Final Fight PCE

[handygrafx]

The NES/Famicom is 1983 technology.

Indeed, NES/Famicom is 1983 technology.   I might even take it a step further than that (while not disagreeing with you at all) and say that NES/Famicom is... "early 80s technology".  Certainly the NES/Famicom was not just R&D'd in 1983, but probably 1981-1982, and released in 1983 (1985 in the U.S. as the NES).

The PC-Engine / TurboGrafx-16 is, at the latest, 1987 technology, at least. Yet was probably developed during the mid 80s.

The Atari Lynx: was released in late 1989, yet was certainly not 1989 technology.  It was developed by Epyx by 1987.  The idea came for it in 1985, and by 1987 the hardware was, at least in some form, almost done.  Atari took it over, released it in 1989.

The Super Famicom/SNES:  released in 1990/1991, but was shown as far back as late 1988.  Nintendo changed the specs several times between 1988 and 1990. It would be most fair to say it's 1989 technology.

The Dreamcast: released in 1998/1999, yet was mainly developed during 1997 in the internal Sega competition with two consoles in development at the same time: the SoA-developed, 3Dfx-based Dural/Shark/Black Belt and the SoJ-developed, PowerVR2-based Katana/Dreamcast.
It would be fair to say Dreamcast is 1997-1998 technology since the hardware was completed in sometime between late 1997 and early 1998.

The GameCube: was released in 2001, yet does not exactly qualify as 2001 technology since it was actually developed during the late 90s, completed in 2000, before being released.  It would be most fair to call GameCube as being 2000 technology.

PlayStation3: released in late 2006.   The CELL processor was developed between 2000 and 2005. The RSX GPU being based on Nvidia NV47 / G70 (GeForce 7800), was released for PCs in mid 2005.   It would be most fair to say PS3 is 2005 technology.

I could give many more examples, but, that's enough I think

Sorry for going so far off-topic from Final Fight

[Tatsujin]

i think, what was BT just wanted to say is, that the FC technology is almost as old as the speccy's, but multiple superior to it.

[Spector]

Do you think that doesn't apply to the Spectrum too? It was developed before April '82 as well - in fact, the start up screen was similar to the ZX81!

Remember I'm saying this as a big PC Engine fan: in terms of amount of memorable games, really between the Spectrum and PC Engine, there is no comparison - the Spectrum wins by a country mile. One problem I've found with PC Engine games is the same with all consoles from that era - you do get a feeling of repeating yourself. You play P-47, then Fantasy Zone and then Ordyne... and in a certain mood, you just feel as if you're playing the same game but with different sprites. You play Cratermaze and then Batman... and it's the same game. Then there are all the interchangeable R-Type-esque shoot-em-ups... The Spectrum had tons of clones too, but in the golden era, they didn't dominate the charts to that extent, no way.

The genres in gaming seemed to narrow as technology improved, and without doubt, as the quality of graphics went up, the ideas went down. I'm being very harsh on the late Eighties scene, but be honest, there's a lot of truth in that.

[Tatsujin]

lol


















L0L

[Spector]

Hey! I just slagged off the PC Engine!   

But that's called playing Devil's Advocate. I'm still a huge fan. In fact, I just played Final Match Tennis 15 minutes ago, and I think it's the greatest tennis simulation of all time. Absolutely bloody brilliant.

[ccovell]

The Super Famicom/SNES:  released in 1990/1991, but was shown as far back as late 1988.  Nintendo changed the specs several times between 1988 and 1990. It would be most fair to say it's 1989 technology.

The only major spec changes were in the amount of onboard RAM.  It's 1988 technology, at the latest.

[esteban]

Remember I'm saying this as a big PC Engine fan: in terms of amount of memorable games, really between the Spectrum and PC Engine, there is no comparison - the Spectrum wins by a country mile. One problem I've found with PC Engine games is the same with all consoles from that era - you do get a feeling of repeating yourself. You play P-47, then Fantasy Zone and then Ordyne... and in a certain mood, you just feel as if you're playing the same game but with different sprites. You play Cratermaze and then Batman... and it's the same game. Then there are all the interchangeable R-Type-esque shoot-em-ups... The Spectrum had tons of clones too, but in the golden era, they didn't dominate the charts to that extent, no way.

The genres in gaming seemed to narrow as technology improved, and without doubt, as the quality of graphics went up, the ideas went down. I'm being very harsh on the late Eighties scene, but be honest, there's a lot of truth in that.

Spector is pointing out something that is true for any decently supported computer platform during the 80's: if you examine the library (catalog) of games, you'll find a truly wonderful mix of genres and many games that defy the established genres.

Consoles have, unfortunately, been much more narrowly focused when it comes to genre. This is partly due to hardware differences in platforms (keyboard, multiple floppies vs. joystick, cartridges), but I'd say that the market dynamics in the 80's computer scenes (Apple II, C64, English micros, IBM PC, etc.) was robust enough to support a wide, wide range of games  (a small computer publisher could be successful with a game that earned good reviews, even niche titles). Enough folks bought these games, across a wide smorgasboard of genres, to allow publishers to take risks every now and then (i.e. niche titles).

Consoles excelled, especially in the 80's, at action (arcade) sorts of games, so it isn't surprising that publishers kept the console's strengths in mind.

Successful consoles would eventually get some niche titles, but these were always a token of what was available on computers.

I don't prefer computers over consoles, but I appreciate the differences in their respective markets, and how that, in turn, affected the sorts of games that publishers released.

Disclaimer: for the past few years, I've been reading Zzzap! and the other micro-centered mags, as well as checking out the games. I honestly can't believe how robust things were over there. Here in the States, the Apple II & C64 were all that mattered for me. Later, my friend got an IBM PC and horizons expanded...

[sunteam_paul]

The NES/Famicom is 1983 technology.

Yes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days. Just look at the difference between the ZX81 (1981) and the Spectrum (1982). But even thought the Speccy wasn't the most technically advanced computer for much of its life, it sure gave the competition a hell of a run for their money. From a UK point of view, the Spectrum is the most influential home computer ever made. The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).

[Tatsujin]

Yes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days

yeah..and just watch the amiga 1000 which was released during 1985, seen as that also just few years later but with a sheer unbelievable multiple increase of capacity compared to those "slighty" earlier system.

[Black Tiger]

The NES/Famicom is 1983 technology.

Yes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days. Just look at the difference between the ZX81 (1981) and the Spectrum (1982). But even thought the Speccy wasn't the most technically advanced computer for much of its life, it sure gave the competition a hell of a run for their money. From a UK point of view, the Spectrum is the most influential home computer ever made. The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).

The NES is also a console while the Spectrum is a computer, even if it is that kind of budget computer that was so popular over in Europe. When the Famicom was released, it was the Neo Geo of the time, only without the high price tag for the hardware and games. If the NES had launched across the world in 1983 it likely would've conquered Europe as well.

[Adol2009]

The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).

Really? In UK, SMS sold more than NES?
I'd be happy to hear it,but i'm surprised though ^^
In France,i'd sya it was more like 60% NES 40% SMS, but i'd be happy SMS won that battle in UK, as i always preferred SMS over NES.

[Tatsujin]

swiss was like 95% nes and a minable 5% sms

my frend & I had a sms

[sunteam_paul]

The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).

Really? In UK, SMS sold more than NES?
I'd be happy to hear it,but i'm surprised though ^^
In France,i'd sya it was more like 60% NES 40% SMS, but i'd be happy SMS won that battle in UK, as i always preferred SMS over NES.

I think it was mostly down to the successful marketing by Mastertronic (who had become a big name by selling budget computer games and later merged with Virgin). The SMS was perceived as a lot 'cooler' - it was sleek and black, unlike Nintendo's grey box, and with more colourful graphics and the backing of some big name arcade titles (and no robot-gimmick in sight) it really pushed ahead of the NES in the UK.

[Tatsujin]

yeah..sega UK hired sir richard branson as a promoter.

[Spector]

Price had a lot to do with it too - I remember some NES games selling in crappy cardboard boxes for £40! Who in their right mind would pay £40 for an 8-bit game?