Author Topic: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?  (Read 2517 times)

greedostick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2010, 09:57:49 PM »
Before even clicking on this post I was already going to mention Magical Chase being the only reason to buy a TG16. But is the game really worth $400 more than the PC Engine version? I have owned both versions and I can say I really didn't even care the PC Engine version was a little watered down as compared to the English version. Most of the comaprisons as far as I can remember are in the first level. With the exception of Ripple being a "little" different in the Eng version. I have owned at least 5 duo's, all broke with sound issues. And a English TG16 with the CD Rom adaptor (also crap).

I have to agree with the people who mentioned the Super Grafx, with the Super CD Rom2 unit and RAU-30 adaptor. It is a solid console. But it is also really expensive. Is it really worth it to own it and have acces to what, 5 or 6 games? Of which only 1 or 2 are worth owning. And even Daimakaimura can be had on various other consoles. I just don't think it's worth it. I have a Duo-R now, and I'm happy with it.

I can't think of a single Hu-Card that you must know english to be able to play that can't be had on the PC Engine. Even dungeon explorer can be easily beaten on the PC Engine. And Double Dungeons is crap compared to some of the other stuff on the Duo. Wonder Boy dragon's Curse is the "only" really good RPG/Action RPG that was released here. And that doesn't really require English to play.

Lets see... Have access to 1/10 of the games, and pay extra for a crappy console that "IS", going to break (it's just a matter of time). Or have acces to every game made and play on a solid console that works, and have Hu-Cards that look much slicker and have actual art on them, and for the most part color manuals. Not much of a choice there.

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2010, 10:37:27 PM »
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

termis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1485
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2010, 01:01:56 AM »
off tangent - I just picked up Galaxy Galvan... I never heard of this game, it doesnt seem to float around that much so it's not overprinted for sure.. I read about it from the collection of PC Engine Monthly I picked up from Tokyo last week.. the game looks really cool so I decided to give it a try. 

http://i.ebayimg.com/09/!BdP8d+QBGk~$(KGrHqEH-DsEreR0u9tuBK4F7-ULEQ~~_12.JPG

I wanted a copy with Spine but that was going for 12,000 yen in Japan... so I settled for $49 off Ebay...

If this game kicks ass, then it's one more reason for the PCE!!


Sorry dude, that game totally sucks balls.
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=804.msg35291#msg35291

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2010, 01:12:47 AM »
off tangent - I just picked up Galaxy Galvan... I never heard of this game, it doesnt seem to float around that much so it's not overprinted for sure.. I read about it from the collection of PC Engine Monthly I picked up from Tokyo last week.. the game looks really cool so I decided to give it a try. 

http://i.ebayimg.com/09/!BdP8d+QBGk~$(KGrHqEH-DsEreR0u9tuBK4F7-ULEQ~~_12.JPG

I wanted a copy with Spine but that was going for 12,000 yen in Japan... so I settled for $49 off Ebay...

If this game kicks ass, then it's one more reason for the PCE!!


Sorry dude, that game totally sucks balls.
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=804.msg35291#msg35291



Gate of Thunder is the farkin' best 8-/16-bit h-shoot 'em up! man!
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

Necromancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21374
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2010, 03:10:36 AM »
I can't think of a single Hu-Card that you must know english to be able to play that can't be had on the PC Engine.

I can: Order of the Griffon.  I'd region mod a Duo-R just for it and the handful of other titles with lots of text.
U.S. Collection: 98% complete    157/161 titles

turbogrfxfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 912
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2010, 03:38:30 AM »
I would judt pop it in my regular tg16 system. Doesnt make pce less of a system.
"is everyone from jersey a trolling douche?"

SignOfZeta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8497
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2010, 04:43:50 AM »
Quote from: greedostick

Lets see... Have access to 1/10 of the games, and pay extra for a crappy console that "IS", going to break (it's just a matter of time). Or have acces to every game made and play on a solid console that works, and have Hu-Cards that look much slicker and have actual art on them, and for the most part color manuals. Not much of a choice there.

To be fair, all those break-happy versions of the console also have a Japanese counterpart. There are just as many PC Engine Duos with bad caps as there are Turbo Duos, and there are even more broken PCE CDROM2s than there are TG-16 CD units. All this stuff, as I said before, was made in the same factories. The main difference is that what we now believe to be the most reliable iteration of the hardware, the Duo R/RX was never released in the US.

SignOfZeta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8497
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #52 on: April 30, 2010, 04:49:47 AM »
It is widely known throughout the entire US (ask anyone, they'll know) that the TurboGrafx-16 is larger to comply with FCC regulations of the time.  It spread shit out and added a more shielding because our RF frequencies cannot be tampered with, goddammit!  Heaven forbid that when you turn on your TG-16 your mom gets a little bit of static and/or snow on the TV in her room.  Or maybe your sister can't hear Guns N' Roses quite as clearly on the radio (or whoever was popular in those days... WHAM maybe?).

In 1989? Maybe if you had a really uncool sister.

So anyway, yes, we've heard this story before, about RF interference, but is it actually true?

Quote
This could be the case for the Famicom vs the NES as well.

The design changes made to the NES, and the reasons behind them, are pretty well documented and I'm not aware of the FCC having anything to do with them.

Quote
  The Mega Drive was already supa-huge so it didn't need modification.  The Sega Mark III looked like a piece of rotted dog shit so they had to redesign the Sega Master System for the US to make it crazy awesome.  The FCC really relaxed their policies on this not long after all of that.  I don't recall any systems after the TG-16 that needed physical modification to come to the US.

I'm pretty sure the reason why game systems are no longer totally redesigned for export is the same reason they are no longer renamed for export. They are designed with world-wise markets in mind from the beginning since selling a machine only in Japan these days, and ever making your money back from the design, is totally impossible.

BTW, I love the MKIII!

Quote
I really don't think that the "bigger is better" attitude had anything to do with it.  The US controllers are often larger, but that is only because Japanese have tiny midget micro hands.  :)

Yeah, I'm not sure it did either, but I'm not convinced with the FCC thing yet either.

imparanoic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2010, 02:14:42 PM »
but do you think turbo games packaging look not so aesthetic pleasing, pc engine is far far cooler, maybe i am more japanese centric, but some of the turbo packaging and design makes me cringe

nectarsis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #54 on: April 30, 2010, 02:51:34 PM »
I have to agree with the people who mentioned the Super Grafx, with the Super CD Rom2 unit and RAU-30 adaptor. It is a solid console. But it is also really expensive. Is it really worth it to own it and have acces to what, 5 or 6 games? Of which only 1 or 2 are worth owning. And even Daimakaimura can be had on various other consoles..


More like only one game ISN'T worth owning :P


It is widely known throughout the entire US (ask anyone, they'll know) that the TurboGrafx-16 is larger to comply with FCC regulations of the time.  It spread shit out and added a more shielding because our RF frequencies cannot be tampered with, goddammit!  Heaven forbid that when you turn on your TG-16 your mom gets a little bit of static and/or snow on the TV in her room.  Or maybe your sister can't hear Guns N' Roses quite as clearly on the radio (or whoever was popular in those days... WHAM maybe?).

In 1989? Maybe if you had a really uncool sister.

Yeah because by '89 NO ONE cared about the "has been" GnR already eh? lol


What I do find funny is all the cover/card art "debate."  Of course a majority of the US art for these is subpar, and many of us joke about it.  But seriously...how many of you (after you get a game, and check it out) oogle the "art" so often that you would care either way.  Sounds like some peeps spend more time staring at the cover than you know...playing  :lol:
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 03:04:10 PM by nectarsis »
My Blogger profile with all my blogs of wonderment:<br><a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/08066967226239965436" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://www.blogger.com/profile/08066967226239965436</a>

RoyVegas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #55 on: April 30, 2010, 03:06:51 PM »
Sounds like some peeps spend more time staring at the cover than you know...playing  :lol:

You're supposed to play the games?  :-k
All is well. :)

nectarsis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2010, 03:13:51 PM »
off tangent - I just picked up Galaxy Galvan... I never heard of this game, it doesnt seem to float around that much so it's not overprinted for sure.. I read about it from the collection of PC Engine Monthly I picked up from Tokyo last week.. the game looks really cool so I decided to give it a try. 

http://i.ebayimg.com/09/!BdP8d+QBGk~$(KGrHqEH-DsEreR0u9tuBK4F7-ULEQ~~_12.JPG

I wanted a copy with Spine but that was going for 12,000 yen in Japan... so I settled for $49 off Ebay...

If this game kicks ass, then it's one more reason for the PCE!!


Sorry dude, that game totally sucks balls.
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=804.msg35291#msg35291



Ignore the man in the fuuny hat (termis) he is clearly insane.  :P :twisted: :lol:   While Gayvan isn't a deep beat em up, it's colorful, controls well, and beats the crap (excuse the pun) out of the vastly overrated RCR and it's goony hunchbacked goons, and similar ilk.
My Blogger profile with all my blogs of wonderment:<br><a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/08066967226239965436" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://www.blogger.com/profile/08066967226239965436</a>

Mathius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6008
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2010, 03:39:03 PM »
but do you think turbo games packaging look not so aesthetic pleasing, pc engine is far far cooler, maybe i am more japanese centric, but some of the turbo packaging and design makes me cringe

I'd have to say that Dungeon Explorer could be an exception to this. Both the PCE and Turbo versions had pretty awful artwork IMO.
F@ck Ebay Club member since 2010
Switch Friend Code: SW-2346-3388-5406

Joe Redifer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2010, 09:40:43 PM »
For me, something that is pleasing is that when connected to the TurboGrafx-CD, the TG-16 has ALL of its wires coming from the back of the unit or plugged in to the front (unless you use RF, but if you do, you are an a$$hole).  Granted, this is solved when the PCE is hooked up to a CD-ROM ROM ROM or however you say it (at least I think it is... the wires DO come from the back of the CD-ROM ROM ROM, right???).  I highly disapprove of wires coming out of the side of any console.    It makes the PCE's small form factor one that's really not so small.  With those damn wires poking out of the side it really has a fairly large footprint, especially the Duo.  There is no excuse for any friggin' Duo to have wires coming out from the sides.  I honestly think NEC might have been kind of retarded.  I'm surprised they didn't design the PC-FX with wires coming out of the top or bottom or some other insane shit.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 09:44:00 PM by Joe Redifer »

SignOfZeta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8497
Re: PC Engine vs. TurboGrafx? Which is better?
« Reply #59 on: May 01, 2010, 03:48:54 AM »
The CDROM2 has all the wires coming out the side. I find this kind of convenient (currently) because when I use it the machine sits on the floor with a vertical cabinet behind it. If the wires came out the back I'd have to have it sitting 2"+ closer, and while my game room is nice, its also very small.

Wires come out the back of the Duo R/RX. Its more convenient on some cases, less in others.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 03:50:26 AM by SignOfZeta »