PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum

Non-NEC Console Related Discussion => Console Chat => Topic started by: Tatsujin on June 26, 2006, 09:26:05 PM

Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on June 26, 2006, 09:26:05 PM
Which system you like more to play on or collect it? the Japanese or US release (with all its mutations and addons etc)?
since i discovered that the TG-16 forum almost reached twice the amount of posts and topics than the PCE forum, may be an interessting question  :wink:

comments are welcome all the time as well  :wink:

(sorry, thought that this would fit best in the general console section, since it handles about both of the systems  :) ).
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: TR0N on June 26, 2006, 11:05:31 PM
PCE i like it's design more plus it's compact.

Only thing i'll credit for on the, TG16 that it was durable nothing more.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: KingDrool on June 27, 2006, 04:06:04 AM
I collect TG-16 games, though I like the look and feel of the PC Engine better.  I speak 0 Japanese and grew up with the TG-16, so that's just how it goes for me.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: rolins on June 27, 2006, 04:15:34 AM
My vote goes to PCE. I think it was in '98 when I first picked up my coregrafx II and started collecting. I never owned a TG16 back in day because my neighbor already had one, and would come over to play Blazing Lazers and Legendary Axe.

The TG16 games is just too expensive for me. I do own a few of them just so I could play them on my TE, but I prefer to buy the japanese counterparts just to keep my collection consistant. Plus, the artwork completely destorys the american covers.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: cavein2000 on June 27, 2006, 10:29:44 AM
I'm going with the Turbo.  I own both the TG16 and a Supergrafx/PCE with Super CD Rom2.  I am really building my Turbo collection right now, but am excited about getting into some titles for the PCE too.  As far as the games go, I haven't fully explored the PCE titles but I'm always looking.  My vote might be different six months down the road though.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Ninja Spirit on June 27, 2006, 11:20:01 AM
PCE all the way, so much we were deprived of.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Digi.k on June 27, 2006, 11:56:22 AM
yup PCE.. its just too cute !! :oops:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: esteban on June 27, 2006, 12:39:16 PM
I can't vote, because they are inseperable for me.

I am hardcore TG-16 / TG-CD fan, since that's the console I had back in the day. I think the North American releases are something to treasure.

But the TG-16 had a severely limited library and as a result you could never stop there.

So even back in the day, I was enthralled with the PCE universe (though my experience was limited to a handful of imports).

The breadth of the PCE universe is amazing and still holds my interest  because there are so many games I have yet to play (and so much PCE history I don't know about).

My love for TG-16 and PCE is intertwined. I like to get both the  US and JP versions of the same titles...

But nowadays, I spend most of my time with the PCE, since I've been spending a lot of time with Japanese HuCards.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: nodtveidt on June 27, 2006, 12:56:31 PM
Quote from: "jlued686"
I collect TG-16 games, though I like the look and feel of the PC Engine better.  I speak 0 Japanese and grew up with the TG-16, so that's just how it goes for me.

Gotta agree with this one all the way. I prefer the TG16 personally, although I think that both names are really kinda stupid. :D
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: PC Gaijin on June 27, 2006, 05:08:04 PM
I voted Turbografx-16. It was my first "next-gen" system (really, the first time I was somewhat aware of the goings on in the vid game industry), the first system I imported games for, etc. Too many fine memories tied up in the system and that particular time in my life. However, I acquired most of my Turbo collection "back in the day" when it was more readily available and (in some cases) much cheaper. If I were starting out now, I'd probably go with the PC Engine. I always was disappointed with the way the Turbo was changed in looks from the PCE, and the cover art on US releases was so horrible.

Ah hell, I think I agree with stevek666. I love 'em both. But I voted Turbo because it's the Rodney Dangerfield of consoles, no respect! :D
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Ninja Spirit on June 27, 2006, 05:12:40 PM
Yeah I can understand that. I feel the same way toward my SuperNES, though it got shafted alot as the TG has, but it's just because I had it since childhood.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on June 27, 2006, 07:00:23 PM
I voted Turbo Grafx 16 and I wasn't even raised on the system and was into Japanese gaming when I first got into the TG16/PCE scene. So why TG16 for me? I simply love the American style of the Turbo's universe, whether it be advertising, hardware, artwork, etc...

I collect the American TG16 versions of games whenever I can, unless it's something really expensive and rare inwhich it's easier and cheaper to buy the Japanese version. I love looking through my TG16 game cases and manuals because it always gives me a good laugh and a great feeling of nostalgia even though I never experienced the system as a kid.

The Japanese side of things might look more "sleek", but for what it's worth, I like the cheesy American side :) , it's just a lot more fun to me. I admit that the PCE+CDROM2 briefcase set up is probably the coolest system design ever made, but it's just a lot of fun for me to see how the American version turned out and how 80's it was. However on a serious note, I think the Turbo Duo looks a lot cooler than the PCE Duo even though the differences are just a few.

And to top everything off, playing in English is nice :) . So for me, Turbo Grafx 16 all the way  8) .
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Digi.k on August 09, 2006, 11:50:10 AM
this is the problem.... I would love to support the TG but I hate the look... and most of the games I really love playing are japan only.... (its the same problem with the saturn although thankfully the western look wasn't drastically changed)


how can you resist its charms..??
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/kwoksta/DSC03063.jpg)


I'm really hoping when WII comes out hudson will translate their HuCARD games like momotaro peach boy and ready for download because I think these 'oriental/japanese' characters and stories are more accepted by westerners now..
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Michael Helgeson on August 10, 2006, 06:45:03 PM
As far as looks go.PC Engine,or Coregrafx,then TG16 deck. I hate the look of the Duo(US or JP) and esp hate the look of the Duo-R/RX.

Gameplay wise,Pc-Engine. I have no qualms about playing a japanese release of a game versus a US release,and I hated about all the US releases artwork on the packaging.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: takashirose on August 10, 2006, 06:56:25 PM
You don't like the Duo design?  I think it's one of the best in the industry.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: SignOfZeta on August 11, 2006, 12:06:53 AM
This is kind of a wierd queston, IMO. They are the same console with with only differences being:

1) Terrible orginal TG-16 design. Huge, black, and awkward. The stupid flimsy shell thing covering the expansion bus will not stay on the back, and adding the CD just makes a huge t-shaped thing. The same can be said for the Supergrafx w/ Super CD combo I guess, but considering that set-up is way more capible, and virtually nobody has it, I forgive it. The Turbo is litterally twice as big as a PCE just because they thought (probably correctly at the time) that Americans like stuff that is big for no other reason that it being big. Considering the subsequent popularity of SUVs, I'd have to say maybe they were onto something, but that shit doesn't appeal to me.

2) Pathetically small selection of games that are more expensive, and have super crap covers.

3) Virtually everything for TG-16 is harder to find than PCE.



I don't see the appeal of the US stuff now that things have changed so much. Sure, I had a US Duo back in 1992, but that was when the JP systems were $400-500, even the crap games were $60-100. SFII was $120. The Arcade Card was $130. Now you can get tons of PCE stuff for very very little cash.

I think the TG-16 is just for people that like spending more money, and getting less. The TG-16 only has a two button pad, and Fighting Street is (I think) the only fighting game for it. There is no Arcade Card, no Strider, no Sapphire, no Ys IV, no Dracula X, no Bomberman '94, no Fray, no Macross. Most of the shooters are Japan only too. Bazaar de Gozaru...TG-16 people don't have Bazaar de Gozaru. So sad.

I have the US versions of the Duo pack-ins, as well as GoT, but that's about it. I'll take a $3 copy of Gunhead over a $15 copy of Blazing Lasers any day.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: FM-77 on August 11, 2006, 01:49:54 AM
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
Blazing Lasers


That's Blazing Lazers. The American games also have weird (and misspelled) titles.  :roll:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Odonadon on August 11, 2006, 07:26:32 AM
Quote from: "Ninja Spirit"
PCE all the way, so much we were deprived of.


Amen to that.  When I first had my TG16 I wasn't terribly impressed.  I thought the library of games blew goats, and it wasn't until the CD-ROM came out that I becaome a huge fan.  I became a fan of Hu's once again when I discovered the awesome library of Japanese games that never did get ported.

There used to be an import store in town (funnily enough, the store was called SuperGrafx), and me and a friend used to go down once a week or so and check out the PC Engine and SuperGrafx.  I've always thought the PC Engine/Core units were far more stylish than the ugly bulky TG16.  I especially remember when the Knight Rider game first made it's appearance at SuperGrafx :)  "KITT's speaking Japanese, I need this game!" :)

Anyway, PC Engine all the way.  The TG16 still embarasses me a little :)

OD
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Black Tiger on August 17, 2006, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
Blazing Lasers


That's Blazing Lazers. The American games also have weird (and misspelled) titles.  :roll:



You mean like "Snatcher CD-ROMantic", "Virtua Racing/Fighter", "Faussete Amour", "GunHed" or "Hi-Leg Fantasy"?
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: FM-77 on August 18, 2006, 03:05:58 AM
Quote from: "Black_Tiger"
Quote from: "Seldane"
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
Blazing Lasers


That's Blazing Lazers. The American games also have weird (and misspelled) titles.  :roll:



You mean like "Snatcher CD-ROMantic", "Virtua Racing/Fighter", "Faussete Amour", "GunHed" or "Hi-Leg Fantasy"?


Yeah, kind of like that. Except those titles weren't officially released in North America - An English-speaking continent. :)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on August 21, 2006, 02:19:47 PM
Quote from: "takashirose"
You don't like the Duo design?  I think it's one of the best in the industry.

yes, and even won the 7th place in best design of home entertainment stuff back in '92 or so!

i just love the DUO. one of the finest looking consoles ever made!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on August 21, 2006, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"
Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
Blazing Lasers


That's Blazing Lazers. The American games also have weird (and misspelled) titles.  :roll:


Quote from: "SignOfZeta"

I have the US versions of the Duo pack-ins, as well as GoT, but that's about it. I'll take a $3 copy of Gunhead over a $15 copy of Blazing Lasers any day.


and that one is Gunhed :wink:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: esteban on August 28, 2006, 08:00:35 PM
GunHed !!!!

Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
This is kind of a wierd queston, IMO. They are the same console with with only differences being:

1) Terrible orginal TG-16 design. Huge, black, and awkward. The stupid flimsy shell thing covering the expansion bus will not stay on the back, and adding the CD just makes a huge t-shaped thing. The same can be said for the Supergrafx w/ Super CD combo I guess, but considering that set-up is way more capible, and virtually nobody has it, I forgive it. The Turbo is litterally twice as big as a PCE just because they thought (probably correctly at the time) that Americans like stuff that is big for no other reason that it being big. Considering the subsequent popularity of SUVs, I'd have to say maybe they were onto something, but that shit doesn't appeal to me.

2) Pathetically small selection of games that are more expensive, and have super crap covers.

3) Virtually everything for TG-16 is harder to find than PCE.



I don't see the appeal of the US stuff now that things have changed so much. Sure, I had a US Duo back in 1992, but that was when the JP systems were $400-500, even the crap games were $60-100. SFII was $120. The Arcade Card was $130. Now you can get tons of PCE stuff for very very little cash.

I think the TG-16 is just for people that like spending more money, and getting less. The TG-16 only has a two button pad, and Fighting Street is (I think) the only fighting game for it. There is no Arcade Card, no Strider, no Sapphire, no Ys IV, no Dracula X, no Bomberman '94, no Fray, no Macross. Most of the shooters are Japan only too. Bazaar de Gozaru...TG-16 people don't have Bazaar de Gozaru. So sad.

I have the US versions of the Duo pack-ins, as well as GoT, but that's about it. I'll take a $3 copy of Gunhead over a $15 copy of Blazing Lasers any day.
You're crazy! The TG-16 console has great aesthetics (compared to the hideous, goofy Genesis/MegaDrive and the ugly, awkward SNES). Sure, TG-16 was wide, but it was still slim with a low-profile (the cover on the bus stays snugly in place for me). I think TG-16 (sans logo) would look contemporary alongside today's electronics. Can you say this of any other console? Now, the TurboBooster (Plus) doubled the depth of the console and consequently stripped away the elgance of the core TG-16 design, but, on the other hand, I always liked the aesthetics of the TG-16 + TG-CD combo. It's quirky, but it is actually a lot cleaner (aesthetically) and more streamlined than the PCE suitcase combo, IMO. Sure, this might not be saying much (since the suitcase looks as if it was "slapped together"), but I offer TG-CD as evidence of the neat, uniquely North Amercian aesthetic that too few folks appreciate. The Genesis stacked atop a Sega-CD forms a big ugly brick... tell me, is the TG-CD really so bad?

For comparison: In my humble opinion, the NES had a great utilitarian design and the SMS was the most "futuristic-looking" console design of the 80's (not a bad thing, in my book, since I dig the odd angles and sharp corners and shiny surfaces of the SMS).

On North Amercian artwork: Well, I've beaten this dead horse one too many times, but there is a kitchsy appeal to the NA coverart. I don't think it was wise for NEC in terms of marketing (back in the day, I thought the artwork was unforgiveably lame and really hurt the image of the TG-16). Now, however, after all these years, I really do enjoy the art because, again, it was unique.

Clearly, my feelings have changed over the years: whereas once I wanted re-cycled Japanese covers, now I realize the GIFT that NEC bestowed upon us :).
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on August 28, 2006, 09:08:44 PM
God, Steve is the greatest when it comes to praising the American TG16 and that's one of the reasons why I e-love him :D . USA Turbo Grafx 16 4EVAR!!!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on August 28, 2006, 09:12:19 PM
I'd also like to mention how much more I like the American style instruction manuals as well, most especially how it lists "Have you played these other Turbo Grafx 16 Titles?" on the back; I have a lot of fun reading that and picking out which games I own and don't own. :)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: vestcoat on August 28, 2006, 10:41:58 PM
It seems like I'm always drawn to obscure, discontinued systems and I like the TG16 more because the selection of games is smaller.  I like a universe of titles that I can wrap my head around.  I like being able to collect all of the RPGs without making an insane effort.  I like only having a handful of racing games to choose from.  I don't like the feeling that I could buy games forever and barely make a dent in what's out there.  With a small library of games like the Turbo has, the "bad" games become quirky little gems.  I can rip on Deep Blue and Fighting Street and still appreciate having those games in my collection.  Compare this with the SNES which had hoards of games.  I don't even know where to start.  The SNES had so much 3rd party support that once you get away from the mainstream, well-known titles there are piles of worthless, terrible games lying around every thrift store.

The PCE is a great system and most of my reasons for liking the TG16 are pretty superficial.  I think the American products had a more consistent style.  Everything stayed black and pretty slim.  No grey and white systems or blue controllers.

The PCE also had tons of lame puzzle, comic-adventure, mahjong and simulation games that don't make any sense to me.

Anyway, it's getting late and I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on August 29, 2006, 09:00:56 AM
I agree a lot with your post. The TG16 is proof that you don't need a huge library of games to make a great console.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: GUTS on August 29, 2006, 06:42:58 PM
It helps that most of the Turbo CDs that came out over here were really good games, it gives the Turbo a sort of quality appeal as opposed to say SNES or Genesis where there was a shitload of total crap games to go along with all the awesome ones.  

Back in the early 90s I had all 3 systems hooked up and I remember always thinking how quality the Turbo library was compared to all the shit that got released for the other two, I don't think I ever put 2 and 2 together and realized it was because the Turbo only had 1/5 the games the other two systems did.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on August 29, 2006, 09:48:34 PM
I never really thought about that before, but that's a good point. I could see a Turbo nerd back in the day using that to his advantage by comparing a Turbo game to some random licensed crap game for the other two systems.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Kaminari on August 30, 2006, 07:17:52 AM
PCE because that's what we got in Europe -- at least on this side of the Channel :)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on August 30, 2006, 09:13:02 AM
Turbo! Turbo! Turbo! :lol:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Shadow on September 01, 2006, 03:49:44 AM
PCE 4ever... nothing else. Grew up with it, played with it, collected it, sold it.... and now restart collecting ;-)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 03, 2006, 02:31:46 PM
and so it is, and it never will change! :wink:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 03, 2006, 04:33:49 PM
Quote from: "SignofZeta"
The Turbo is litterally twice as big as a PCE just because they thought (probably correctly at the time) that Americans like stuff that is big for no other reason that it being big.

The official NEC reason for making it bigger was to comply with FCC rules of the day regarding RF interference.  My mind is still boggled about why this would be an issue to anyone anywhere.  Crazy FCC.

The PC Engine is definitely better looking, just as long as you don't hook up anything to it other than a controller and a game card.  Want to hook it to a TV?  Well then you need a cable awkwardly protruding from the SIDE of the system (of course the Turbo also suffered from this).  Want to step up to the sky-high quality of composite video?  Slap a GIANT AV booster on the ass of the machine (do composite video, stereo audio, and a battery save really require that much extra space?) and suddenly it doesn't look so cute any more.  The TG-16 booster looks better.  Want a CD-ROM drive?  That suitcase thing for the PC Engine is freakin' UGLY!  And fairly large in every direction, it seems.  The TG-16 attached to the CD-ROM drive (which can hold over 4,000 megabits!!!!) looks odd, but it still does look more aesthetically pleasing and, well, less "sloppy".  I don't know about it being better looking that the Genesis 1 atop the Sega CD 1, though.  That setup looked pretty cool.  The Sega CD 2, on the other hand, looked like ass no matter what it was attached to.

I have spoken.  And so it is written.  errr... yeah.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 03, 2006, 04:45:26 PM
PCE briefcase looks awesome, don't be a hater :P .
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 03, 2006, 04:56:17 PM
Quote from: "Keranu"
PCE briefcase looks awesome, don't be a hater :P .

abolutely aight! how he just can say?? :wink:
it's one of the most best great nice cute and so on looking systems in the entire universe of video games! :D

i mean, even the pce-cdrom-ifu30 combo wasn't that much bigger than the trubografx itself. and with the asymetric attached cd-rom in the backyard of the turbografx, you got an ugly space wasting sculpture directly from hell! sorry guys, also won't be a hater as well :wink:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 03, 2006, 05:29:45 PM
Why you all hatin' on the Turbo CD?

Don't be hatin'!!!!!

Stop the hate.  For the sake of peace.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 03, 2006, 05:38:19 PM
Oh hell no I don't be hatin' the Turbo CD, I love that equally as much as the PCE CD! Steve's previous post gives reason why :D . It may look tacky, but I love that! Plus for back then, it looked pretty futuristic! It's almost as if you could time travel with it.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 03, 2006, 05:49:01 PM
Quote from: "Keranu"
It's almost as if you could time travel with it.

the flux capacitor add-on for the us turbo only. ooh, how i wish that one :D
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 03, 2006, 06:08:43 PM
Haha, flux capacitor. 1.21 GIGAWATTS!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 03, 2006, 06:44:59 PM
Quote from: "Keranu"
1.21 GIGAWATTS!

also no probs there, with this kind of grinder aka(http://www.outatime.it/public/40-mr_fusion.jpg)

 :wink:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 03, 2006, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
Want a CD-ROM drive?  That suitcase thing for the PC Engine is freakin' UGLY!  And fairly large in every direction, it seems.  The TG-16 attached to the CD-ROM drive (which can hold over 4,000 megabits!!!!) looks odd, but it still does look more aesthetically pleasing and, well, less "sloppy".


I'm sure if I live to be a million years old you will still be the only person I've ever heard say that.

I think the PCE+CD combo is second only to the original WonderMega in aesthetics. I totally love it.

Additionally, although I don't have the measurements, I don't think its any larger, and in fact might be smaller, than the fugly-ass T-shaped TG-16+CD thing.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 03, 2006, 08:46:22 PM
Right on, Zeta. For a good size of the PCE+CDROM2, I just compared it to my model 1 Genesis and they are almost exactly the same size: width, length, and even height. Same goes with the Turbo Duo compared to it, except the Turbo Duo is shorter in height.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 03, 2006, 10:35:27 PM
Wow, it sounds like I've really hurt some feelings, here!  I hope I haven't caused too many emotional scars.  The briefcase part of it looks sloppy.  I imagine this isn't true when it is in briefcase mode (ie: with the top on), but with the top off it looks like a thin piece of plastic.  There are areas that should be filled in, but they look hollow.  Pictures may be deceiving about the size.  Hardly anyone takes pictures of PC Engine stuff.  Just yesterday I saw my first picture EVER of the back of the PCE and the little red cover.  The TurboDuo is larger than a Genesis 1.

But we need to get to the real issue here:  NEC's reason for enlarging the TurboGrafx.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 03, 2006, 11:00:17 PM
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/3/3b/PCE_CDROM.jpg)

vs.

(http://www.videogamegazette.com/tg16/turbografx162c.jpg)

Round 1!! Fight!!

 :D
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 03, 2006, 11:04:48 PM
I certainly don't want to use the word "sleek" to describe either of them, but the PCE thing looks like something some random person crafted and put together.  At least the TG-CD looks like it was meant to be together.  I think that's pretty much my whole point on the issue.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Shadow on September 04, 2006, 01:24:21 AM
[-X

BS, the Turbo sucks dicks in hell man.... don't argue about the design here... the pce was and still is a jewel in the videogame design heaven....

the turbo had a fair success in the US and thats it... look at the cover designs compared to the japanese ones... they suck, ... wait, they are actually so damn FUGLY that I gave away my US Versions for free, because I did not want to have that kind of design crap on my shelves... sorry....
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Shadow on September 04, 2006, 01:32:03 AM
(http://www.oldschoolgamer.ca/syspics/15-76.jpg)

I even prefer this over any available console system today...
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 04, 2006, 03:22:37 AM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
The briefcase part of it looks sloppy.  I imagine this isn't true when it is in briefcase mode (ie: with the top on), but with the top off it looks like a thin piece of plastic.  There are areas that should be filled in, but they look hollow.  Pictures may be deceiving about the size.  Hardly anyone takes pictures of PC Engine stuff.


Man, you need to see one in person. The PCE+CD is so amazingly well put together. Its nearly military grade in its toughness. The PCE plugs into the interface like the worlds most well made cartridge, and the PCE itself is the most creak-free system I've ever seen. Its a tank.

When it comes to heft, rigidity, and all out achievement, the PCE is the tops, and it way more tough and rugged than, say, a Duo. That goes double for the Duo R. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the range we have the TG-16. The unit itself isn't bad (I guess), but then there is that huge plastic shell thing on the back that will NOT stay on because its a total POS. My brother was going to buy a Turbo Booster Plus just so it would hopefully stay on, instead of falling off every time someone nudged the system like that dumb-ass jai lai scoop, or whatever the f*ck it is.

On one hand I'm a huge fan on Japanese 80's industrial design (Walkman, calculator watches, ghetto blasters, Casio keyboards, etc) and the white plastic that dominated that period, but even if I wasn't I'd have to give it to the PCE+CD combo. Its like some away team equipment for the crew of the Macross. Its so serious looking! You'd think it was a defibrillator, or some sort of NASA test equipment if you didn't know that its actually just a really expensive games machine.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 04, 2006, 09:55:55 AM
I always thought the PCE+CDROM2 looked kinda neat before I saw one in person, but the first time I saw one in person at a gaming exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, it was like a totally different experience. Up close it looks really fascinating and if you observe the casing for awhile, you can see how well crafted it is by having the two systems fit in nicely next to each other while carving the plastic to expose the ports nicely. And to top things off, you can simply put over the briefcase part to cover it or carry it around, very sleek and handy.

So eventually last year in late July, I bought one for myself and have loved it ever since. One time I even walked down the street to my cousin's house with it (in briefcase mode, of course ;) ) and my cousin, being the hardcore Sega fan he is and constantly likes to poke fun at the Turbo, was even greatly impressed by the PCE+CDROM2 design. :)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 04, 2006, 10:58:29 AM
I probably do need to see it in person.  If I did I imagine my opinion would improve. Who here wants to send me theirs (to keep forever, of course)?  I'll pay shipping!

Quote from: "SignOfZeta"
The unit itself isn't bad (I guess), but then there is that huge plastic shell thing on the back that will NOT stay on because its a total POS.

No, yours will not stay on for whatever reason.  Most of them stay on just fine.  To prove it, I just made this quick little video with my digital still camera (therefore the quality sucks).  Watch it (http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/Turbo2.mov).  It's only 1.1 MB (Quicktime format).  There isn't any sound.  Notice how even I, with all of my manliness, have a hard time removing the damn thing.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 04, 2006, 11:08:01 AM
Haha, I love your video, Joe! The different camera shots you set up were great and a big LOL to Radiant Silvergun showing up after the System Card screen :D .
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 12:02:09 PM
Ha ha, I love the video. :)

Makes me want a Turbo Grafx even more. DAMN that thing looks awesome!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 04, 2006, 12:05:58 PM
Same here, but I really shouldn't be buying one :( .
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: esteban on September 04, 2006, 12:49:39 PM
Let me go on record that I love the PCE + CD, but its aesthetic design is severly lacking. In fact, I'd so far as to say that the reason I enjoy the the suitcase is because it was 100% utilitarian design -- utility, not style, was the driving force behind the suitcase's aesthetic.

That said, our discussion is about design for design's sake, and the PCE + CD lacks "style" (you know what I mean).

I think I have to be a loser and repeat myself:
Quote from: "I'm quoting myself, like a loser"
The TG-16 console has great aesthetics (compared to the hideous, goofy Genesis/MegaDrive and the ugly, awkward SNES). Sure, TG-16 was wide, but it was still slim with a low-profile (the cover on the bus stays snugly in place for me). I think TG-16 (sans logo) would look contemporary alongside today's electronics. Can you say this of any other console? Now, the TurboBooster (Plus) doubled the depth of the console and consequently stripped away the elgance of the core TG-16 design, but, on the other hand, I always liked the aesthetics of the TG-16 + TG-CD combo. It's quirky, but it is actually a lot cleaner (aesthetically) and more streamlined than the PCE suitcase combo, IMO. Sure, this might not be saying much (since the suitcase looks as if it was "slapped together"), but I offer TG-CD as evidence of the neat, uniquely North Amercian aesthetic that too few folks appreciate. The Genesis stacked atop a Sega-CD forms a big ugly brick... tell me, is the TG-CD really so bad?

For comparison: In my humble opinion, the NES had a great utilitarian design and the SMS was the most "futuristic-looking" console design of the 80's (not a bad thing, in my book, since I dig the odd angles and sharp corners and shiny surfaces of the SMS).
I stand by my earlier statements:
1) The shell on the back of the TG-16 stays snugly in place for me. I've handled at least two dozen TG-16 consoles over the years.
2) The Sega-CD + Genesis was a huge FUGLY brick.
3) The Genesis / MegaDrive always looked like a gawdy, goofy toy.
4) In fact, no North American console has aged well... but the TG-16 is the least fugly of them all!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: FM-77 on September 04, 2006, 12:53:16 PM
Was the Turbo Grafx really designed in North America?
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 04, 2006, 01:28:40 PM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
To prove it, I just made this quick little video with my digital still camera (therefore the quality sucks).  Watch it (http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/Turbo2.mov).  It's only 1.1 MB (Quicktime format).  There isn't any sound.  Notice how even I, with all of my manliness, have a hard time removing the damn thing.


That's quite funny...and pro, if I may say so.

I guess my brother's TG-16 was just a freak then.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 04, 2006, 01:29:56 PM
Quote from: "Seldane"


Makes me want a Turbo Grafx even more. DAMN that thing looks awesome!


That's...a joke, right? It has to be a joke. The only system more ugly than a TG-16 is the original XBox.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 04, 2006, 02:28:34 PM
I don't think he's joking because I quite love the TG16 design as well.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 04, 2006, 05:17:20 PM
i never could get the taste of the TG system. here 10 good reasons why:

1. never owned one (no nostalgic feelings)
2. measures more than double the size of the pce (why in heavens name?)
3. it looks just clumsy like typical american home-electronic stuff
4. the font doesn't fit and looks silly
5. the boxart comes directly from hell
6. black isn't beauty all the time
7. the name makes no sense, dosen't fit as well und sounds just ugly (ok, not a real argument though. anyway :wink:  )
8. i can't see any thought behind the whole design and concept
9. can't find the on/off switch well in dim light (i believe)
10. and last but not least, it is evil!!!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: GUTS on September 04, 2006, 06:08:22 PM
Man the original Sega CD/Genesis combo was awesome looking, I don't know what you're on about Steve!  The second model was ugly as hell, but the original was great.  I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought the Turbo Grafx was cool looking, the Duo yeah, but the ol Turbo is one of the ugliest systems ever made (second only to the Jaguar).

BUT for something that completely holds up today and smokes all other systems for aesthetics, the Sega CDX is awesome looking.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: guyjin on September 04, 2006, 06:16:25 PM
To take the topic in a completely different direction (and because tatsujin mentioned the whole 'dark room' thing) One of the things that annoys me about both American and Japanese systems (other than the single controller port) is the lack of a power light.

Would it have been really hard to replace the orange sticker with clear plastic, and shove a red LED back there?
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 04, 2006, 06:22:17 PM
Quote
2. measures more than double the size of the pce (why in heavens name?)

I already explained why.

The Turbo's switch is just as easy to find in the dark as the PCE's switch.  Not too many places it could be.  Does the PCE have an LED?

Quote
the ol Turbo is one of the ugliest systems ever made (second only to the Jaguar).

I think the Shuttle Grafx or whatever it is called is a wee bit uglier than the Jaguar.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 04, 2006, 06:28:33 PM
Joe, don't take my list that serious ;)

but number 1 will fit the most :)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 04, 2006, 06:32:48 PM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"

I think the Shuttle Grafx or whatever it is called is a wee bit uglier than the Jaguar.

you mean the super grafx? :wink:

the pce shuttle came in a spaceship shape, coz they tried to bond more young customer with a toy-like design :wink: but doesn't look that ugly actually.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 04, 2006, 06:37:45 PM
Both the Super Grafx and PC Engine Shuttle look awesome, both are very original designs. I also enjoy the model 1 Genesis design with Sega CD, though I can see where Steve is coming from when calling it a stack of bricks, but I still thought that stack of bricks looked neat. Model 2 Genesis is incredibly boring looking and the same could be said about CDX really, except CDX looks a little cooler since it's like a discman :P . Atari Jaguar doesn't look too bad, but it's kind of boring looking like model 2 Genesis. Duos are sleek.

Just my quick thoughs in a sloppy post ;) .
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 04, 2006, 07:06:31 PM
indeed. the supergrafx look strange and not really console-like! but awesome! daimakaimura every day :wink:

the MD+CD 1 combo also look awesome! just not like an other brick ;)

the MD+CD2 combo is not that kewl! never owned one my self and i know why!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Shadow on September 05, 2006, 04:08:14 AM
jede tag abtrugg fumpf pfrangg!

the SGFX is actually a really cool design.... anyone who says the TGFX has a better design should really burn in h**** ;-)

the only, the one and only good decision of Turbo USA was to take the Duo Design and release it in the US as the Turbo Duo.... the rest was crap.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: GUTS on September 05, 2006, 08:00:35 AM
I like the CDX because it was genius, it still looks cool today.  It's so tiny it just fits in with anything, and you always get the "What the hell, that thing plays Sega games?" when people see it.  It's a little marvel of engineering!

Personally I think the white Duo and the white Sega Saturns are the coolest looking systems ever, but it were talking American systems only I would say the Duo, CDX, and actually those little white Playstation systems are really cool looking too.  I'm a big fan of white, haha.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 05, 2006, 09:19:30 AM
I have one of those little white PSOnes, can't say I am a fan of that. Maybe it's because it worked like shite for me and broke soon.  :evil:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: FM-77 on September 05, 2006, 10:48:19 AM
I think the small PS1 looks awesome. I bought one solely for its looks. I absolutely hate PS1 and all the games on it though.

PS2 is the best looking console ever in my opinion. Both the large and small models. Perfection!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 05, 2006, 11:31:31 AM
Well...it takes all kinds, I guess.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: esteban on September 05, 2006, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: "GUTS"
I like the CDX because it was genius, it still looks cool today.  It's so tiny it just fits in with anything, and you always get the "What the hell, that thing plays Sega games?" when people see it.  It's a little marvel of engineering!

Personally I think the white Duo and the white Sega Saturns are the coolest looking systems ever, but it were talking American systems only I would say the Duo, CDX, and actually those little white Playstation systems are really cool looking too.  I'm a big fan of white, haha.
I totally agree with you about the CDX and Sega Saturn. The CDX is especially awesome because it was a great *concept* that was executed beautifully to result in a sleek piece of plastic.

I think I should stress that I am much more impressed with items like the CDX (which was a "re-envisioning" of existing hardware) than the model 1 and model 2 Genesis / MegaDrive hardware. I owned a model 1 Genesis + Sega-CD and it always felt like a clunky amplifier + turntable (stacked components for a stereo) instead of a high-tech piece of electronics. I absolutely hated the genesis 1 aesthetics, including, but not limited to all the goofy text emblazoned on it. Only really cheap, low end consumer electronics (i.e. a Yorx branded stereo from Kmart) did that sort of thing. Sorry if I offend you, but the Genny *looked* like a goofy toy.

As a console, of course, the Genny ruled! I'm talking purely about aesthetics.

Let me go on the record that model 1 SMS = lovely! (see my initial post for the reasons) while the redesined model 2 SMS = absolutely bland garbage.

Unlike most of you folks here, I didn't hate the model 2 Genesis + CD combo, though it might have been lackluster (at worst), at least it didn't hurt the eyes and offend good taste like model 1 Genesis.

I feel that SuperGrafx is in league with Genesis / MegaDrive when it comes to goofy aesthetics. They both look like toys to me... sorry! At least SuperGrafx has an exceedingly "militaristic" feel, while the Genesis looks like a prop from the movie STARCRASH.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 05, 2006, 06:05:04 PM
SuperGrafx rocks, it's designed like a frickin' car engine :lol: . And the font on it is awesome. I really want to get one, if only for the aesthetics alone!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 05, 2006, 06:48:50 PM
yeah! just one of the freakest console designs ever created. PC Motor :lol:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 05, 2006, 07:03:25 PM
Quote from: "Steve"
I absolutely hated the genesis 1 aesthetics, including, but not limited to all the goofy text emblazoned on it.

But at least the early Genesis 1 was in high definition.  They wouldn't have put that on there if it weren't true!  I bet it can even do 1080p!

Quote from: "Steve"
Let me go on the record that model 1 SMS = lovely! (see my initial post for the reasons) while the redesined model 2 SMS = absolutely bland garbage.

Agreed 100%.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 05, 2006, 08:44:15 PM
Quote from: "Tatsujin"
yeah! just one of the freakest console designs ever created. PC Motor :lol:

Lets design a car that uses the Super Grafx as the engine. Hey, maybe we could use the TG16+CD as the flux capacitor also so our car can time travel! If that's the case, we better design the car as a DeLorean.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: GUTS on September 05, 2006, 09:30:04 PM
That's why I liked the model 1 Genesis/CD combo, it looked like stacked stereo components.  Maybe it's because I never had any good stereo equipment when I was young, but for some reason that stacked look was what high end electronics should look like in my mind.

The original Master System was pretty cool looking, I definitely agree.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 05, 2006, 09:32:18 PM
Original Master System design rocks.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 05, 2006, 10:18:29 PM
SMS rox, but the mark III even more :D
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: FM-77 on September 06, 2006, 02:50:47 AM
Master System rocks I agree, but it isn't exactly pretty, but I like it anyway. I only think about one thing when I see one: Ys.  :lol:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: esteban on September 06, 2006, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: "GUTS"
That's why I liked the model 1 Genesis/CD combo, it looked like stacked stereo components.  Maybe it's because I never had any good stereo equipment when I was young, but for some reason that stacked look was what high end electronics should look like in my mind.
OK, I see where you are coming from :). As a peace offering, let me say that Genny+CD definitely succeeded in fostering the image in question  ("stacked stereo components") and I'll leave it at that.

I really am not a Genny hater, despite my earlier tirades :).

Quote from: "Joe"
Quote from: "Steve"
Steve wrote:
I absolutely hated the genesis 1 aesthetics, including, but not limited to all the goofy text emblazoned on it.


But at least the early Genesis 1 was in high definition. They wouldn't have put that on there if it weren't true! I bet it can even do 1080p!
:)

I really don't loathe the Genny's aesthetics... I just have fun teasing folks while discussing TG-16's unappreciated qualities :).
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Vanquish on September 08, 2006, 04:32:26 AM
Did you know that we had an european turbografx? It was called Turbografx, but without the "16".
It had no aceptation at all and in the early 90s you could find it for about 30€ brand new. Now people pay about 90€ for these.
They include Blanzing Lazers, rf cable, av cable and ac adaptor. And i want one.
IT is like the TG16 but with a lighter colour. go to ebay and look for a picture of it.
I think it looks nicer than the TG16, sorry :P

BTW the PCE looks great, specially if it is clear white and it is not yellowed.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: FM-77 on September 08, 2006, 04:53:00 AM
You sure the PAL unit includes Blazing Lazers? Yeah I posted a picture of one here (no that was NFGames) a while ago.

(http://images.tradera.com/493/32360493_1.jpg)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Vanquish on September 08, 2006, 07:47:04 AM
yeah it came with blazing lazers, but people on ebay use to keep them, sell them console and then sell the game for more $$$  :cry:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: guyjin on September 08, 2006, 01:20:12 PM
I see they had the sense to put a game on the cover of the box (yay R-type!)

Unlike the US box...
(http://www.geocities.com/compcloset/NECTG16Box.jpg)
is that the original box, or is there another? (suprisingly hard to find a TG16 box pic...)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 08, 2006, 06:48:45 PM
When I first saw the TG16 box with that dude's face on it, I thought it was pretty scary, seriously :D . But now I love seeing it and I really should get a boxed TG16 someday, if only just for that box!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 08, 2006, 06:52:46 PM
That dude is awesome.  He graces my TG-16 box.  He watches me play games, and he is obviously happy about it.  I mean god damn!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 08, 2006, 07:21:54 PM
See man, your post is only making me want to get one even more now! :D Really, I shouldn't be spending money on more hardware, especially when I already have a Duo and Express so I can already play those games!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 08, 2006, 08:27:32 PM
I, for one, think it is hilariously awesome that you want to buy a TurboGrafx-16 in the box just because of that dude.  Granted, he is indeed quite the system-seller.  I'm not sure why he never got his own game.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: esteban on September 09, 2006, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: "guyjin"
I see they had the sense to put a game on the cover of the box (yay R-type!)

Unlike the US box...
is that the original box, or is there another? (suprisingly hard to find a TG16 box pic...)
The box pictured was the only one you'll find for the North American market. They never changed the box art, but over the years they pasted various stickers (some large) on the basic box to highlight special promotions.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: GUTS on September 09, 2006, 07:44:42 AM
Yeah that guy looks f*cking STOKED to be playing Turbo Grafx.  It really gets you excited for whats inside the box when you have a square jawed, model looking guy super pumped about it.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 09, 2006, 09:46:19 AM
Hahaha, square jawed. Damn I need a boxed TG16, GUTS post isn't helping...
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 10, 2006, 06:07:20 PM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
That dude is awesome.  He graces my TG-16 box.  He watches me play games, and he is obviously happy about it.  I mean god damn!

everybody needs some kinda very nice guy who's watching the games!
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Bonknuts on September 10, 2006, 08:13:37 PM
Square-jawed? I know this one dude who makes this guy's jaw look oval as hell. But he does have a Mike Mckinney smile (from Kids in the Hall) - the guy on the box, I mean.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 10, 2006, 10:44:01 PM
Quote from: "Bonknuts"
But he does have a Mike Mckinney smile (from Kids in the Hall) - the guy on the box, I mean.

YES! I thought that dude on the box looked like someone and Mike McKinney is a very good candidate! I also kinda thought that dude on the box looked a little like my man Christian Slater, but only a little. He gets the hair (along with hairline) and forehead from Slater and the square-jaw smile from McKinney. :lol:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: FM-77 on September 11, 2006, 01:03:26 AM
That guy's haircut is soo 80's...
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: NeoFreak on September 11, 2006, 03:03:41 AM
hey if we are going to talk boxes, im sorry but the neo takes the cake. the thing is like a meter wide; and it was just a giant replica of the system itself.

(http://www.neo-geo.com/gallery/collections/curtwrx/Collection-Bag-Boxes-Sized.jpg)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: GUTS on September 11, 2006, 07:46:12 AM
Yeah his jaw is no Luke Wilson's, but it's a pretty manly one.  I think he must have a been a Sega fan to begin with since Genesis fans are square-jawed lumberjack material, maybe he migrated to the Turbo when he played Legendary Axe and realized the Turbo was pretty damn manly too.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: PC Gaijin on September 11, 2006, 09:59:06 AM
The Turbo box is cool. It even has a handle. I used to use the Turbo box to carry the system over to my friends' houses before I got the CD player and its carrying case.

I love the late 80s Turbo branding. Neon orange, yellow, and black. Acid wash jeans and Converse shoes. Yeah man, the Turbo was cool! It dated very (very) quickly however. I was kind of sad that NEC dropped their early branding so quickly. "The Higher Energy Video Game System" and "There's still time to prepare your nervous system". Those were the early Turbo taglines. :lol: My favorites Turbo ads were the Super Mario exploding heads.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: doomfarer75 on September 11, 2006, 10:00:46 AM
Quote from: "Joe Redifer"
That dude is awesome.  He graces my TG-16 box.  He watches me play games, and he is obviously happy about it.  I mean god damn!


I wonder if we can find that all-american dude and see what he's doing now..how did he get a gig like that...did they tell him to smile like that? or was he really a huge fan?  

AAron should interview him! -Doom
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 11, 2006, 12:03:09 PM
That would be kick ass if we could find that guy, as doom stated. Lets begin a search for him.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 11, 2006, 12:19:59 PM
He's probably 35 by now.

Does anyone have a picture of how the Turbo CD case is supposed to be packed? I am extremely retarded and can't seem to get the controller and games to fit in without everything being jammed really tight.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 11, 2006, 03:32:26 PM
Three more reasons why TG16 is better than PCE :D :

1. ) We got R-Type on ONE HuCard! :D

2. ) We got Beyond Shadowgate! :D

3. ) We got It Came From the Desert !! :D :D :D
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 11, 2006, 06:15:10 PM
1. the jap. got r-type complete cd! :D
2. luckily, shadow gate as well as IcftD runs also on the jap. one :D
3. nice one :D
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 11, 2006, 07:40:38 PM
I feel bad for Japan and that whole R-Type CD thing.  Poor guys.  At least with the split up R-Type HuCards, you had your choice on whether to purchase the boring 4 levels at the end of the game or not.  Unfortunately the  good levels (1-4) cost as much as a real complete game.  So I guess the US got the extra boring and lame levels as a bonus, but is still missing the really cool bonus stage that's in the SMS version (which has awesome music).
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 12, 2006, 07:26:15 PM
I'm pretty sure the US version of R-Type runs in a slightly different horizontal resolution than the Japanese version just by eyeballing it on my TV screen.  

EDIT:
Confirmed!  Check out these two pics grabbed from the same emulator:

(http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/rtypejap.png)
Japanese version - 352x240


(http://pixelcraze.film-tech.net/crap/rtypeus.png)
US version - 336x240

What the hell?
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 12, 2006, 08:11:03 PM
Very interesting.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 12, 2006, 10:55:03 PM
indeed, and very advantageous for the japanese version as well :wink:
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Bonknuts on September 13, 2006, 12:23:18 PM
It might be the emulator - which one did you try?
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Joe Redifer on September 13, 2006, 01:15:56 PM
TGEmu for Mac OSX, one of the few which actually does screen caps in any resolution the machine is capable of.  Plus I can see the difference on my TV as well.  The US version has a slight black bar on the right side whereas the Jap version takes up the entire screen.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Bonknuts on September 14, 2006, 01:24:03 PM
Then they did that to reduce flicker. Since you can only have 16 sprites per active part of the scanline, the shrunk the active area so sprites in the overscan area of the TV wouldn't cause possible flicker.
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Black Tiger on September 20, 2006, 01:10:56 PM
If that means that the North American version of R-Type not only has all the levels, but less flicker too, then thats awesome!  :D
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 20, 2006, 03:49:27 PM
are you really sure about the less flickers, Bonknuts? :)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 20, 2006, 05:13:07 PM
The less flicker thing makes sense to me. Even though I am pro-TG16, I will try to defend the Japanese R-Type by saying that even though the TG16 version might have a little less flicker because of the cut screen, there is still plenty of flicker anyways so you get a nice full screen with the Japanese one.

Of course that means nothing since you only need one HuCard for the American one 8) .
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Tatsujin on September 20, 2006, 05:25:53 PM
Quote from: "Keranu"

Of course that means nothing since you only need one HuCard for the American one 8) .

oh you little bastard you, gotcha! 8)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Keranu on September 20, 2006, 05:41:33 PM
Ok now send me your LTs! Quickly now! ;)
Title: PC Engine vs. Turbo Grafx-16
Post by: Bonknuts on September 21, 2006, 03:06:50 AM
Quote
are you really sure about the less flickers, Bonknuts?


Hey,I said less possible flicker :D  I was planning to use this trick myself.