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

NEC PC-Engine/SuperGrafx => PC Engine/SuperGrafx Discussion => Topic started by: muse hunter on December 29, 2006, 06:29:39 AM

Title: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: muse hunter on December 29, 2006, 06:29:39 AM
hi, i'm new to these forums, i've never had a pcengine before and its probably because of this that the system arouses my curiousity.  I'll probably get one within the next couple of months, probably start with a basic hu card system.  But my question is this, how does the pcengine compare to its rivals at the time? the md, snes, and neogeo, i know asking a pcengine fansite isn't probably the best way to find an unbiased view vut i'm sure there are many here who can give a balanced view. 

So how does it compare? power, games, etc
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on December 29, 2006, 07:25:36 AM
Graphics-wise the Neo blows all of them away easily, it goes Neo Geo>PC Engine/Genesis>SNES.

If you include the PC Engine Duo then game-wise the PC Engine is probably tied with the Genesis, ahead of the snes, and WAY ahead of the Neo Geo (which has some awesome games, but not much variety).

There are a few snes loving jokers on here who can't live without mode 7 and will rank the SNES the highest, but most rational people agree with my assessment.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 08:25:25 AM
Graphics-wise the Neo blows all of them away easily, it goes Neo Geo>PC Engine/Genesis>SNES.

If you include the PC Engine Duo then game-wise the PC Engine is probably tied with the Genesis, ahead of the snes, and WAY ahead of the Neo Geo (which has some awesome games, but not much variety).

There are a few snes loving jokers on here who can't live without mode 7 and will rank the SNES the highest, but most rational people agree with my assessment.

Damn straight,Mode 7 was over rated ass as far as scaling is concerned. It was like effectively used in a few Konami games and the early stuff like Super Mario World,Actraiser and Pilot Wings,after that it became as useless as blast processing,some games only using Mode 7 for the damn title screen,just silly.

Yea Id say graphically NeoGeo first,Turbografx/Pc Engine second,but as far as Snes and Genesis goes,thats a hard one because Ive seen both systems produce groundbreaking 2D graphics here and there,but yea over all,esp if you get a Duo,and you do a majority of importing youll see the Pc-Engine is tops over genesis and Snes in quality graphics.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: nat on December 29, 2006, 08:28:31 AM
I will agree with GUTS for the most part...

I don't know anything about the Neo Geo, so I've left it out of the following.

Graphically, the SNES has a larger color palette than the PC Engine/TurboGrafx and the Genesis. In fact, the Genesis has a very small color palette, around 61 colors on screen at a time. Because of this, I feel MOST Genesis games have not aged as well as their TurboGrafx and SNES counterparts. Games tended to have a "darker", less colorful and washed out look on the Genesis. The PC Engine/TG has a color palette somewhere in the 500 range, while the SNES is up there in the thousands. Rated this way, the SNES would probably be the top dog followed by the PCE/TG and then the Genesis.

HOWEVER, the SNES is slow as shit. The PCE/TG is quite a lot faster, as is the Genesis. When you factor these things together, the PCE/TG kind of gives you the best of both worlds (graphically) with colorful graphics, and fast processing. The Genesis is fast, but the graphics have a tendency to be more drab and unappealing to look at.

Here's a good example: I decided to whip out an old copy of Wonderboy III: Monster Lair for the Genesis the other day and give it a spin. I own the same game for my TurboGrafx. I had to shut off the Genesis version after only a couple levels. The game just looks so bad on the Genesis. The TG version has aged so much better and still looks good, today. I find this to be the case with many games released for both systems, but that's not to say there aren't some Genesis games that look really good. The Sonic games manage to look pretty bright and colorful, for example. But games on the PCE/TG are KNOWN for their bright, colorful look.

If you want to rate on available game library... SNES has the most, followed by the PCE and then the Genesis. Quality of games? I would rate the PCE at the top, but I am biased. :) That's why I own a TurboGrafx. I feel the quality game to crap game ratio is better for the PCE/TG library than the other two. Owners of other systems may disagree: it's mostly a matter of personal taste. The PCE/TG library has some KILLER ports of arcade games that are hands-down better than their respective ports on the SNES and Genesis.

For me, it all comes down to the games. Technical specs aside, you should choose whether or not you want to buy a system based on the games you want to be able to play. Personally, from the 16-bit genre, I own both an SNES and a TurboGrafx. This means I have access to the two biggest game libraries from that era. My PCE/TG library is larger by a ratio of 10:1 over my SNES library. I also play my Turbo at least 4 out of 7 days of the week. I will play the SNES maybe 4 times a month. I own several versions of the same game for each system, and I usually tend towards my Turbo over the SNES most of the time. SF2: CE on the Turbo vs. SF2 Turbo on the SNES. I'll play the Turbo version 9 times out of 10 because I can use my TurboStick and because I like the Turbo synth music better than the SNES music. Graphically the games are virtually identical, but I suck at the game with the SNES controller.

I also now own some really badass SNK ports for the Turbo that were not nearly as good on the SNES or Genesis (World Heroes 2, the Fatal Fury games, etc). The thing about arcade ports on the PCE is that there are a lot of them, and they are usually very good.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: rolins on December 29, 2006, 08:44:18 AM
I never really cared about which system was more powerful. It really is all about which system had the games you wanted to play.

Me, I'm crazy about shmups and healthy dose of action games, so I'm always rooting for the PC-Engine and Genesis.

The Snes was also fun to play though I won't lie. Their lineup is varied between platform and adventure games but more gear toward RPG fanatics. RPGs aren't my cup of tea, I just don't have the attention span for them. The only games I loved playing were Super Contra, Super Metroid, Axelay, and Super Aleste.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: grahf on December 29, 2006, 08:57:16 AM
Graphically, i would vote:
1] NeoGeo
2] Snes
3] PC Engine
4] Genesis

Gameplay/fun wise:
1] SNES/PC Engine tie
2] NeoGeo
3] Genesis
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: guyjin on December 29, 2006, 09:22:27 AM
[stands up]

"My name is Guyjin and I'm a snerd."

Graphics wise, none of the 16 bit systems can touch the Neogeo. but that's why people paid out the wazoo for it.
as for the remaining 3, the NES can put out a lot of colorful sprites, and is usually better than the Turbo and Genesis, even without mode 7. However, its slow processor often causes problems with fast paced games; Street fighter 2 is a prime example of this. it's probably the worst of the 3 16 bit console versions. (and I only say 'probably' because I haven't played the PCE version; the Genny version is definitely better.)

if I had to rank them in order:
1:Neogeo
2:SNES (but only barely beating...)
3:TG16
4:Genesis
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: termis on December 29, 2006, 09:25:28 AM
Personally, I believe that if you limited the library to HuCard only, the PCE can't compete all that well compared to the SNES/Genesis.  :-"  Throw in the CD system though, then the story completely changes.  Anyway, as for the technical dept -

Graphics wise, I must say that Neo Geo>SNES>Genesis>=PCE.  Neo Geo was in a different class altogether, so I'll leave that one out.  SNES next simply because it had a larger color palette and can display more at once, so I found most games to be more vibrant and colorful, though some seemed to over do it.  Genesis did some incredible things with what it could (i.e. Thunder Force IV), and although the PCE could display more colors on-screen at once, it didn't have a large pool of colors to choose from in the first place, so it never looked good as the SNES IMO.

I think the music was really a toss-up between what you preferred.  SNES supposedly had the technical edge of the three (minus CD systems of course), but too many games had that "orchestrated-sound" to me, even when it wasn't so appropriate.  Throw in the CD system, and to this very day, I can't think of a system with better red-book audio than the TCD.

All that said, it really came down to the games, and in this case, I think all 3 are/were worth something, and you'd missing out on some gems on way or another if you didn't own all three.  I've always been a Sega guy as they make the most killer games, but the only 16-bit *era* system that still takes space in my livingroom right now is the PCE Duo.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 09:55:10 AM
I think nat is off spec slightly. The color pallette on the Snes is around 32,000 with 256 being displayed at once on average. Supposedly more could be displayed but to the extreme displeasure of the hardware and memory available so this wasnt bragged about by Nintendo. They typically stuck to the 256 colors at once on screen tout for their hardware ability. As I was told back when TTI was still around (this could be wrong) was that the TG 16/Pc Engines 2 video processors in conjunction can do between 482-512 colors onscreen and the total pallette was programable and not set in complete stone like the Snes 15-bit color pallette was.

Tech things aside there is some awesome titles whos graphics cant be beat for all 3 of the systems depending on the genre. Prob get stabbed here for this but "graphically" the RPGS for Snes were better,possibly because of the Mode 7 used and because sprites didnt have to be moved around so fast. Platformers and action games were done typically well on the Genesis. Arcade game ports,and shooters were pretty much tops on Pc Engine. other systems did them well,but the Pc Engines hardware seemed to handle arcade titles better overall graphically,INCLUDING the NeoGeo ports. Depending on your flavor of how you like your rpgs to look you may actually perfer the Tg/PC Engines graphics more. There was more cinema used on average to display the story better,and sometimes better character sprites all around.
General examples of good looking games that played well are the NeoGeo ports,Street Fighter 2 Dash,Gradius 1 and 2,Salamander,Raiden,R-Type,HellFire,Exile,Ys1-4,Shinobi,Outrun,Afterburner 2,Bomberman 93-94,Ninja Spirit,Splatterhouse,Aero Blasters,Batman,Bonk 1-3,Air Zonk,Vasteel,Buster Bros,Splash Lake,and Operation Wolf.

There are hundreds of others,those are to just name  a offhand.
http://www.pcecp.com/index.php?mode=home
Thats a good site to sign up on and go looking around for screen shots of games.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: FM-77 on December 29, 2006, 10:22:41 AM
Ha ha ha, that's just ridiculous. Everybody knows the SNES is more powerful than the MD and PCE graphically. :P I can't believe that ancient fanboy wars still remains to some people.  :roll:

(http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/8319/sdoubletroublee00001ym9.png) (http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/443/sdoubletroublee00002kq3.png)

SNES is the only one of these systems that can compare to the Saturn and other 32 bit systems.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: runinruder on December 29, 2006, 10:32:27 AM
While there are plenty of quality HuCard titles out there, if you really want to experience the best that the PC Engine has to offer, you'll need to have access to the CD games, and you'll need to be willing to spend a lot of money.  That's just the way it is. 

Like Rolins noted, how strong the system will seem compared to its peers will depend heavily on what types of games you're into.  For shooters and action-RPGs, the Duo can't be beaten.  It also hosts a strong library of hack-and-slash sidescrollers, dungeon crawlers, and traditional-style RPGs (though most of the latter are in Japanese).  Not to be forgotten is a decent selection of fighting, puzzle, strategy, platforming, and digital-comic games. 

On the other hand, if you're looking for Contra-style run-and-gunners, Final-Fight-style brawlers, or Genesis-quality sports games, the Duo may not be for you. 

Being a fan of shooters, RPGs, and hack-and-slashers, I love the Duo and rank it above all other systems of its (or any other) generation.  Like GUTS said, the Genesis is right up there with it.  The SNES I could live without if not for a scant few action-platformers.  A lot of people love the Super Nintendo's RPGs, but I think they stink compared to the PC Engine's elite adventure games.   
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 29, 2006, 11:10:25 AM
Oh boy, another Turbo vs Genesis vs SNES thread; I guess these are inevitable.

Rolins and runin sumed it up well; it all depends what kind of games you are into. However I would argue and say that the Turbo even has some decent sport games, better than the others in my opinion since they aren't typical crap licensed games. Unfortunately the sport genre is pretty limited though, mainly baseball and soccer games.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: runinruder on December 29, 2006, 11:15:43 AM
However I would argue and say that the Turbo even has some decent sport games, better than the others in my opinion since they aren't typical crap licensed games.

Personally, I agree with you on this.  Most people seem to prefer the styles of sports games that were prominent on the Genesis, however. 
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 11:29:08 AM
Ha ha ha, that's just ridiculous. Everybody knows the SNES is more powerful than the MD and PCE graphically. :P I can't believe that ancient fanboy wars still remains to some people.  :roll:

(http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/8319/sdoubletroublee00001ym9.png) (http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/443/sdoubletroublee00002kq3.png)

SNES is the only one of these systems that can compare to the Saturn and other 32 bit systems.


I honestly wasnt impressed with the cg graphics of Donkey Kong Country 1-3. The backgrounds were full of prerendered stiffness and playability was limited to slapping a few enemies,riding in a mine cart,swimming for a few mins,listening to gramps complain,and riding a rail worse then Sonic in the barrel leap areas. Varity of enemies was small over all. All the pre rendered CG was digitized aka Mortal Kombat so there wasnt much work involved outside of the actual rendering on the cg systems. Not impressive unless all you do is stare at your games.

If all you want to do is look at pretty pictures of the jungle then I suggest you stop playing video games and head out to your nearest news stand for a copy of this months Zoo Books or National Geographic.
 Other systems could have done similar things more likely then not,if not better depending on how much ram was dedicated towards storing the pre rendered CG junk. But hey,if we hold true to what you have said then that doesnt explain why arcade ports sucked on Snes and the Pc Engine tended to bitchslap the Snes around on the Neo Geo ports with larger more colorful sprites and better audio and control. There isnt a single fighting game on Snes that can beat any of the NeoGeo Pc Engine ports in quality or exactness. Same for shooters. Gradius 2 easily stomps Gradius 3 on Snes for one. The comparisons could go on and on,but there is no point. The 16-bit graphics wars are over.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: vestcoat on December 29, 2006, 11:31:39 AM
It's hard to compare the systems because the PCE was fully supported from 87-94.  The SNES didn't even come to the US until 92.  I'm not going to talk about the Neo Geo and Genesis because I'm not as familiar with them.

Try to decide pretty quick if you're going to go all the way for a CD system.  If you don't buy a CD setup, you're not going to have many options as far as driving, vs. fighting, RPGs and sports games.  There are plenty of CD fighters and RPGs but many of the RPGs that were released in English are rare and expensive.  No matter what your setup, remember that there are no FPS (besides Faceball). 

Without the CD games the graphics range from crummy, early-NES caliber visuals like World Court Tennis to a beautiful port of SF2.  Early hucards are basically 8-bit style games with improved graphics and nice touches.

I hate SNES slowdown and RPGs, but the SNES has the best graphics, flying/racing games, no load time and decent sound for a non-CD console.

After I sold my original TG16, I don't think I would have purchased another NEC console if it hadn't been for the CD games.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: FM-77 on December 29, 2006, 11:34:44 AM
How come everybody's comparing ports all the time? They're ports! Ignore them and focus on the original titles.

And yeah, the Donkey Kong Country games suck, they only feature the standard platformer elements including some new ones. They suck as much as Super Mario 64 which only featured the standard platformer elements including some new ones. All platformers suck. At least as long as they're on a Nintendo system. All PCE platformers rule, even though they only feature the standard platformer elements. :roll:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: vestcoat on December 29, 2006, 11:43:05 AM
To clarify, I think the PCE had some incredible graphic potential, but it was too little too late.  If you put every PCE game from Super Volleyball-to-Sapphire in a blender and compared the slush to a smoothie made from the SNES library, the SNES smoothie would look better.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 11:50:31 AM
Well,to clarify on 2 points,1,one of the best reasons to get a Pc-Engine is for all the arcade "PORTS",and 2, for all the hoopla of the Snes graphics your talking up Ive seen Pc Engine titles that beat the Snes counterparts hands down. For that matter there are TONS of pretty looking games on Snes that play like ass. Id easly take the entire Pc Engine library over the Snes/S. Famicom library any day of the week.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: FM-77 on December 29, 2006, 11:52:34 AM
Mario sucks. Everybody knows that. That's why it's such a massive flop worldwide. The graphics are horrible, too. This could've easily been made on the Atari 2600 and it would've looked a lot better too, because SNES sucks. Always.

(http://nintendoforever.free.fr/SNes/YoshiIsland/fichiers/YoshisIsland_jeu3.png)
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 29, 2006, 12:02:49 PM
Pfft, Yoshi's Island looks like an Odyssey II game at best.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 29, 2006, 12:09:37 PM
Ha ha ha, that's just ridiculous. Everybody knows the SNES is more powerful than the MD and PCE graphically. :P I can't believe that ancient fanboy wars still remains to some people.  :roll:

(http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/8319/sdoubletroublee00001ym9.png) (http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/443/sdoubletroublee00002kq3.png)

SNES is the only one of these systems that can compare to the Saturn and other 32 bit systems.




(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp1.gif)(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp2.gif)
(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp3.gif)(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp5.gif)



Although I think that the DKC games are impressive on a technical level, I don't really like the art and it wouldn't be much work for a decent programmer to port them to the Genesis looking very similar. They'd probably end up looking like the GBA version, but in a higher resolition. Hell, even the b&w Gameboy ports look strikingly similar.

The SNES has it's strengths and weakness'. I don't think it's as useless as SNES-haters make it out to be for handling sprites, speed, bg's etc(since there're lots of games for it that do everything). But it's bottlenecks limit the graphics it can pump out just like anything else and it's not 'more powerful' or the 'only 32-bit looking' system.

Good PCE games often have more vibrant colors than the better SNES games, whether it's a benefit of working from a smaller pallette or per-sprite color restrictions on the SNES, or whatever. And most high color count SNES games are just riding the boost from a high color bg layer. Which is why they don't look frighteningly better.

Saying that any one of the three 16-bit consoles is far and away superior graphically is true fanboyism.

Even if this is one of the odd posts where you're being sarcastic to get people going, unfortunately a lot net snerds think this way.


How come everybody's comparing ports all the time? They're ports! Ignore them and focus on the original titles.


Original titles are great for showing how good a system is on it's own or in general. But you can't really directly judge a console against others using apples and oranges as well as with ports, which is using apples and apples.

Unfortunately, not every game is developed as well as it can be, so unless the same developer who's good at working on both consoles uses everything in their power to make uber ports for each system, it's not a perfect way to compare either.

But regardless of potential, in the end we already have a pretty much finite set of games for each console. So if you're mainly interested in stuff the PC Engine is missing, then you're better off with another system.

And when it comes to ports, the PC Engine isn't always the best. But if you're into Neo Geo fighters, then the PC Engine versions really are a step above the SNES & Genesis versions. Unless you want Samurai Showdown, then find it one of the other systems.

I think that once a system has a decent number of quality titles as the Genesis, SNES and PC Engine all do, its fair to say they're all great and to answer the author's questions: PC Engine/Turbografx-16 games compare very well to the other 16-bit consoles.

I agree with Seldane that the SNES isn't a piece of garbage and it does have lots of great ands great looking games though.


Mario sucks. Everybody knows that. That's why it's such a massive flop worldwide.


Although I think that most real Mario games are great, mass appeal/success isn't a good indicator of quality.

Otherwise, all the blockbuster movies and pop sensation recording 'artists' would be the renaissance of of our time. But even most people who eat all that crap up admit it's not high brow pinky raising art.

And we all know that regardless of quality, nothing sells better than licensed games. Because the average buyer isn't looking for quality.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 12:12:55 PM
Pfft, Yoshi's Island looks like an Odyssey II game at best.

I was thinking more along the lines of that old 2 ton computer that ran Space War.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 12:19:19 PM
While I know 2 of those titles for Pc-Engine are Rayxanber III and Forgotten Worlds, what are the other 2? They look familiar but I am not sure exactly.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 29, 2006, 12:24:11 PM
While I know 2 of those titles for Pc-Engine are Rayxanber III and Forgotten Worlds, what are the other 2? They look familiar but I am not sure exactly.

Kabukiden and Legend Of Xanadu II.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 12:32:02 PM
Ahh ok,Legend Of Xanadu II,now I remember that one. A friend of mine had it a couple of years back.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 29, 2006, 12:49:15 PM
(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp2.gif)

Haha, this image really struck me as weird when I first saw it playing Kabuki Den. It totally doesn't fit in graphically with the style of the game and really sticks out, but looks so cool.

On a side note, I noticed you labeled your images as pp1.gif - pp4.gif . Just curious, what does the pp mean? :)
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: guyjin on December 29, 2006, 12:56:31 PM
I remember renting Donkey kong country way back when - it was graphically impressive at first, but I soon realized that it was the SNES equivalent of the FMV garbage that was so prevalent on the Sega CD; pretty, but too linear to be a real game.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: ParanoiaDragon on December 29, 2006, 01:15:38 PM
Although I think that most real Mario games are great, mass appeal/success isn't a good indicator of quality.

Otherwise, all the blockbuster movies and pop sensation recording 'artists' would be the renaissance of of our time. But even most people who eat all that crap up admit it's not high brow pinky raising art.

And we all know that regardless of quality, nothing sells better than licensed games. Because the average buyer isn't looking for quality.

Exactly!  I don't even listen to the radio, but there's plenty of popular crap that other love, & I can't figure out why? 

Anyways, the main 3 have their strengths & weaknesses.  But, the Turbo for me, has the most excellent games!  The Turbo, since it's the oldest, also has the widest range between great graphics & crap graphics.  The Genesis has some of that too.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: TR0N on December 29, 2006, 01:20:34 PM
Graphically, i would vote:
1] NeoGeo
2] Snes
3] PC Engine
4] Genesis
Agreed.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 29, 2006, 01:23:23 PM
(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp2.gif)

Haha, this image really struck me as weird when I first saw it playing Kabuki Den. It totally doesn't fit in graphically with the style of the game and really sticks out, but looks so cool.

On a side note, I noticed you labeled your images as pp1.gif - pp4.gif . Just curious, what does the pp mean? :)


"P" is the right most letter on my keyboard, I type with my right hand and I was pretty sure I didn't have any images named "pp" on my webspace.  :P
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 29, 2006, 02:25:45 PM
Ahh makes sense. Do you use the mouse left handed?
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 02:51:17 PM
Graphically, i would vote:
1] NeoGeo
2] Snes
3] PC Engine
4] Genesis
Agreed.

You cant take Trons word seriously. He stumbled here by accident looking for Super Nintendo and NeoGeo roms for his Pentium 2 computer and he didnt learn how to use the red and white X on the upper right hand corner to close out the page. He also forgot how to use the address bar,so basically hes stuck here commenting on things he doesn't know about :P
This is why he ranks so low in our fight club tally. Hes practically been kidnapped here from the Neo-Geo forums.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 29, 2006, 03:44:44 PM
Ahh makes sense. Do you use the mouse left handed?

No, but that's an awesome idea.  :)
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on December 29, 2006, 06:00:40 PM
Why the f*ck do poeple think Donkey Kong Country is some graphical marvel?  It looks like SHIT, the only thing it does is put a ton of colors on screen at once, that's IT.  There isn't anything technically impressive about it; there are barely any sprites on screen at once, the bosses are small, the art is HORRIBLE, and it plays like shit.  Yoshi's Island looks a billion times better  and has about the best graphics the SNES can offer thanks to the FX chip. The SNES could do some nice graphics here and there, but DKC has aged almost as badly as shit like X-Perts.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: grahf on December 29, 2006, 06:13:03 PM
I dont think DKC has aged that badly graphically. While most of the game is rather plain, there is some very nice scenery on some levels. Gameplay wise, it always was mediocre. People just bought it because it was pretty.

Street Fighter Zero/Alpha 2 on the other hand, that game is still pretty f'in impressive. Also, Tengai Makyou Zero has some beautiful areas.

Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Bonknuts on December 29, 2006, 06:20:13 PM
Oh man, not this type of thread again ](*,)

 The reason lot of the SNES games (especially later ones) hold up so well is the beautiful 15bit palette and transparency layer. The scaling doesn't hold well though. The SFX  and C4 chip was Nintendo's workaround fix for the slow CPU in the original design ( most game didn't run at 3.58mhz fastrom but used the 2.78mhz mode  - slowrom ). I think the SNES had a good amount of high production games thanks to Nintendo's strict standards/policy. The PCE DUO had some great high quality production games too, although kept in Japan. A fair amount of Genesis games don't hold up so well ( drab color and all ), though some still do like Sonic 2 and Gunstar heroes ( Sonic CD looks like ass ).

Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on December 29, 2006, 06:32:53 PM
HAHA yeah Nintendo had some really strict standards, I'll remember that next time I see piles of Hyperzone and Bill Laimbeer's Combat Basketball at the used game store.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 29, 2006, 06:41:24 PM
I still think DKC looks nice these days, though I admit the graphic style is terribly outdated. I think it's kind of stupid for people to say the graphics suck because the backgrounds are static though because tons of other platformers have static backgrounds. At least DKC made pretty static backgrounds! :D

A game doesn't have to be "technically impressive" to have nice graphics. Hell, there are a lot of games that aren't as technically impressive as others but have much better graphics in my opinion which to me gives it overall better presentation. An example of this to me is Lightening Force. People rave about this game's graphics because of it's technical features, like lots of parallax scrolling layers, but in my opinion the layers look ass ugly. Take for example the level with all the cloud layers. The layers don't shape out the clouds, instead they are just flat, boxy clouds which makes it look like fat, grey lines going across the screen rather than actual clouds. Not to mention I found the colors to be dirty and the artwork to be mediocre at best. So in a case like this, I would say a game like (and I know this is a weird example to use) Cadash for TG16 has better graphics because the art is nicer.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 29, 2006, 08:28:49 PM
HAHA yeah Nintendo had some really strict standards, I'll remember that next time I see piles of Hyperzone and Bill Laimbeer's Combat Basketball at the used game store.

Shit man dont forget Street Combat,Barkleys Shut up and Jam,Shaq Fu,The Rocketeer,about any other THQ game, and Mortal Kombat 1. All those were top notch and known for their awesome game play and quality. Any true Snerd knows this.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on December 29, 2006, 09:08:42 PM
Those DKC screenshots posted only have 109 and 135 colors in them.  That means the SNES sucks and everyone hates it.

Also, why post an arcade screenshot for Forgotten Worlds?  The Turbo version is lower resolution than that horizontally (most Capcom arcades of that era were 352 or 336 pixels across).  The Turbo version likely runs at a mere 256 pixels across, like DKC.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Tatsujin on December 30, 2006, 12:22:50 AM
if you want to get a lot of EXCLUSIVE and splendid action games with a lot of enemies on screen, a proper dynamic gameplay, even draw in a pretty nice palette and supported with some of the best BGMs in game history, then go 4 it :)
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Bonknuts on December 30, 2006, 04:56:48 AM
Quote
Also, why post an arcade screenshot for Forgotten Worlds?  The Turbo version is lower resolution than that horizontally (most Capcom arcades of that era were 352 or 336 pixels across).  The Turbo version likely runs at a mere 256 pixels across, like DKC.

Nope, Forgotten Worlds SCD runs in 342 pixel mode. That's part of the reason for the flicker.

 To GUTS and Michael: That's right, mention the shit games in response. That totally defeats my statement :roll:.  Idiots.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Emerald Rocker on December 30, 2006, 06:56:44 AM
Actually, it does defeat your statement.  Since a bunch of crap games came out, it looks like Nintendo's standards weren't really all that strict.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 30, 2006, 07:07:21 AM
Why the f*ck do poeple think Donkey Kong Country is some graphical marvel?  It looks like SHIT, the only thing it does is put a ton of colors on screen at once, that's IT.  There isn't anything technically impressive about it; there are barely any sprites on screen at once, the bosses are small, the art is HORRIBLE, and it plays like shit.  Yoshi's Island looks a billion times better  and has about the best graphics the SNES can offer thanks to the FX chip. The SNES could do some nice graphics here and there, but DKC has aged almost as badly as shit like X-Perts.

I don't know if the layers of snow count as sprites or not, but there seemed to be a lot going on during those levels. Plus, aren't there times when the screen is full of bananas? I haven't really played it since it came out, so my memory of the overall game is a little blurry.

I don't think it's total garbage(except for the art & character design) or anything. It just reminds me of those generic Genesis platformers.

Speaking of Genesis, I tried Comix Zone for the first time on the Genesis Coll. PS2 the other day. I was surprised to find the exactly same effect as DKC at the title screen with a similar looking layout.


I still think DKC looks nice these days, though I admit the graphic style is terribly outdated. I think it's kind of stupid for people to say the graphics suck because the backgrounds are static though because tons of other platformers have static backgrounds. At least DKC made pretty static backgrounds! :D

A game doesn't have to be "technically impressive" to have nice graphics. Hell, there are a lot of games that aren't as technically impressive as others but have much better graphics in my opinion which to me gives it overall better presentation. An example of this to me is Lightening Force. People rave about this game's graphics because of it's technical features, like lots of parallax scrolling layers, but in my opinion the layers look ass ugly. Take for example the level with all the cloud layers. The layers don't shape out the clouds, instead they are just flat, boxy clouds which makes it look like fat, grey lines going across the screen rather than actual clouds. Not to mention I found the colors to be dirty and the artwork to be mediocre at best. So in a case like this, I would say a game like (and I know this is a weird example to use) Cadash for TG16 has better graphics because the art is nicer.

Maybe I'm also remembering the DKC sequals, but I thought that some stages actually had a bunch of layers of bg's with the occasiional effect thrown in.

But as I've said before, scrolling bg's/parallax/whatever doesn't make good graphics, it only complements good graphics when it's needed and can make games look worse when it's used just for the sake of having it.

The PC Engine is the best example of this. Too many developers were too lazy to program in scrolling bg's in many of the better looking PCE games, but most people think that they look awesome.

Just the same, large or lots of sprites don't equal nice graphics either. Too many 16-bit games were busted from using retard sized character sprites.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 08:24:46 AM


Plus, aren't there times when the screen is full of bananas?

I don't think it's total garbage(except for the art & character design) or anything. It just reminds me of those generic Genesis platformers.


Even in the worst days of Genesis I dont remember the technical highlight being a screen full of bananas.....

Lets face it DKC 1,2 and 3 are garbage.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 30, 2006, 08:34:28 AM
Those DKC screenshots posted only have 109 and 135 colors in them.  That means the SNES sucks and everyone hates it.

Also, why post an arcade screenshot for Forgotten Worlds?  The Turbo version is lower resolution than that horizontally (most Capcom arcades of that era were 352 or 336 pixels across).  The Turbo version likely runs at a mere 256 pixels across, like DKC.


That's all PC Engine baby!

Side Arms also uses the 336 horizontal resolution and Tenchi O Kurau/Dynasty Wars appears to actually run in a 352 pixel mode. All three games were ported by NEC Ave, who get a bad rap around here for making games with 'crappy' graphics. They also did a great port of Ckiki Chiki Boys, although it only runs in '256 mode.

This being a "how does the PC Engine compare?" thread, I also included a screenshot from the Genesis version of Forgotten Worlds. If for no other reason than it was considered for years to be much more arcade perfect visually than the PCE version. It's still a good game, but like the other early Capcom arcade games on Genesis, it's an original version and not a real port graphically.

(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp5.gif)
(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/aa1.gif)
(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/aa4.gif)


(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp6.gif)
(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/aa2.gif)

(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp7.png)
(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/aa3.gif)

(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/pp8.gif)
(http://www.superpcenginegrafx.com/img/aa5.gif)




Plus, aren't there times when the screen is full of bananas?

I don't think it's total garbage(except for the art & character design) or anything. It just reminds me of those generic Genesis platformers.



Even in the worst days of Genesis I dont remember the technical highlight being a screen full of bananas.....

Lets face it DKC 1,2 and 3 are garbage.


Yeah, but it's still not "barely any sprites on screen at once".
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 08:40:32 AM

To GUTS and Michael: That's right, mention the shit games in response. That totally defeats my statement :roll:.  Idiots.

Sorry but something you must have not realized was that Nintendo didnt have Quality Control,it had Licensing Control
and if you were willing to pay the higher then SEGA licensing fee to get you game released you could release anything on the Snes or any other Nintendo system,and THQ and Acclaim have stepped up to prove that 100 percent over the years. The games Gutts and me named maybe make up 3 percent of the shit titles released,there were many many others just as bad if not worse.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 08:44:03 AM
I was thinking Ninja Spirit or Legend of Hero Tomo also used a special res. Im prob wrong,was just thinking it did.

I never liked the Genesis port of Forgotten Worlds. It stuck out like a sore thumb as a bad port graphically. They should have given it more megs and more programming time.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 30, 2006, 08:49:28 AM
I was thinking Ninja Spirit or Legend of Hero Tomo also used a special res. Im prob wrong,was just thinking it did.

Yeah, all the Irem arcade ports on PCE use the 336 res mode, even though I'm pretty sure R-Type was ported by Hudson. There are tons of other games as well, but yeah most PCE/Turbo games run in the 256 res mode. But there's nothing wrong with that. :)
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on December 30, 2006, 11:20:07 AM
You win this round in the resolution battle, Black_Tiger... but where is the Genesis version of Chiki Boys or whatever that game is called?  It runs in the high definition resolution of 320 pixels whereas the PC Engine version struggles to put a mere 256 pixels onscreen, at least I think it does.  HAHAHAHHAHAHHA!  Too bad the game is crap in any incarnation.  :(
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Bonknuts on December 30, 2006, 12:21:41 PM

To GUTS and Michael: That's right, mention the shit games in response. That totally defeats my statement :roll:.  Idiots.

Sorry but something you must have not realized was that Nintendo didn't have Quality Control,it had Licensing Control
and if you were willing to pay the higher then SEGA licensing fee to get you game released you could release anything on the Snes or any other Nintendo system,and THQ and Acclaim have stepped up to prove that 100 percent over the years. The games Gutts and me named maybe make up 3 percent of the shit titles released,there were many many others just as bad if not worse.

 I guess you're right. After all you're not a SNES hater like GUTS, right? Anyway, GUTS and Emerald Rocker are Gen fanboys( if not the same person), there's no intelligent debating when them.  :wink: :mrgreen:

Are we talking US gamesmakers or Japanese gamemakers? Nintendo of Japan is not the same thing as Nintendo US. Nintendo US had a good amount of crap, but also had the most TOP titles of the 16bit wars from the 3 consoles in the US - from the general gaming consensus. If you don't think Nintendo had strict guide lines, why don't you talk with a Nintendo developer from back then. Projects were sent bank to the developers because the graphics or sound were not up to Nintendo's standards. Sega practiced the same policies though. I wish I had the link were Hudson said they didn't have such strict guide lines.



Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 01:25:07 PM
I judge all 3 systems by the USA and Japanese release element. But if you really require me to trash the Super Famicom Nintendo of Japan side of things I will,as I can just as easily name off crap that sucked for that system. Ashita No Joe,Violinist Of Hamlin,Libble Rabble,Sonic Wings,Snoopy Concert,Hiryu No Ken S,Hokuto No Ken 6, the complete shit ports of Art of Fighting 2,Sengoku,Final Fight 1 ect ect... I could go on and on,but Im not because its a complete waste of my time. The fanboy thing doesnt apply to me.

There are tons of Snes games I love to death,like Dracula X,Contra 3,S. Castlevania 4,Super Ghouls and Ghost,Chrono Trigger,Pilot Wings,Super Mario World,Super Mario RPG,ect ect.. but I stand firm at the Quality control comment,because there really wasnt any. What you mettioned really boiled down to minor bug fixes,NOT making the game fun,not really game quality improvement. I only know of  a few titles that Nintendo actually set aside and requested the game company to improve,and only because they were banking on those titles to be killer aps in the battle against Sega.

I perfer the Pc Engine the most because of the arcade ports and shooters. I mostly play arcade games,so my loyalities lay with that system. As for original content,I feel all 3 systems had enough of it to keep anyone happy if they play both domestic and imports.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 01:35:56 PM
Also last I remember the Genesis won the 16-bit wars in the USA when it counted,from 1990 to 1995. The 16-bit wars were over by 1995,the only ones who didn't know this were Nintendo,who decided to re-market the Snes to buy more time and get quick sales for another 2 years from the under educated. The memories are still fresh in my mind of Nintendo telling me how I didn't need a 32-bit system yet,all I needed was a Snes,because Killer Instinct and Donkey Cock 1-3 was going to totally blow me away and tide me over untill Ultra 64 with its "SGI CG GRAPHICS"....


Too bad for Nintendo I didn't fall for this,I bought another Turbo CD from Smartworks,and in early 1996 picked up a 3DO,Playstation,and a Saturn. I guess a screen full of bananas didn't amaze me like Nintendo hoped it would.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Bonknuts on December 30, 2006, 03:32:55 PM
Quote
Also last I remember the Genesis won the 16-bit wars in the USA when it counted,from 1990 to 1995.

Maybe in your town. By mid '94 early 95, SNES had clearly won. The Genesis limited color was just hurting too much. This is dithered era for the Genesis - I couldn't stand all that either washed out or over contrasted dither mess of pixels they called graphics. The first gen Genesis games had better graphics IMO. Sega started to lose in '93 and hoped the Sega CD would be the answer.

 Separating your opinion when judging if a game is high production, is key. I personally didn't care for DKC at all, but I can recognize that it's a high production game. There are plenty of lower production value games that are much funner to play, but doesn't change the fact.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 03:58:26 PM
Quote
Also last I remember the Genesis won the 16-bit wars in the USA when it counted,from 1990 to 1995.

Maybe in your town. By mid '94 early 95, SNES had clearly won. The Genesis limited color was just hurting too much. This is dithered era for the Genesis - I couldn't stand all that either washed out or over contrasted dither mess of pixels they called graphics. The first gen Genesis games had better graphics IMO. Sega started to lose in '93 and hoped the Sega CD would be the answer.

 Separating your opinion when judging if a game is high production, is key. I personally didn't care for DKC at all, but I can recognize that it's a high production game. There are plenty of lower production value games that are much funner to play, but doesn't change the fact.

Well,working in retail sales at a game store back in 2000 I got to go back and view paperwork,memos,sales notes,sales booklets, ect ect from Nintendo,Sega,Sony and independent consumer groups. We had papers back from the start of the store I worked at,along with stuff sent to Players and Funcoland back in storage.In some of the older stuff like hardware sales memos  for 1992-1996 just in system hardware sales the Snes did not start to catch up on total sales USA wide untill around late 94 with the release of Mortal Kombat 2. In 1995 the Snes caught up completely and in 1996 surprassed the Genesis sales. The Snes was pumped into stores in slim line form well into 1997 and remaining units sold off well into 1999 to get rid of inventory.

 But like I said,by this time 32-bit systems were the focus,the only 16-bit war left was Nintendo versus itself.
Genesis support was dying off steadly in favor of Saturn and PS1. We had no sales workup of total units sold of Majescos Genesis 3 from 99-2000 so I dont know how that did. It was mostly sold by larger retail chains and my understanding is Sega didnt issue out much info as to how well that did..
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on December 30, 2006, 04:39:43 PM
Bonknutso is going down the classic cliched SNERD list of responses to well reasoned arguments-

#1.  Anybody who doesn't agree that the SNES was the bestest system ever is a fanboy and can't be reasoned with.  A snerd is totally obvlivious to the irony in this.

#2.  Everybody arguing against a snerd must be the same person using multiple accounts since there couldn't possibly be mutliple poeple out there who don't like the SNES.

#3.  Snerds conveniently ignore when they have gotten their asses kicked (like on the laughable "quality control" bullshit) and start over at #1.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 30, 2006, 04:42:31 PM
I don't consider myself a snerd, but c'mon their people too, give them a break. At least they aren't a$$holes like a lot of Sega fans I have talked to.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: ParanoiaDragon on December 30, 2006, 04:52:11 PM
From personal experience, since I go into alot of people's homes as a carpet cleaner, to me, whether I liked it or not, it looked like the SNES had won.  I barely saw any Genesis around anymore, & when I did, it usually had a 32x connected, which was rare.  I can remember one customer that had a Nomad, which collected dust.  Ofcoarse, I only saw one or two Turbo's in all that time, but, everybody had a SNES.  But that's just from my own personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Bonknuts on December 30, 2006, 05:20:46 PM
Quote from: GUTS
#1.  Anybody who doesn't agree that the SNES was the bestest system ever is a fanboy and can't be reasoned with.

And you're the complete opposite of this. Anyone who even slighty thinks the SNES has a few good games as in denial and "can't be reasoned with". They're obviously a "fanboy" because they can't see how inferior SNES games are. :-k

Quote from: GUTS
#2.  Everybody arguing against a snerd must be the same person using multiple accounts since there couldn't possibly be mutliple poeple out there who don't like the SNES.

Nah, you two are just a matching pair I guess :dance:

 I bought import PCE CD/SCDs over US release SNES games and even Genesis games bank in the day. If you knew even the slightest thing about me, you'd know I'm a PCE/SGX fan. Not a SNES fan. Last I checked, pcedev.net was my website not snesdev.net. 

 Another great thread.. :roll:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on December 30, 2006, 05:32:16 PM
No you f*cking douche, I have and like some SNES games, Chrono Trigger is one of my all time favorite games.  You assumed that because I hate DKC that I hate every snes game ever.

And if you don't like the thread, don't f*cking participate, it's as simple as that.  I'm sick of you stupid tards coming in and going "OH NO NOT THIS AGAIN *YELLOW FACE ROLLING EYES*" and then jumping right in.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Emerald Rocker on December 30, 2006, 05:51:05 PM
Man, it's awesome how I just posted one tiny post -- a civil post, at that -- and Bonknuts keeps mentioning me.  I guess I'm just that damn memorable!

Quote
Separating your opinion when judging if a game is high production, is key. I personally didn't care for DKC at all, but I can recognize that it's a high production game.

Awesome, we now have the "enjoyment boils down to opinion, but it is a FACT that the game was technically high quality" argument... another snerd favorite.

Well, guess what: in my personal opinion, DKC is not a high quality game.  Claiming that it objectively has "high production [values]" is a clear sign of snerdery.  It had a lot of money thrown at it, but the production values -- aside from the tech to create the graphics -- were low, low, LOW.  The artistry is laughable, the creativity is barren, and the music is pretty damn typical.

Take a game like Blue Dragon, which has a trio of legendary designers... now that's high production values.  Take a look at Linda 3 on PCE... they put together a KILLER team of highly-regarded game developers for that one.  And you dare to say that DKC, a game designed by a bunch of nobodies (at the time), was "high production" just because they used some Silicon Graphics tech?

HOW DARE YOU.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 30, 2006, 05:53:52 PM
No you f*cking douche, I have and like some SNES games, Chrono Trigger is one of my all time favorite games.  You assumed that because I hate DKC that I hate every snes game ever.
I doubt Bonknuts thinks you hate every SNES game because you hate DKC, but because of how much you tend to bash SNES games in general and it's fans.

Quote from: GUTS
And if you don't like the thread, don't f*cking participate, it's as simple as that.  I'm sick of you stupid tards coming in and going "OH NO NOT THIS AGAIN *YELLOW FACE ROLLING EYES*" and then jumping right in.
If you don't like it, you can quit participating as well. You've told me once or twice on a chat room that everyone on PCEFX hates you. Well if you want to try gaining just the slightest bit of respect, toning down your attitude and not just bursting into threads calling people douches or retards will help. Seriously, your awful attitude is just making things worse.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on December 30, 2006, 06:02:17 PM
I didn't say I didn't like the thread, obviously I like arguing about this stuff or I wouldn't be here, I said I hated the tards who post "NOT THIS AGAIN" and then jump right in.  Also I didn't "burst" into any thread, I was here from the beginning.  Try reading the whole thread next time before posting, thanks.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 30, 2006, 06:09:02 PM
I wasn't necessarily speaking about this thread when you ignorantly "BURST" in, but many other threads in the past. Your first post in this thread was good, I'm impressed. Stick with an attitude like that, we'd all be a lot happier when posting and debating :D .
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 06:25:32 PM
I think the main problems here are the fact that a couple of Snerds are in denial of the fact that from 1990 to 1995 Sega handed Nintendos ass to them,and they are still sore from Sonic2sday when the Snes hit its all time low.
That and the complete QUALITY CONTROL defense was just stupid. I have already listed examples on both the US and Japanese side that slap down the idea that there was quality control aimed towards only fun games being released.

I like Nintendo just as much as Sega but I don't look at anything but the facts. Nintendo was getting so stomped they desperately  sided with Liberman during the violence in game trials. I remember this well because in response to the Nintendo VP saying they were trying to protect kids from violence a head up from Sega pulled out a Superscope 6 to show how Nintendo was providing kids with bazooka like accessories. The VP had nothing to say in response.

Nintendo was losing the fight,and lost it up untill 1995. Like I said,by then,it didn't matter,as mostly the only people buying 16-bit in retail stores from 96 on up were very poor people or parents looking for a cheap game system for their kids.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on December 30, 2006, 07:00:49 PM
Haha, funny sig, Mike. I still support Yaton though :D .
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Bonknuts on December 30, 2006, 07:50:31 PM
Quote
That and the complete QUALITY CONTROL defense was just stupid. I have already listed examples on both the US and Japanese side that slap down the idea that there was quality control aimed to wards only fun games being released.

 You list a handful of games as your rebuttal and that's supposed to be taken seriously? Either way believe what you want. If think the Genesis trampled the SNES because you looked up sales info for one store in all of the world (or just the US), that's fine.

 You're right about Nintendo trying to stretch the SNES into the PSX/Saturn era. In mid '95 I quite gaming for a couple of years until I got a PSX in '97. I think the last game I played on the SNES was Chrono Trigger ( I barrowed a SNES from bro to play it). In the end I could really care less about Nintendo though.  I prefer PCE CD/SCD.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 08:23:16 PM
Quote
That and the complete QUALITY CONTROL defense was just stupid. I have already listed examples on both the US and Japanese side that slap down the idea that there was quality control aimed to wards only fun games being released.

 You list a handful of games as your rebuttal and that's supposed to be taken seriously? Either way believe what you want. If think the Genesis trampled the SNES because you looked up sales info for one store in all of the world (or just the US), that's fine.

 

The info wasn't research done by the store chain I worked for,or directly for our store,it was from nationwide research done by Sega,Nintendo,and third parties hired by consumer magazines to do research every few months.
Typically consumer magazines would hire research groups because they give more compelling and truthful numbers.
As for examples of bad games,I gave them,not going to waste time listing them in the hundreds just to waste time pleasing or crushing Snerds. That would be a extreme act of fanboyism I don't care to partake in at the moment.

Nor do the bad games deserve that kinda recognition. Snerds would then be compelled to play the games and try to find quality in them that isn't there and come up with lame excuses as to how these games were awesome when in fact they sucked donkey dick. Past proof of this happening would be :

Plus, aren't there times when the screen is full of bananas?

This was a comment made when refering to the supposed highlights of Donkey Cock Country.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 08:24:32 PM
Haha, funny sig, Mike. I still support Yaton though :D .

I do too but sometimes a example has to be made of someone I guess :(
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 08:44:39 PM
Bump.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 30, 2006, 09:45:05 PM
Plus, aren't there times when the screen is full of bananas?

This was a comment made when refering to the supposed highlights of Donkey Cock Country.

That comment was never made when refering to the supposed highlights of DKC.

As I explained after the first time you took it as such, it's simply a response to GUTS's "there's barely any sprites on screen at once" comment.

It's the same as if someone had said the game doesn't have any sound effects at all and I responded with, "aren't there at least a couple of sfx in the game?"

Are you even reading this thread, as you use your signature to flame people?

So far I haven't refered to any supposed highlights of DKC series, although I don't think the games are complete garbage.

But I don't think that they're 32-bit masterpieces either.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 10:12:11 PM
Showing lots of sprites is a technical highlight :P
So I guess showing lots of bananas is the equivalent to some people on here who love that game. I knew what you were refering to,and how you meant it to come out,but it ends up looking funny as hell when it all boils down to bananas,or in this case,a screen filled with them when people try to defend that lame ass game. Even though what you said wasn't meant to be funny,it totally had me on the floor laughing my ass off.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on December 30, 2006, 10:21:50 PM
I only have one thing to say about your signature Mike, and that is that your compression quality sucks ass!  The red-on-black text is compressed so poorly that it is very difficult to read.  Don't go below "7" in Photoshop if you don't have to (and nobody does).  Or you can "Save for web..." and save as a 24-bit PNG file.  Everyone loves PNGs.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 30, 2006, 11:42:46 PM
That better? It was actually saved as a PNG the first time around. I may have had a photobucket setting wrong when uploading.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 31, 2006, 12:16:44 AM
Showing lots of sprites is a technical highlight :P
So I guess showing lots of bananas is the equivalent to some people on here who love that game. I knew what you were refering to,and how you meant it to come out,but it ends up looking funny as hell when it all boils down to bananas,or in this case,a screen filled with them when people try to defend that lame ass game. Even though what you said wasn't meant to be funny,it totally had me on the floor laughing my ass off.

Well, at least I got upgraded to "indirect".  :roll:

I'm not some lunatic fanboy like AirRaidX ranting about how only the arcade version of GnG has the grass cover Arthur's toes, with closeup video clips to back it up("look at all the bananas!"). I was actually responding to one of those kinds of comments(there've been a few already in this thread).

But we all know what GUTS meant, that DKC isn't pushing a ton of sprites all the time. But why should it? Its a platformer not a shooter. But like I said, I'm not a fan of the series, so it doesn't concern me.

Even if the DKC games really were the technical marvel that some people say or the utter garbage that some other people call it, who cares? It's not the be all end all benchmark for the SNES and even if it could be proven that no SNES game is technically impressive, it still has a nice library with enough fun games to justify it's existence.

If it had bombed or didn't have the fanbase it does, I don't think it'd have as many haters. Just as there are lots of people who are quick to come to the defense of underdogs like the Jaguar and 3DO.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: muse hunter on December 31, 2006, 01:19:54 AM
calm down people its only a console debate  :wink:

regarding the Donkey Kong Country games , i don't think they were bad, i can still get some enjoyment from those games today which compared to 95% of platformers from that era isn't that bad.  However i agree the games were a case of style over substance, it was a time where developers were really flexing the snes's muscles a bit, from 94 onwards the MD seemed to show its limitations, the snes at that time flexed its muscles with games such as street fighter alpha 2, donkey kong, killer instinct, yoshi's island, mario RPG etc.  I'm a bit of a sega fanboy but even i admit the MD had no chance in hell of emulating those games, i think the snes showed that it was in a different league graphically.

I like the MD and snes equally though, i can't not like the snes, Nintendo were on top form during that time with countless classics, and then the MD had some killer shooters.  The pcengine i find difficult to pinpoint powerwise probably because of all its upgrades, i was always told that some of its early games show nes/ master system quality while some of its latest such as sapphire are regarded as 32bit quality games.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Bonknuts on December 31, 2006, 03:25:41 AM
  The pcengine i find difficult to pinpoint powerwise probably because of all its upgrades, i was always told that some of its early games show nes/ master system quality while some of its latest such as sapphire are regarded as 32bit quality games.

 Yeah, the PCE's life ('87-up) spanned over quite a range of hardware upgrades. I just wish we got to see an SGX+ACD game from that time.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: guyjin on December 31, 2006, 04:56:33 AM
what do you mean, 'from that time'? has some homebrewer made a SuperACD?
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Bonknuts on December 31, 2006, 05:23:15 AM
 :wink:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: grahf on December 31, 2006, 06:05:51 AM
muse hunter, you pretty much summed it up (regarding the PCE) with your last post. The majority of the hucard games are at about the same level as those available for other home systems at the time. Some of them are slightly worse, and a few hucards are just downright phenominal considering the format.If you really want to compare the PC Engine, you need to venture into the SCD+ games. I would say that most of the truly awesome games are on CD, and for obvious reasons. Stuff like Dracula X and Gradius II, your not going to find an equal for on another home console. (The PCE version of Gradius II has some additions that are not found in any other releases, including modern ones).

Its pretty damn funny that the 16-bit fanboys are still around in this day and age. I swear these threads make me feel like im in middle school again. Obnoxious people resorting to personal insults to back up their opinions, instead of just being tolerent to other peoples tastes. News Flash: everyone has their own tastes.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 31, 2006, 10:12:07 AM
Well in the end I love all the 16-bit systems,each had their strong points and quality games. They each excelled in different genres pretty well.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on December 31, 2006, 10:12:21 AM
The majority of the hucard games are at about the same level as those available for other home systems at the time.

This is why some early HuCards seem fairly primitive compared to most PC Engine games, because they were up against the Famicom and to a lesser extent, the Sega MarkIII. That and in the beginning, they only made small sized cards, so much so that R-Type got split in two. But they were still at least at same level as those other home systems at the time.


Its pretty damn funny that the 16-bit fanboys are still around in this day and age. I swear these threads make me feel like im in middle school again. Obnoxious people resorting to personal insults to back up their opinions, instead of just being tolerent to other peoples tastes. News Flash: everyone has their own tastes.

There are still many people who can't seperate personal opinion, "fact" and truthiness. I think that the more people talk about subjects in extremes, the more their arguments are fueled by opinion.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on December 31, 2006, 11:46:35 PM
Quote
This is why some early HuCards seem fairly primitive compared to most PC Engine games, because they were up against the Famicom and to a lesser extent, the Sega MarkIII. That and in the beginning, they only made small sized cards, so much so that R-Type got split in two. But they were still at least at same level as those other home systems at the time.

Agreed,typically the really impressive stuff didn't start untill 1989 for the Pc-Engine. More or less we probably have the Megadrive to thank for that.

Quote
There are still many people who can't seperate personal opinion, "fact" and truthiness. I think that the more people talk about subjects in extremes, the more their arguments are fueled by opinion.
Agreed. As I said,I think all the systems had their strong points,esp in certain genres,and its going to be left up to the individual to decide what types of games he/she enjoys playing the most. In the best situation its ideal to just own all the 16-bit systems,including a NeoGeo,to get maximum enjoyment. NeoGeo MVS isn't expensive at all these days,ask Keranu.

And the Pc-Engine is a better entry point system for imports now more then ever thanks to Yahoo Japan and eBay. With more japanese sellers on-line its much easier to find certain games your looking for then it was 5-6 years ago for the system.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: FM-77 on January 01, 2007, 01:18:59 AM
You guys are nuts.  :P You obviously haven't played Donkey Kong Country 3 - easily one of the best platformers ever (DKC1/2 cannot compare to the third game). Look at , the level design is perfect. Look at one as well. The graphics are awesome, the music rules (although the songs on these levels aren't particularly good). The controls are flawless - and this is rare when it comes to platformers. Everything is nearly perfect. Almost comparable the Mario games. And unlike most games, the music composer (Eveline Fischer) is actually a "real" artist.

Play it. And I mean play it. Then complain, if you can.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on January 01, 2007, 02:05:22 AM
I have played it,I played all 3 of them,and hate all 3 of them. The 2 levels your trying to show off,Krevers Kreepers has like maybe 5 enemies total,and are just repeats of each other,and that level has nothing complicated going on to make up for lack of enemies.
Buzzers Barrage has like 4-5 different pallette swapped enemies that are basically playing block defense,trying feebly to keep you from passing by,pretty damn weak over all.The megs of ram used and programming time would have been better spent creating real level design and more variety of enemies that can at least actually attack you,not just move back and forth then just holding digitized cg graphics. Im pretty sure everyone here ragging on the Donkey Cock Countries have played them,and can justly say if they feel the games suck ass or not.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 01, 2007, 09:47:39 AM
I remember having a bit of fun with DKC3 from the little played, even though it was cheesy as hell. Anyways, I don't think those videos really did any justice for the game, it didn't make the platform elements of the game look any better than other platformers.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 01, 2007, 10:01:49 AM
I hate games that have "helpers" or whatnot following you around.  I didn't buy Sonic 2 because of that little item that followed you everywhere.  I eventually got the game used, but I always turn Tails off.

You're right, whoever the composer of DKC is is a REAL artist.  Every other musician for a videogame is not an artist.  Their work sucks.  They should get AIDS.  It's not art unless you have a contract with a record label.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: FM-77 on January 01, 2007, 10:05:59 AM
"Real" and real isn't the same thing. And yeah, most game composers are nobodies (that doesn't necessarily mean they lack talent even though they often do). They don't even get credited. The Mega Man series (NES) is a good example - good music, unknown author.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on January 01, 2007, 10:33:57 AM
I thought part 2 was considered the best one in the series, and 3 was considered the worst.  I've played and hated all 3, especially part 3 because of the stupid map.  Part 2 was lame as hell too, part 1 was the only that was decent.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on January 01, 2007, 11:23:24 AM
"Real" and real isn't the same thing. And yeah, most game composers are nobodies (that doesn't necessarily mean they lack talent even though they often do). They don't even get credited. The Mega Man series (NES) is a good example - good music, unknown author.

Yuzo Koshiro should hire Shinobi to kill you in exchange for another sub-techno soundtrack.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 01, 2007, 12:03:48 PM
I bought the first DKC, played it, somewhat enjoyed it.  Never finished it because I became bored.  One good musical tune (underwater).  Granted, that was a great tune.  Never was interested in any subsequent DKC games at all, but part 2 was given to me a Christmas gift.  Hated it.  Graphics seemed worse an even more grainy.  Who needs 32-bit?  That's what Nintendo's ads for the game(s?) asked.

I still own both games.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on January 01, 2007, 12:12:57 PM
I bought the first DKC, played it, somewhat enjoyed it.  Never finished it because I became bored.  One good musical tune (underwater).  Granted, that was a great tune.  Never was interested in any subsequent DKC games at all, but part 2 was given to me a Christmas gift.  Hated it.  Graphics seemed worse an even more grainy.  Who needs 32-bit?  That's what Nintendo's ads for the game(s?) asked.

I still own both games.

You have a garbage can that maybe both games can go into?
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: _joshuaTurbo on January 01, 2007, 12:27:48 PM
Quote
so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?

Pretty well actually. 
If you consider all addons (PC Engine with CD's, SCD's, and ACD's, and Gens+CD+32X)  This is how I would rank them.

Neo Geo- its 24-bit
SNES- C'mon haters you know its pretty impressive
Turbo/PC Engine- amazing color and killer music with CD's
Gens/MD- Still great, but somehow lagging behind the rest.

Love the 16-bit wars!!!

But all in all- it depends on the games you like, or the games your looking for.

NEO GEO- great for shmups and 2d Fighters
SNES- RPG's and anything from Konami
Turbo- shmups and RPG's are tops on the Turbo
Gens- great sports lineup and some insane action games.

TurboSage
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 01, 2007, 12:40:25 PM
Quote from: turbo_sage

Neo Geo- its 24-bit


Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit. 
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 01, 2007, 01:24:04 PM
I don't give a shit what the bits are.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: vestcoat on January 01, 2007, 07:30:47 PM
Since the number of "bits" a system has is pretty much meaningless and the potential of a system is dependant on so many different factors, I'm totally fine referring to systems as having however many bits they were commonly considered to have in their day.
It's kind of like the Richter scale--an obsolete term that cannot not accurately measure the power of something, but still useful to give Joe Six-pack a ballpark figure. 

So...
SMS, NES:  8-bit. Fine, whatever.

TG16:  16-bit.  Has "16" in the name, I'll go with it.

Neo Geo:  24 bits.  Graphics felt like something between Genesis and Saturn.  Sure, who cares?

I'll even let Jaguar get away with "64-bit".

To summarize, who f*cking cares?
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on January 02, 2007, 08:15:22 AM
Since the number of "bits" a system has is pretty much meaningless and the potential of a system is dependant on so many different factors, I'm totally fine referring to systems as having however many bits they were commonly considered to have in their day.
It's kind of like the Richter scale--an obsolete term that cannot not accurately measure the power of something, but still useful to give Joe Six-pack a ballpark figure. 

So...
SMS, NES:  8-bit. Fine, whatever.

TG16:  16-bit.  Has "16" in the name, I'll go with it.

Neo Geo:  24 bits.  Graphics felt like something between Genesis and Saturn.  Sure, who cares?

I'll even let Jaguar get away with "64-bit".

To summarize, who f*cking cares?
This makes no sense considering there is no 24-bit cpu or graphics chip in the NeoGeo. And you cant just go by the hyperbole on the cardboard box. Adding a Zilog80 and a 68000 doesnt make a 24-bit cpu,as both those cpus are doing different work in the system. The Turbo did however have 16-bit graphics chipsets,even though the cpu was 8-bit. People never really think about it but I mean come on,TURBOGRAFX 16/ 2 16-bit graphics chips. they weren't lying or anything.
Also a more accurate description of the NeoGeo would be "Graphics above all other 16-bit home systems and able to compete somewhat with the Saturn in 2d games. I say this because it was obviously way more powerful then the other home systems and as for the Saturn the Saturn does have 2D games that the Neo just couldn't have done at the same resolution,like Battle Monsters,Shinobi Legions ect ect...

And the Jaguar had a lot of different processors of different bit counts,including 3 64-bit processors that handled objects,blitter,and dram. More then anything I remember Atari touting it as a 64-bit system,and not actually touting 64-bit graphics. I could be wrong though,id have to go back and review old ads.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 02, 2007, 11:41:32 AM
Oh come on now Mike, the world knows (and President Bush has passed an Amendment making it FACT) that the NeoGeo is 24-bit, and therefore so is the Genesis since it has the same CPUs as the Neo.

The NeoGeo couldn't even do rotation.  I cannot even comprehend comparing it to 2D Saturn games.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 02, 2007, 12:07:51 PM
We need some kind of universal standard for console generations, like:

"1st Gen"/"Gen 1": Atari, Colleco, Intv, Odyssey
Gen 2: NES, SMS
Gen 3: TG-16, Genesis, SNES
Gen 4: Saturn, N64, PSX
Gen 5: DC, Xbox, GC, PS2
Gen 6: PS3, 360

And let people fill in the mid gens however they like, say 3.4 for the Neo Geo or 3.7 for the Jaguar and 5.1 for the Wii.

Because if we're making distinctions between (insert #)-bit cpu's, gpu's, actual graphics, etc, selectively on a console by console basis, then what's the point? No one uses 'bit labels when refering to actual specs anyways, except when they're specifically talking about specs.

And we all know that anyone calling the Neo Geo "24-bit" is simply saying that it was a step up from the three 16-bit consoles and not making some kind of technological statement based on specs, because anyone who's into crunching spec figures wouldn't use such a label in the first place.

So what's the point in pwning them for using a term that no one is mistaking as a tech spec? It's like freaking out at someone for calling themself a "gamer" instead of "video game player".

Because to the average 'gamer', this "makes no sense":

Quote
Adding a Zilog80 and a 68000 doesnt make a 24-bit cpu,as both those cpus are doing different work in the system.


Also, do you guys think that we'd even be labeling 'generations' by 'bits' if Sega hadn't branded the Megadrive and Genesis with a big "16-bit" across the top and if the TG-16 was simply named "Turbografx"?
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 02, 2007, 01:05:17 PM
Also, do you guys think that we'd even be labeling 'generations' by 'bits' if Sega hadn't branded the Megadrive and Genesis with a big "16-bit" across the top and if the TG-16 was simply named "Turbografx"?
Good question. Personally I don't think we would, those two consoles really started the whole bits thing.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: guyjin on January 02, 2007, 01:21:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_consoles

I've been using that as a guide as far as 'generations' go.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on January 02, 2007, 02:04:22 PM
yea that wikipedia guide is a better reference to the generations then what Black Tiger is suggesting,because current systems that just came out,regardless of their specs are still in this generation,2005-2007. Like trying to apply the Wii  as a past generation because of lower system spec makes no sense because the system came out in the year 2006.

Generation by definition is that which is generated or brought forth,a offspiring, a progeny. The Wii wasnt brought forth into the retail market in 2002-2005. It was released at the end of 2006.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: vestcoat on January 02, 2007, 02:08:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_consoles

I've been using that as a guide as far as 'generations' go.


Pretty sweet guide.  Check this out:
8-bit era/post-crash of '83 era (1983-1989)

# PC Engine (1987, Japan)

16-bit era (1989-1994)


# TurboGrafx-16 (1989)

Booyah!  We had to wait a couple years, but this proves the TG16 was a whole GENERATION of gaming above the puny PCE.   Looks like it's time for you import diehards to step out of the stone age and stop whining about cover art.  I knew they did something good when the US console was twice the size of it's predecessor.   :twisted:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 02, 2007, 02:56:45 PM
yea that wikipedia guide is a better reference to the generations then what Black Tiger is suggesting,because current systems that just came out,regardless of their specs are still in this generation,2005-2007. Like trying to apply the Wii  as a past generation because of lower system spec makes no sense because the system came out in the year 2006.

Generation by definition is that which is generated or brought forth,a offspiring, a progeny. The Wii wasnt brought forth into the retail market in 2002-2005. It was released at the end of 2006.


Alright then, here we go again. Shall we start grouping systems by "leagues" or "kinda likes"? I'd suggest "era", but I'm not sure how that could get spun.

Because when the average video game player talks about 'generations', they don't literally mean 'generation', -that every single system is a new generation in order of release dates, they're just talking about an area of comparable graphics and sometimes gameplay.

But really, its not even as abstract as that. They're talking about one of the groups I listed above. And almost nobody mistakes the implied meaning when the term is used. Even if if the pseudo undefined consoles' placements vary by individual.

Although the Wii is one of the abnormalities like the Jaguar and 32X, most people probably will consider it part of the now current generation because unlike the other weirdies, it'll probably compete with the PS3 & 360. But again, generational discussion is usually about the old moldy consoles. By the time people start to reflect on the good ole days of PS3 & 360, they'll probably be talking about dimensions or something.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_consoles

I've been using that as a guide as far as 'generations' go.


Even the X68000 is listed as part of the 8-bit era.  :P

Of course the Atari Flashback 2 and Generation NEX are grouped with the PS3, so I don't know why they named the groups anything other than 19XX = 20XX time periods.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 02, 2007, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: vestcoat
8-bit era/post-crash of '83 era (1983-1989)

# PC Engine (1987, Japan)

16-bit era (1989-1994)


# TurboGrafx-16 (1989)

Booyah!  We had to wait a couple years, but this proves the TG16 was a whole GENERATION of gaming above the puny PCE.   Looks like it's time for you import diehards to step out of the stone age and stop whining about cover art.  I knew they did something good when the US console was twice the size of it's predecessor.


Hell yeah.  And that one dude, Emerald Rocker, thinks TurboChips are, like, waaay less powerful than HuCards.  Well now it is PROVEN that TurboChips are waaaaaaaaay better than wimpy ass HuCards.  I say we bomb Japan again because TurboChips kick so much ass and they never had them.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 02, 2007, 03:28:50 PM
I agree with vestcoat and Joe. AMERICAN POWER! TURBO POWER !!
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Emerald Rocker on January 02, 2007, 04:39:25 PM
Haha, that Wikipedia article about game generations is a joke.  I guess that's what happens when people try to group by release dates instead of by common sense.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: FM-77 on January 03, 2007, 01:39:25 AM
That's because Wikipedia is crap.  :-"

The moderators on that site are worse than he WWII nazis. Much worse. When they disagree with the facts, they change them to their own opinions. With an attitude.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on January 03, 2007, 06:58:30 AM
That's why you never give an internet nerd even the slightest bit of power, they abuse it to death.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 03, 2007, 09:28:41 AM
That's why you never give an internet nerd even the slightest bit of power, they abuse it to death.
Not me!  :mrgreen: I just abuse the delete key on accident!
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 03, 2007, 10:23:58 AM
Quote from: Seldane

That's because Wikipedia is crap.  :-"

The moderators on that site are worse than he WWII nazis. Much worse. When they disagree with the facts, they change them to their own opinions. With an attitude.


But do they kill millions of Jews?  No, I think not. 
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 03, 2007, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: Seldane

That's because Wikipedia is crap.  :-"

The moderators on that site are worse than he WWII nazis. Much worse. When they disagree with the facts, they change them to their own opinions. With an attitude.


But do they kill millions of Jews?  No, I think not. 

I love how so many people use Nazi/Holocaust references whenever something trivial doesn't go their way. Like waiting in long lines, "it's like the Holocaust!" Or when a new rule is enacted in the workplace, "it's like Nazist Germany!"

I try to use those and other offensive references(like rape) whenever I can in real life to put things in perspective for some people.


That's why you never give an internet nerd even the slightest bit of power, they abuse it to death.
Not me!  :mrgreen: I just abuse the delete key on accident!

Keranu = Judge Dredd  8)
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 03, 2007, 12:52:40 PM
I'm your worst nightmare.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on January 03, 2007, 12:58:00 PM
"I am da laaw"
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: esteban on January 09, 2007, 04:05:48 PM
Haha, that Wikipedia article about game generations is a joke.  I guess that's what happens when people try to group by release dates instead of by common sense.
Absolutely in agreement with you.

Anyway, as folks here have noted, we really should be looking at generations. Also, we need to look at the national and transnational histories of consoles.

So, as Joe pointed out (hahahhahaa), PCE / TG-16 can comfortably reside in both the "8-bit" and "16-bit" generations. Here is how I broached the topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TurboGrafx-16#8-bit_.2C_16-bit_or_hybrid.3F) at Wikipedia. An anonymous person authored the section that begins with "My follow up"... and I was wondering if everything he / she said was correct?

Tangent: I think the Wiki article can be cleaned up a lot. I encourage folks here to scour the page and fix anything that is amiss. :)

That includes you, too, Seldane.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Tatsujin on January 09, 2007, 04:24:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_consoles

I've been using that as a guide as far as 'generations' go.


Pretty sweet guide.  Check this out:
8-bit era/post-crash of '83 era (1983-1989)

# PC Engine (1987, Japan)

16-bit era (1989-1994)


# TurboGrafx-16 (1989)

Booyah!  We had to wait a couple years, but this proves the TG16 was a whole GENERATION of gaming above the puny PCE.   Looks like it's time for you import diehards to step out of the stone age and stop whining about cover art.  I knew they did something good when the US console was twice the size of it's predecessor.   :twisted:

muahahahaha.. i was L0Ling loudly, when i spotted this out. what a great investigation :lol: :lol: :lol: chapeau

but may be the best is, and i also didn't know that the x68000 was only an 8-bitter :shock:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: kungfukid on January 14, 2007, 07:06:35 AM
With regard Muse Hunter's original question, I don't really think of the PC Engine in comparison to Megadrive / SNES for some reason... the catalogue of games is totally different because there are a lot of really unique games for it! Most of the Megadrive and SNES games are fairly generic games in the sense that they were never really niche products. I just find it hard to compare the systems to be honest. What I'd say is that the PC Engine has a pretty big selection of great games, and some really good arcade conversions... If you want to compare a game that was out on all 3 systems, say SF2, the Megadrive version is probably the best, followed by the PCE and then the SNES, and the PCE is definitely superior in it's Wonderboy games to the Megadrive versions. If it's graphics you're worried about, you will not be dissapointed.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 14, 2007, 09:01:08 AM
If you want to compare a game that was out on all 3 systems, say SF2, the Megadrive version is probably the best, followed by the PCE and then the SNES, and the PCE is definitely superior in it's Wonderboy games to the Megadrive versions.
Hmm, I'm a bit opposite. I think the PCE version of Street Fighter II' (Championchip Edition) is better than the Genesis and SNES versions, however I consider the Wonderboy ports to be a closer call.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: kungfukid on January 14, 2007, 09:33:38 AM
If you want to compare a game that was out on all 3 systems, say SF2, the Megadrive version is probably the best, followed by the PCE and then the SNES, and the PCE is definitely superior in it's Wonderboy games to the Megadrive versions.
Hmm, I'm a bit opposite. I think the PCE version of Street Fighter II' (Championchip Edition) is better than the Genesis and SNES versions, however I consider the Wonderboy ports to be a closer call.

I can understand that - the SF2 ports are all quite similar - that's just my own opinion. As for wonderboy - I would say the PCE is better, but the SMS is the master of wonderboy games!
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: nodtveidt on January 14, 2007, 10:13:40 AM
One thing that bugs me every time I see it is when people say that the PCE has two 16-bit graphics chips. What's even more irritating than that is when other people say that the 16 is just the addition of two 8-bit graphics chips. Both are incorrect as all hell. First of all, you have to actually know what you're talking about...these people are referring to the PPU, or picture processing unit, a term given to a circuit or collection of circuits responsible for outputting the display. When people talk about two chips in the PCE, they're virtually always saying it in a way that implies that the PCE is putting out two graphics displays...as in two PPUs. But anyone who's done their homework on the PCE's architecture knows that the two graphical workhorses in the PCE work in unison on different aspects of the display...one is responsible for the actual bitmapped data among other things (the VDC: Video Display Controller), and the other is responsible for the color data (the VCE: Video Color Encoder). The combination of these two chips forms the singular PPU inside the PCE...an efficient two-chip circuit collective.

The SuperGrafx though, as we all know, DOES in fact have two video controllers, so saying that IT has two 16-bit graphics chips inside it is technically correct.

As for the meat of the thread though...it really depends on what angle you look at the subject from. Are you a gamer or a developer? If you're a gamer, what kind of games do you like? Your view of the consoles will change depending on your tastes. If you're a developer, what aspect of development do you work with? If you're an artist, the PCE is going to give you an excellent choice of color usage that rivals the SNES only in overall freedom of design (the tradeoff between total palettes and color element range). If you're a programmer, what's your hardware familiarity? Old-school coders will have no problems adapting to the PCE or the SNES, since both are based in the 6502 processor, but the Megadrive used the less familiar 68k. How about a sound coder? You're best off on the SNES if you're doing sound effects, and on the PCE or Megadrive if you're doing music for CDROM-based games...obviously, the SNES' SPC700 sound processor has technical advantages over both its rivals for cart-based music though. As I have developed for all three consoles, I can speak on the development subject with experience behind it. :D
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: vestcoat on January 14, 2007, 10:19:40 AM
but the SMS is the master of wonderboy games!

Sort of--The Turbo never got the original Wonderboy but the SMS never got Monster Lair.  The Turbo also has New Adventure Island if you count the AI games as part of the WB line.

I've been thinking of buying Bikkuriman World.  Did they make a CD version or is it just on hucard?  Any difference between the two besides sound quality?

I recently picked up Wonderboy in Monster World on the SMS.  It's cool to see an 8-bit version of the game and is interesting to compare it to Dynastic Hero.  Keranu, didn't you once recommend playing through the Genesis version of WB in Monster World as a way to figure out puzzles in PCE Dynastic Hero and avoid getting stuck because of the language barrier?  Anyone know if the SMS version is faithful enough for me to figure the game out and move on to the PCE version after I beat it?

And remember:  Dynastic Hero, despite being on a SCD, is still a lowly 8-bit game if you're playing the PCE import.  If you want the full experience of the "16-bit era" you need to track down the TurboGrafx-16 SCD! :wink:

Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: vestcoat on January 14, 2007, 10:27:19 AM
Quote from: vestcoat
8-bit era/post-crash of '83 era (1983-1989)

# PC Engine (1987, Japan)

16-bit era (1989-1994)


# TurboGrafx-16 (1989)

Booyah!  We had to wait a couple years, but this proves the TG16 was a whole GENERATION of gaming above the puny PCE.   Looks like it's time for you import diehards to step out of the stone age and stop whining about cover art.  I knew they did something good when the US console was twice the size of it's predecessor.


Hell yeah.  And that one dude, Emerald Rocker, thinks TurboChips are, like, waaay less powerful than HuCards.  Well now it is PROVEN that TurboChips are waaaaaaaaay better than wimpy ass HuCards.  I say we bomb Japan again because TurboChips kick so much ass and they never had them.

Yeah, that's probably why we never saw the "SuperGrafx" or "Arcade Card" here in the States--We didn't need them!   We were already a whole generation ahead of Japan.  The ACD games weren't created to compete with the Genesis, SNES or Neo Geo; they were a miserable attempt to catch up to the TurboGrafx.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 14, 2007, 10:44:07 AM
Keranu, didn't you once recommend playing through the Genesis version of WB in Monster World as a way to figure out puzzles in PCE Dynastic Hero and avoid getting stuck because of the language barrier?
Playing through the Genesis version first would probably help, but I think you should be able to get through the language barrier even if you didn't. It would be cool to play both versions though so you can see all the differences.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 14, 2007, 12:37:52 PM
The SMS version of MWIII is supposed to be a little different, but it looks amazing. Unfortunately, it doesn't support FM sound.  :( :(

If you don't go by official title names alone, the SMS is second to the PCE for Wonderboy games.

SMS:

Wonderboy
Monster Land
WBIII: Dragon's Trap
MWIII


PCE:

New Adventure Island (Wonderboy remake)
Bikkuriman World (Monster Land arcade)
Adventure Island/Dragon's Curse (WBIII SMS)
Dynastic Hero (MWIII)
Monster Lair (WBIII arcade)

...plus JJ & Jeff/KC&KC (WB bastard)


If you want to count the SMS Wonderboy games as part of the Megadrive, then it's the WB/MW king.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 14, 2007, 03:09:45 PM
I don't know how JJ & Jeff could possibly be considered in the same universe as Wonderboy-style games.  For one, JJ & Jeff is pure dogshit.  Wonderboy games are actually worth playing.  My favorite "Wonderboy" game would be Monster World 4 on the Mega Drive.  Fantastic graphics and color, amazing control and a great game altogether.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 14, 2007, 03:11:55 PM
I don't know how JJ & Jeff could possibly be considered in the same universe as Wonderboy-style games.  For one, JJ & Jeff is pure dogshit.  Wonderboy games are actually worth playing.  My favorite "Wonderboy" game would be Monster World 4 on the Mega Drive.  Fantastic graphics and color, amazing control and a great game altogether.
There is nothing bad about J.J. & Jeff. Nothing drives me crazier than people saying how much they enjoy Wonderboy and Adventure Island, but shit on J.J. & Jeff.

J.J. and Jeff 4 Life.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 14, 2007, 04:44:28 PM
I don't know how JJ & Jeff could possibly be considered in the same universe as Wonderboy-style games.  For one, JJ & Jeff is pure dogshit.  Wonderboy games are actually worth playing.  My favorite "Wonderboy" game would be Monster World 4 on the Mega Drive.  Fantastic graphics and color, amazing control and a great game altogether.

JJ & Jeff has a bunch of the same levels with the same enemies and the same big headed bosses along with a bunch of specific shared traits. It's kinda like what the Wario World games are to the SMB games.

I've wanted to play through MWIV for years and tried the english patched rom on my Mame cabinet recently. But it didn't control well with the X-Arcade stick and the graphics didn't look very good with the emu's filter. So I'm waiting till I can remember to buy the cart before playing it for real.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: ParanoiaDragon on January 14, 2007, 08:22:44 PM
Well, either that, or you can pick up the PS2 version.  They're releasing a Wonderboy/Monsterworld collection, that even includes the PC Engine versions, so, I'm stoked about that!
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 14, 2007, 10:07:54 PM

There is nothing bad about J.J. & Jeff. Nothing drives me crazier than people saying how much they enjoy Wonderboy and Adventure Island, but shit on J.J. & Jeff.


Wonderboy DESTROYS JJ & Jeff.  Even Deep Blue has more fans.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: GUTS on January 15, 2007, 06:13:31 AM
Yeah JJ & Jeff is complete and utter shit, everybody hated that game even back when it was brand new.  The control is horrible, its boring as hell, and it looks like shit.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: termis on January 15, 2007, 07:04:58 AM
I'm probably one of the few here that came across Kato-chan & Ken-chan before JJ & Jeff - (I grew up going back & forth between So. Cal and Seoul, so I got to see KC&KC while I was in Seoul).  Gotta say I had a blast playing KC&KC - it was just so damn funny.  I was immediately disappointed by the omissions in JJ & Jeff, and I also thought that the goofy-looking Japanese guys suited the humor of the whole game better. 
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 15, 2007, 09:35:19 AM
I've never actually heard anyone trash JJ & Jeff before I came here, even back in the day.


I'm probably one of the few here that came across Kato-chan & Ken-chan before JJ & Jeff - (I grew up going back & forth between So. Cal and Seoul, so I got to see KC&KC while I was in Seoul).  Gotta say I had a blast playing KC&KC - it was just so damn funny.  I was immediately disappointed by the omissions in JJ & Jeff, and I also thought that the goofy-looking Japanese guys suited the humor of the whole game better. 

Has this actually been released, or is it still just 'in development'?
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 15, 2007, 11:48:15 AM
Yeah JJ & Jeff is complete and utter shit, everybody hated that game even back when it was brand new.  The control is horrible, its boring as hell, and it looks like shit.
The control, as far as I can tell, is no different than what you would find in Wonder Boy or Adventure Island. All those games tend to have the same pace and feel to them. I can't see how it's any more boring than Wonderboy since J.J. and Jeff is loaded with tons of little comedy bits throughout the game to keep you more interested than Wonder Boy ever did. I don't think the game looks like shit. They're not great, but their not bad and have nice, big, detailed sprites. One advantage that Wonder Boy and Adventure Island have over J.J. and Jeff are the items, but I don't really mind since I've had just as much fun without them.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: ParanoiaDragon on January 15, 2007, 01:08:30 PM
I've never actually heard anyone trash JJ & Jeff before I came here, even back in the day.


I'm probably one of the few here that came across Kato-chan & Ken-chan before JJ & Jeff - (I grew up going back & forth between So. Cal and Seoul, so I got to see KC&KC while I was in Seoul).  Gotta say I had a blast playing KC&KC - it was just so damn funny.  I was immediately disappointed by the omissions in JJ & Jeff, and I also thought that the goofy-looking Japanese guys suited the humor of the whole game better. 


Has this actually been released, or is it still just 'in development'?


It's coming soon :) http://www.the-magicbox.com/0612/game061225c.shtml
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: esteban on January 15, 2007, 01:08:46 PM
I don't know how JJ & Jeff could possibly be considered in the same universe as Wonderboy-style games.  For one, JJ & Jeff is pure dogshit.  Wonderboy games are actually worth playing.  My favorite "Wonderboy" game would be Monster World 4 on the Mega Drive.  Fantastic graphics and color, amazing control and a great game altogether.


JJ & Jeff has a bunch of the same levels with the same enemies and the same big headed bosses along with a bunch of specific shared traits. It's kinda like what the Wario World games are to the SMB games.
To build on what has already been said see this old discussion (http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=1325.msg11837#msg11837) (I tried to find my original post at magicengine, but it must have been lost when their forums imploded...).

I bought JJ & Jeff back in the day and I was not particularly excited about it. It was immediately apparanet that it was Wonderboy 1 / Adventure Island + bird poop + slot machine mini-game + dog poop.

Once I got over my initial disappointment, however, it was an enjoyable (but HARD) game thats folks who dig WB1 / AI would find familiar and comfortable. Fans of WB1 / AI should give it a chance :).

Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 15, 2007, 02:32:36 PM
I don't know how JJ & Jeff could possibly be considered in the same universe as Wonderboy-style games.  For one, JJ & Jeff is pure dogshit.  Wonderboy games are actually worth playing.  My favorite "Wonderboy" game would be Monster World 4 on the Mega Drive.  Fantastic graphics and color, amazing control and a great game altogether.


JJ & Jeff has a bunch of the same levels with the same enemies and the same big headed bosses along with a bunch of specific shared traits. It's kinda like what the Wario World games are to the SMB games.
To build on what has already been said see this old discussion (http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=1325.msg11837#msg11837) (I tried to find my original post at magicengine, but it must have been lost when their forums imploded...).

I bought JJ & Jeff back in the day and I was not particularly excited about it. It was immediately apparanet that it was Wonderboy 1 / Adventure Island + bird poop + slot machine mini-game + dog poop.

Once I got over my initial disappointment, however, it was an enjoyable (but HARD) game thats folks who dig WB1 / AI would find familiar and comfortable. Fans of WB1 / AI should give it a chance :).


Once you master the slot machine, like with SMB2/USA, it makes the game a lot easier or at least keeps it flowing better than just continuing. Plus it's got lots of neat tricks, like jumping off the pop cans till you max out the bonuses like in SMB and Bonk's Adventure.

I find that most platformers that don't control/play exactly like SMB get dismissed before they're given a fair chance.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 15, 2007, 02:41:00 PM
Plus it's got lots of neat tricks, like jumping off the pop cans till you max out the bonuses like in SMB and Bonk's Adventure.
Oh man, this is so much fun! It's one of those moments in video games where it gives you that incredibly good feeling in your mind, like in Breakout when you manage to get the ball to the top and bounce down on the bricks (talk about virtual sex right there). Another fun trick in J.J. and Jeff is to jump kick at light poles when you are around 50 pixels away from it so you can get a one up. I also found the cloud stages in J.J. and Jeff to be incredibly fun when you have to bounce off all of those springs.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: esteban on January 15, 2007, 03:01:59 PM
Yes, WB / AI / JJ & Jeff have lots of neat little things to appreciate. I always enjoyed finding the hidden levels and items and stuff. And if you have mad skillz, you can speed through the stages... which provides quite a bit of satisfaction.

Which reminds me: SONIC ripped off WB, Joe!

Eat them apples (or bananas, or watermelons, or kiwis, or pineapples, or leechees, or .... )
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 15, 2007, 03:56:24 PM
I don't  have to hold down a button to run fast in Sonic, which makes Sonic a 100% original and completely new and fresh game the likes of which the world had never seen before.  Blazing Lazers ripped of Astro Warrior. 
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 15, 2007, 04:04:46 PM
I don't  have to hold down a button to run fast in Sonic, which makes Sonic a 100% original and completely new and fresh game the likes of which the world had never seen before.  Blazing Lazers ripped of Astro Warrior. 

You still have to press a button to jump and the right direction to move forward.  :wink:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 15, 2007, 04:18:42 PM
Don't forget collecting coins... I mean rings!
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 15, 2007, 06:16:57 PM
Yeah but I can't buy anything with the rings so Sonic is a genre unto itself.

Quote

You still have to press a button to jump and the right direction to move forward.


Other games stole that from Sonic.  They just put earlier copyright dates on their title screens to make it look like they didn't rip Sega off.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: ParanoiaDragon on January 15, 2007, 06:53:53 PM
Pitfall 2 totally ripped off Pitfall 1 which ripped off Jungle Hunt!  Seriously though, I just can't get into JJ & Jeff.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: kungfukid on January 15, 2007, 08:54:13 PM
The funny thing is, these arguments could go on FOREVER!!! I say everything ripped off pong - hey, they all use these weird things called graphics now!!!   :!:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 15, 2007, 09:00:43 PM
The funny thing is, these arguments could go on FOREVER!!! I say everything ripped off pong - hey, they all use these weird things called graphics now!!!   :!:
I say everything ripped off SpaceWar!, including Pong :) .
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: ParanoiaDragon on January 15, 2007, 09:34:21 PM
Trust me, everything ripped off pinball machines, which ripped off Shogi, which ripped off ..uh, is there anything older then that?
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Keranu on January 15, 2007, 10:15:13 PM
Trust me, everything ripped off pinball machines, which ripped off Shogi, which ripped off ..uh, is there anything older then that?
Tic-Tac-To?
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Tatsujin on January 16, 2007, 02:23:00 AM
JJ & Jeff :lol:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: nodtveidt on January 16, 2007, 03:33:31 AM
All games are a ripoff of Shanghai, even pinball.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: _joshuaTurbo on January 16, 2007, 03:52:47 AM
All PCE games are ripoffs of Donkey Kong 3!

Yes the most amazing game ever, where you have to protect your garden from strange giant bugs while spraying Donkey Kong up the ass with super powerful bug spray!!!!

Amazing Miamoto!!  just amazing!!




TurboSage
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Joe Redifer on January 16, 2007, 11:27:30 AM
At least you don't have to rescue some goddamn princess like all of Myamoto's other games.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: TR0N on January 16, 2007, 05:43:13 PM
Arkanoid rip off Breakout like it matters  :P Arkanoid is still my all time favorite Breakout clone  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 16, 2007, 06:30:11 PM
All PCE games are ripoffs of Donkey Kong 3!

Yes the most amazing game ever, where you have to protect your garden from strange giant bugs while spraying Donkey Kong up the ass with super powerful bug spray!!!!

Amazing Miamoto!!  just amazing!!

TurboSage

DK3 is probably my favorite DK game.
Title: Re: so in all honesty how does the pcengine compare?
Post by: Black Tiger on January 16, 2007, 06:31:27 PM
Trust me, everything ripped off pinball machines, which ripped off Shogi, which ripped off ..uh, is there anything older then that?

Rock.