Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate

[Turbo D]

A couple of you like Turbo D would rather murder your own mother than play (much less enjoy) a Genesis game.  Fanboyism runs strong here indeed.

  thats funny, but I'm not a fanboy. I own a Genesis model 1 and 2 aswell as Cd add on 1 and 2, powerbase converter and 32x (all boxed and in great condition  ). I enjoy my Genesis gaming experience, I just think that parallax alone doesn't make the Genesis have better grafx than PcEngine. Everyone was coming here and saying that the Genesis slaughters the PcEngine and such that just wasn't true. Those posters are the real fanboys 

[esteban]

Four semi-related statements follow:

I always thought that parallax scrolling was more commonly found / more extensively employed in Genesis games relative to TG-16/Duo games in North America.

I say this having played a bazillion games over the years.

Even later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.

I thought the third stage of Vigilante (on the bridge) was pretty kool because of the subtle parallax scrolling. I thought it would have been neat if other stages in the game had incorporated the effect as well (such as the junkyard, IIRC).

[Joe Redifer]

Slaughters?  No.  Surpasses?  In many areas, yes.  All areas?  No.

[Turbo D]

Even later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.

very true, like in ninja gaiden 3

Slaughters?  No.  Surpasses?  In many areas, yes.  All areas?  No.

I think that we can all agree that they are both very good in certain areas where the other one isn't.

[handygrafx]

answer: NEITHER or BOTH.    There's no definitive answer.

As all the reasonable gamers know, and have known for over a decade and a half, 
both the PC-Engine~TurboGrafx-16 and Megadrive~Genesis had various strengths and weakness
when it came to graphics.

we all know what those weaknesses and strengths are. no need for a huge debate about it.

[handygrafx]

what I will say, is that I wished the upgraded machines, SuperGrafx and SEGA CD, had offered a larger improvement in graphics than they did.   The SuperGrafx should've had scaling & rotation and more than just two background layers.   the SEGA CD should've allowed for more sprites and more color, as well as scaling & rotation on par with Sega's Super-Scaler boards like the 'X Board' used for AfterBurner and Super Monaco GP.

[Turbo D]

I wish there were more games for the Sega Cd that weren't awful fmv, it seems that they were the majority. I love Sonic Cd, why couldn't there be more titles like that one  .

[ParanoiaDragon]

Four semi-related statements follow:

I always thought that parallax scrolling was more commonly found / more extensively employed in Genesis games relative to TG-16/Duo games in North America.

I say this having played a bazillion games over the years.

Even later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.

I thought the third stage of Vigilante (on the bridge) was pretty kool because of the subtle parallax scrolling. I thought it would have been neat if other stages in the game had incorporated the effect as well (such as the junkyard, IIRC).

Actually, the last stage has the same effect.......have you gotten to the last stage of Vigilante?  I do wish it would've been done in the junkyard though.

[malducci]

 Black Tiger: You should start a hardware/software thread over in the DEB section. It's interesting to know how things work on the PCE when they do able via normal hardware methods. Take LOT desert level(default as first level), that giant sand crawler is part of the BG yet the fake BG behind it still has parallax scrolls.

 OldTurboBastard: I know exactly where your coming from.  A lot of PCE games don't do parallax or multilayers indepth like the Genesis does. Development cost was a very good one reason (other than lack of *dedicated* hardware). Why go the extra mile when current games as selling great as they are. Some obviously did to compete amongst other games on the same system (talking about PCE), but nothing of the fierce driving force between to manufactures.

 In Japan the PCE wasn't directly competing with the MegaDrive. The MegaDrive was trying to compete with the PCE and the Famicom inwhich the PCE was starting to lead over the FC as it progressed. I bet this is the very reason why the FC system was pushing to its limits and beyond, and why we saw such amazing things from FC system. When the SFC came out is around the time that MD games starting getting even more advanced in GFX effects. While the PCE did compete with the SFC, it was nothing like the SEGA VS Nintendo thing happening in the US. Matter of fact the PCE had already shifted into the CD platform which it had no real competition. Also remember Hudson and Nintendo had a very close relationship. Hudson actually wrote software and games for the FC (even had a hand in translating games form FC to NES). Hudson was Nintendo's very first third party developer when they opened up the FC to third party companies early on. Hudson also handle and wrote other DEV software for Nintendo. I'm more sure this had a hand in killing the SGX, which was meant as direction competition to the SFC, than anything publicly mentioned (the facts don't stack up).

 Anyway, my point is that the PCE wasn't really pushed to it limits like the MD, NES, and SFC were until late in it's life, and at that there's still more it can do. I'm not delusional in thinking it *can* do anything the Genesis can *identically* on every occasion because that's just not true. But a game developed around it's limitation can show some pretty amazing/convincing effects. Time/cost played a big factor in what developer did on the PCE. I don't think it was matter of laziness. In general the PCE doesn't/didn't have a reputation for more technical savvy games despite some of it's exceptional titles. Especially in North America. I think it was regarded as more of an NES with exceptional color abilities - nothing to take too seriously from '91 and up in the console wars.

 Just to note: I've seen some pretty impressive collision detection in action on the PCE with some shooters. Moving around a bunch of sprites onscreen is pretty standard stuff, but doing a lot of collision maps for interactive objects at a fast pace without slowing down it pretty impressive. TF4 is a perfect example of game that slows down from this processing. While the Star Soldier series is a impressive example. Note: anything that doesn't not interactive with another object does not use a collision map, i.e. explosions, flying/falling bullet shells, enemies falling/action after being destroyed, smoke from missiles, etc.

 
 Oh and for the record, I'd say the PCE could handle/fake those BGs from Mystic Defender. They're pretty simple in design and easily lend themselves to dynamic tile method. But more complicated Genesis game examples are either a straight "no" or would have to be watered down. Also don't forget it takes additional CPU resource to fake BG layers like that (hsync ones not so).

....

[Black Tiger]

How Magical Chase does it is pretty simple, and any game can have the same effect; the sections of the background in Stage 3 of Magical Chase are just unbroken horizontal bars (sky, clouds, a wooden floor and ceiling) -- these can be moved around at will just like the sections of a slide rule.  The wooden stumps, turrets, rivets, etc that poke out from the floor and ceiling are sprites.  It's the same technique that is done on countless other shmups.

So sections of a single background can scroll over the rest of the same background?



Malducci just stated much of what I've brought up in the past, about how the PC Engine wasn't competing in the same market as the Genesis/SNES and it's users were looking for different kinds of games.

On CD, quantity was pushed/sought after over short effects laden games. The Genesis and SNES were battling for supremecy in North America and games with gimmicks were most popular. Where as a decent game on PC Engine, that had lots of graphical variety, cinemas, CD music, etc sold well enough that developers didn't need to figure out how to do effects that required more than the 'flick of a switch'.

We still got tons of games with cool effects, but thats not moved CD units. In cart games effects are often a shortcut to save on animation. Too many SNES games used scaling and rotation to do in realtime what would look much better with prerendered animation.

The problem with this thread, is that people started arguing for the PC Engine against the point of view that layered bgs are the most important aspect of graphics, and that actual graphics are further down the list. The PC Engine's strongest aspect will always be producing great graphics. If parallax and the like really outweigh the actual graphics so much, by that logic crushes the hideous .

The Genesis, SNES and PC Engine all have tecgnical advantages over one another. The same logic that says that the PCE is weak because the Genesis can scroll a bg in hardware says that the Genesis sux cuz the SNES can do transparency or hardware scaling & rotation.

You can't convince someone who judges games by Genesis features that the PC Engine is better, because its not the Genesis. Just as people who care more about colorful detailed graphics can't be convinced that the Genesis can do anything the PC Engine can.

And when judging the 16-bitters by their existing catalogues instead of theoretical capabilities, they each have beautiful games that excel on their consoles features. All three systems are so different, that has a clear software advantage over the others. Its all a matter of personal taste, but each has something for everybody(except U.S. sports fans ).

[esteban]

Four semi-related statements follow:

I always thought that parallax scrolling was more commonly found / more extensively employed in Genesis games relative to TG-16/Duo games in North America.

I say this having played a bazillion games over the years.

Even later-era NES games were loaded with sweet graphical effects that got me excited.

I thought the third stage of Vigilante (on the bridge) was pretty kool because of the subtle parallax scrolling. I thought it would have been neat if other stages in the game had incorporated the effect as well (such as the junkyard, IIRC).

,

Actually, the last stage has the same effect.......have you gotten to the last stage of Vigilante?  I do wish it would've been done in the junkyard though.

The last stage doesn't look as kool as the bridge stage, because the background added a lot of depth to the "bridge scene", but in the last stage it looked like two flat planes sliding past each other. I like the last stage, but parallax scrolling didn't provide as much "oompffff" in that stage.

For the record, I first beat Vigilante during xmas vacation '89.

[Turbo D]

for the record I beat it last month, lol.

[esteban]

Ha! I didn't see Joe's post until now. We must have been writing at the same time.

If you're 100% about the art and not about things that move like parallax and scaling/rotation, then why would you even play games?  Just pause it and stare at the still screen.  Yes, good art definitely helps, but it's not the only thing.  A game needs to move well.  Adding depth via parallax helps achieve cool visuals.

I don't think you're lumping me in with the folks you criticize in this thread, but I just wanted to stress that my earlier point, lamenting the high rate of uninspired art direction, was in reference to ALL video games. When I play PCE, along with all other platforms, I am often critical of the art direction, first and foremost. Parallax and special effects are nice, but they are not as crucial as you think they are.

[Turbo D]

careful, he'll call you a fanboy 

[Black Tiger]

Good video to watch so you can see how the Pc-Engine handled the Neo stuff the best

That stage on Neo Geo had a seperate scrolling background. But none of the 'home' console ports did. I guess its not always so easy for 'lazy Genesis programmers'.

But even if the Genesis and SNES versions had the extra scrolling bg, no one in their right mind can say that it tops the actual graphics of the PC Engine version.