Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate

[ccovell]

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).

Are you kidding?  I think developer and consumer apathy had much more to do with it.  Here's proof:

IREM   Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
NEC Avenue   A machine without excess fat. Development will be interesting. But the machine's appearance...
Sunsoft   The price is slightly strange for something that only increases the amount of RAM. I had expected more secrets in there.
Taito   It's too early to comment. We hope to make games that use its powerful graphic functions.
Data East   Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
Naxat   Since it's early, it [SGX] is like a sheet of blank paper. But in terms of graphics, the current PC-Engine is good enough, I think.
Namco   We will watch the market calmly for a little while. We will enter [the SGX market] after considering it well.
Nichibutsu   Since the SGX is downward compatible with the PC-Engine, we are developing software aimed at the current PC-Engine.
FACE   Since the current PC-Engine market is growing, for the time being, we are concentrating our resources on the present PC-Engine.
Hudson   Since this is a big brother to the PC-Engine, it gives software houses a good chance to try. Development pays the maximum reward.

Once again, from here: http://www.disgruntleddesigner.com/chrisc/sgxreactions.html
As a part of my early SFC page: http://www.disgruntleddesigner.com/chrisc/secrets11.html

You guys are being a bit hard on Old Turbo Bastard.  I agree with him.  I think the Genesis is more capable than the PCE overall, even though the PCE may excel at some points.  The reason I love the PCE is its games, of course, not its hardware, but if I were to look at each system as a programmer and choose one that could give me the best-looking, or at least most impressive games, I'd choose the Genesis for its backgrounds, shadow effects, and column-scrolling.  But Hell, I might as well just jump over to the SNES.

[spenoza]

I'd like to add additional light to Chris's much earlier comment as well. The MC68000 series CPU was probably the most used CPU in arcade machines around that time. In fact, it might be the most used arcade CPU in history, and given it was used in the original Macintosh, the original Amiga, and super high end HP calculators there were definitely lots of comfortable programmers out there. The PC Engine likely had a smaller pool of programmers comfortable with the core CPU architecture, and while specialty graphics hardware and sprite blitters means that CPU coding wasn't everything, it would probably be foolish to discount architecture familiarity as a major factor for much of what was produced on the Genesis.

[Michael Helgeson]

I like both systems,but visually I do feel the Pc-Engine/Cd gave more graphically in the overall selection both US and Jap wise then the Genesis /Megadrive plus Cd. Thats just opinion however,opinion isn't really fact. There are some real gems on the Megadrive however that push the limits and yet I care nothing for those games,like Alien Soldier. It was very detailed and fast moving,but I just didn't like the art direction. One of  a few Treasure titles I actually did not like. It def comes down to personal taste and the titles you enjoy playing the most. Id rather play R-Type or Gradius 2 any day of the week over any Thunderforce shooter. Does not mean I don't like that series,I just feel the others are better,and happen to be on Nec/Hudsons system,not Segas 16-bitter.

[Black Tiger]

I do enjoy how a lot of Turbo fans discount anything that isn't built in to the system as "unnecessary".  If the Turbo can't do it, it doesn't matter.  That's always been the attitude.

There's still a big difference between "unnecessary" and "essential". I agree that its amusing how particular 'console fans' are quick to discount what they percieve as competition. Like how some crazed Genesis fans discount high color graphics in SNES games and how Snerds believe that the SNES is untouchable in every way.

But just look at this thread.  Parallax is obviously a huge issue that many of you have opinions about.  If it wasn't much of an issue, I don't think there would really be much of a debate

Although its true that some people are insisting that the Turbo can do "anything!", I think that what got most people riled up was OldTurboBastard taking the opposite extreme from the get go, discounting any kind of parallax on the Turbo as an anomaly and every flat games as proof of "weakness".

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.

At least no one is trashing Sega as a (evil!)company.

I generally prefer the Genesis simply because there are more games available in the style that I want to play, but I'd be a fool to say something like the fact that it can't properly do scaling and rotation doesn't matter.  Lots of games like Super Thunder Blade, Space Harrier 2 and many others look like crap without it.  Sure, it can do some great scaling and rotation in the software, but I won't kid myself.  The Genesis is weak in this area.  But you won't see me on Sega-16 moaning at how scaling doesn't add anything and doesn't make or break a game.

True, but the SNES having scaling & rotation built-in doesn't discount the Genesis altogether, or at the very least SNES games don't make Genesis games feel weak.

While there is some truth to that, eye candy counts for a lot and can indeed make games more enjoyable.  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 that anyone's really 100% about anything when it comes to enjoying games, it just sounds like it when they take a stance on a game issue. Me, I like flicker transparencies and although I appreciate technical feats like scaling in games, sprites flying towards the screen through animation is still impressive.

One thing you have to keep in mind Joe, while you have personal preferences, you're much less biased than the average video game forum poster.

[awack]

ccovell

but if I were to look at each system as a programmer and choose one that could give me the best-looking, or at least most impressive games, I'd choose the Genesis for its backgrounds, shadow effects, and column-scrolling.  But Hell, I might as well just jump over to the SNES.

Is this strictly a hypothetical as in backgrounds that you would be able to produce or do you think that developers actually produced games for the genesis that have better backgrounds than anything on the pc engine/duo?

[Black Tiger]

Something I realized recently is that up until learning solid details of the PC Engine's specs/capabilities during the last few years, I never really noticed parallax type effects in Turbo/PCE games as much.

If a game had some moving bg parts, it'd look kinda cool sometimes, but I just took it for granted and never thought anything of it if some sections did or didn't use bg scrolling.

Now that I have a much clearer idea of how most effects are achieved and that "technically" the PCE only has one bg layer, I can't help but notice when a game does use them (at all).

I liked it better when I was in the dark and only good parallax stood out (like on Genesis & SNES) and I never thought, "Its cool that they added that" just because I now know it takes more work than on other systems.

[ccovell]

ccovell

but if I were to look at each system as a programmer and choose one that could give me the best-looking, or at least most impressive games, I'd choose the Genesis for its backgrounds, shadow effects, and column-scrolling.  But Hell, I might as well just jump over to the SNES.

Is this strictly a hypothetical as in backgrounds that you would be able to produce or do you think that developers actually produced games for the genesis that have better backgrounds than anything on the pc engine/duo?

This is hypothetical... as in what I would choose if I were a programmer, or a game planner, or whatever.  Strictly speaking, for late-80s and early-90s arcade conversions (or arcade-style games), the 64-colour limit imposed by the Genesis' hardware is far less damning than the lack of a 2nd background plane of the PCE.

[awack]

black tiger

Something I realized recently is that up until learning solid details of the PC Engine's specs/capabilities during the last few years, I never really noticed parallax type effects in Turbo/PCE games as much.

haha...yeah, me too, when i first started playing the turo grafx back in 1990 i didnt think it could do any type of parallax scrolling until i started playing the same turbo games again in 2001, now if i had played something like rondo or legend of xanadu back then i damn well would have noticed parallax srolling.

[OldTurboBastard]

Although its true that some people are insisting that the Turbo can do "anything!", I think that what got most people riled up was OldTurboBastard taking the opposite extreme from the get go, discounting any kind of parallax on the Turbo as an anomaly and every flat games as proof of "weakness".

thats probably an extreme description of my stance as well though  .  I 'm not discounting the cool scrolling effects that did eventually show up on the turbo, just pointing out that it was'nt all that common (especially early on when in mattered for me, an early turbografx-16 owner - sorry i was not importing games back then or ponying up my allowance for a doomed system - the duo). I'm impressed with the parallax in alot of the later games that I have seen (more so by the fact that they pulled it off than anything). As for "any flat games being proof of weakness"  - only in the dual background dept - and as so many have stated here, thats not all there is to the game - which I acknowledge. I enjoyed my turbo immensely back in the day and was probably a fan boy that would never admit to the shortcomings (like none seem to be here  ). It's easy to see things a little more objectively these days. Both systems have alot to offer but i've always thought the turbo games just had that 'fun' quality (MOTOROADER cough!) that was laking from so many genesis games - I do think the genesis had some killer background effects - wish the turbo games could have pulled it off as easily...and supergrafx don't count!!!

PEACE, brother
-Nino

[malducci]

(snip)

Are you kidding?  I think developer and consumer apathy had much more to do with it.  Here's proof:

IREM   Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
NEC Avenue   A machine without excess fat. Development will be interesting. But the machine's appearance...
Sunsoft   The price is slightly strange for something that only increases the amount of RAM. I had expected more secrets in there.
Taito   It's too early to comment. We hope to make games that use its powerful graphic functions.
Data East   Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
Naxat   Since it's early, it [SGX] is like a sheet of blank paper. But in terms of graphics, the current PC-Engine is good enough, I think.
Namco   We will watch the market calmly for a little while. We will enter [the SGX market] after considering it well.
Nichibutsu   Since the SGX is downward compatible with the PC-Engine, we are developing software aimed at the current PC-Engine.
FACE   Since the current PC-Engine market is growing, for the time being, we are concentrating our resources on the present PC-Engine.
Hudson   Since this is a big brother to the PC-Engine, it gives software houses a good chance to try. Development pays the maximum reward.

Once again, from here: http://www.disgruntleddesigner.com/chrisc/sgxreactions.html
As a part of my early SFC page: http://www.disgruntleddesigner.com/chrisc/secrets11.html

 I call bullshit. Like I said, publicly and privately are two different situations. The SGX reached the market in what, mid to late '89? Obviously they had already fab'd the priority chip and the two A revisions(if they were even needed). The technology was already developed, it could have been easily incorporated into the Duo "all in one system". A system developed, released, and a handful of games spanning 2 years? From a company who had a leading system? If they wanted to push the system sales, they could have *easily* by dropping the price and giving incentives to game companies. Hell, Hudson themselves *already* did a lot of software development for the PCE - there isn't really a reason they couldn't have devoted resource in SGX development to get it off the ground. Or NEC for that matter. To go to all the trouble to make a system, release it, and then not support it? It's not like NEC/Hudson was an unknown contender releasing a new system. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make any sense. Not in the least.


 Someone mentioned that when turbo fans see parallax or multilayer on the PCE, there quick to point it out where as a genesis fan wouldn't think twice. I agree. It's cool to see the prowess of a system that "wasn't" supposed to do that. I see the reverse situation over at Sega-16 forums. Any game that looks like it displays "more" color is quickly pointed out and merited.

 For me, I'd rather take 32 palettes and a single BG for the PCE than 4 palettes and an extra scroll. Thought the Genesis' 8x8 sprite mode coupled with a 20sprite/320pixel sure is nice, more so than the verical section scroll regs and the shadow/highlight - in that order.

[Turbo D]

I agree, it definitely doesn't make any sense 

[Joe Redifer]

The SGX was like Sega's 32X, only it was an entire system unto itself.  A similar analogy might be made that the Genesis can play SMS games, but the Genesis was an entirely new platform.  The SGX wasn't.  It was a PCE with an extra background and some more memory.  Not much else.  It would have been better as a System Card (if possible).  The SGX, like the 32X, was a mistake.  There was no reason for it to exist other than for us collectors and geeks to awe in how awesome it is even if it only had a handful of games.

Michael keeps mentioning Gradius 2.  Ug.  While I did grow to love Gradius 5 on the PS2 and I really dig Life Force, I cannot stand any other Gradius game.  Too slow.  Too boring.  Fantastic music, though!  However the repetitive 30 second (or less) tracks on the PCE CD version leave worlds to be desired.  I'd rather play R-Type than Gradius.  R-Type is the bomb. Gradius Gaiden was OK I guess.

[ccovell]

... then not support it? It's not like NEC/Hudson was an unknown contender releasing a new system. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make any sense. Not in the least.

Sorry, Malducci, I don't quite follow you or see the point you are trying to make.  NEC pushed out the SGX as an improvement upon the PCE in order to deflate hype from the upcoming Super Famicom, and Hudson and NEC Avenue had little choice but to develop for it.  Other developers, on the other hand, publicly showed little enthusiasm for it, citing its high price (39,800 yen) and lack of overwhelming features for the investment that the consumer was expected to make.  Of course, NEC hyped the [obviously unneeded and unwanted] SGX, but with noncommital 3rd-party developers, it was clearly destined to suffer a fate worse than the Virtual Boy.

What's the part that doesn't make any sense, again?

[awack]

ccovell

This is hypothetical... as in what I would choose if I were a programmer, or a game planner, or whatever.  Strictly speaking, for late-80s and early-90s arcade conversions (or arcade-style games), the 64-colour limit imposed by the Genesis' hardware is far less damning than the lack of a 2nd background plane of the PCE.

Ah, i see, if i were a programmer and I'm not, i would choose in this order : 1 pc engine arcade card: 2 snes/pc engine super cd: 3 genesis: 4 pc engine hucard, for the snes i would like to see what i could do with its 32.000 color pallet, for the super cd i would like to see how i could strategically place load times, most cd games place the cd access at the beginning of each level and don't access it again until the beginning of the next level.

One example of what I'm talking about is in Dracula x, the part where you fight shaft there is a short load time, Dracula x does this sort of thing through out the game, which is why i think its so amazingly detailed.

[malducci]

The SGX was like Sega's 32X, only it was an entire system unto itself.  A similar analogy might be made that the Genesis can play SMS games, but the Genesis was an entirely new platform.  The SGX wasn't.  It was a PCE with an extra background and some more memory.  Not much else.  It would have been better as a System Card (if possible).  The SGX, like the 32X, was a mistake.  There was no reason for it to exist other than for us collectors and geeks to awe in how awesome it is even if it only had a handful of games.

Michael keeps mentioning Gradius 2.  Ug.  While I did grow to love Gradius 5 on the PS2 and I really dig Life Force, I cannot stand any other Gradius game.  Too slow.  Too boring.  Fantastic music, though!  However the repetitive 30 second (or less) tracks on the PCE CD version leave worlds to be desired.  I'd rather play R-Type than Gradius.  R-Type is the bomb. Gradius Gaiden was OK I guess.

 The 32x wasn't in the same situation. The 32x wasn't too little too late, it was just too late. If Sega had release the 32x in '92 or '93 skipping the SegaCD altogether, I'd bet it would have been a pretty good success. Sega already burned their fans with the disappointing and costly segacd.

 The SGX wasn't just a PCE with an extra BG layer and some ram. It has two VDCs, than means double the sprites to 128, double the sprite per scanline limit from 16sprites/256pixels to 32sprites/512pixels, a second BG layer with it's own 64k vram and map size (up 1024x512 pixel map). Plus an additional video controller that could add different priority modes and pixel length variable window clipping (which the PCE didn't have). Everything the PCE was missing. Also the SGX couldn't have been done as an addon on the card slot - though a scaling/rotation processor could have been added in the same manner as the segacd, to the card slot.

 Chris: If it was meant as competition for SFC, then why did they kept supporting the PCE and not the SGX? They continued to bring out new PCE systems (core, shuttle, core 2, duo, dou-r/x) after the fact. They could have discounted the existing PCE unit and replaced it with the SGX. If price was an issue, they could have reduced it. They had a number of options. Instead they released it and pretty much ignored it.