PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
NEC PC-Engine/SuperGrafx => PC Engine/SuperGrafx Discussion => Topic started by: Spector on June 01, 2009, 08:52:46 AM
Title: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Spector on June 01, 2009, 08:52:46 AM
We'll never know for sure, but how good do you think a conversion of Final Fight would have been on the PC Engine if it had been released in, say, 1991? By that time, there were some 8Mb Hucards, so obviously it would have needed that anyway. With 8Mb to play with, could a decent conversion have been made like the SNES version, with one character and a level removed, plus no two-player option?
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Necromancer on June 01, 2009, 09:21:49 AM
Final Fight on the SNES was a 10mb cart, so I suppose an 8mb HuCard would've been missing even more stuff than the SNES version. Maybe not though, as I'm just speaking out of my ass and don't know how SNES code efficiency compares to that of the PCE.
Anyway, in '91 it probably would've been cheaper and easier for it to be released as a CD-ROM2 title (or maybe one of the first Super CD-ROM2 titles). In that case, it would be pretty similar to the Mega-CD version, though with better colors.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: CosMind on June 01, 2009, 11:10:20 AM
i think the best we can do is relate it to a comparison between sf2 on both systems. both sf2 and final fight are from the same dev house. both games originally ran on the same cps1 arcade hardware (respectively). thinking along those lines would likely lead to a close imagination of how final fight might have turned out on the pc engine.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: ccovell on June 01, 2009, 12:02:30 PM
Final Fight on the SNES was a 10mb cart, so I suppose an 8mb HuCard would've been missing even more stuff than the SNES version. Maybe not though, as I'm just speaking out of my ass...
Yep!
Because Final Fight was an 8 meg cart. FF2 was 10 meg, however.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Black Tiger on June 01, 2009, 12:26:53 PM
i think the best we can do is relate it to a comparison between sf2 on both systems. both sf2 and final fight are from the same dev house. both games originally ran on the same cps1 arcade hardware (respectively). thinking along those lines would likely lead to a close imagination of how final fight might have turned out on the pc engine.
A better comparison would be Forgotten Worlds PCE. At the very least, a pixel for pixel (slightly cropped) static bg port maintaining most of the detail and great colors is possible. If someone who knows how to do animated tiles stepped in and helped, then some bg layering could be thrown in. It would help to cut down on flicker that there wouldn't be horizontal streams of bullets flying by and the AI could be told to keep down the number of horizontal enemies.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on June 01, 2009, 01:06:53 PM
on cd-rom, it would have looked better than the MD one (colorwise), but would have missed most of the parallax. the sound however was horrible anyway, so this could have been only an improvement.
anyway, if used the ACD, and i mean very well used, it would have been an awesome, even if a little late port.
i wished that SGFX port was true :cry: then also the parallax issue wouldn't have be an issue anymore.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Black Tiger on June 01, 2009, 01:34:46 PM
on cd-rom, it would have looked better than the MD one (colorwise), but would have missed most of the parallax.
Final Fight doesn't have much in the way of PCE-unfriendly parallax. Most of the backgrounds, if not entirely flat, are mostly or nearly all flat and the pockets of bg layering there are would be easy to pull off. Even the molten metal/flaming catwalk section would be easy to recreate 95% accurate.
Quote
i wished that SGFX port was true Crying or Very sad then also the parallax issue wouldn't have be an issue anymore.
Remember, a big reason the SuperGrafx failed was because the PCE was good enough. :wink:
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: ceti alpha on June 01, 2009, 02:10:24 PM
Quote
Remember, a big reason the SuperGrafx failed was because the PCE was good enough. :wink:
Truer words hath never been spoken. :wink:
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on June 01, 2009, 02:15:58 PM
on cd-rom, it would have looked better than the MD one (colorwise), but would have missed most of the parallax.
Final Fight doesn't have much in the way of PCE-unfriendly parallax. Most of the backgrounds, if not entirely flat, are mostly or nearly all flat and the pockets of bg layering there are would be easy to pull off. Even the molten metal/flaming catwalk section would be easy to recreate 95% accurate.
that's just not true. final fight had a lot of effective parallaxes (behind buildings, elevator, town) which couldn't have be done on the PCE and which just would not have looked OK if removing it.
on cd-rom, it would have looked better than the MD one (colorwise), but would have missed most of the parallax.
Final Fight doesn't have much in the way of PCE-unfriendly parallax. Most of the backgrounds, if not entirely flat, are mostly or nearly all flat and the pockets of bg layering there are would be easy to pull off. Even the molten metal/flaming catwalk section would be easy to recreate 95% accurate.
that's just not true. final fight had a lot of effective parallaxes (behind buildings, elevator, town) which couldn't have be done on the PCE and which just would not have looked OK if removing it.
I've looked over the game in the past to see what if anything might need to be sacrificed and I didn't see any background effects that couldn't be done using simple "tricks" that I'm aware of. If anything, it almost looks like Final Fight was designed with a future PCE port in mind parallax-wise and everthing has already been done in other PCE games (Riot Zone did that elevator effect, but also added moving gears :wink:).
To narrow it down, can you point out any sections with parallax that you think that the PCE couldn't do a version of?
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on June 01, 2009, 03:17:41 PM
I've looked over the game in the past to see what if anything might need to be sacrificed and I didn't see any background effects that couldn't be done using simple "tricks" that I'm aware of. If anything, it almost looks like Final Fight was designed with a future PCE port in mind parallax-wise and everthing has already been done in other PCE games (Riot Zone did that elevator effect, but also added moving gears :wink:).
To narrow it down, can you point out any sections with parallax that you think that the PCE couldn't do a version of?
so show me your mighty tricks how to move the city behind buildings (1st lvl)? :) you see how well they did this in ninja gaiden e.g. or in the park with trees, toilets, lamps, fence etc.? and as i said the elevator wouldn't be possible as it is in the AC, SFC, MCD..
and btw. that elevator effect in riot zone looks awfull!! as are the other used tricks in riot zone to pretend parallax or such (e.g. rain).
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Black Tiger on June 01, 2009, 06:57:43 PM
so show me your mighty tricks how to move the city behind buildings (1st lvl)? :) you see how well they did this in ninja gaiden e.g.
This section would be the hardest to do from what I remember. We actually did see how well they did that Ninja Gaiden bg effect in all the other PCE games that did it correctly. It only stands out in Ninja Gaiden because it's broken. Pretty much every stage in Lords of Thunder does it and uses the same method as Ninja Gaiden. Even if the buildings were to become more repeated (if on SCD instead of ACD), as long as it's smooth it'd blend in well with the rest of the screen looking so faithful overall. Higher skyscraper tiles on the screen could use different upper section art, building off of shared lower tiles. There are also small sections of the arcade lacking parallax (like the far hallways of the final area) that the PCE port could add to with animated tiles.
Another possible way, but not the one I'd go with would be to have the upper portion of the bg slide horizontally, with sprites overlapping. The non-boss sections of are a good example of how much space sprites can cover a bg without noticeable flicker/breakup. I'd make the foreground garbage pile up higher in places and maybe add some other city distance art below the point where the taller buildings would scroll. Leading up to the buildings, the negative space between any new art could fade up into the buildings. The brown buildings could be shortened width-wise artistically if needed. Priority could be given for player sprites to flicker when characters jump at the top of the screen. Otherwise sprite bg sections would normally be above their heads. The invisible horizontal barrier where characters cannot walk above could be lowered a bit too. A variant of this method would require the HP bars, time, etc to either use strips of the bg/tiles or all sit above the play area. Again, I would do it with animated tiles (if I was ever anything but an armchair programmer :wink:), but many PCE games pull this off surprisingly well.
Quote
or in the park with trees, toilets, lamps, fence etc.? and as i said the elevator wouldn't be possible as it is in the AC, SFC, MCD..
The park sections would be the easiest to do, with the upper portion of the screen sliding along with the odd sprite overlapping. The point where the arcade begins to scroll the top section could be moved up and the difference could be filled with more grass and tile tree bases. Reducing the frequency/space between stuff like trees could help reduce potential flicker. In the waterside night section, the distant bg doesn't need to scroll until above everyone's heads, so sprite overlapping wouldn't even be necessary below, but lowering the invisible play area ceiling could minimize potential flicker from characters jumping up in front of trees.
In the sunset section, the foreground giant lamps can be done with sprites, as it's been done in so many PCE games already (they're nice and narrow until they're higher than anyone can jump). Aside from animated tiles for the fence, the whole bg below the horizon could be merged and the statue of liberty could move up a bit. The sky could then slide along with a sprite for the top of the statue of liberty. Again, even if the end result was some parallax, but less overall than the Sega-CD version, people would still love it more for the actual Forgotten Worlds-quality graphics/art.
Quote
and btw. that elevator effect in riot zone looks awfull!! as are the other used tricks in riot zone to pretend parallax or such (e.g. rain).
You may not love the art style, but that effect worked perfectly. I never said that Riot Zone was a good example of parallax otherwise. The Final Fight elevator could be done mostly with animated tiles above the floor which could just push upward. The sections where the orange girders that are seen through the floor pushing upward could be depicted with animating tiles that push up with the rest of the floor. Even if the distant third bg that quickly disappears wasn't included, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it could be kept as it is in the Sega-CD version (merged with the girders) by filling in the gaps of the floor and back railing with natural looking art and having the the railing downward push upward. Alternately, the floor could stay the same art-wise, with the holes color cycling in-between girders until the distant third bg art is passed, while the girder behind the floor holes sections could still animate or just remain orange. If this port was pixel for pixel like Forgotten Worlds, the sides would be cropped, so the taller side rails wouldn't need to be worried about.
A SCD version wouldn't be exactly the same, just as Forgotten Worlds wasn't (parallax aside). But like FW once you reach a certain level of faithfulness, people think they're looking at arcade-perfection anyway. It's easy now to compare different ports and arcade originals, but back in the day, people were blown away by much less than true 'arcade-perfectness'. A good example is the Sega-CD Final Fight which is heavily redrawn, but is considered by many to be perfect except for color. For a PCE Final Fight port, people would be pretty forgiving if a port of an often static bg arcade like Final Fight had some sections become completely static if the rest of the game was sprinkled with various forms of parallax.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Necromancer on June 02, 2009, 03:24:55 AM
that's just not true. final fight had a lot of effective parallaxes (behind buildings, elevator, town) which couldn't have be done on the PCE and which just would not have looked OK if removing it.
Here's a single video clip taken from a real published PCE game that does all the parallax effects you mentioned (except the elevator which Riot Zone does), with a bonus third bg layer, cool transparencies, wavy effect and lots of animation-
that's just not true. final fight had a lot of effective parallaxes (behind buildings, elevator, town) which couldn't have be done on the PCE and which just would not have looked OK if removing it.
Here's a single video clip taken from a real published PCE game that does all the parallax effects you mentioned, with a bonus third bg layer, cool transparencies, wavy effect and lots of animation-
Pretty and interesting video, though there certainly aren't many enemy sprites sharing the screen with the main character.
Yeah, depending on how the layering effects are done, balancing sprites can come into play. That game just doesn't happen to use many enemies for the boss areas, even during static bg sections. But the fact remains that the PCE can do all kinds of crazy parallax and other effects.
No matter how an effect is achieved, it's still just a trick/illusion. The PCE not having a method other consoles use for a second bg layer built-in simply means that it uses other methods to do the same thing or something similar.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: awack on June 03, 2009, 01:42:02 AM
Another good example of parallax would be Shockman 3, the first level.
One interesting use of parallax is the first boss fight(Dragon) in Rondo of Blood, sprites are used for the towers that overlap the back ground but as soon as you walk all the way to the end where the Dragon Will swoop down out of the sky, the towers(sprite) magically become tiles, obviously to reduce flicker, i believe this is used in other parts of the game as well.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Digi.k on June 03, 2009, 04:36:08 PM
Konami did it with Parodius and Twin Bee.. but then in my opinion NEC Avenue are no Konami.....
the final stage of detana twin bee!?! should be less than a min long http://s14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/kwoksta/?action=view¤t=twinbeescrolling.flv
Konami did it with Parodius and Twin Bee.. but then in my opinion NEC Avenue are no Konami.....
NEC Ave produced some of the very best parallax and graphics in general for PCE.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on June 04, 2009, 02:02:16 AM
the xanadu vid looks nice BT (especially the nice transparent effect), but imagine the same trick used in final fight, with building-tiles over the whole vetical screen and with 5+ big sprites on screen brawling -> no way :cry:
i never said, parallax is not possible on the PCE as many great game have proven this. but there are definitly some limits. i am also aware of almost all the tricks available ;)
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: awack on June 04, 2009, 02:37:35 AM
In the first shot i marked the 4 layers of scrolling, #4 the walkway platform(sprite) #2 large buildings(bg tile) #3 smaller buildings in the distance(bg tile) #1 sky, mountains and water(bg tile).
In the second shot, i show a large number of sprites.... main character, missile, jet pack robot, small purple robot, walkway platform, large robot with missile launcher and large space craft.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Digi.k on June 04, 2009, 05:54:09 PM
the xanadu vid looks nice BT (especially the nice transparent effect), but imagine the same trick used in final fight, with building-tiles over the whole vetical screen and with 5+ big sprites on screen brawling -> no way :cry:
Didn't the SNES version had no more than 4 characters on screen?? If they took that route for the pce version reducing the number of sprites on screen I'm sure it coulda been done..
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Black Tiger on June 04, 2009, 06:03:16 PM
the xanadu vid looks nice BT (especially the nice transparent effect), but imagine the same trick used in final fight, with building-tiles over the whole vetical screen and with 5+ big sprites on screen brawling -> no way :cry:
There are many PCE games that already do the kind of parallax needed without sprites, such as Lords of Thunder. The Sega-CD version looks like the backgrounds might actually be completely redrawn. The simplified skyscraper bg in it would be much easier to do on PCE with animated tiles than the more complex arcade version.
Even if a port was done like Forgotten Worlds with static bgs, it'd still look very nice compared to the popular Sega-CD version-
Even if it were done at 256 x 224 it'd still look very nice and would be at least as detailed by not losing color or having to dither so much-
(http://superpcenginegrafx.com/img/ffpce2.png)
Even if the sprites were kept at the same narrowed-from-the-arcade proportions of the Sega-CD version, in the rare case that there are four enemies onscreen in a co-op game and everyone happens to line up together, it's not much over the PCE horizontal pixel limit, so it wouldn't result in flicker too often-
(http://superpcenginegrafx.com/img/ffsprites.png)
But the same infrequent scenario in a 256-wide port would be well under the limit-
Didn't the SNES version had no more than 4 characters on screen?? If they took that route for the pce version reducing the number of sprites on screen I'm sure it coulda been done..
That's right, but in a single player game, the Sega-CD version only has up to 5 at a time.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: handygrafx on July 05, 2009, 07:17:24 PM
Not sure about a PCE HuCard version, but a PCE SCD version could've looked closer in terms of color and background detail (minus parallax) than the MegaCD version, which lost ALOT of color and SOME graphic detail. As Black Tiger mentioned, MegaCD version is redrawn. It's only a rendition of the arcade, with less detail, not a pixel-exact port.
Of course, the X68000 version lost zero color or detail, and truly *looks* pixel-exact to the arcade ^__^
MegaCD|SegaCD vs Arcade (http://finalfight.classicgaming.gamespy.com/FFsegacomparison5.PNG)
SFC|SNES vs Arcade (http://finalfight.classicgaming.gamespy.com/FFsnesarcade4.PNG)
GBA (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/gba/ff/finalfightone_screen001.jpg)
X68000 vs Arcade (http://nfggames.com/games/x68k_gallery/final4.png)
99.9% of people (nearly everyone) believed that the MegaCD-SegaCD version of Final Fight was arcade-exact, or damn close to it, and thus, it was the closest home version during the 1990s, until Capcom Classics Collection in recent years. That's because all they knew of in the 90s were the two SFC-SNES versions (FF and FFGuy). So in comparison, the MegaCD-SegaCD version *seemed* perfect compared to the Nintendo versions. Almost nobody had ever heard of the Sharp X68000. Even most people that knew about the obscure Japan-only SuperGrafx, did not know about the even lesser-known X68000. It just did not exist to people.
Anyway, the MegaCD-SegaCD version of Final Fight was certainly the best home *console* version of Final Fight. It retained all of the features of the arcade (all levels, all selectable characters, 2-player play), and on top of that it featured superior music and an exclusive animated intro that no other version, not even the arcade, had. Like so many other things in life, all of this combined to BLIND most people into thinking the MegaCD-SegaCD version was more exact to the arcade than it really was. Indeed it was an outstanding rendition of Final Fight, the best that could be bought domestically in the United States, and even those in Japan who did not own a X68000.
Compared to IBM PCs and even Amigas, the X68000 was the Neo-Geo of home computers. Thank God the games didn't cost $200~$300. It's just the hardware that was expensive, much more so than the Neo-Geo itself. I think a X68000 cost $1000 to $1500 at least, in the range of a LaserActive. I could be off by a few hundreds bucks, but does it matter, at THAT kind of cost? I think no.
To be clear, the X68000 Final Fight wasn't 100% exact in every way, it did not put as many enemies on-screen as the arcade, I think only 5-6 at most, instead of the arcade's 7-8, but still more than SFC-SNES's 3 and MegaCD-Sega's 4.
Anyway.... The creators of the PC-Engine family of hardware, Hudson, did contribute to the design of the Sharp X68000, at least it's OS, and perhaps (not confirmed) maybe its graphic chip(s) also.
If (oh man, IF!) NEC & Hudson had ever come up with a true 16-bit PC-Engine 2 (say in 1990 or 1991), rather than the modestly upgraded 8-bit SuperGrafx of 1989, I would've hoped for X68000-quality results. The PCE/TG family would've become legendary, in the same sense as the Neo-Geo did.
I wish there had been a X68000 version of Forgotten Worlds. I'm sure it would've been almost-exact, in the same sense that X68K Ghouls 'N Ghosts, Strider, Final Fight and SF2CE were.
The X68000 is very much what I had wished the SuperGrafx (or PC Engine 2) had been.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 05, 2009, 07:41:05 PM
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: handygrafx on July 05, 2009, 07:42:40 PM
X68000 destroys the Amiga in the same sense that the Neo-Geo destroys the PCE, MD, SGX, SNES, SegaCD :mrgreen:
To be fair to the Amiga, that's NOT the best the Amiga could do, that's really only Atari ST quality right there. I'm certain the Amiga could've done MegaCD+ quality, though certainly not as good as Arcade or X68000.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 05, 2009, 08:12:03 PM
as i said, it's only for amusement purposes, since the amiga version was utterly crap:lol:
the best on that was its sprite size. when i frist saw some screens in the mags back in time, i thought, hella yeas, that will become a superb amiga game. but once you started the game and seen the whole thning in "action", your expectations felt down into the deepest possible basement. unbelievable crap that.
for sure the amiga could have done so much more, but even then, gamewise it was hard to beat the PCE, MD, SGX, SNES, SegaCD fractions. the 68k is out of any range anyway, since that was a $5000 hardware, saturated with just the best components available at the time. no amiga or low cost game hardware could have had just he smallest change against it.
and since the hardware was so uber awesome, they didn't had to redrawn and reprogram the whole thing from scratch, merely just adapt the whole code to different machine and finish was the arcade perfect port!
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: blueraven on July 05, 2009, 09:39:48 PM
wow the c64 version eh? Was that released simultaneously with the mega cd? And was it in ANY was playable?
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Black Tiger on July 06, 2009, 01:47:50 AM
The X68000 (and Amiga and C64 for that matter) isn't a console, it's a computer. The Neo Geo at least is an impractical console. The SuperGrafx could've also been one if it contained X68000 hardware and retailed for $3000, but I don't think that it would have done much better than the SuperGrafx we actually got.
Technically Mame provides a computer port of Final Fight as well and is more arcade-perfect than the X68000 port. I'd have rather bought a jamma cabinet or supergun and pcbs back in the day instead of sitting at a pricey computer. I actually have a Final Fight cabinet that I paid $70 for (minus a side art and new paint) and the pcb was literally given away to me by someone who didn't want it. I don't think that I could find the X68k disk(s) alone for that much, nor the shipping from japan for the hardware.
I'm glad that the PC Engine wasn't more powerful, so that it's ports are unique even when they're "arcade perfect" by magazine standards from the time.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Spector on July 06, 2009, 05:17:25 AM
You have forgotten about the definitive version...
MAY I PRESENT TO YOU THE GENIUS OF THE ZX SPECTRUM
Zed Ecks - all the power of a Gameboy in a handy keyboard console. Silly brits. :)
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Spector on July 06, 2009, 07:18:50 AM
Well, Final Fight was in 1991, when the Speccy was well past its prime. Between 1984 and 86 however, when the Speccy was at its peak, it had a range of games that in terms of ideas outstripped anything else at the time. But that was 1984 - in 1991 it was reduced to this garbage.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: sunteam_paul on July 06, 2009, 08:51:52 AM
Yep, remember the Speccy is 1982 technology and had some awesome games for the time.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: blueraven on July 06, 2009, 09:54:26 AM
Well, Final Fight was in 1991, when the Speccy was well past its prime. Between 1984 and 86 however, when the Speccy was at its peak, it had a range of games that in terms of ideas outstripped anything else at the time. But that was 1984 - in 1991 it was reduced to this garbage.
Wow. That leaves me totally speechless. It was really monochrome in 1991??!?
So this system has a cult following in Europe? And they were still selling games in 1991?
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: sunteam_paul on July 06, 2009, 10:37:14 AM
Well, Final Fight was in 1991, when the Speccy was well past its prime. Between 1984 and 86 however, when the Speccy was at its peak, it had a range of games that in terms of ideas outstripped anything else at the time. But that was 1984 - in 1991 it was reduced to this garbage.
Wow. That leaves me totally speechless. It was really monochrome in 1991??!?
So this system has a cult following in Europe? And they were still selling games in 1991?
They were still selling games in 1994. Only just though.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: guyjin on July 06, 2009, 10:59:13 AM
Makes the Amiga look phenominal. Thanks for the clarification!
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 06, 2009, 05:12:30 PM
when haggar packs an enemy for the his pilldriver, they literally just flipped the enemy sprite 180°. they didn't even bother to remove the shadow between the two feet. damn, what did we had a big laugh fest back then :lol:
maybe you can find a vid on yuotube which shows it.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: handygrafx on July 06, 2009, 06:44:11 PM
Black Tiger: Wow, If the X68000 actually cost $3000, then one might as well buy the arcade PCBs!
BTW, I am well aware that Amiga and X68000 are not consoles, but personal computers :mrgreen: I only include it because it was a home consumer platform, even if impractically expensive, unlike consoles.
You also made an interesting point, about being glad the PCE not being more powerful than it was ( and I assume you'd feel the same about the MD, SGX, SNES, etc) because you get versions of games that are unique/different, and not as good as an original arcade game.
I take it you like the individual unique versions of these 16-bit games across various platforms-some better than others, making it fun comparing them. I guess it would be boring if every console was a clone of the arcade machines and played 100% pixel-exact ports, with no differences between them, then it would not matter what machine you own'd, they would all play the same games.
Is that how you see it, more or less ?
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: handygrafx on July 06, 2009, 06:57:30 PM
Indeed, NES/Famicom is 1983 technology. I might even take it a step further than that (while not disagreeing with you at all) and say that NES/Famicom is... "early 80s technology". Certainly the NES/Famicom was not just R&D'd in 1983, but probably 1981-1982, and released in 1983 (1985 in the U.S. as the NES).
The PC-Engine / TurboGrafx-16 is, at the latest, 1987 technology, at least. Yet was probably developed during the mid 80s.
The Atari Lynx: was released in late 1989, yet was certainly not 1989 technology. It was developed by Epyx by 1987. The idea came for it in 1985, and by 1987 the hardware was, at least in some form, almost done. Atari took it over, released it in 1989.
The Super Famicom/SNES: released in 1990/1991, but was shown as far back as late 1988. Nintendo changed the specs several times between 1988 and 1990. It would be most fair to say it's 1989 technology.
The Dreamcast: released in 1998/1999, yet was mainly developed during 1997 in the internal Sega competition with two consoles in development at the same time: the SoA-developed, 3Dfx-based Dural/Shark/Black Belt and the SoJ-developed, PowerVR2-based Katana/Dreamcast. It would be fair to say Dreamcast is 1997-1998 technology since the hardware was completed in sometime between late 1997 and early 1998.
The GameCube: was released in 2001, yet does not exactly qualify as 2001 technology since it was actually developed during the late 90s, completed in 2000, before being released. It would be most fair to call GameCube as being 2000 technology.
PlayStation3: released in late 2006. The CELL processor was developed between 2000 and 2005. The RSX GPU being based on Nvidia NV47 / G70 (GeForce 7800), was released for PCs in mid 2005. It would be most fair to say PS3 is 2005 technology.
I could give many more examples, but, that's enough I think :)
Sorry for going so far off-topic from Final Fight :)
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 06, 2009, 08:04:27 PM
i think, what was BT just wanted to say is, that the FC technology is almost as old as the speccy's, but multiple superior to it.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Spector on July 06, 2009, 09:31:39 PM
Do you think that doesn't apply to the Spectrum too? It was developed before April '82 as well - in fact, the start up screen was similar to the ZX81!
Remember I'm saying this as a big PC Engine fan: in terms of amount of memorable games, really between the Spectrum and PC Engine, there is no comparison - the Spectrum wins by a country mile. One problem I've found with PC Engine games is the same with all consoles from that era - you do get a feeling of repeating yourself. You play P-47, then Fantasy Zone and then Ordyne... and in a certain mood, you just feel as if you're playing the same game but with different sprites. You play Cratermaze and then Batman... and it's the same game. Then there are all the interchangeable R-Type-esque shoot-em-ups... The Spectrum had tons of clones too, but in the golden era, they didn't dominate the charts to that extent, no way.
The genres in gaming seemed to narrow as technology improved, and without doubt, as the quality of graphics went up, the ideas went down. I'm being very harsh on the late Eighties scene, but be honest, there's a lot of truth in that.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 06, 2009, 09:37:49 PM
lol
L0L
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Spector on July 06, 2009, 11:56:59 PM
Hey! I just slagged off the PC Engine! :D
But that's called playing Devil's Advocate. I'm still a huge fan. In fact, I just played Final Match Tennis 15 minutes ago, and I think it's the greatest tennis simulation of all time. Absolutely bloody brilliant.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: ccovell on July 07, 2009, 04:26:46 AM
The Super Famicom/SNES: released in 1990/1991, but was shown as far back as late 1988. Nintendo changed the specs several times between 1988 and 1990. It would be most fair to say it's 1989 technology.
The only major spec changes were in the amount of onboard RAM. It's 1988 technology, at the latest.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: esteban on July 07, 2009, 05:51:32 AM
Remember I'm saying this as a big PC Engine fan: in terms of amount of memorable games, really between the Spectrum and PC Engine, there is no comparison - the Spectrum wins by a country mile. One problem I've found with PC Engine games is the same with all consoles from that era - you do get a feeling of repeating yourself. You play P-47, then Fantasy Zone and then Ordyne... and in a certain mood, you just feel as if you're playing the same game but with different sprites. You play Cratermaze and then Batman... and it's the same game. Then there are all the interchangeable R-Type-esque shoot-em-ups... The Spectrum had tons of clones too, but in the golden era, they didn't dominate the charts to that extent, no way.
The genres in gaming seemed to narrow as technology improved, and without doubt, as the quality of graphics went up, the ideas went down. I'm being very harsh on the late Eighties scene, but be honest, there's a lot of truth in that.
Spector is pointing out something that is true for any decently supported computer platform during the 80's: if you examine the library (catalog) of games, you'll find a truly wonderful mix of genres and many games that defy the established genres.
Consoles have, unfortunately, been much more narrowly focused when it comes to genre. This is partly due to hardware differences in platforms (keyboard, multiple floppies vs. joystick, cartridges), but I'd say that the market dynamics in the 80's computer scenes (Apple II, C64, English micros, IBM PC, etc.) was robust enough to support a wide, wide range of games (a small computer publisher could be successful with a game that earned good reviews, even niche titles). Enough folks bought these games, across a wide smorgasboard of genres, to allow publishers to take risks every now and then (i.e. niche titles).
Consoles excelled, especially in the 80's, at action (arcade) sorts of games, so it isn't surprising that publishers kept the console's strengths in mind.
Successful consoles would eventually get some niche titles, but these were always a token of what was available on computers.
I don't prefer computers over consoles, but I appreciate the differences in their respective markets, and how that, in turn, affected the sorts of games that publishers released.
Disclaimer: for the past few years, I've been reading Zzzap! and the other micro-centered mags, as well as checking out the games. I honestly can't believe how robust things were over there. Here in the States, the Apple II & C64 were all that mattered for me. Later, my friend got an IBM PC and horizons expanded...
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: sunteam_paul on July 07, 2009, 11:28:08 AM
Yes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days. Just look at the difference between the ZX81 (1981) and the Spectrum (1982). But even thought the Speccy wasn't the most technically advanced computer for much of its life, it sure gave the competition a hell of a run for their money. From a UK point of view, the Spectrum is the most influential home computer ever made. The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 07, 2009, 01:29:58 PM
Quote
Yes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days
yeah..and just watch the amiga 1000 which was released during 1985, seen as that also just few years later but with a sheer unbelievable multiple increase of capacity compared to those "slighty" earlier system.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Black Tiger on July 13, 2009, 08:06:16 AM
Yes, a year makes a lot of difference in those days. Just look at the difference between the ZX81 (1981) and the Spectrum (1982). But even thought the Speccy wasn't the most technically advanced computer for much of its life, it sure gave the competition a hell of a run for their money. From a UK point of view, the Spectrum is the most influential home computer ever made. The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).
The NES is also a console while the Spectrum is a computer, even if it is that kind of budget computer that was so popular over in Europe. When the Famicom was released, it was the Neo Geo of the time, only without the high price tag for the hardware and games. If the NES had launched across the world in 1983 it likely would've conquered Europe as well.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Adol2009 on July 13, 2009, 11:53:06 PM
The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).
Really? In UK, SMS sold more than NES? I'd be happy to hear it,but i'm surprised though ^^ In France,i'd sya it was more like 60% NES 40% SMS, but i'd be happy SMS won that battle in UK, as i always preferred SMS over NES.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 14, 2009, 12:07:55 AM
swiss was like 95% nes and a minable 5% sms :lol:
my frend & I had a sms :)
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: sunteam_paul on July 14, 2009, 05:56:47 AM
The NES never really made much of an impact here (Sega won that battle).
Really? In UK, SMS sold more than NES? I'd be happy to hear it,but i'm surprised though ^^ In France,i'd sya it was more like 60% NES 40% SMS, but i'd be happy SMS won that battle in UK, as i always preferred SMS over NES.
I think it was mostly down to the successful marketing by Mastertronic (who had become a big name by selling budget computer games and later merged with Virgin). The SMS was perceived as a lot 'cooler' - it was sleek and black, unlike Nintendo's grey box, and with more colourful graphics and the backing of some big name arcade titles (and no robot-gimmick in sight) it really pushed ahead of the NES in the UK.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 14, 2009, 02:20:18 PM
yeah..sega UK hired sir richard branson as a promoter.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Spector on July 14, 2009, 03:31:35 PM
Price had a lot to do with it too - I remember some NES games selling in crappy cardboard boxes for £40! Who in their right mind would pay £40 for an 8-bit game?
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Black Tiger on July 14, 2009, 06:33:21 PM
Price had a lot to do with it too - I remember some NES games selling in crappy cardboard boxes for £40! Who in their right mind would pay £40 for an 8-bit game?
All console games came in cardboard boxes in North America other than Sega's right through to the 32-bit generation. I don't know what the exchange rate would've been back then, but pre-8-bit games were pricey and not available the way that console games are today. What did SMS games sell for at the time?
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: sunteam_paul on July 14, 2009, 09:54:35 PM
I think SMS games were between £25-£30 on average, although I remember really big ones likr Phantasy Star being something like £40 which was a hell of a lot then.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Adol2009 on July 14, 2009, 09:58:48 PM
It was because of the lithium battery,that was common to add £5-10 because of it...same thing for Zelda on NES.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: sunteam_paul on July 14, 2009, 10:59:39 PM
It was because of the lithium battery,that was common to add £5-10 because of it...same thing for Zelda on NES.
Yes that and it was a 'Four-mega cartridge', twice the power of something like Space Harrier!
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Adol2009 on July 15, 2009, 12:40:31 AM
Indeed. all those RPGs were prciey back at the time: Miracle Warriors, Ys,Spellcaster (not a RPg,but well) Same politics with Phantasy Star 2 on Megadrive,etc..
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Spector on July 15, 2009, 06:36:36 AM
All console games came in cardboard boxes in North America other than Sega's right through to the 32-bit generation. I don't know what the exchange rate would've been back then, but pre-8-bit games were pricey and not available the way that console games are today. What did SMS games sell for at the time?
SMS games were £24-29.99 on average. RPG's like Ultima IV sold for £39.99. However, Sega had a budget range that included early 1 Meg releases such as Ninja that were only £9.99. That must have swayed a lot of people.
Personally, the technical jump from Spectrum 128K to NES/SMS wasn't big enough to excite me. The Megadrive however was a different story.
Oh I forgot, you foreigners called the Megadrive "Genesis".
I remember the story regarding how Nintendo found out about the 16-bit console. Miyamoto phoned up the head of Sega and asked him about a rumoured project titled "Genesis". The Sega bigwig, wanting to keep it secret, replied "Genesis - what's that?" Miyamoto responded, "DON'T INSULT MY SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE, ADMIRAL!!" :D
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: sunteam_paul on July 15, 2009, 06:52:21 AM
All console games came in cardboard boxes in North America other than Sega's right through to the 32-bit generation. I don't know what the exchange rate would've been back then, but pre-8-bit games were pricey and not available the way that console games are today. What did SMS games sell for at the time?
SMS games were £24-29.99 on average. RPG's like Ultima IV sold for £39.99. However, Sega had a budget range that included early 1 Meg releases such as Ninja that were only £9.99. That must have swayed a lot of people.
Personally, the technical jump from Spectrum 128K to NES/SMS wasn't big enough to excite me. The Megadrive however was a different story.
Oh I forgot, you foreigners called the Megadrive "Genesis".
I remember the story regarding how Nintendo found out about the 16-bit console. Miyamoto phoned up the head of Sega and asked him about a rumoured project titled "Genesis". The Sega bigwig, wanting to keep it secret, replied "Genesis - what's that?" Miyamoto responded, "DON'T INSULT MY SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE, ADMIRAL!!" :D
Really? In UK, SMS sold more than NES? I'd be happy to hear it,but i'm surprised though ^^ In France,i'd sya it was more like 60% NES 40% SMS, but i'd be happy SMS won that battle in UK, as i always preferred SMS over NES.
I always thought that the SMS did better than the NES in France. At least it was closer than that. All we know is that the SMS did way better in Europe than it did in other parts of the world anyway.
Now back on topic : Final Fight for the Amstrad CPC, the most popular 8 bit personal computer in France :
Now back on topic : Final Fight for the Amstrad CPC, the most popular 8 bit personal computer in France :
The Spectrum version doesn't look that bad IMO. The sprites are quite big for such an old machine.
That is quite good (if you ignore Cody's curiously elongated feet--just kidding.)
Next you'll be telling us that Street Fighter II was ported to the Amstrad as well. :)
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: shubibiman on July 24, 2009, 02:08:25 AM
SFII was never released on the CPC. Actually, I would have liked to find other pics of the CPC version of Final Fight as the one shown above is not a good exemple of how nice the graphics really are compared to what the CPC is able of.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: ccovell on July 24, 2009, 02:41:49 AM
The CPC basically has C-64 resolution but about twice the available colours, but alas, no sprites. The CPC+ gave the graphics a larger master palette (4096 colours) and hardware sprites. If that Final Fight pic is from the regular CPC, then I'd bet it's really jerky once put into motion.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Necromancer on July 24, 2009, 03:27:47 AM
If that Final Fight pic is from the regular CPC, then I'd bet it's really jerky once put into motion.
YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8ei0F1Xg1I) seems to agree with you. While colorful, the speed of the arcade is totally absent and the character animation sucks hamster fur. ](*,)
It's an Amstrad CPC! What do you want, something more along the lines of this... (http://www.octoate.de/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ndth-cpc-03.png) (http://www.mojontwins.com/juegos_mojonos/nanako-in-classic-japanese-monster-castle/)
This is homebrew, but check out all the awesome stuff the mojon twins have come up with.
For example, below is particularly beautiful art that plays defies any constraints of the Spectrum:
Aaarrgh!! It's the return of the Incredibly Expanding Euro-border! Once it took over Spectrum games, it wasn't satisfied until it had obscured the screen displays of even Atari and Amiga games! Beware!
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: guyjin on July 24, 2009, 12:59:15 PM
Aaarrgh!! It's the return of the Incredibly Expanding Euro-border! Once it took over Spectrum games, it wasn't satisfied until it had obscured the screen displays of even Atari and Amiga games! Beware!
Aaarrgh!! It's the return of the Incredibly Expanding Euro-border! Once it took over Spectrum games, it wasn't satisfied until it had obscured the screen displays of even Atari and Amiga games! Beware!
Hahahhahahaha :) Yeah. It's almost as bad as Burai! :o
If you check out Mohon Twins' other games, you'll see that screen real estate is used more fruitfully, though.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tatsujin on July 25, 2009, 12:09:49 AM
covello leones TONGUE BOY :clap:
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: ccovell on July 25, 2009, 02:14:22 AM
(http://www.disgruntleddesigner.com/chrisc/images/TMLogic14.gif) Full screen, no borders! :D
I'm not quite sure you understand the point about the awfully large borders (unless that was a facetious joke or something...) There's nothing wrong with building art AROUND a static active playfield, a la Tetris, etc. But too many Euro (and JP PC) games build honkin' huge borders that pen in and obstruct the scrolling image: (http://www.lemonamiga.com/games/screenshots/full/strider_02.png) (http://www.yxbns.com/ldj/dragonspirit/dspirit-amiga.png) There are even worse offenders...
(At least on the Amiga, we had the Atari ST squarely to blame for this.)
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: sunteam_paul on July 25, 2009, 04:49:44 AM
I would assume that (at least on the 8-bit computers) the smaller play area would be to increase speed of the game.
Title: Re: Final Fight PCE
Post by: Tom on July 25, 2009, 05:21:59 AM
I'm not quite sure you understand the point about the awfully large borders (unless that was a facetious joke or something...) There's nothing wrong with building art AROUND a static active playfield, a la Tetris, etc. But too many Euro (and JP PC) games build honkin' huge borders that pen in and obstruct the scrolling image...
I hear you. I was just goofin' around when I posted a pic from your game. :)
Personally, I don't know when restricting the active play area is a means to compensate for hardware limitations (or to preserve dimensions/proportions/ratios) VS. an over-indulgent designer ruining usability. I usually assume the former, but I know it is not always the case.
You see, the playfield for Nanako Descends to Hell (http://passion-amiga.ovh.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=408:nanako-descends-to-hell&catid=44:cpc-464&Itemid=57) is small (but not as bad as Burai on PC-98, PCE, etc., which is the first game I think of as a point of comparison).
In the screenshots you posted, the way the border for Dragon Spirit obstructs the play area (I assume the player's sprite can "hide" under the dragon border art) is plain silly.
ASIDE: This discussion has inspired me. I want to design a shoot-em-up with dash of action RPG dungeon crawling . You begin the game without any items/weapons. Early on, you can discover/purchase a "cosmic lantern" that casts a small circle of light (think Necromancer for PCE) around your ship . The game plays as a standard shoot-em-up, but with limited visibility. To keep things slightly less frustrating, there will be other light sources (of varying strengths) that cast shadows accordingly on all of the sprites/stages. Additionally, you can upgrade the light sources for your ship. Basically, the goal is to have darkness prevent the player from seeing most of the game's stages and objects, despite the fact that these elements are fully-fleshed out. Certain stages/areas/enemies deplete/hinder/destroy your light sources. You have to experiment with different light sources to overcome these challenges (i.e. bioflourescence vs. incandescence vs. LED).
San Soleil, the name for this shoot-em-up, will feature a second loop, where the entire game is visible (completion of the first loop frees the world from darkness, or something like that).
And the name for our hero's vessel?
Edison.
Anyway, now I have to find some TG-16 covers to discuss in the other thread :)