Advantages of SNES hardware vs. Genesis hardware

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-23-2012, 12:24 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Granada on the Genesis has one more level, and the button issue isn't that big of an issue considering on the X68000 you just push the other two buttons at the same time. Now if it was like an Amiga game where there was only 1 button and no way to compensate, then I'd understand. There are still plenty of other action games on the X68000 to chose from. And honestly the Arcade ports more than make the X68000 worth owning. I'd rather play an excellent port of Street Fighter II than poor ports of it or 1 of many generic clones of it on the Amiga.

And after a quick look at gameplay videos, I don't see anything that would make Battle Squadron on the Genesis a horrific compromised mess. Care to elaborate on that one?
10-23-2012, 12:43 PM
Kamahl

Go back tou your 12 FPS Adventure games Thenewguy!
10-23-2012, 01:45 PM
Thenewguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Granada on the Genesis has one more level, and the button issue isn't that big of an issue considering on the X68000 you just push the other two buttons at the same time.

Which means you can't lock direction whilst firing the strong blast.

Also, the turning speed on X68000 is awful, try pushing up then down and watching the tank rotate on both versions, on X68000 it takes like 3 times longer to turn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

And honestly the Arcade ports more than make the X68000 worth owning.

No, those arcade games are readily available on compilations, and MAME, there's nothing even slightly interesting about them anymore and they're stupidly expensive.

Don't get me wrong, arcade ports can be kinda cool/interesting at times to see the differences of the hardwares, but I would never for a second, place them higher than actual exclusives designed for a system, I mean jesus I own three versions of Street Fighter II as it is! why the hell would I find another one particularly interesting?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

I'd rather play an excellent port of Street Fighter II than poor ports of it or 1 of many generic clones of it on the Amiga.

Street Fighter II is on every machine under the sun, including contemporary ones, there's no reason to play the X68000 version. At all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

I don't see anything that would make Battle Squadron on the Genesis a horrific compromised mess. Care to elaborate on that one?

Outside of the fact that the sound is much worse, and the resolution is much lower (meaning you don't see the enemies until they're much closer), they give you like 1/3rd the number of power-ups, the enemies are more aggressive, and the power-ups they do give you are different to the ones you get on Amiga.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamahl

Go back tou your 12 FPS Adventure games Thenewguy!

Go back to playing YsIII Kamahl!
10-23-2012, 01:50 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thenewguy

No, the arcade games are readily available on compilations, and MAME, there's nothing even slightly interesting about them anymore and they're stupidly expensive.

Street Fighter II is on every machine under the sun, including contemporary ones, there's no reason to play the X68000 version. At all.

The X68000 version is arcade perfect? We didn't get close to that on consoles until the Saturn and PS1 in the late 90's. Sure today they are a bit obsolete and expensive, but if you are going to try and rule them out with that argument we can rule out a lot of Amiga games with that same argument.
10-23-2012, 01:51 PM
evildragon

Even the Commodore 64 and Spectrum has an SF2 port.

But both are shit.
10-23-2012, 01:55 PM
dr apocalipsis

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheath

Hey, how would Champion Edition sound on WSG, FM+PSG+DAC (Software) and an "ADPCM" sound chip (with heavy filters and 64KB of RAM)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNT5ka3NGus

Very interesting video. People have to demystify SNES. A very wrong hardware witch such time and price advantage. Also, SFII ports lacks the optimisation of the SNES version. Megadrive could have handled bigger sprites with real time decompression instead of that senseless ultraturbo modes. Even color looks like isn't hand crafted, as sheath pointed. And will not talk about that real shit sample driver.

Big hi to all, by the way. Reading this forum from a long time. But almost everytime from the phone, so never bothered to register. And do not hesitate to correct my lackluster english :P
10-23-2012, 01:57 PM
evildragon

It shouldn't be too hard to fix if someone with the right skills try. I don't have that skill but would like to see it done (but not enough for me to try it myself).
10-23-2012, 02:25 PM
Thenewguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

The X68000 version is arcade perfect? WE didn't get close to that on consoles until the Saturn and PS1 in the late 90's. Sure today they are a bit obsolete and expensive

Crudely (very crudely) worked out -

the X68000 cost £3000 during its entire lifespan, that's what? ~~$7500 odd?~~ $4781, taking into account inflation that's most likely ~~a little under $10,000~~ between $9000 and $10,000 in today's money, all of the games cost ~£70-£80 odd (that's like a little over $100 each I think)

There was never a stage when buying this stuff was a good deal, it was barely better than buying the arcade cabinet itself.

Neo Geo would've been a better option IMO, the games were more expensive, but the hardware was, what? ~~$7000~~ $4000 odd cheaper? so in the early 90s you could get a Neo Geo and like 30 15-20 odd games for the price of buying the X68000 alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

but if you are going to try and rule them out with that argument we can rule out a lot of Amiga games with that same argument.

Not really, 80% of Amiga arcade ports suck ass anyway, its the originals which people play.

EDIT: woops, really fucked this up LOL, screw one number up and it wrecks everything :(
10-23-2012, 02:33 PM
zetastrike

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thenewguy

OK, name another 200 games in other genres and then maybe I'll consider including the X68000 in the same sentence as the Amiga

Dude, the X68000 wipes the floor with the Amiga. Amiga games only seem to appeal to Europeans. I know I don't want to spend all my time playing slow, boring simulations and strategy games, mediocre shooters, and action games lacking japanese development talent and that force you to use up for jump. Seriously, did the people designing the Amiga not think that with the advent of 16 bit hardware there would be games complex enough to warrant more than one button?
10-23-2012, 02:44 PM
Chilly Willy

Quote:

Originally Posted by zetastrike

Dude, the X68000 wipes the floor with the Amiga. Amiga games only seem to appeal to Europeans. I know I don't want to spend all my time playing slow, boring simulations and strategy games, mediocre shooters, and action games lacking japanese development talent and that force you to use up for jump. Seriously, did the people designing the Amiga not think that with the advent of 16 bit hardware there would be games complex enough to warrant more than one button?

The X68000 had a SLIGHTLY faster CPU, a few more colors onscreen, and better sprites. It had worse sound, much worse OS, and a HUGE price tag (more than three times the price of the original Amiga, and FIVE times the price of the A500!). Games on the X68000 LOOKED better, and that's it.

The Amiga supported three button controllers from the start. When it came out in 1985, one button controllers were still the standard, but many Amiga games supported two button controllers, of which you saw some in the late 80s, and more than two buttons in the 90s as multi-button controllers became the standard.
10-23-2012, 02:59 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Well, it depends on the models we are comparing. If you compare the A500 to the original X68000 the CPU is slightly faster (about 3 MHz faster), and you have about 2x the RAM. Sound I'd say is debatable. Some may like the PCM stuff on the Amiga but I'm quite partial to FM Synthesis. If you look at the later X68000 models you end up with a 25MHz MC68EC030, 4MB of RAM, and an 80 MB HDD. I don't know much about Amiga models to know what would compare to that. From what I understand though it seems like the A500 and the A1200 are the more popular models people talk about.
10-23-2012, 03:13 PM
Kamahl

Thread effectively derailed. And all because TA can't read.

Either way, just to finish this discussion, the Amiga hardware is WAY more impressive than the X68000 hardware considering it was released in 1985 and cost a fraction of the price. It's not better though, and the (action) games mostly suck. Even non-abysmal fan favorites like the Second Samurai are grainy low FPS garbage with the music cutting all the time.

It's a shame because looking at the hardware it should be able to do a lot better, and games like Fighting Spirit, Disposable Hero and Virocop showed it could.
10-23-2012, 03:26 PM
Chilly Willy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Well, it depends on the models we are comparing. If you compare the A500 to the original X68000 the CPU is slightly faster (about 3 MHz faster), and you have about 2x the RAM. Sound I'd say is debatable. Some may like the PCM stuff on the Amiga but I'm quite partial to FM Synthesis. If you look at the later X68000 models you end up with a 25MHz MC68EC030, 4MB of RAM, and an 80 MB HDD. I don't know much about Amiga models to know what would compare to that. From what I understand though it seems like the A500 and the A1200 are the more popular models people talk about.

If you want to compare later models, you have 25/33 MHz 68040, better graphics (but still not better sprites), 10 MB of ram, and whatever size harddrive you selected (A4000). It's also still a fraction of the price. If you compare the A1200, you have a 14MHz 68020, better graphics (AGA chipset like the A4000), 2MB of ram, and a 20 or 80 MB harddrive. I don't know what the add-on accelerator market for the X68000 was like, but it was pretty active on the Amiga. You could get 50 to 66 MHz 68060 accelerators for both the A1200 and A4000, with lots of fast ram (usually a min of 16 MB and a max of 256 MB). Toward the end, you could get dual 68060/PowerPC accelerators. I have a 50 MHz 68060/150 MHz 603E accelerator in my A4000.

The harddrive for the A1200 was the laptop type (2.5"), so they were more limited and more expensive. I had a 20 MB in one A1200, and an 80 MB in the other. More recently, I replaced the 20 MB harddrive seeing as 2.5" BIG drives are more affordable now, what with the PS3 using them and all.

The AGA chipset did a lot to bring the Amiga video up, and made the sprites BETTER, but the X68000 still had better sprites. Amiga folks instead moved toward PC-style SVGA cards. So you had far better graphics, but no sprites at all if you went that way.

The big area where the Amiga started lacking at the end was audio: you still had four channels of 8-bit PCM. AGA only increased the sample rate, but didn't change anything else on the audio. Amiga folks like your's truly start doing software mixing and linked two of the channels to the other two for 14-bit stereo - about the best the audio got on a stock Amiga. I made an assembly language mixer for the A1200 that used about 5% of the CPU to mix 16 channels of music instruments + 16 channels of sound effects. I did that mainly for the Doom port me and a few other folks maintained.
10-23-2012, 03:30 PM
Kamahl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

The big area where the Amiga started lacking at the end was audio: you still had four channels of 8-bit PCM. AGA only increased the sample rate, but didn't change anything else on the audio. Amiga folks like your's truly start doing software mixing and linked two of the channels to the other two for 14-bit stereo - about the best the audio got on a stock Amiga. I made an assembly language mixer for the A1200 that used about 5% of the CPU to mix 16 channels of music instruments + 16 channels of sound effects. I did that mainly for the Doom port me and a few other folks maintained.

What can you do with a 500 chilly? 4 channels of music (one can be fixed rate for drums) + 2 channels of (low-ok quality) SFX would be how much CPU wasted?
10-23-2012, 03:33 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Was the Amiga able to use any external audio mixers? I know the X68000 could use them as the one video I posted demonstrated. Also did many of the games actually benefit from the enhanced hardware? From what I've been told a lot of Amiga games were written for the lowest common denominator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thenewguy

Crudely (very crudely) worked out -

the X68000 cost £3000 during its entire lifespan, that's what? ~~$7500 odd?~~ $4781, taking into account inflation that's most likely ~~a little under $10,000~~ between $9000 and $10,000 in today's money, all of the games cost ~£70-£80 odd (that's like a little over $100 each I think)

There was never a stage when buying this stuff was a good deal, it was barely better than buying the arcade cabinet itself.

Neo Geo would've been a better option IMO, the games were more expensive, but the hardware was, what? ~~$7000~~ $4000 odd cheaper? so in the early 90s you could get a Neo Geo and like 30 15-20 odd games for the price of buying the X68000 alone.

EDIT: woops, really fucked this up LOL, screw one number up and it wrecks everything :(

Where did you get the price information? I looked it up, the X68000 launched in Japan at ¥369,000. Using 1987 conversion rates that comes to roughly £1500. Again using 1987 exchange rates that comes to roughly $2600. While still more expensive than the Amigas, it wasn't that much more expensive. It was about on par with a good IBM PC or Macintosh of the time.
10-23-2012, 04:28 PM
Team Andromeda

Quote:

Really now? Let's compare shall we?

How many games came out for the Sharp mate ? compared to the amount of classics on the Amiga ? and if you want to play your silly little game then the Sharp X68000 is also better than the Mega Drive with faster CPU, and closer Arcade conversions .

Quote:

You know what? Just shut up. You fail miserably at everything

Really . How many here owned or still own a Sharp X68000 . At least I'm honest about never owning the unit and its funny to see the ones who say its unfair to link Snes emu, linking Sharp X68000 emu videos with out a care in the world and I highly doubt TrekkiesUnite118 or Kamahl ever owned a Sharp X6800 unit and so couldn't possible know what its sounds like for real
10-23-2012, 04:31 PM
Team Andromeda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamahl

Thread effectively derailed. And all because TA can't read.

Either way, just to finish this discussion, the Amiga hardware is WAY more impressive than the X68000 hardware considering it was released in 1985 and cost a fraction of the price. It's not better though, and the (action) games mostly suck. Even non-abysmal fan favorites like the Second Samurai are grainy low FPS garbage with the music cutting all the time.

It's a shame because looking at the hardware it should be able to do a lot better, and games like Fighting Spirit, Disposable Hero and Virocop showed it could.

Its you that needs to read more, I didn't even bring the X68000 into it, that would be TrekkiesUnite118.
10-23-2012, 04:40 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

How many games came out for the Sharp mate ? compared to the amount of classics on the Amiga ?

You and I differ greatly on our definition of classics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

and if you want to play your silly little game then the Sharp X68000 is also better than the Mega Drive with faster CPU, and closer Arcade conversions .

Your point? I never said the Genesis was better than the X68000. The X68000 is a beastly home computer, the Genesis is a cheap home console. No duh the x68000 is better. It's better than the SNES too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Really . How many here owned or still own a Sharp X68000 . At least I'm honest about never owning the unit and its funny to see the ones who say its unfair to link Snes emu, linking Sharp X68000 emu videos with out a care in the world and I highly doubt TrekkiesUnite118 or Kamahl ever owned a Sharp X6800 unit and so couldn't possible know what its sounds like for real

The videos I posted were not X68000 EMU videos. They were recorded from real hardware. It says so in the video descriptions. I'm not saying I own a Sharp X68000 because I don't. That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that it was a beastly machine and had excellent ports. That also doesn't mean I can't say that I would pick it over an Amiga. Stop putting words in my mouth and read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Its you that needs to read more, I didn't even bring the X68000 into it, that would be TrekkiesUnite118.

WHAT?! Kamahl brought it up as a comparison between audio hardware. Barone joked about you thinking the Amiga was better and you fell for it saying you thought the Amiga was a better piece of hardware to buy. I replied to that comment. So how in gods name did I bring the X68000 into this debate?
10-23-2012, 04:51 PM
Kamahl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Its you that needs to read more, I didn't even bring the X68000 into it, that would be TrekkiesUnite118.

I brought the X68000 into it, to show you that top of the line hardware USED FM and COULDN'T DO WHAT YOU CRITICIZE THE MD ABOUT (multi-channel PCM). You are so in your own world you can't even read.
10-23-2012, 04:54 PM
Chilly Willy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamahl

What can you do with a 500 chilly? 4 channels of music (one can be fixed rate for drums) + 2 channels of (low-ok quality) SFX would be how much CPU wasted?

If you use software mixing, you're going to use almost 100% of the CPU. Without software mixing, you're looking at less than 5%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Was the Amiga able to use any external audio mixers? I know the X68000 could use them as the one video I posted demonstrated. Also did many of the games actually benefit from the enhanced hardware? From what I've been told a lot of Amiga games were written for the lowest common denominator.

There were a number of Amiga audio cards, but they were EXPENSIVE! A simple Windows codec on an Amiga card would run over $200.

Quote:

Where did you get the price information? I looked it up, the X68000 launched in Japan at ¥369,000. Using 1987 conversion rates that comes to roughly £1500. Again using 1987 exchange rates that comes to roughly $2600. While still more expensive than the Amigas, it wasn't that much more expensive. It was about on par with a good IBM PC or Macintosh of the time.

That's more than twice the A1200, almost four times the A500, and almost three times the A2000.
10-23-2012, 04:56 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

That's more than twice the A1200, almost four times the A500, and almost three times the A2000.

I know, I was just pointing out that it wasn't to the point of being as ridiculous as he originally posted. Weren't those the budget line Amigas? What was the cost of the higher up models?
10-23-2012, 05:06 PM
Kamahl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

If you use software mixing, you're going to use almost 100% of the CPU. Without software mixing, you're looking at less than 5%.

How do you get more than 4 channels without doing software mixing?
10-23-2012, 05:31 PM
Team Andromeda

Quote:

You and I differ greatly on our definition of classics

PGA Golf , Monkey Island 1 & 2 Lemmings, Stunt Car Racer, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Sensible Soccer, Cannon Fodder, Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge, Syndicate, Speedball 2 , Flashback, Pinball Dreams and I haven't even began to scratch the surface of the classics that were out on the Amiga

Quote:

Your point? I never said the Genesis was better than the X68000

If you want to bring the X68000 in to it, then its better than the MD Since it has a faster CPU and closer Arcade ports , but I take it we're only comparing X68000 to the Snes ?

Quote:

The videos I posted were not X68000 EMU videos. They were recorded from real hardware. It says so in the video descriptions.

Like I said you know that for real ? with out ever owning the actual Hardware . I'm pretty sure many people have really played the X68000 for them self's and more would have no doubt played the FM Towns Marty

Quote:

I brought the X68000 into it, to show you that top of the line hardware

LOL that's even worse . I never brought the X68000 into the debate, until others did . I've never seen it fair to compare PC's to the consoles at all
10-23-2012, 05:39 PM
Raijin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

If you want to bring the X68000 in to it, then its better than the MD Since it has a faster CPU and closer Arcade ports , but I take it we're only comparing X68000 to the Snes ?

Oh my god, dude seriously? That's exactly what he said! READ! He said the X68K is better than the Genesis. Genesis and Mega Drive are the same. Just stop posting, please!
10-23-2012, 06:10 PM
Chilly Willy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

I know, I was just pointing out that it wasn't to the point of being as ridiculous as he originally posted. Weren't those the budget line Amigas? What was the cost of the higher up models?

The first was a typo - I meant the A1000, the original. The A1000 and A2000 weren't budget models. The A500 was the first budget model, then the A1200 was the budget AGA model. The A3000 was the "high-end" ECS model, then the A4000 was the high-end AGA model... until the A4000 Tower replaced it as the high-end AGA machine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamahl

How do you get more than 4 channels without doing software mixing?

Something inbetween - interleaving. As long as the two sources are at the same frequency, they can be played at the same time by the same channel by storing every other byte from each in memory. Uses more time than no mixing at all, but much less than software mixing. You could use the MOVEP opcode to easily interleave samples. I think that's how MED format managed eight channels on the Amiga.
10-23-2012, 06:17 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

PGA Golf , Monkey Island 1 & 2 Lemmings, Stunt Car Racer, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Sensible Soccer, Cannon Fodder, Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge, Syndicate, Speedball 2 , Flashback, Pinball Dreams and I haven't even began to scratch the surface of the classics that were out on the Amiga

Monkey Island 1 and 2 were on PC and other systems were they not? And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the VGA PC versions considered the best? Looking at the Amiga version I dare say the Sega CD version looks to be on par with it. That's not a game I'm going to run out and get an Amiga for. Same for the Indiana Jones games, the DOS versions are typically better. Lemmings is on just about every system imaginable of the time. But since the Amiga version was first, I can give it that one I guess. I'm pretty sure it's a general consensus that Flashback is better on the Sega CD, so again not something to run out and get an Amiga for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

If you want to bring the X68000 in to it, then its better than the MD Since it has a faster CPU and closer Arcade ports , but I take it we're only comparing X68000 to the Snes ?

:bang:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Like I said you know that for real ? with out ever owning the actual Hardware . I'm pretty sure many people have really played the X68000 for them self's and more would have no doubt played the FM Towns Marty

Oh for fucks sake TA it's right in the video descriptions for them.

For Super Street Fighter II:

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdeadite

Saw no vids of this one running on real hardware, so here it is. I suck at this game, so difficulty is on easy. Music supplied by Yamaha TG100.

For Street Fighter II:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PPSXR2

X68030実機映像 / This video is not an emulator.
参考映像のためノーミスに拘らずアップロード。

The Amiga ones are most likely emulated, but finding footage of those is few and far between. So I made due with what I could find. The X68000 videos are real hardware though. If you have real hardware videos of the Amiga versions of those games feel free to post them for comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

LOL that's even worse . I never brought the X68000 into the debate, until others did . I've never seen it fair to compare PC's to the consoles at all

We weren't comparing PC's to consoles, we were simply mentioning it as an example.
10-23-2012, 06:32 PM
Kamahl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

Something inbetween - interleaving. As long as the two sources are at the same frequency, they can be played at the same time by the same channel by storing every other byte from each in memory. Uses more time than no mixing at all, but much less than software mixing. You could use the MOVEP opcode to easily interleave samples. I think that's how MED format managed eight channels on the Amiga.

Ah, now I get it. They really should have used that more. Having the music being cut for sound effects really sucked, and having it limited to 2 channels too. 3 + 1 seemed to be the most acceptable option, but still not good enough.
10-23-2012, 07:07 PM
evildragon

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

That's to TA
10-23-2012, 08:39 PM
Thenewguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Where did you get the price information?

It was from a 1st hand account from a UK ex-pat who was living there who bought one at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

I looked it up, the X68000 launched in Japan at ¥369,000. Using 1987 conversion rates that comes to roughly £1500. Again using 1987 exchange rates that comes to roughly $2600. While still more expensive than the Amiga's, it wasn't that much more expensive. It was about on par with a good IBM PC or Macintosh of the time.

It was a rushed figure, based on what I was given (which unfortunately seemed to be based on present day exchange rates), realistically you can't actually get a true price anyway though because the exchange rate went up and down over time, in 1987 alone it would be between $2400 and $2900 depending on what time of year you bought it. As time goes on, the Yen gets stronger against the dollar so the cost would get higher and higher each subsequent year. The machine never really dropped in price, each new revision generally went back up to ¥369,000.
10-23-2012, 09:15 PM
tomaitheous

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

The big area where the Amiga started lacking at the end was audio: you still had four channels of 8-bit PCM. AGA only increased the sample rate, but didn't change anything else on the audio. Amiga folks like your's truly start doing software mixing and linked two of the channels to the other two for 14-bit stereo - about the best the audio got on a stock Amiga. I made an assembly language mixer for the A1200 that used about 5% of the CPU to mix 16 channels of music instruments + 16 channels of sound effects. I did that mainly for the Doom port me and a few other folks maintained.

I take it the playback rate was ~31khz mode? How did the interleaving method sound?
10-23-2012, 10:14 PM
Chilly Willy

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

I take it the playback rate was ~31khz mode? How did the interleaving method sound?

Muffled, generally. Since interleaving means the sounds are at half the playback rate, that meant a slower effective sample rate, so you definitely wanted to leave the sound filtered, which means muffled sound. It wasn't too bad, but it certainly wasn't hi-quality. Which was my point - the Amiga sound was pretty dated by that time. The only thing ECS/AGA did for sound was support a higher sample rate IF you used the higher scan rate video modes. Even if all they did was double the channels, that would have helped a lot. For AGA in particular, they should have bumped the number of channels, and added 16-bit samples if you used the proper fetch mode. Using double-word/double-fetch in AGA, they could have supported twice as many channels at 16 bits. Ditto for the floppy interface (it was on the same chip) - you could have supported PC-standard high-density 1.4M floppies, and 2.8M floppies in the top fetch mode. Having 3520KB floppies (880K * 4) and eight 16-bit audio channels would have made AGA much more attractive.
10-23-2012, 10:59 PM
Drakon

Really? For me it's:

1: pc engine
2: snes
3: genesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

So for me, I'd rate them as following:

1) PC-Engine
2) Genesis
3) SNES
10-23-2012, 11:30 PM
Thenewguy
I really don't understand what makes the PC-Engine version best, I mean, essentially its the SNES version with slightly inferior colour, all the parallax missing, and fewer modes and options (amongst other things the PC-Engine version is running off the older Champion engine, unlike the SNES and Genesis versions which have extra moves added to better balance the fighters, such as Chun Li's fireball), it had good voice samples though.

I'd probably go
1. SNES
2. Genesis
3. PC-Engine
Personally
10-23-2012, 11:33 PM
sheath

The PC-Engine version is faster than the Genesis and SNES versions with the character movement, at least on my DUO/R. It's like comparing 60FPS to 30FPS in comparison, and that video barely shows it. Also, the voice clarity is better than the Genesis or SNES versions. I would only doc it for its music sounding flatter than the Genesis music, which wasn't even that great for the platform, and for the lack of even a rudimentary second layer of background detail. Gameplay wise, especially with the Soldier pad, I'd rather play the PCE game than the SNES game.
10-23-2012, 11:35 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

The PC-Engine version is a good middle ground which is why I prefer it. For example the SNES version has good graphics, ok voice samples, and in my opinion horrid music. The Genesis version has ok graphics, garbled voice samples, and ok music. The PC-Engine version has Good Graphics, Good Voice Samples, and Good quality music. I can be content playing it. The other 16-bit console versions there's usually some aspect that I'm not going to like.
10-23-2012, 11:52 PM
tomaitheous

Heh, this reminds me of some discussion about SF2 on the PCE. One SNES fan argued that the PCE could handle the higher frame rates of 'Turbo and such. So I hacked the game to show off that it could:

^ This video shows off the game hacked to show two game frames in a single NTSC frame. It's just to show off that it could run twice the speed without slowing down. Of course this hack actually makes ALL the game logic run twice as fast doing twice the number of line scrolls, etc that you normally wouldn't waste CPU resource on (samples don't play faster because they run off the TIMER interrupt and that doesn't change/independent speed). I.e the argument was that the PCE wasn't fast enough to handle faster game logic.

^ This video shows off the game hacked to update both character frames in a single instance. So both player animations are being updated at 60fps. I.e. the argument was that the PCE wasn't fast enough to update the graphics/frames.
10-23-2012, 11:56 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

That first one is hilariously awesome.
10-24-2012, 12:22 AM
dr apocalipsis

I am a real owner of an Amiga 500 and a buch of games. Has to say, viewing the derail of the thread.

I was able to play plugging a Megadrive PAD, taking advantage of 2 buttons support on some games. Anyway, you could bug the sound with that pad, don't remember how, since the sound and the input was handled by the same chips. Nothing serious.

Machine was so capable, but suffered from low budget software. Come on, it's not fair to compare software sometimes even in house with poor conversions made by an external single programmer and a musician without access to original source code. That was an era of intense multiplatform, where the lowest machine mutilated the games for every other platform. When not the inferior Atari ST, even 8 bits computers. Houses spent more money into buying licenses than into software development.

That was an amazing leap at the time at a hardware standpoint. Software never did so good and aged awfully bad. Better take this machine out of the thread, since it's not fair at all.
10-24-2012, 01:01 AM
saturndual32

tomaitheous, lets remember that with only 8KB of work ram, the PCE couldnt handle Street Fighter 2 Turbos extra moves and character colors. Now you are gonna have to hack the PCEs SF2", and turn it into full SF2 Turbo and share it with us, just to prove that theory wrong. Or maybe turn it into Super SF2X...yeah that would convince naysayers. Oh, but not extra bios are allowed to be used, that would be cheating...LOL.
But seriously, i am glad to know someone is working on PCE homebrew stuff, tom.
10-24-2012, 01:22 AM
evildragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr apocalipsis

...it's not fair to compare software sometimes even in house with poor conversions made by an external single programmer and a musician without access to original source code.

In that case, you side against TA. Because he's making the complete opposite stance from that.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 AM.