Of all of them, I hear Grandzort (which isn't up on the list) is forgettable,
The problem with SuperGrafx games in general is that none of them take advantage of the hardware. I can't think of anything on the SuperGrafx that couldn't be done just as well on the "regular" Turbo/PCE. Less flicker, yeah, maybe, but who creates an entire new console to eliminate flicker?It sounds like you think the only thing the SGX adds is a few extra sprites. Most of the SGX games have double-layered backgrounds which would be *impossible* to reproduce in a general sense on the regular PC-Engine. Sure, sprites can be used to simulate objects appearing behind a single background, but you cannot get two full-screen planes moving around on a PCE like the SGX does.
The problem with SuperGrafx games in general is that none of them take advantage of the hardware. I can't think of anything on the SuperGrafx that couldn't be done just as well on the "regular" Turbo/PCE. Less flicker, yeah, maybe, but who creates an entire new console to eliminate flicker?It sounds like you think the only thing the SGX adds is a few extra sprites. Most of the SGX games have double-layered backgrounds which would be *impossible* to reproduce in a general sense on the regular PC-Engine. Sure, sprites can be used to simulate objects appearing behind a single background, but you cannot get two full-screen planes moving around on a PCE like the SGX does.
I don't believe any of them did anything that couldn't be done on the regular Turbo.
Quote from: Nat
I don't believe any of them did anything that couldn't be done on the regular Turbo.
I GUARANTEE you that if Ghouls 'n Ghosts was on the regular Turbo/PCE that it would not have the multi-planed backgrounds. This was often the case between games that appeared both on the Turbo and in the arcade, like R-Type. The Turbo version of R-Type had a single plane of scrolling. Stage 5 may be different, but I always shut the game off there because the second half bores me to tears. But I imagine it's just the bottom and the top of the screen scrolling at a slightly different speed with no overlapping of the graphics. However if the game were on the SuperGrafx, all of the levels could scroll like the arcade, and it would kick ass! This goes for tons upon tons of games that appear on the Turbo. Imagine a Gate of Thunder with even MORE layers. The human mind just can't handle that much awesomeness!
Quote from: Nat
I don't believe any of them did anything that couldn't be done on the regular Turbo.
I GUARANTEE you that if Ghouls 'n Ghosts was on the regular Turbo/PCE that it would not have the multi-planed backgrounds. This was often the case between games that appeared both on the Turbo and in the arcade, like R-Type. The Turbo version of R-Type had a single plane of scrolling. Stage 5 may be different, but I always shut the game off there because the second half bores me to tears. But I imagine it's just the bottom and the top of the screen scrolling at a slightly different speed with no overlapping of the graphics. However if the game were on the SuperGrafx, all of the levels could scroll like the arcade, and it would kick ass! This goes for tons upon tons of games that appear on the Turbo. Imagine a Gate of Thunder with even MORE layers. The human mind just can't handle that much awesomeness!
I think that parallax, independant bg's, etc or any kind of effect just for the sake of it is bunk (like Mode 7'sploitation) and can make some games look worse.Quote from: Nat
I don't believe any of them did anything that couldn't be done on the regular Turbo.
I GUARANTEE you that if Ghouls 'n Ghosts was on the regular Turbo/PCE that it would not have the multi-planed backgrounds. This was often the case between games that appeared both on the Turbo and in the arcade, like R-Type. The Turbo version of R-Type had a single plane of scrolling. Stage 5 may be different, but I always shut the game off there because the second half bores me to tears. But I imagine it's just the bottom and the top of the screen scrolling at a slightly different speed with no overlapping of the graphics. However if the game were on the SuperGrafx, all of the levels could scroll like the arcade, and it would kick ass! This goes for tons upon tons of games that appear on the Turbo. Imagine a Gate of Thunder with even MORE layers. The human mind just can't handle that much awesomeness!
Yeah, if NEC Ave was doing it. It may not be easy for most developers to do stuff like that, but it can and has been done, the most famous of course being Drac X.
The effect may not be accomplished the exact same way as a particular arcade game or how another console like the Genesis would do it.
But does it really matter in the end how its achieved?
Play parodius on the pce and check out the stages featuring the deadly bunny girls and the graveyard one there is like 5~6 layers of parallax!!
Theres a video uploaded on youtube but its no way as clear as what you gonna see on a big tv >.<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoBzedzmuk4
Honestly.. I think adding more parallax means bigger HUcard sizes and they're not cheap especially in those days so they had to cut things a bit in the graphics department!
Think Gate of Thunder, Lords of Thunder, Air Zonk, Aeroblasters, Coryoon, Psychosis (stage 1, 2, 5), New Adventure Island (many stages), Ninja Spirit, R-Type (stage 5), Darius, Shockman 3, etc, the list goes on and on. Point being, there are tons of games on the "regular" Turbo that have multiple layers of scenery that scroll at their own speed.
The technical details of what goes on behind the scenes and how these effects are created is not important.
what the SGFX can/could do and what not is not on debating here. i'm aware that the SGFX was capable to much more than that what we were allowed to see on those 5 games.
The problem with SuperGrafx games in general is that none of them take advantage of the hardware. I can't think of anything on the SuperGrafx that couldn't be done just as well on the "regular" Turbo/PCE.The games that are there do take advantage of the hardware, viz: 2 scrolling planes.
Nat and Tat, you guys are confusing line scrolling (giving each scanline a parallax effect) with moving two background layers around.
Barring Battle Ace and Darius Plus/Alpha, ALL the SGX games do make use of the two independent background layers of the SGX. Please check them out. A second layer cannot be reproduced out of sprites on the PCE because there just aren't enough to do it full-screen.
Since you seem to have a mental block about SGX games, play the 1st level of Sonic on the Genesis. See the foreground plane where all the enemies are? See the sky/water background that scrolls around independently behind it, with line scrolling even?
The SGX can do all this just fine. The PCE cannot.
But anyway... I was responding to this comment which I had found to be untrue:The problem with SuperGrafx games in general is that none of them take advantage of the hardware. I can't think of anything on the SuperGrafx that couldn't be done just as well on the "regular" Turbo/PCE.The games that are there do take advantage of the hardware, viz: 2 scrolling planes.
And how can you reply to statements like that without comparing what the SGX could do that the PCE could not?
Nat, perhaps it's better to say something like "The problem with SuperGrafx games in general is that none of them really impress me," since one's opinion is just that, and I cannot argue with that. But to say that none of the games use the unique features of the SGX hardware is just false.
It seems to me that the same technique used to simulate multiple background layers in, say, Shockman 3 could be used to create a port of, say, GnG, that is visually the same as the SuperGrafx version.
PS: the SuperGrafx's a sexy beast, second only to the original white PCE :mrgreen:
If they can both be used to produce the same visual on screen, what's the difference to the player one way or the other?But they can't produce the same visual!
I see what's on my screen and pay little mind to how it gets there. It seems to me that the same technique used to simulate multiple background layers in, say, Shockman 3 could be used to create a port of, say, GnG, that is visually the same as the SuperGrafx version.
unfortunatelly only very few people thinking that way :(QuotePS: the SuperGrafx's a sexy beast, second only to the original white PCE :mrgreen:
Hell ya it is !!! :D
They prefer the Turbo, so they HAVE to go with the "less is more" argument (like Keranu's "1 BG looks better than multi-BGs" statement).I never said 1 BG looks better than multi-BGs, I said sometimes it can because I found some multi-BGs to look dull like the cloud level of TF4. Other times it can look gorgeous, like in parts of Shape Shifter or Ranger X. And why would I complain about SGX's parallax? All the games I've seen it with look fine, but it's such a small added feature to me that I wouldn't care if some games didn't even have the parallax. I hate it when people think if a game doesn't have parallax the graphics automatically suck. Art will always be the key importance of good graphics.
Notice in that Parodius video as the big chick scrolls onto the screen, the multi-layers go away. With the SuperGrafx, they wouldn't need to fade out and back in with a single BG. The chicky would just scroll in on top.That is such a minor detail though and hell I never even noticed that. For the most part, I don't think the typical gamer is going to give a crap either way for that scene.
I don't remember how the arcade did it, but it would be far more able to replicate the arcade on the SG. Gate of Thunder, Lords o' Thunda and Dracula X are all very impressive... for the Turbo. They probably get on Keranu's nerves, though.Gates did a fantastic job with multi-BG, especially level three. However I did find some multi-BGs in Lords and Dracula X to suffer the "blocky effect".
Nah, size has nothing to do with the style of scrolls in GOT,LOT,'zonk, and the video you posted. It has to do with working around limitations and tricking the gamer into thinking there are multiple scrolling BG layers. The keyword is limitation. Games designed around a systems limitations have an advantage of hiding it's limitations, than say a port from another system/arcade that does not have these limitations. Incase anyone's getting confused; I'm talking about multi layered BGs whether in parallax format or not.
Parallax in that fashion (none overlaping layers) are very easy to do on the PCE.
As for some of the parallax examples given, the Sega Master System and even the NES can do most of those! Notice in that Parodius video as the big chick scrolls onto the screen, the multi-layers go away. With the SuperGrafx, they wouldn't need to fade out and back in with a single BG. The chicky would just scroll in on top. I don't remember how the arcade did it, but it would be far more able to replicate the arcade on the SG. Gate of Thunder, Lords o' Thunda and Dracula X are all very impressive... for the Turbo. They probably get on Keranu's nerves, though.
Also - I need get off my ass and finish porting my SGX demos to CD for all you SGX+SCDROM2 owners out. Maybe I'll post them over the weekend. Also be nice to see Chris's SGX demo on CD :wink:
PS: the SuperGrafx's a sexy beast, second only to the original white PCE :mrgreen:
PS: the SuperGrafx's a sexy beast, second only to the original white PCE :mrgreen:
Really the SuperGrafx was very cutting edge for its time hardware wise,and almost matched the System 16 hardware capabilities other then in audio,which cd games could have resolved possibly.
Hudson Since this is a big brother to the PC-Engine, it gives software houses a good chance to try. Development pays the maximum reward.
Hudson The Shuttle is perfect for the user who doesn't want to try CD-ROM. We want to make some software for these new users.
Ah, I thought the System 16 was the "super scaler". Too bad the Neo Geo didn't/couldn't do anything like that, but instead just had wave after wave of fighters with only a few dozen or so non-fighters (it seemed). Lame.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure the Sega super scalers could both shrink and enlarge sprites, whereas the Neo-Geo could only shrink sprites. Reading the technical docs, the NG can scale sprites vertically in 256 steps, but horizontally in only 16 steps (which is why it is sometimes juddery.)
The inability to enlarge sprites means that really large sprites on-screen take up tons of VROM/VRAM.
riding hero showed some great grafx but sucked in gameplay, which super hang on didn't. super hang on also had some radical up/down hill courses and an amazing and unforgetable speed feeling. riding hero just didn't have any pepp in his ass. for me, there're almost no comparable parts in those two games, super hang on was just superior in any aspects of view (exept of the grafx).
No,this is the most awesome forum in the world. :) This is why I currently post nowhere else.
This is the nerdiest forum in the world. :P
If they can both be used to produce the same visual on screen, what's the difference to the player one way or the other?But they can't produce the same visual!
Line scrolling is akin to stacking two cans of tuna fish, one on top of another, and sliding them around on top of each other.
Dual-field/plane parallax is akin to placing a jar in front of another, and you can see the rear jar through the transparent sections of the front jar.
Does this make you hungry yet?
I see what's on my screen and pay little mind to how it gets there. It seems to me that the same technique used to simulate multiple background layers in, say, Shockman 3 could be used to create a port of, say, GnG, that is visually the same as the SuperGrafx version.
Yes, the city in Shockman looks quite nice. That's in fact done with a different kind of trick, which usually has the limitation that graphics in the foreground be rectangular (or blocky at any rate). Hence... the buildings are completely opaque and rectangular, completely unlike a tree, as in GnG, or a bush, loop-the-loop, as in Sonic, etc.
If I could see the water THROUGH the windows of those buildings in ShubibinMan 3, then I'd be really impressed! :D
Poor Battle Ace! Seven people have chosen to select "I can't decide, they're all good", "I don't like the SuperGrafx" and even "suck mah balls!" rather than cast single vote for Battle Ace. :cry:
Usually Keranu defends crap like this, but he obviously picked Granzort. :wink:
I'm surprised that no one mentioned Super Darius/Darius Plus/Darius Alpha in regard to the PC Engine doing real roundy non-block 2 layer/plane stuff.Nobody's mentioned the FGs in those games because they're made of sprites.
This is the nerdiest forum in the world. :P
No, no, MY forum (http://www.lazerdorks.org/forum/) is the nerdiest forum in the world ;) . Proof (http://www.lazerdorks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16&start=0).
The first post in that thread...is that a Jem reference!?No, that's just my little brother's genius mind.
I'm surprised that no one mentioned Super Darius/Darius Plus/Darius Alpha in regard to the PC Engine doing real roundy non-block 2 layer/plane stuff.Nobody's mentioned the FGs in those games because they're made of sprites.
which is even more astonish, regarded to the big size and amount of additional sprites which were needed, only for show up with some morewayparallaxscrolling!I'm surprised that no one mentioned Super Darius/Darius Plus/Darius Alpha in regard to the PC Engine doing real roundy non-block 2 layer/plane stuff.Nobody's mentioned the FGs in those games because they're made of sprites.
I'd much rather have a static bg port of GnG thats the same quality as Forgotten Worlds.
In fact, it looks identical to the SuperGrafx version which really does do it for real(I'm assuming it does do it for real, since it reduces flicker over the PCE versions).
Aldynes is the best SGX game. Grand Zort isn't as good as Wataru (Keith Courage), 1941 and GnG are just ports, and Battle Ace is no ones favorite game, although I seem to like that game more than most. Aldynes is just a great shooter regardless of the system its on, so its the clear winner among this small group IMO.
Grand Zort isn't as good as Wataru (Keith Courage)
I'm a little surprised that there are a number of people who think Grandzort is a bad game. I found it to be a very solid game with a great character changing system and good challenge.
Grand Zort isn't as good as Wataru (Keith Courage)
[-X so continue to play wataru...
I'm a little surprised that there are a number of people who think Grandzort is a bad game. I found it to be a very solid game with a great character changing system and good challenge.
The one thing that bugs me about it is the graphics have a dithered, "grainy" look to them if you know what I mean. I like polished, nicely shaded graphics.Yeah that's my only real complaint with Grandzort, it's one dirty looking game and not in a good way, like Dungeon Explorer or something. I don't recall the sound being particularly good either, so I would go as far to say that Keith Courage looks and sounds better than Grandzort, but Grandzort smokes it compared to gameplay.
The one thing that bugs me about it is the graphics have a dithered, "grainy" look to them if you know what I mean. I like polished, nicely shaded graphics.Yeah that's my only real complaint with Grandzort, it's one dirty looking game and not in a good way, like Dungeon Explorer or something. I don't recall the sound being particularly good either, so I would go as far to say that Keith Courage looks and sounds better than Grandzort, but Grandzort smokes it compared to gameplay.
Grandzort may have better levels/layout overall, but I prefer the actual gameplay(platforming/fighting) from KC's Alpha Zones.Well I do prefer the concept of Keith Courage more with going through towns and stuff, but I find the controls in Grandzort to be much smoother and enjoyable, not to mention the cool system of changing characters for their own abilities. If Keith Courage fixed the flaws it had, I could easily say it would be much better than Grandzort.
If it was cheaper and cooler looking...
If it was cheaper and cooler looking, would it have been less of a failure?
(or any Atari system)Hey the good old 2600 is some slick stuff, don't be hatin' it. I miss old electronic styles :( .
Hey the good old 2600 is some slick stuff, don't be hatin' it. I miss old electronic styles :( .
The Jap and Euro SNES's were nice looking consoles. Unfortunately the US one mutated into some sort of brick.
Hey the good old 2600 is some slick stuff, don't be hatin' it. I miss old electronic styles :( .
It's certainly miles above the Jaguar.
Maybe because they thought that american people loved big square ugly things.
EDIT: NVM, the CoreGrafx grew on me with it's sleekness, but the CoreGrafx CD-ROM is about as bad as the Jaguar's...:
http://pcengine.dessgeega.com/supercdrom.png
Oh and, did Sony KNOWINGLY rip off the Turbo Duo when they made the PS3?
If it was cheaper and cooler looking...
Blasphemy!
did Sony KNOWINGLY rip off the Turbo Duo when they made the PS3?
I think there is something quite cool about the Super CD-ROM; but I can appreciate it's not to everyones liking.
(http://www.cyberlead.co.uk/images/thumb/scd2_t.jpg)
I think the Core Grafx II goes quite well with it.
Yes, that is my most recent hardware addition... I got it over a year ago, but I actually *like* the way it looks. Of course, I don't think it is the most elegant design. Part of its appeal is that I don't know what to make of it. I do enjoy the deep vertical design, since it doesn't waste valuable shelf space.I think there is something quite cool about the Super CD-ROM; but I can appreciate it's not to everyones liking.
(http://www.cyberlead.co.uk/images/thumb/scd2_t.jpg)
I think the Core Grafx II goes quite well with it.
That core grafx II set up is really growing on me :clap:
That's like saying the 360 was inspired by the white Saturn since they're both white and have smooth curves.
Powerwise, I wonder how these compare... I think the PC-FX might be more powerful?
Why do some people not think the Super Grafx is the ugliest thing in the world? I need five explanations.
Why do some people not think the Super Grafx is the ugliest thing in the world? I need five explanations.1. ) It's completely original.
2. ) It's shaped like an engine.I can't believe I never noticed that. It's even cooler now.
The PS3 looks absolutely nothing like a Duo, I don't know what people are thinking when they say that. A George Foreman grill, yeah, but not a f*cking Turbo Duo or any other system for that matter. That's like saying the 360 was inspired by the white Saturn since they're both white and have smooth curves.
Why do some people not think the Super Grafx is the ugliest thing in the world? I need five explanations.1. ) It's completely original.
2. ) It's shaped like an engine.
3. ) The SUPER GRAFX font kicks ass.
4. ) Nice shade of grey.
5. ) Your opinions suck :) .
Seldane, for the record, put me in the Keranu / Bonknuts camp:Why do some people not think the Super Grafx is the ugliest thing in the world? I need five explanations.1. ) It's completely original.
2. ) It's shaped like an engine.
3. ) The SUPER GRAFX font kicks ass.
4. ) Nice shade of grey.
5. ) Your opinions suck :) .
Seldane, honestly, how can you NOT appreciate the sheer originality of the SGX? Even if you think it is butt-ugly, it is hard to ignore the interesting design concept and well-executed results. The aesthetic problems with SGX arises when you have to attach peripherals: when you're hooking up a CD-ROM drive, the entire concept falls apart and looks like a hodge-podge of components.
Now, I like hodge-podges, but I'm in the minority :).
when you're hooking up a CD-ROM drive, the entire concept falls apart and looks like a hodge-podge of components.So how does it look when connected up to a Super CD-ROM2?
So how does it look when connected up to a Super CD-ROM2?
(http://www.cyberlead.co.uk/images/thumb/scd1_t.jpg)
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=2714.0Christ, that is big.