Ranger X, but we'll never know because right about the time the Duo was released people, for the most part, stopped caring about making games like that for the PCE. The Megadrive got Ranger X, the PC Engine got...Graduation 2. Oh joy. In the end though, Macross: Scrambled Valkyrie, graphics-wise, obliterates any shooter on all three machines.

So, theories aside, we're back to this again:

Good points:

MD: Speed!
SNES: Color, transparency, scaling.
PCE: In-bewteen color, a CDROM that people actually developed for, huge RAM (if using AC)

Bad points:

MD: Everything is brown, no FX to speak of compared with SNES
SNES: Cannot push sprites well at all, slows down, sound DSP is annoying if not used well. Same with the color. Castlevania IV is just...fruity looking.
PCE: Also not much in the way of FX, CDROM games were hampered by RAM limitations (until AC).

But now a third category!

Individual Charms:

MD: Old fashioned code based special FX impossible without the 68000. I suppose Ranger X is an example, but I think a batter example of this sort of thing is The Adventures of Batman and Robin. Not a great game, but a fancy one for sure. Sega and Treasure!
SNES: The ability to base an entire game around a single special effect. Super Mario Kart is impossible on the other two systems (aside from Mega CD). Square and Nintendo!
PCE: Tons of cool memory wasters, mainly in the form of "cinema". Streaming PCM sound that allows for more audio in a game than the running time of a CD. Hudson, and Falcom!


So, basically its all good. Quit being bitches.

[malducci]

The Genesis can also scroll vertically at different speeds on the same layer, but not each individual pixel.

Joe, I think the vertical scrolling your talking about would be the canyon level of Musha? I'm pretty sure the veritcal and horizontal scroll registers of the VDP are locked per scanline. I've read through Charles MacDonalds hardware document on the Genesis VDP (video display processor). That trick uses tile swapping - hence the 8x8 limitation. The Gen also has tile flipping for the BG(used in the canyon level) so the PCE would require twice as much tile memory for the same effect.

95% isn't the whole game, so I win. Ranger X officially cannot be done on the PC Engine, as confirmed by a programmer.

Baka!

 
 I'll give my input about the game. My friend ordered the import when it can out in japan. Back then I thought the game was pretty good. I borrowed it from him and played until the third level. The effects up to that point weren't jaw dropping, but they were nice. I thought the graphics(up to level 3) were good relative to the Genesis game library/standards. But the game didn't hold my interest and I gave it back. I recently watched him beat the game a few months ago - the game hind of goes downhill so I didn't missed much. I do like the tunnel effect, but it is not the same effect from Super Castlevania 4 as I think someone mentioned earlier.

MD: Old fashioned code based special FX impossible without the 68000. I suppose Ranger X is an example, but I think a batter example of this sort of thing is The Adventures of Batman and Robin. Not a great game, but a fancy one for sure. Sega and Treasure!
SNES: The ability to base an entire game around a single special effect. Super Mario Kart is impossible on the other two systems (aside from Mega CD). Square and Nintendo!
PCE: Tons of cool memory wasters, mainly in the form of "cinema". Streaming PCM sound that allows for more audio in a game than the running time of a CD. Hudson, and Falcom!

The CPU being a 68000 had nothing to do with the effects in Ranger X or other titles. 98% of all effect on the Gen are not CPU intensive/generated/processed - the effects came from the VDP.

[FM-77]

GUTS, Ranger X might've done a bunch of tricks, but none of them were things that Turbo or SNES games didn't do. For fun, I'll name PCE games that did any trick Ranger X did (at least the ones I can think of in the top of my head):

Fake mutli-layers of parallax - Shape Shifter did this and did a damn fine job, I'd say did an even better job.

3D maps that looked like shit - Falcon had 3d objects that could be comparable and what do you know, they still looked like shit .

Palette Swapping - Legendary Axe II is one that comes to mind with the title screen if I recall.

The 3D backgrounds in the level 2 boss room - Street Fighter II' used either the same effect or an awfully similar effect for the floors in each level.

Cramming a bunch of sprites on screen - Terraforming is a good choice that comes to mind. I haven't played the game in awhile, but I recall it having just as many sprites on screen as Ranger X. Hell, I think it even suffered less slowdown and possibly flicker.

Okay, those games are using ONE techique EACH. This game uses them all. SIMULTANEOUSLY. Could the PCE handle them all at once without slowdown? I have no idea.

Also: when you guys are giving an example an "impressive" SNES game, it seems that you're always mentioning Castlevania 4. One of the ugliest SNES games (in my opinion), it is also just a pretty lame launch title that looks like a PCE game. There are far more graphically and technically advanced SNES games out there.

Also (again) why do people always think that "bright colors" automatically translate to "good graphics"? Personally, I think bright colors are terrible, and that games with very dark colors look far, far better than a game using bright colors.

[nodtveidt]

Okay, those games are using ONE techique EACH. This game uses them all. SIMULTANEOUSLY.

It doesn't use them all simultaneously. It just uses them all during the course of the game.

Could the PCE handle them all at once without slowdown? I have no idea.

Since they're not all being used at once, it's impossible to tell without actually trying it.

Also: when you guys are giving an example an "impressive" SNES game, it seems that you're always mentioning Castlevania 4. One of the ugliest SNES games (in my opinion), it is also just a pretty lame launch title that looks like a PCE game. There are far more graphically and technically advanced SNES games out there.

SC4 just used a few hardware features that some consider impressive, like the big rotating rooms. Nothing special really. There are definately FAR more impressive games on the SNES.

Also (again) why do people always think that "bright colors" automatically translate to "good graphics"? Personally, I think bright colors are terrible, and that games with very dark colors look far, far better than a game using bright colors.

It's not about bright colours, it's about rich colours. Colours on the Genesis tend to look a bit washed out, and on the PCE the same colours look more vibrant. It has to do with the differences in the colour encoders used in the two machines. Furthermore, it's all opinion when it comes to bright colours anyways...some like them, some do not. I like both.

[sunteam_paul]

Wow, this thread reminds me of the Commodore 64 vs ZX Spectrum pissing contests when I was at school.

Who cares if machine X can't replicate machine Y 100% perfectly? Arguing about it is as pointless as the whole 'Can Mario beat Sonic in a fight' kind of thing.

Each machine has strengths and weaknesses, but it's the ability of the programmers that it mostly comes down to. After all the Spectrum, a low powered 8-bit computer could do filled polygons ('Solid 3D' in those days) and even full screen parallax scrolling when pushed. Does it matter?

[Emerald Rocker]

Metamor Jupiter does a different version of the SCV4 "rotating room" effect, where you're flying down the barrel of a massive cannon. It actually ends up looking a bit better.  Unfortunately, Metamor Jupiter also has a scaling/rotating first boss that slows the system down to a 3-frames-per-second crawl.  It's interesting that the game handles the ridiculously flashy effect really well, but can't handle a boss scaling and rotating onto the screen.

Anyways, since it looks like this thread is still going on, I figure I ought to highlight a few more passages from the private AIM conversation that started it all.  Just to put things in perspective.

(1)
(01:08:06) Keranu: But saying it can't be done on PCE is silly;.
(01:08:16) Emerald Rocker: it can't be done on PCE.

(2)
(01:15:19) Keranu: But the MIPS is a hard fact.
(01:15:28) Keranu: You can't ignore specs.
(01:15:32) Emerald Rocker: yes you can

(3)
(01:15:38) GUTS: its also a hard fact that that must not matter much since ranger X smashes the pce library
(01:15:49) Keranu: GUTS, you are basing that on your opinion now.
(01:16:03) GUTS: no i'm basing that on the fact that ranger x has too much for the pce to handle
(01:16:04) Keranu: You think Ranger X looks nice, that's YOUR opinion, not fact.
(01:16:12) GUTS: hell it couldn't even handle a decent port of Altered Beast
(01:16:19) Keranu: Ok, now ask a programmer to make a port of it for you.
(01:16:37) Emerald Rocker: the programmers already had their chance at Altered Beast and failed

(4)
(01:17:37) Emerald Rocker: where's the Contra Hard Corps of the PCE
(01:17:41) GUTS: yeah hard corps would not be possible on the pce
(01:17:48) Keranu: This is ridiculous.

(5)
(01:23:10) RuninRuder: the turbo might have been "weaker" in effects but it used its strengths optimally, the colorful crisp graphics in rondo and gate for instance, plus brilliant cinemas
(01:23:37) RuninRuder: the snes was "powerful" but used its strengths for absolute shit and crippled its games with flicker and slowdown
(01:23:39) Keranu: Plus processor speed.
(01:24:06) RuninRuder: genesis had some nice effects at times, used better than snes effects, but looked horrible due to limited colors very often
(01:24:12) GUTS: well except that Chrono Trigger is beyond what the turbo could o

(6)
(01:24:45) Keranu: In fact, you want to see what Metal Slug would look like on Turbo?
(01:24:47) GUTS: they'd have to change all the huge background graphcis to tiles
(01:24:51) Emerald Rocker: weren't the sprites bigger than the Turbo could do?

(7)
(01:27:46) GUTS: lets compare Riot zone to Streets of Rage III
(01:27:59) GUTS: no contest, and that's the best the duo could do

According to the private AIM chat that started this, the PCE cannot handle:
Chrono Trigger, Contra Hard Corps, Dragon's Fury, F-22, Golden Axe, LHX, Metal Slug, Ranger-X, Streets of Rage 3, or... Altered Beast.

Personally, I can't wait to read Dragon's Fury: The Official Debate Thread.   =D

[malducci]

This arguement is funny. More to the fact that the arguements are based on: if it could have be done then it would have been done (on the PCE).  

(01:16:12) GUTS: hell it couldn't even handle a decent port of Altered Beast

Baka!  

Metamor Jupiter does a different version of the SCV4 "rotating room" effect, where you're flying down the barrel of a massive cannon.

 Yeah it's similar, except the SNES independently scales each scanline unlike the MJ effect.