PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
NEC PC-Engine/SuperGrafx => PC Engine/SuperGrafx Discussion => Topic started by: A Black Falcon on September 21, 2015, 03:02:49 PM
-
I expanded out that post I made here about how hard the last couple levels of this game are in Expert mode into a full review. Enjoy!
Platform: TurboGrafx-16 / PC Engine (Japan Only Release)
Year: 1990
Publisher/Developer: Naxat Soft
Single Player Only
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/3/3/4/313334_front.jpg)
The cover art is pretty nice.
Introduction
W-Ring is a great shmup for the Turbografx from Naxat Soft, one of the stronger third-party supporters of the platform on both card and CD. I've liked this game since the first time I played it, but I went back to the game recently and finished it this time (pretty much) on the highest difficulty setting. As I will explain, this was quite a task; Normal is quite easy to beat once you've learned the game, but Hard is an entirely different story.
This game is a horizontal scrolling shmup released during that genre's peak which lasted from the mid '80s to early '90s. The game was clearly inspired by Gradius, but isn't just a straight clone of that series. W-Ring has normal weapon pickups, instead of the Gradius powerup system, and has a narrow shield ring around your ship that can protect you from some hits from above and below. You also can, as in many TG16 shmups, change your ship's speed with the press of a button between three speeds, instead of needing to use powerups for that as you do in Gradius. Also unlike classic Gradius games, you have infinite continues in W-Ring, which definitely makes the game a bit more approachable. Dodging bullets is much less predictable here than in Gradius or R-Type, though, an issue which is my biggest problem with the game, particularly in Expert mode; the lower difficulty settings are fairly easy and disguise how frustrating the shield and bullet-dodging mechanics can be when the game gets hard. This means the game should be playable by players of almost any skill level; just choose the appropriate difficulty setting for you.
For the plot, I'm not sure what the story is in this game, there isn't really one in the game itself and while I don't have the case or manual for this game, only the HuCard, even if I did it'd be in Japanese so it probably wouldn't be too helpful. I can say that the game is set in the Solar System. I presume that you are defending the Earth from evil aliens who have set up camp in the outer solar system. The game does have an English-language name for each stage -- Stage one is Saturn, 2 is Uranus, 3 Neptune, 4 Pluto, 5 Main Gate, 6 Death Hole, and 7 (if you count it as a level) Stage X. If not for those names you'd never guess where the stages are set, though -- they don't have much of anything in common with their supposed settings. They are just fairly standard stage settings for shmups of the day. I'm fine with that, though. Each of the seven stages looks different, and there is a good degree of variety in the game as well, with nice gameplay variety from stage to stage, great graphics and music, lots of enemy types, interesting bosses, secret alternate versions of most or all stages for you to try to find, and more. The game does have some issues, which I will cover below, but for the most part it's a pretty good game.
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/7/3/1/gfs_81811_2_1.jpg)
Flying through level 1. Note the ring around your ship and the rocky green and brown visage of ... Jupiter?
Basic Design - Weapons and Your Shield
For weapons in this game, your basic gun shoots a gun ahead and bombs angle down. One enemy type drops weapon powerups which replace your default armament. The powerups alternate between five colored weapons. If you collect several of the same color powerup in a row without getting hit, you will power it up several times. However, it's important to note that if you get hit you lose your weapon powerup and go back to the normal gun, so don't get hit if you want to stay powered up. Getting hit without a weapon powerup will kill you of course. And just like in Gradius (well, the '80s Gradius games at least) or R-Type, when you die you go back to the last checkpoint, you don't continue right where you died. There are infinite continues as I said, but only from the beginnings of levels 1 through 6, not from the last checkpoint in a stage. The final stage isn't a continue point either, it sends you back to the start of level 6, but much more on that later.
There are also alternate versions of those weapons if you are in a stage with a hidden "?" weapon-modifier item to find. The five weapons are colored blue, green (both straight lasers), pink (spread shot), red (shield-orbs), and orange (missiles). Each weapon is potentially useful in different situations, though some are maybe a bit too similar --I'm not sure why the game really needs both blue and green. Still, there is nice variety here, particularly with those hidden "?"-mark alternate weapon variations. These secret powerups will appear if you shoot in the right places. One of the most interesting weapons is the alternate version of the red shield-orbs weapon. Normally, this 'weapon' just gives you the normal gun but with a trail of round shields which follow your ship, ship protecting you from enemies and doing some damage if you maneuver them onto an enemy. It's too close-range to be useful most of the time. But with a secret "?" powerup, this weapon is great! Now it shoots out a constant stream of balls which bounce off of any walls in the stage, taking out bullets and enemies along the way! This is very useful in stage 6, particularly.
A key mechanic surely inspired by R-Type is that shield-ring. Bullets which hit it will bounce off and can hurt enemies. Bullets are very small, fast, and can blend in to the backgrounds, however. Trying to bounce bullets off of your shield ring can be a 50/50 thing sometimes -- the shield-ring is very narrow, it's not large like in R-Type or R-Type Leo, and you NEED to deflect bullets with it at times, particularly in stage 6 of Expert mode, the games' hard mode. W-Ring does have good, accurate controls, but it's not as consistently predictable as those other games are and that is an issue. This game can feel unfair at times. In Gradius or R-Type, with tight controls and clear graphics, when you die it is your fault. To beat those games, next time learn the levels better and don't mess up. In W-Ring, though, sometimes it feels like I did nothing wrong, but just got unlucky. Even so, with only seven levels, infinite continues, and forgiving lower difficulty levels, W-Ring isn't anywhere near as hard as Gradius or R-Type. It's only in Expert difficulty where the issues I just discussed help make the game a serious challenge, and even there Gradius and R-Type are probably even harder, but also more innovative and more fun. Overall, while it is pretty good, W-Ring isn't quite as great as the Gradius games are. Gradius is my favorite shmup series, though, so that is a very high standard. W-Ring is a very good game that I like a lot.
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/7/3/1/gfs_81811_2_1.jpg)
Game over already? Whoever played this on Gamefaqs for these shots wasn’t very good. Do note the ship in the upper right, though — that’s the type of ship that drops powerups.
Graphics and Music
In addition to playing great, W-Ring also looks and sounds great. This game is one of the better-looking, and better-sounding, HuCard shmups for the TG16/PCE! Every stage looks good, and the background environments are very well animated for a 4th-gen console game. While the actual background behind the playable space only animates in some levels, there are often animated elements on the platforms and other areas you can't fly over on the screen. From the flowing water in stage 3 to the giant spinning mechanical wheels and moving lights in stage 6, every stage background is interesting. The game looks better than you might expect a HuCard shmup would look, and that animation is cool. Those two levels probably are the two best-looking ones in the game, but every stage looks very good. The game also can throw lots of enemies and bullets on screen with no slowdown to speak of, which is reasonably impressive. Sometimes, particularly in Expert mode, the screen can be loaded with stuff. The lack of slowdown does make the game harder, and the bullets sometimes are too hard to see versus the background colors, but still, it's a nice technical accomplishment to see so much stuff on screen running so well. The game doesn't have any parallax scrolling, as usual on the console, but the animated water on stage 3 has a slightly fake-parallax look to it. The graphics in this game are good enough, though, that for once I don't mind the absence of parallax.
Aurally, W-Ring has a really fantastic soundtrack! This game sounds very, very good. I'm very far from an audiophile so I can't really explain why in detail, but I love chiptune and early CD console game music, and the electronic music soundtrack here is richer than usual on this platform. Every level has different music of course, and each boss as well, but all of the hidden special stages (see below) have unique music too, surprisingly enough. It's very cool, and encourages exploration to find all of them and hear all of the great music! The normal stage 3 theme might be my favorite track, but there are lots of good music tracks as you go through the game. The good graphics and sound definitely add something to this game. This game really sounds fantastic. If you want to hear all the music watch both videos at the end of this post, one for the regular stages and one for the special stages.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BBepfrMRizk/hqdefault.jpg)
The boss of level 3, the water level. The moving blue 'waves' along the platform edges look very cool. (Image from Youtube.)
Level Designs - Graphics and Gameplay
The level themes are not original, though., just well designed and interesting. I like the designs, and the game has a great and very well thought out difficulty curve, but there's noting too original in the level settings and such. Stage 1, Jupiter, has grassy rock platforms with alien ships scattered around. The stage is several screens high and is a good starting point for the game. Stage 2, Uranus, is a brown stage that looks like something straight out of the movie Alien, with the usual alien heads, dripping fluids, and such. Again the stage is two screens tall. Alien clearly made a huge impression on games, seeing how everything from Contra to W-Ring copy its style. Stage 3, Neptune, is the water level, because Neptune is blue so it's got water on it, right? :p As I said that water looks great. Stage 4, Pluto, is another base, this time a research lab with biological cell and robot enemies and a green circuit-board-like background. There is some animation on the circuits on the platforms. Stage 5, Main Gate, is the fast stage, so you have to set the speed to max and try to learn the layout. This stage is another all-metal base.
Stage 6, Death Hole, has a similar theme to the last stage, but with some pretty cool machinery around the stage as I said earlier, and some animation in the main background behind your ship as well. I love the large spinning wheels of lights, they look pretty cool. Also, things have slowed down; you are now nearing the final stretch, and have a narrow pathway to make your way through, the titular 'Death Hole' I guess. While earlier stages often give you a screen or two of vertical space to move up and down, this level varies between half a screen and very narrow passages, so you are very constrained and there often isn't much room to avoid the enemies. This level is tough! And last, Stage X plays over an animating wavy red screen. The background looks great, but it can be very distracting. This stage is short but the enemies are tough, the background crazy, and the boss hard. And if you get a game over here, you learn one of this games' crueler tricks: if you get a game over on stage 7, you go back all the way to the beginning of stage 6; Stage X doesn't count for continues. This makes the game so much more difficult than it needed to be, when you try to play the game in Hard mode! I wish Stage X was a continue point. Ah well. What's here is mostly quite good.
There is one last thing to mention here, those alternate stages. As with the ?-mark alternate weapon powerups, alternate stages are accessed with hidden "EX" icons which you have to shoot to see. If you touch the secret warp point, you'll go into an alternate version of the level in question. These levels are generally shorter than the regular stages, but can be harder -- the speed stage is even faster for example, in alternate mode. Interestingly, the color palette changes in the alternate version of each level, so the water level has red water instead of blue if you're in the secret variant version. It's cool stuff. It's more fun to try to find them for yourself, but if you want to be spoiled watch the video at the end of this post which shows ways to get into all the special stages. Many do have multiple entry points so there are other ways to enter some special stages, but still it might be handy. I found almost all of them myself without that video, only perhaps missing the one in, oddly, stage 1. That explains why I never have been able to can't find a special stage in level 6 -- there apparently isn't one. Too bad. Stage X doesn't have one either, but I never thought it would with its short length and focused design.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z7KCKiSumsw/hqdefault.jpg)
The level 4 boss, from the computer/bio-research stage. (Screenshot from Youtube.)
-
Difficulty and Expert Mode
I beat this game on Normal several years back; it may seem challenging at first, but even I don't have too much trouble with it anymore and I'm far from great at this genre. A month or two ago, though, I played the game again for the first time in a while, and started the game on Normal difficulty. I found it surprisingly easy -- on my very first try, I beat the whole game without getting a game over! There were a few hairy moments in level 6, but I got through and beat the game. That's impressive stuff for me, I haven't 1-credit-cleared many shooters, for sure. So I was feeling good... and then it looped over into Expert (Hard) mode, after the short endgame sequence. Everything changed; Expert is an entirely different story! As easy as the game is on Normal, it's BRUTALLY hard on Expert. I got my first game over early in stage 1, and it took a fair number of tries at each of the first five stages to get past each one. I was working my way through Expert mode at a reasonable pace, though. In addition to wanting to complete this great game on its more challenging setting, I also I wanted to see if the game has a different ending on Expert difficulty versus Normal -- nobody online had mentiond if there is one, and there are no gameplay videos of Expert mode online. And then I hit stage 6, and a brick wall of bullets and enemies.
You see, stage 6 plus X in Expert mode is INCREDIBLY difficult. Again, there is no continue point at the last stage, 7 aka "Stage X", so you have to go back to the start of stage 6 upon game over, had me frustrated for hours as I kept trying, and failing, to beat the game. This stage-and-a-half of game is super, super hard on Expert. I did beat it, finally... sort of: I ended up having to use a cheatcode to win because I just couldn't quite manage it otherwise. I came very close once to beating the game without the cheat, though, in my time trying, but more on that soon. I spent more hours trying to beat stages 6+X than I did level 9 of Zero Wing for the Turbo CD, to compare it to another tricky shmup I played recently, and to less avail. Stage 6 is so narrow and confined that sometimes there is nowhere to go to avoid bullets, and there are SO many enemies on screen all shooting at you! Not getting hit is near-impossible at times, even with the best weapon for the stage, the Red + ? weapon that sends bouncy spheres around the screen forwards and back.
In all my tries, I defeated the final boss twice, once without the cheatcode and once quite a few hours later with it. See, that first time, I beat the final boss, but somehow died moments later. I don't know how, I should have been safe with the boss dead. Killing me after beating the game was incredibly cheap, and I never managed to get that far again, frustratingly. Perhaps the worst was a time I got to Stage X with four lives left, only to waste all of them and reach the boss on my last life since Stage X is really hard unless you have weapon powerups when you reach it, which I didn't because I'd messed up at the Stage 6 boss and got hit. Eventually I gave up and turned off the game... then looked the game up on the PC Engine FX forums and found a cheatcode. If you go into the sound test and start playing music tracks 7, 9, 3, and 10 (in that order), you get an additional pair of sphere-shields rotating around your ship. You're not invincible, but this help was enough to get me through Expert mode on this second attempt, though it did take more than a few tries to get past level 6+X even with the help. I'll count it as a win.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RZeTy8yLIRg/hqdefault.jpg)
Level 2 looks like something straight out of Alien. (Screenshot from Youtube.)
Conclusion
So, W-Ring is a great game, but the difficulty level is a bit unbalanced. I do love W-Ring, more than many people seem to, but still, the stratospheric jump in challenge between the rest of the game and Expert mode is a bit much. This is a very easy game on Normal, and even EASIER on Easy... and a near-impossible nightmare of frustration on Hard ("Expert"). And in Expert, the last level (6 and X combined) is exponentially harder than any other stage in the game. A smoother difficulty curve would be much better than what you see in this game; it doesn't need to be much easier, just not have as massive a gulf between the rest of the game and this. Just having a checkpoint in Level X so that if you get game over you start from there might have done the trick, really. It's too bad they didn't do that.
My other main issue with the game is that I never really felt like I could just get through with pure memorization -- I felt like there is a random element to the hit detection in this game, more so than a highly-precise game like R-Type or Zero Wing has. It's very hard to tell when a bullet was going to hit my ship versus and when it was going to harmlessly bounce off the shields, and the bullets are fast, small, and SERIOUSLY blend in to the background too, particularly in level 6. So, I often just had to take my chances, and this often resulted in getting hit. And in a level where taking even one hit is doom because you lose your weapon when you get hit and weapon powerups in lv. 6 are far apart, so you'll get hit again and die, that is a problem. I still like this game, but I wish the bullets were easier to see and it was clearer about whether something is going to hit the ship or the shield ring. The game has great graphics and music, with impressively animating backgrounds and lots of color and variety, but the hard-to-see bullets are its one visual flaw.
Finally... why is the title "The Double Rings" when that shield around your ship is a single ring? There are some things constructed out of two rings, such as the red-weapon balls or that twin rotating shield from the cheat, but I don't know if it's meant to refer to any of those things, the single ring around your ship is the most obvious thing. It's a weird title. I wonder if the manual explains it... but I don't have the manual, just a loose card for this game, and it'd be in Japanese anyway of course. Someone on PC ENgine FX has speculated that the cheatcode's added double shield explains it and the "double rings" refer to those, but I'm not so sure; each of those balls is made up of two rings itself, so that adds up to well over two rings, between teh two of them and that single ring around your ship. So it's a bit of a mystery. Regardless, though, W-Ring is a very good game I highly recommend. The game has flaws, but it also has strengths, and overall I quite like it even if it's not Gradius or R-Type precise. With great graphics and music, varied levels, and plenty of challenge, I give W-Ring: The Double Rings an A-. It's good.
Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBepfrMRizk - This is a longplay video of Normal difficulty. The player does not enter any of the hidden alternate versions of stages in this run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3L0YjNhYNY - In this longplay the same player as above enters all of the special hidden stages. Note that many of them do have multiple entry points so this doesn't show every way to get into the special stages, but it definitely is a nice help for anyone who doesn't want to have to find them the hard way by just shooting at stuff or lucking into one.
-
Hey Black Falcon, I like the game a lot too. It's like Gradius meets thunder-force
But could you be more consise with your posts? You write incredibly long blocks of text. That time could be spent playing W-Ring instead.
-
I'd love to pick up this game, but it seems to have risen up to around the $60.00 mark on ebay for a complete one.
The Everdrive looks very attractive right now.....
-
Somehow got to a "special" stage 3
(http://i.imgur.com/ZO9WbPm.jpg)
Love the effects on that level, this game gives me hard "Paranoia/Psychosis" vibes...
-
This is another nice detailed review, but it's not a good idea to generalize the console/library every time.
It is not "usual" for a PC Engine game to not have any parallax, especially shooters. It's only usual to educate the reader with this misleading factoid in each review.
Your SNES and N64 reviews would be much longer if you wasted time pinting out typical negatives in games from those libraries. But I'm only assuming that you don't.
-
Hey Black Falcon, I like the game a lot too. It's like Gradius meets thunder-force
But could you be more consise with your posts? You write incredibly long blocks of text. That time could be spent playing W-Ring instead.
I like writing long-ish reviews. When I want to write less about a game that's what something like a Game Opinion Summaries list is for -- sure, the overall length of the post is long, but the amount for each game is a lot less than a review like this.
Basically, to be more concise I'd probably need an editor. :)
I'd love to pick up this game, but it seems to have risen up to around the $60.00 mark on ebay for a complete one.
The Everdrive looks very attractive right now.....
This game definitely has value, yes. I paid about $25 for a loose copy of the game when I got it two years ago, so W-Ring hasn't had some sudden jump in value I don't think, it's had value for years. I imagine that enough people know it's a pretty good game to drive up the value; shmups can get pricey for sure.
Somehow got to a "special" stage 3
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ZO9WbPm.jpg
Love the effects on that level, this game gives me hard "Paranoia/Psychosis" vibes...
Yeah, I definitely agree that level 3 is maybe the best-looking level. The water effects are great, and the music is pretty good too. As for the alternate stages, it's fun to try to find and play through them, though you don't get any kind of special reward for doing so, the game has only one ending, and there are only alternate stages for levels 1 to 5 anyway, not the last two. It's still a great addition that gives the game more variety than most shmups of the time.
This is another nice detailed review, but it's not a good idea to generalize the console/library every time.
It is not "usual" for a PC Engine game to not have any parallax, especially shooters. It's only usual to educate the reader with this misleading factoid in each review.
What? Yes it is. I have, and have played, lots of shmups for shmups for this system, but most have nothing more than maybe little tricks like moving dots across the screen as a "starfield" (see Zero Wing for example) or horizontal/vertical-strip parallax, and a lot don't have any. I presume you're mostly talking about those two things there, because actual full multi-layer parallax is quite uncommon because it's harder to do technically, of course, though a few games manage to pull off that look by using sprites as 'ground' to add in some parallax; I presume this is how the Super Darius games do their impressive full-screen parallax scrolling. But most shmups on the system certainly don't have parallax on Super Darius's level, and many have none.
Most vertical shmups on the system don't have any. Horizontal ones do sometimes, but if it's in even half of the hori shmups it'd only be because of "let's move dots in the background at different speeds"... of the hori shmups I have on HuCard for instance, if I'm getting this right, Saint Dragon, R-Type, Barunba, W-Ring, and Fantasy Zone have no parallax; Aero Blasters and Download have some strip parallax; and Gradius and Sidearms have the moving-dots-at-different-speeds thing. On CD more games I have try to have some, but CD games have a lot more space to try to pull off fancier graphics, something the Super and Arcade CD shmups show off for sure. I think it's most fair to compare this to other HuCard games. And of course if you add in the vertical shmups, on HuCard at least they almost always have either no parallax at all, or only the moving-dots style, and a majority have none I think. I guess that moving-dots thing sort of counts as "parallax", but it's not nearly on the same level as a fully-drawn parallax background. Think of how in Zero Wing they had to replace that rocky asteroid field parallax background in one of the early levels with little dots of light as the only objects that move at a different speed from the background, surely because of hardware limitations. It is a basic form of parallax of course, but it's not the same and it's often seen only in certain levels -- any level with a fully-drawn background in a starfield-parallax game will have no parallax in those stages -- you see this in games like Final Blaster or Final Soldier, for example. I wish more vertical shmups on the system had something like the fairly cool looking parallax background Alzadick has in one of its two stages (the other one has the usual starfield thing).
But anyway, in this case, W-Rings' impressively animated stages look fantastic! Most 4th-gen games don't have animated backgrounds in almost every level, after all, but this game does and it looks great. I don't care much that the game doesn't try any parallax, the graphics it does have make up for that.
Your SNES and N64 reviews would be much longer if you wasted time pinting out typical negatives in games from those libraries. But I'm only assuming that you don't.
Of course I would mention negatives about a game if I'm reviewing it, that's what a review is for! I don't mention things like SNES slowdown, TG16 lack of parallax, or Genesis lack of color every single time I write about those systems, but I do sometimes, because those three things are each respective system's biggest graphical flaw and of course I mention that sometimes. Not every time, though, only some of the time, and that goes for TG16 parallax (or the lack thereof) as well. Seriously, stop making every single post into an attack, there's no reason for that.
http://www.blackfalcongames.net/?page_id=78 Read some of my stuff for each respective platform and you'll see I mention those major graphical flaws (SNES slowdown, Genesis/Sega CD lack of color, TG16 parallax) some times but not others. This is true for parallax in TG16 games as well, of course -- I don't always mention when it's not there, only occasionally. My Avenger and Tiger Road reviews don't mention that those games have no parallax, for instance, and of the TG16 or TCD reviews I've done only in the Zero Wing review mentions parallax at length, there to compare the game to its arcade and Genesis counterparts. And anyway, in this review I was trying to say that the graphics the game does have are good enough that I don't mind the absence of parallax; W-Ring looks great!
-
Black Falcon: I like longer-form writing when it is informed and/or well-written.
I always enjoy reading your stuff.
Folks who want a short, brief summary can find them in abundance (it's what 99% of the interwebz is filled with).
Please continue writing the longer-form articles...it is a dying breed. Sure, it is more niche, but there are at least a handful of folks who appreciate it. Like...maybe seven. I am confident that at least seven shoot-em-up fans would be willing to read a long article. The rest have attention deficit issues.
:)
-
The game doesn't have any parallax scrolling, as usual on the console, but the animated water on stage 3 has a slightly fake-parallax look to it.
You mean it doesn't have hardware based overlapping layer scrolling. The line scrolling and animated tiles used to make the water in stage 3 fit the textbook definition of parallax, which is simply that there's a difference in scrolling speed between foreground and background objects; how that difference is achieved is not relevant.
-
I can't believe I used "shmup"
Punch me.
Shoot-em-up.
I fixed it.
The game doesn't have any parallax scrolling, as usual on the console, but the animated water on stage 3 has a slightly fake-parallax look to it.
You mean it doesn't have hardware based overlapping layer scrolling. The line scrolling and animated tiles used to make the water in stage 3 fit the textbook definition of parallax, which is simply that there's a difference in scrolling speed between foreground and background objects; how that difference is achieved is not relevant.
Precisely.
The experience of the player is all that matters.
If the parallax scrolling is jarring/distracting (Ninja Gaiden PCE), it doesn't matter how the parallax was technically achieved—all that matters is that it detracts from the aesthetics and gameplay.
Does it really matter how the parallax in Last Battle was achieved? Even though Last Battle exhibits horizontal parallax effects in almost all the stages (except for maybe boss battles and the interior stages)....it is not aesthetically pleasing. Last Battle is still a very "flat" game and the parallax actually accentuates how unconvincing the game is when it comes to depth of perspective.
I think this could EASILY have been fixed by simply having the farthest background scroll at a much slower/gradual speed.
There is no fixed formula for parallax—designers need to think about the desired effect and adjust when necessary.
Last Battle's scrolling speeds (for different planes) might have worked in a different game.
Anyway, it doesn't matter how Last Battle technically achieved the parallax—it simply wasn't executed masterfully. Ninja Gaiden PCE is even worse. Do you think we would feel better if the horribly distracting/chopping parallax in Ninja Gaiden PCE was the product of 5 distinctly separate background planes running on the SupahSupah2Grafx hardware? Hell no! Because, when it comes to the merits/shortcomings of a game, the user experience is fundamental.
That doesn't mean it isn't interesting to discuss technical/coding issues...it's nice to have technical discussions as an "aside"). The danger, of course, is to fall into the completely baseless logic that "better specs = better experience = better game", that "true parallax" is superior than the "illusion of parallax"...
...EVERYTHING IS AN ILLUSION when is comes to parallax. That is the entire point of parallax—to create an illusion.
:)
-
I can't believe I used "shmup"
Punch me.
Shoot-em-up.
I can't believe that you used "Shoot-em-up".
They're called "Plane games" or "Plames".
It just makes sense.
-
I can't believe I used "shmup"
Punch me.
Shoot-em-up.
I can't believe that you used "Shoot-em-up".
They're called "Plane games" or "Plames".
It just makes sense.
Oh, stop it!
What was that other awesome term? For a horizontal shooter?
Whoreish (HORIzontal SHooter)?
-
Schroumpf or DVDA?
Lords of Thunder is the world's first and only DVDA shooter.
-
The game doesn't have any parallax scrolling, as usual on the console, but the animated water on stage 3 has a slightly fake-parallax look to it.
You mean it doesn't have hardware based overlapping layer scrolling.
Yes, or a software equivalent that looks equally good. Perhaps using the word "fake" to refer to something done in software isn't the best, but it is what I have called software scaling and rotation, for instance, for a long time, when compared to hardware; I was just using similar terminology to refer to parallax. Fake, as in, using some software technique to do something the hardware can't. Sure though, perhaps I should have just said 'a software parallax-ish effect' or something like that.
The line scrolling and animated tiles used to make the water in stage 3 fit the textbook definition of parallax, which is simply that there's a difference in scrolling speed between foreground and background objects;
Maybe, but I don't know, moving rows of lights or something like that don't always look like parallax... I think you do need to look at each individual case, for software parallax-like techniques.
Still though, I did say that because that effect looks kind of like parallax, so I at least partially agree, sure.
how that difference is achieved is not relevant.
It's relevant so long as the results look different, and those different types of parallax I listed in my last post definitely look very different. Moving-dots-as-stars, strip parallax, and a hardware parallax background layer or two (or software equivalent) are not the same, those first two things aren't the equal of a real parallax background either technically or in results. They are better than nothing, and can look good sometimes, but I don't think they are equivalent to hardware parallax.
Precisely.
The experience of the player is all that matters.
If the parallax scrolling is jarring/distracting (Ninja Gaiden PCE), it doesn't matter how the parallax was technically achieved—all that matters is that it detracts from the aesthetics and gameplay.
Does it really matter how the parallax in Last Battle was achieved? Even though Last Battle exhibits horizontal parallax effects in almost all the stages (except for maybe boss battles and the interior stages)....it is not aesthetically pleasing. Last Battle is still a very "flat" game and the parallax actually accentuates how unconvincing the game is when it comes to depth of perspective.
I think this could EASILY have been fixed by simply having the farthest background scroll at a much slower/gradual speed.
There is no fixed formula for parallax—designers need to think about the desired effect and adjust when necessary.
Last Battle's scrolling speeds (for different planes) might have worked in a different game.
Anyway, it doesn't matter how Last Battle technically achieved the parallax—it simply wasn't executed masterfully. Ninja Gaiden PCE is even worse. Do you think we would feel better if the horribly distracting/chopping parallax in Ninja Gaiden PCE was the product of 5 distinctly separate background planes running on the SupahSupah2Grafx hardware? Hell no! Because, when it comes to the merits/shortcomings of a game, the user experience is fundamental.
That doesn't mean it isn't interesting to discuss technical/coding issues...it's nice to have technical discussions as an "aside"). The danger, of course, is to fall into the completely baseless logic that "better specs = better experience = better game", that "true parallax" is superior than the "illusion of parallax"...
...EVERYTHING IS AN ILLUSION when is comes to parallax. That is the entire point of parallax—to create an illusion.
:)
Sure, a lot of things in games are illusions. One thing that came to mind earlier is, for instance,i games like Space Harrier or Outrun -- the entire game is an illusion in a scaler game like that, you aren't actually going anywhere. The things are moving towards you while you stand still. For the gamer does this really matter, though? It's kind of neat to know, but it doesn't affect play of course, that's the whole point, to create that illusion.
Or for parallax, how Gradius II or either Super Darius game (or some other titles like some parts of Dracula X, or a lot of Valis IV, or a lot of Bravoman, etc.) create their full parallax backgrounds is really only a technical issue -- the results look fantastic, about as good as parallax backgrounds on other systems, for games on those other systems with only one parallax layer of course (considering that some systems can do multiple layers of hardware parallax, but most games don't do that much if at all).
However, as I said above, I think it's entirely fair to separate things based on the type of parallax effect they use, and also to say that stuff like dots-as-stars or separated strips that move at different speeds aren't things that look quite as good as hardware parallax backgrounds. I like parallax, and Hudson messed up when they didn't put hardware parallax in the system, like Nintendo with the SNES CPU or Sega with the Genesis's colors-on-screen limit. I wish more games on the system had software parallax like those I listed in the previous paragraph. Of course games can look great without that though, as W-Ring shows.
-
However, as I said above, I think it's entirely fair to separate things based on the type of parallax effect they use, and also to say that stuff like dots-as-stars or separated strips that move at different speeds aren't things that look quite as good as hardware parallax backgrounds. I like parallax, and Hudson messed up when they didn't put hardware parallax in the system, like Nintendo with the SNES CPU or Sega with the Genesis's colors-on-screen limit. I wish more games on the system had software parallax like those I listed in the previous paragraph. Of course games can look great without that though, as W-Ring shows.
Strips of Stars (SoS) is rarely, if ever, going to impress me. Even amongst NES/Famicom games, some titles did a better, more interesting job with SoS.
But nobody is asking you to be impressed by SoS!
What we are asking is for you to recognize is that when you play a game, you don't say "I love that stage with the hardware-based parallax"
In fact, let's just say: you will go back and play a good game, regardless of the hardware specs or software ingenuity. Ultimately, this is what a reader wants to know.
Sure, it is ok to *fantasize* about MOAR PARALLAX in a good game. But be careful to do this in a way that doesn't detract from the fact that it is a GOOD GAME. It shouldn't lose credit for something superfluous.
Similarly, you wouldn't take something superfluous, like the ample parallax scrolling in Last Battle, and claim that it made the game "better" or "more enjoyable". Because it doesn't.
IN SUMMARY: I don't think we disagree with each other. It is perfectly OK to discuss the "eye-candy" in a game! The danger is when we fetishize aesthetics and/or hardware specs to the detriment of the core game.
:)
-
"Parallax" was abused at the time as much as SNES hardware effects. Even if most of a game's layered effects were appropriate, you'd usually see something which doesn't make sense or only removes depth. Eurpean developers were the worst, often putting in an out of place wallpaper for a background just for the sake of it.
Sonic's style of parallax is one of the best examples of going way too far and creating a contrasting effect. Not only does it scroll vertically way too much (a common problem, it should barely move at all), but having so many strips only makes it all the worse. You're given the impression that if Greenhill Zone existed on Earth, the furthest back mountains would have to be on one side of the planet and pierce the stratosphere, with Sonic running parallel along the opposite side of the planet. But for the vertical drop to be so extreme, Sonic would have to plummet through half the planet as well. The contrast of elements ends up feeling like Sonic is trapped inside an ant maze and someone is holding it up near a wall of sliding strips and moving it vertically and horizontally with the widest swing they can.
I love multi-plane effects, but as with too many things in the 16-bit generation, developers lost sight of what and why things were originally done and focused too much on differentiating games from the previous gen as well as standing out amidst a console war.
Most players got used to things and don't really think about them. This evolved to the point in modern games where the push for hyper realism has made them feel more inauthentic than ever.
-
However, as I said above, I think it's entirely fair to separate things based on the type of parallax effect they use, and also to say that stuff like dots-as-stars or separated strips that move at different speeds aren't things that look quite as good as hardware parallax backgrounds.
I've no problem with you saying that some parallax doesn't look as good as others, as some of it is rather mundane even on systems that have two+ background planes; the problem arises when you claim that games lack parallax altogether, simply because you don't think it looks good enough.
Your argument is analogous to saying hamburger isn't cow because it's not as good as sirloin. :roll:
-
What some people think of as "sprites as stars" can be some of the most effective parallax of the generation. But there's a very wide difference between the most basic "stars" parallax and the better examples. It's very ignorant to lump them all together and if you can't tell the difference, you should be deciding tier rankings of parallax styles.
"Strips of parallax" also makes up some of the best parallax of the generation and again, there's a world of difference between the worst and best. Download 2's desert stage looks like it's using a 3D texture mapped floor like a 32-bit shooter.
There's no such thing as "hardware parallax" either. It's all just illusions pieced together with several techniques to fool your brain. Scrolling isn't even real and is just incremental placement of pixels. Tile layers aren't real pieces of artwork. They're almost always cobbled together from tiny swatches to create the illusion of artwork.
If having two simulated (tile) layers pretending to move using a popular technique of pixel placement is technically the only thing which counts as "real" and is "better", then the Neo Geo can't do parallax as well as Genesis and SNES because it has 'zero' (tile) layers and is resorting to the "sprites as stars" technique of faking real hardware.
Getting held up on technicalities only keeps you from genuinely appreciating games as games to play and as art in general. One of the worst thing to happen to 16-bit discussion is all the fanboys who misinterpret spec sheets and argue that there are equations
which prove that their console is the bestest, instead of taking each game at face value.
-
Strips-of-stars, "some of the best parallax of the generation"? In games which don't have full parallax layers or anything else like that, you mean? I don't know about that... examples?
As for the Neo-Geo, the difference there is that EVERYTHING is made of sprites, so that really is a special case. And also of course those sprites can be huge, a far cry from the little dots of light you see in NES or TG16 games and the like. I'm not talking about the Neo-Geo here, that's an entirely different thing from any other console of the time.
However, as I said above, I think it's entirely fair to separate things based on the type of parallax effect they use, and also to say that stuff like dots-as-stars or separated strips that move at different speeds aren't things that look quite as good as hardware parallax backgrounds.
I've no problem with you saying that some parallax doesn't look as good as others, as some of it is rather mundane even on systems that have two+ background planes; the problem arises when you claim that games lack parallax altogether, simply because you don't think it looks good enough.
Your argument is analogous to saying hamburger isn't cow because it's not as good as sirloin. :roll:
I presume you're referring to the water in level 3 here? That looks like flowing water, or waves, not a parallax layer. Parallax exists to make something look like it is either closer or farther to the player than the main game layer, and while there is a bit of that effect in that level in that there are different speed objects, it pretty much just looks like a really cool flowing-water effect. I'm not saying 'that isn't good enough parallax'... is it really parallax at all?
-
BT, you're getting a little pedantic, but you are, of course, correct. "Hardware" parallax isn't really that. Hardware support for two independent and independently scrolling tile layers is often used to create parallax, just as a strip of sprites is. Both are hardware dependent, and both are functionally very similar. The advantage of the background method is the possibility of occlusion by one of the other tile layers without wasting sprites or inducing flicker in the sprite layer, which, you have to admit, is a really nice bonus.
I often wish the PC Engine had been designed with a little more RAM and another tile layer, but it wasn't. We got what we got and the programmers still did great stuff with it, and the games are still fun. And while the absence of an extra tile layer does sometimes degrade a game's aesthetic, it doesn't affect the fundamental gameplay. With that in mind, I would be lying if I said visuals don't affect the amount of fun I have with a game. And I actually do like some of that "fake" depth BT complains about. These games aren't means to be realistic. They are meant to be spectacles. Much like movies.
-
BT, you're getting a little pedantic, but you are, of course, correct. "Hardware" parallax isn't really that. Hardware support for two independent and independently scrolling tile layers is often used to create parallax, just as a strip of sprites is. Both are hardware dependent, and both are functionally very similar. The advantage of the background method is the possibility of occlusion by one of the other tile layers without wasting sprites or inducing flicker in the sprite layer, which, you have to admit, is a really nice bonus.
I often wish the PC Engine had been designed with a little more RAM and another tile layer, but it wasn't. We got what we got and the programmers still did great stuff with it, and the games are still fun. And while the absence of an extra tile layer does sometimes degrade a game's aesthetic, it doesn't affect the fundamental gameplay. With that in mind, I would be lying if I said visuals don't affect the amount of fun I have with a game. And I actually do like some of that "fake" depth BT complains about. These games aren't means to be realistic. They are meant to be spectacles. Much like movies.
Absolutely, we all like eye-candy. Except, sometimes, instead of eye-candy we get something worse (detracting from the game).
I don't care how any effect is technically achieved, because determining its value to the player is not a technical matter.
It is one of taste.
It is one of feasibility.
There is a difference between "that's kool" and "that's annoying"...and not all parallax fits into the former, sadly.
Notice, I didn't say "that is 100% hyper realistic", because that is not the standard we are using.
Just like SFX in movies, there will be times when violating some rules of "reality" will = "awesome", whilst at other times violating some rules = "annoying, lame".
It is case-by-case.
But, sadly, some games veer too far into "contrived & annoying" instead of "elegant and gorgeous".
This shouldn't be surprising....how often does one find anything competently executed?
All of this is a moot point, anyway, because the PCE doesn't have any games with parallax scrolling.
-
PCE games with poor attempts to have a bit of parallax are as bad as Gensis and SNES games poor attempts at parallax for-the-sake-of-it.
Too many casual "hardcore" game watchers don't really understand what they look at and just try to match technicalities to their downloaded opinions. The type of people who comment on PCE videos, informing everyone that it's an 8-bit system and all of its parallax is fake and that 99% of the library doesn't have any parallax.
-
tl;dr - Parallax is.
The Genesis, SNES, and PCE were made with the hardware capability, from the core system, to reposition any part of the screen at a different scroll point (to divide the screen into different scrolling speeds and direction). That by definition, is hardware assisted parallax. The PCE uses the traditional Hsync interrupt, the Genesis uses scroll ram, and the SNES uses HDMA. They all do the same thing. The Genesis has an addition BG layer allowing for more complex parallax, and the SNES can have up to 3 layers (4 in limited color modes) for even more advance parallax layering.
All these systems are capable of parallax. All these systems do parallax at some level of functionality when the developers make that choice. There is hardware assisting with the parallax in these consoles. There is no "fake" parallax in comparison from one to another, or better said is that they are all fake parallax - but some methods more advance than others. Even software parallax isn't fake. If you see a parallax effect, then it's parallax. The only thing to say about it, is the level of complexity accomplished for the effect. Using sprites, using dynamic tiles, using hsync interrupts, using whatever means necessary - none of that makes it fake.
If parallax is created through palette animation, then it's still parallax. If parallax is created through sprites for star fields, then it's still parallax. If a screen is split into "paper scrolls" (scrolling parts that don't overlap one another), then it's still parallax. Etc.
-
tl;dr - Parallax is.
The Genesis, SNES, and PCE were made with the hardware capability, from the core system, to reposition any part of the screen at a different scroll point (to divide the screen into different scrolling speeds and direction). That by definition, is hardware assisted parallax. The PCE uses the traditional Hsync interrupt, the Genesis uses scroll ram, and the SNES uses HDMA. They all do the same thing. The Genesis has an addition BG layer allowing for more complex parallax, and the SNES can have up to 3 layers (4 in limited color modes) for even more advance parallax layering.
All these systems are capable of parallax. All these systems do parallax at some level of functionality when the developers make that choice. There is hardware assisting with the parallax in these consoles. There is no "fake" parallax in comparison from one to another, or better said is that they are all fake parallax - but some methods more advance than others. Even software parallax isn't fake. If you see a parallax effect, then it's parallax. The only thing to say about it, is the level of complexity accomplished for the effect. Using sprites, using dynamic tiles, using hsync interrupts, using whatever means necessary - none of that makes it fake.
If parallax is created through palette animation, then it's still parallax. If parallax is created through sprites for star fields, then it's still parallax. If a screen is split into "paper scrolls" (scrolling parts that don't overlap one another), then it's still parallax. Etc.
But is it parallax?
-
PARA-LAX (the laxative for legal secretaries).
-
I would prefer a system that has a pair-a-slacks. I cannot stand all those bare-bottomed consoles flouncing about.
-
But is it parallax?
I feel that you're not asking the right question here. You need to look inward. You need to reflect upon why this very question is being asked. What does parallax do for the soul? How much does it need? Is too much parallax a compensation for lacking somewhere, or something, else? A substitution perhaps for a far greater, malignant, gaping hole at the center of our own existence. A missing part of us that has been ripped out... that part of us that feels devoid of 2D pixelized love..
These are the questions we need ask ourselves. Then, and only then, can we ask ourselves... is it parallax?
-
^- Note: Please read the above in Terence McKenna's voice.
-
^- Note: Please read the above in Terence McKenna's voice.
The shaman knows the answer to questions like...who stole the chicken.
-
Getting held up on technicalities only keeps you from genuinely appreciating games as games to play and as art in general. One of the worst thing to happen to 16-bit discussion is all the fanboys who misinterpret spec sheets and argue that there are equations
which prove that their console is the bestest, instead of taking each game at face value.
Yup, this is why I give credit to Genesis games that exhibit "scaling and rotation" even if it is using various tricks to create the illusion. All the matters is what the player experiences. Clever programmers deserve credit for the beautiful illusions they create within constraints.
-
These are the questions we need ask ourselves. Then, and only then, can we ask ourselves... is it parallax?
(http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/yellowfearmonster8.jpg)
-
I presume you're referring to the water in level 3 here? That looks like flowing water, or waves, not a parallax layer. Parallax exists to make something look like it is either closer or farther to the player than the main game layer, and while there is a bit of that effect in that level in that there are different speed objects, it pretty much just looks like a really cool flowing-water effect. I'm not saying 'that isn't good enough parallax'... is it really parallax at all?
When the area "nearest" the viewer flows by more quickly than the area "furthest" from the viewer and the main background area scrolls even slower yet, what else is it? I'm talking about the water that flows along the floor and ceiling, of course; the waterfall islands in the background are indeed just animated water and scroll in step with the rest of the background.
I suppose in your biased little world the clouds that scroll independently of and overlap the background scenery also aren't parallax. They're just clouds! :roll:
-
I presume you're referring to the water in level 3 here? That looks like flowing water, or waves, not a parallax layer. Parallax exists to make something look like it is either closer or farther to the player than the main game layer, and while there is a bit of that effect in that level in that there are different speed objects, it pretty much just looks like a really cool flowing-water effect. I'm not saying 'that isn't good enough parallax'... is it really parallax at all?
When the area "nearest" the viewer flows by more quickly than the area "furthest" from the viewer and the main background area scrolls even slower yet, what else is it? I'm talking about the water that flows along the floor and ceiling, of course; the waterfall islands in the background are indeed just animated water and scroll in step with the rest of the background.
I suppose in your biased little world the clouds that scroll independently of and overlap the background scenery also aren't parallax. They're just clouds! :roll:
This is why I didn't even bother to point out the water parallax in Double Rings. It's the same kind of parallax as the first section of the water stage in Lords of Thunder. It uses a different (and I believe superior) method to achieve the same effect. It's actually a much more advanced kind of parallax than what you usually saw that generation. You've got "strips" not just scrolling independantly, but animating as they flow and curve around corners. You can't do that by manipulating tile layers, unless you've got dozens to spare.
-
Isn't that line scrolling? Kinda like Darius Gaiden?
-
Isn't that line scrolling? Kinda like Darius Gaiden?
The water in Double Rings uses color cycling to animate layers/strips moving at different speeds. It's the same kind of parallax that is often achieved by h-sync effects. Except this way you can have it move in any direction along the way and change shape.
I don't know if Darius Gaiden uses line scrolling or just a 3D texture mapped/"mode 7" style distortion. I haven't looked at it in a long time.
-
I would guess that Darius Gaiden uses "mode 7" given the other sprite distortion present in the game (see the scaling planet & ships during the opening) but I wouldn't guess the two effects would be mutual exclusive given the versatility of arcade hardware.
-
The water in Stage 3 is absolutely mesmerizing, as well as the starfields in Galaga 88 and Gradius.
Does Black Falcon ever realize that no one cares about his massive blocks of text? He goes into basically Autism mode every time someone disagrees with a single thing he says. He probably spends hours just proofreading his stupid debate arguments.
-
The water in Stage 3 is absolutely mesmerizing, as well as the starfields in Galaga 88 and Gradius.
Does Black Falcon ever realize that no one cares about his massive blocks of text? He goes into basically Autism mode every time someone disagrees with a single thing he says. He probably spends hours just proofreading his stupid debate arguments.
Lukester, I enjoy reading his stuff, even if I disagree with parts of it.
I discover how I really feel about things, and I better my own priorities/biases, when I read someone else's views.
I don't mind if he doesn't see things exactly like me, because, to be honest, I have my own quirks and peculiarities.
:)
I enjoy reading your comments, too, by the way.
-
The water in Stage 3 is absolutely mesmerizing, as well as the starfields in Galaga 88 and Gradius.
Does Black Falcon ever realize that no one cares about his massive blocks of text? He goes into basically Autism mode every time someone disagrees with a single thing he says. He probably spends hours just proofreading his stupid debate arguments.
Lukester, I enjoy reading his stuff, even if I disagree with parts of it.
I discover how I really feel about things, and I better my own priorities/biases, when I read someone else's views.
I don't mind if he doesn't see things exactly like me, because, to be honest, I have my own quirks and peculiarities.
:)
I enjoy reading your comments, too, by the way.
I understand. Maybe it's a little harsh for me to say that.
But it is exhausting trying to read his posts. Never clear and concise.
In all honesty, I don't want to read a thesis just to hear some points about a game.
Back on topic though, I am glad this game is getting recognition. It's a very good shooter with some surprising depth, and could easily compete with Thunderforce 3. It's a shorter game, but does have better sound in my opinion, and the crazy extra levels.
Naxat should have brought over this one instead of Paranoia, even though I like both. W-Ring is a AAA shooter all the way. I would love the brothers duomazov to review this one.
-
tl;dr - Parallax is.
The Genesis, SNES, and PCE were made with the hardware capability, from the core system, to reposition any part of the screen at a different scroll point (to divide the screen into different scrolling speeds and direction). That by definition, is hardware assisted parallax. The PCE uses the traditional Hsync interrupt, the Genesis uses scroll ram, and the SNES uses HDMA. They all do the same thing. The Genesis has an addition BG layer allowing for more complex parallax, and the SNES can have up to 3 layers (4 in limited color modes) for even more advance parallax layering.
All these systems are capable of parallax. All these systems do parallax at some level of functionality when the developers make that choice. There is hardware assisting with the parallax in these consoles. There is no "fake" parallax in comparison from one to another, or better said is that they are all fake parallax - but some methods more advance than others. Even software parallax isn't fake. If you see a parallax effect, then it's parallax. The only thing to say about it, is the level of complexity accomplished for the effect. Using sprites, using dynamic tiles, using hsync interrupts, using whatever means necessary - none of that makes it fake.
If parallax is created through palette animation, then it's still parallax. If parallax is created through sprites for star fields, then it's still parallax. If a screen is split into "paper scrolls" (scrolling parts that don't overlap one another), then it's still parallax. Etc.
Sure, all of those are different kinds of parallax, but they are not all equal in how they look, and that's what you don't mention here.
BT, you're getting a little pedantic, but you are, of course, correct. "Hardware" parallax isn't really that. Hardware support for two independent and independently scrolling tile layers is often used to create parallax, just as a strip of sprites is. Both are hardware dependent, and both are functionally very similar. The advantage of the background method is the possibility of occlusion by one of the other tile layers without wasting sprites or inducing flicker in the sprite layer, which, you have to admit, is a really nice bonus.
I often wish the PC Engine had been designed with a little more RAM and another tile layer, but it wasn't. We got what we got and the programmers still did great stuff with it, and the games are still fun. And while the absence of an extra tile layer does sometimes degrade a game's aesthetic, it doesn't affect the fundamental gameplay. With that in mind, I would be lying if I said visuals don't affect the amount of fun I have with a game. And I actually do like some of that "fake" depth BT complains about. These games aren't means to be realistic. They are meant to be spectacles. Much like movies.
Well said. There are very few games which make me say 'that's too much parallax'; maybe Jim Power 3D for SNES, but not much else... and even there the effect is interesting even if it's hard to look at as a result. I like parallax.
When the area "nearest" the viewer flows by more quickly than the area "furthest" from the viewer and the main background area scrolls even slower yet, what else is it? I'm talking about the water that flows along the floor and ceiling, of course; the waterfall islands in the background are indeed just animated water and scroll in step with the rest of the background.
I do see what you mean, yes, and that's why I mentioned it as a parallax-ish effect in the review. However, looking at it again, the problem is that the rocks and the background scroll together. If you only look at the water there is an illusion of depth... but then you notice that the rocks that that water is flowing over are moving at the same exact speed as the background and the effect falls apart. That's the kind of thing having a full parallax background layer allows, but W-Ring doesn't have that.
I suppose in your biased little world the clouds that scroll independently of and overlap the background scenery also aren't parallax. They're just clouds! :roll:
You overstate how biased I am here and understate your own bias, I think...
Getting held up on technicalities only keeps you from genuinely appreciating games as games to play and as art in general. One of the worst thing to happen to 16-bit discussion is all the fanboys who misinterpret spec sheets and argue that there are equations
which prove that their console is the bestest, instead of taking each game at face value.
Yup, this is why I give credit to Genesis games that exhibit "scaling and rotation" even if it is using various tricks to create the illusion. All the matters is what the player experiences. Clever programmers deserve credit for the beautiful illusions they create within constraints.
On the subject of Genesis, SNES, or TG16 games trying to do software scaling and rotation effects, I give credit when they are done well, but not when the framerates and animation are so bad that it's hard to look at. Looking at the Genesis, games like Super Thunder Blade, Space Harrier II, or Super Hang-On aren't going to get much praise from me for trying, not with how nearly unplayable the results are. On the other hand, games which do look and play well, like RoadBlasters or Outrun 2019, do.
The water in Stage 3 is absolutely mesmerizing, as well as the starfields in Galaga 88 and Gradius.
Does Black Falcon ever realize that no one cares about his massive blocks of text? He goes into basically Autism mode every time someone disagrees with a single thing he says. He probably spends hours just proofreading his stupid debate arguments.
Lukester, I enjoy reading his stuff, even if I disagree with parts of it.
I discover how I really feel about things, and I better my own priorities/biases, when I read someone else's views.
I don't mind if he doesn't see things exactly like me, because, to be honest, I have my own quirks and peculiarities.
:)
I enjoy reading your comments, too, by the way.
I understand. Maybe it's a little harsh for me to say that.
But it is exhausting trying to read his posts. Never clear and concise.
In all honesty, I don't want to read a thesis just to hear some points about a game.
I've written and completed a thesis (it's how I got my masters' in history!), so I will take this as praise. :)
Back on topic though, I am glad this game is getting recognition. It's a very good shooter with some surprising depth, and could easily compete with Thunderforce 3. It's a shorter game, but does have better sound in my opinion, and the crazy extra levels.
Naxat should have brought over this one instead of Paranoia, even though I like both. W-Ring is a AAA shooter all the way. I would love the brothers duomazov to review this one.
If someone actually chose Paranoia over this game... what were they thinking? That game is okay, sure, but this one is a lot better.
-
Typical Black Falcon bullshit: whenever your argument is shown to be patently false, claim you're arguing something else entirely or just ignore the point altogether.
There's still no parallax in W-Ring, dammit!!! :lol:
-
Black Falcon, this is a forum about old games, not grad school. I am not praising you or trying to feed your ego.
Please stop thinking you need to be scholarly. This is a casual place.
-
ABF: 1 + 1 = 3
Internet: 1 + 1 = 2
ABF: The common opinion among those who add is that 1 + 1 = 3. 2 is horrible and I don't know anyone who has ever liked it. If you like 2 then you just hate addition altogether. [cites several unrelated sources]
Internet: It's not a matter of opinion, it is quantifiable. Here is the proof broken down mathematically: 1 + 1 = 2.
ABF: I don't know why you guys keep going on about addition, it has nothing to do with any of this. As I've said from the beginning, it is common knowledge that 1 × 1 = 3. You guys are just addition fanboys trying to twist reality.
Internet: You literally said "1 + 1 = 3". Here's your exact quote:
["ABF: 1 + 1 = 3"].
You were completely wrong and your arguments made no sense, but now you're talking about something completely different and are just as wrong. 1 × 1 does not equal 3. 1 × 1 = 1.
ABF: Just because you wish it were so, it doesn't make it true. I've posted sources which show a history of 1 × 1 equalling 3. On any other forum you'll find everyone agrees that 1 × 1 = 3.
Internet:: Those sources you cited were supposed to back up your argument that 1 + 1 = 3, which you now denying saying at all. Either way, they don't prove that 1 + 1 = 3 or 1 × 1 = 3.
Random poster:Hey guys, remember last year when ABF said this?
__
["ABF: √3 = 5"]
Internet:That contradicts the latest revision of his argument and is also completely wrong. He really will say any random thing to suit any given argument. In the end, all he's ever coming from is <3.
ABF: 3 is just so innovative that even if it doesn't technically equal everything it might as well and as far as I'm concerned it does.
*** Three of the posters in the above discussion have ABF quotes as their signature. ***
-
I guess I'll just go ahead and post my review in here of W-Ring.
I played it. I like it! It's a cool game.
-
I guess I'll just go ahead and post my review in here of W-Ring.
I played it. I like it! It's a cool game.
:)
-
Typical Black Falcon bullshit: whenever your argument is shown to be patently false, claim you're arguing something else entirely or just ignore the point altogether.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, because what you describe here did not happen. First I never said the game has no parallax-style effect, I said quite the opposite ("but the water on stage 3 has a slightly fake-parallax look to it", where the word "fake" means software parallax effects), and second my argument most certainly was not "shown to be patently false". The water in stage 3 that I mentioned from the beginning is indeed the one thing in the game which you are mentioning as a parallax object.
There's still no parallax in W-Ring, dammit!!! :lol:
There is a halfway-there parallax effect on the stage 3 water. It looks cool, but as parallax isn't entirely convincing because the background and foreground move together. That is a fact. I've gone back and looked at it again. It looks like parallax scrolling... until you look at the parts which don't have water between the background and the rocky foreground obstacles, and notice that the foreground and background are scrolling at the same exact speed and aren't actually different layers.
Black Falcon, this is a forum about old games, not grad school. I am not praising you or trying to feed your ego.
Please stop thinking you need to be scholarly. This is a casual place.
I think pretty much the opposite here; there are more than enough one-sentence posts about old games out there. There should be more longer ones.
*** Three of the posters in the above discussion have ABF quotes as their signature. ***
Have you forgotten that you're not on Sega-16? I like some things about that site, but don't make the tone on this forum more like that one.
-
Wedding Ring: The Double Rings. Sounds like a ceirtain shock site around the web...
I really need to try this game, sounds cool. I love your detailed reviews, A Black Falcon, please keep up the good work.
edit: seems like I missed the drama :lol: it was a good review nonetheless
-
I'm not sure what you're saying here, because what you describe here did not happen. First I never said the game has no parallax-style effect.....
You said flat out that it "doesn't have any parallax scrolling" and "that for once I don't mind the absence of parallax." That's verbatim from your original post.
I said quite the opposite ("but the water on stage 3 has a slightly fake-parallax look to it", where the word "fake" means software parallax effects).....
Again, either a game has parallax or it doesn't. Your wishy washy kinda-sorta-fake-parallax-but-it's-not-parallax argument is complete bullshit.
..... and second my argument most certainly was not "shown to be patently false". The water in stage 3 that I mentioned from the beginning is indeed the one thing in the game which you are mentioning as a parallax object.
If you don't want to define the water as parallax, that's fine, but what about the clouds?
Like I said, you ignore whatever points disprove your "facts".
-
The perspective on the water level was so trippy I played this last night and got to that area and had to stop and analyze how it was made. So crazy, the animation on the water falls was great. What a rad game, thanks for suggesting it. :)
-
You said flat out that it "doesn't have any parallax scrolling" and "that for once I don't mind the absence of parallax." That's verbatim from your original post.
Again, either a game has parallax or it doesn't. Your wishy washy kinda-sorta-fake-parallax-but-it's-not-parallax argument is complete bullshit.
I said 'it doesn't have parallax, except for the thing it kind of does have.' That is, I equivocated, something I do a lot; I rarely will make an absolute statement when equivocation can be used instead... and that's exactly what I did there.
If you don't want to define the water as parallax, that's fine, but what about the clouds?
Which clouds, in what level?
-
I can't believe we haven't moved beyond this. Damn.
-
I said 'it doesn't have parallax, except for the thing it kind of does have.' That is, I equivocated, something I do a lot; I rarely will make an absolute statement when equivocation can be used instead... and that's exactly what I did there.
Saying there's "no parallax" is unequivocal, and you continue to say the water isn't parallax anyway.
Make up your mind: does it or does it not have parallax? It's a yes or no question.
Which clouds, in what level?
The white ones that look like, um, clouds. There's literally dozens of them in level three.
You have actually played the game, right? :lol:
-
(http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/abfparallax.gif)
If you don't want to define the water as parallax, that's fine, but what about the clouds?
Which clouds, in what level?
-
I can't believe we haven't moved beyond this. Damn.
I definitely wish we would...
Saying there's "no parallax" is unequivocal, and you continue to say the water isn't parallax anyway.
Make up your mind: does it or does it not have parallax? It's a yes or no question.
But 'sort of' is the best answer in my opinion, not yes or no. Sorry. :) Six of the seven levels have no parallax, but the other one (lv. 3) has some parallax-style effects that look cool, but the main background and main obstacles (the rocky walls) are actually one layer and scroll together, so the effect isn't complete; this is probably why I said it looks more like waves than parallax, to me. But sure, I can see why you're calling it parallax. It looks awesome as it is though, they did a great job finding a way to make it look like there is depth to the layers of waves. As I said in the review level 3 is the best-looking level in this visually very impressive game.
The white ones that look like, um, clouds. There's literally dozens of them in level three.
You have actually played the game, right? :lol:
Oh, I forgot about those, obviously. Sure, that's a parallax-style effect too. They're obviously sprites, of course.
-
Thanks for the review, I didn't know about this shooter.
-
I definitely wish we would...
Liar. Trolls like you just love arguing bullshit.
To numbnuts Black Falcon, everything is just 'parallax style' and not really parallax because it's not made by two+ independent background layers. The stupid f*ck doesn't understand the dictionary definition of the word parallax and never will.
-
I definitely wish we would...
Liar. Trolls like you just love arguing bullshit.
To numbnuts Black Falcon, everything is just 'parallax style' and not really parallax because it's not made by two+ independent background layers. The stupid f*ck doesn't understand the dictionary definition of the word parallax and never will.
Nevermind that parallax had regularly appeared in games long before any hardware supported 2+ tile layers and that tile layers in general were a tiny blip in the timeline of game hardware.
Do all the games since hardware ceased using tile layers not feature "real" parallax?
-
There's no wrong way to do parallax. Not hard for most to figure out lol.
-
I can't wait for Black Falcon's next review.
What are the chances he will review Ninja Gaiden or Ys III?
-
I can't wait for Black Falcon's next review.
What are the chances he will review Ninja Gaiden or Ys III?
It will be Popful Mail and be compared to the Sega CD.
-
I can't wait for Black Falcon's next review.
What are the chances he will review Ninja Gaiden or Ys III?
It will be Popful Mail and be compared to the Sega CD.
I was thinking it might be Monster Lair TG-CD vs. MegaDrive.
:)
-
Hehe. Probably right.
-
I can't wait for Black Falcon's next review.
What are the chances he will review Ninja Gaiden or Ys III?
I imagine you're making some joke here, but apart from arcade ports, I haven't really done many reviews of multiplatform console games, you know... other than Zero Wing for TCD and the GBC version of Donkey Kong Country, where I focus mostly on that version, or the one paragraph or so about the PS2 version of Heavenly Guardian in that review of the Wii game, the closest thing to a full comparison article I've done is probably be my Gauntlet Legends / Dark Legacy version comparison list (http://www.blackfalcongames.net/?p=62).
Anyway, when I do a full review, it's of a game I have completed. I don't like it when people review games they haven't finished yet, so I don't do that in full reviews. So if I was going to do another TG16/CD game review soon, what would I do... my top thoughts would be Shubibinman 3 and Splash Lake. I finished those games not that long ago, and they do have some interesting things about them worth talking about. For a HuCard game I'm not sure... Space Invaders Plus (Fukkatsu no Hi), if I could figure out if there's any predictability to which stages you get sent to? Or something I beat several years ago like Blazing Lazers, Cyber-Core, or something? I don't know.
Oh, of the games you just mentioned, Monster Lair for TCD and Popful Mail for SCD are fantastic games, but I've barely ever touched the other versions of either game so no, I wouldn't do much of a comparison if I ever did review one of those two.
I definitely wish we would...
Liar. Trolls like you just love arguing bullshit.
I like debate and discussion about games, that's great. But when it turns into people throwing insults around, being really rude, etc, that I don't like one bit. I said that because that's happened in this thread. I would never write a post as insulting as yours is here, that's not how to act in a debate. There is no good reason for that tone, why can't we just have a debate about our opinions on this? Debates or discussions about games are good, I certainly love discussing games and debating opinions about them. Threads full of posts pointlessly insulting others with untrue insults aren't.
Do all the games since hardware ceased using tile layers not feature "real" parallax?
I covered my thoughts on this way back near the beginning of this thread, when I said that TG16/CD games that pull off full parallax backgrounds should be considered to be the equal of games on other platforms that look like that, regardless of how they made the effect. Games like Bravoman, Valis IV, Gradius II: Gofer's Ambition, Super Darius, Super Darius II, Rondo of Blood, etc., those have a foreground and a separate background layer, just like any two-layer SNES or Genesis game. Or for another example mentioned earlier in the thread, the Neo-Geo can do more layers of "parallax" than most consoles even though thanks to its weird graphical style (everything is sprites) it has no actual background layers at all.
My point is, how games achieve the effect only matters on a technical level and not for gameplay so long as the results look pretty much the same, and in those games they do. I care about how it's achieved too, but the most important thing is how the resulting graphics look.
-
^ I was teasing you in that comment I made. :)
On PCE: Monster Lair has no parallax, Ninja Gaiden has poorly executed parallax.
-
I like debate and discussion about games, that's great. But when it turns into people throwing insults around, being really rude, etc, that I don't like one bit. I said that because that's happened in this thread.
And I don't like people that make up bullshit facts and definitions, which is what you do repeatedly.
I would never write a post as insulting as yours is here....
Your very existence is insulting.
..... that's not how to act in a debate. There is no good reason for that tone, why can't we just have a debate about our opinions on this? Debates or discussions about games are good, I certainly love discussing games and debating opinions about them. Threads full of posts pointlessly insulting others with untrue insults aren't.
You aren't remotely interested in (or even capable of) an honest debate, where veracity, logic, and consistency are required. You're a liar, a cheat, a simpleton, and a troll.
There's no parallax in W-Ring! Black Falcon hath spoken!!!
-
Black Falcon: I like longer-form writing when it is informed and/or well-written.
I always enjoy reading your stuff.
Folks who want a short, brief summary can find them in abundance (it's what 99% of the interwebz is filled with).
Please continue writing the longer-form articles...it is a dying breed. Sure, it is more niche, but there are at least a handful of folks who appreciate it. Like...maybe seven. I am confident that at least seven shoot-em-up fans would be willing to read a long article. The rest have attention deficit issues.
:)
Nice review! I enjoy reading the longer-form articles like this as well.
-
Nice review! I enjoy reading the longer-form articles like this as well.
Thanks.
^ I was teasing you in that comment I made. :)
On PCE: Monster Lair has no parallax, Ninja Gaiden has poorly executed parallax.
Monster Lair for Turbo CD is a great game, and they more than made up for the removal of parallax other ways. The graphics look really good for a 1989 regular-CD release, most obviously. I don't mind that they removed the parallax, it looks great as it is and for the time it's really good looking for the platform. It also kept the two player co-op, which was far from a given back then! The gameplay is great as well, and the CD soundtrack is quite good. I only have the TCD version, but I imagine the MD version has worse audio, it's only on a cart. It might have been nice to see some kind of CD intro or something, a bunch of those early CD titles really are just cart-style-game-plus-CD-audio, but it's a very good game as it is. It's kind of weird; I've never enjoyed the first Wonder Boy or any of the Adventure Island games very much, but Monster Lair and Monster World are fantastic.
As for Ninja Gaiden, I have the first two games for the NES (and I did beat the second one, because its last level isn't as insanely hard as the last level in the first game), but I really wish I had gotten the SNES collection back when it wasn't insanely expensive. That version adds password save to all three games and I, of course, always like it a lot when games let you save.
-
(http://i62.tinypic.com/x0xmrm.jpg)
-
My point is, how games achieve the effect only matters on a technical level and not for gameplay so long as the results look pretty much the same, and in those games they do. I care about how it's achieved too, but the most important thing is how the resulting graphics look.
I don't know how anyone can disagree with this.
-
Sorry but tricks to achieve parallax DOES affect gameplay whether you want to recognize it or not.
Dynamic tiles = a lot of cycles dedicated to update PPU every frame, limited BG/Sprite updates, bg has to be designed carefully to not have too many 'black spots' (areas which would be composite BG1/BG2 but aren't can't be displayed in the same place at once).
Possible results: slowdown, scroll speed limitations, limited on-the-fly animation frame overwrite.
Line scroll = BG has to be designed as individual horizontal stripes, 'black spots' in the 'independent' backgrounds (same reason as before).
Results: cheap but cheap looking, too (see Samurai Ghost). Sometimes unconvincing, can be solved with sprites but can cause flicker due to too many sprites on the same scanline.
Sprite BG = BG has to have as little detail as possible, low number of enemies to avoid flicker
Results: it WILL flicker, this ain't no neo geo son. Plus a very small number of sprites to actually act as sprites. I guess bravoman does that?
edit: Ninja Spirit has the background darker to hide the 'black spot' problem, not really noticeable:
(http://i.imgur.com/hpNCQa4.png)
This is the best technique but not always viable in some games, the forest in shape shifter always looked odd to me because of how squareish the trees looked.
-
The PCE happens to be good at animation like dynamic tiles. It can also throw around enough sprites to replicate one of the layers found in many SNES games, yet still include the few player/enemy sprites those games have. It also has enough processing power to do lots of these kinds of things, plus twice the amount of action/collision/speed/etc of a comparable SNES game and not slowdown, while the comparable SNES game does slowdown.
So "tricks" do affect the PCE, but it's still relative.
Just the same, various forms of parallax in Genesis and SNES games are not resource-free. The most common Mode used in SNES games to have parallax includes a layer of NES/Gameboy quality color. Once you see it you can't unsee it.
But Ninja Spirit is completely different and unique. It's not playing pre -rendered animated tiles, it's rendering them in real-time, or in other words, it's "hardware parallax".
-
Sorry but tricks to achieve parallax DOES affect gameplay whether you want to recognize it or not.
In the case of the snes, doing parallax can contribute to slowdown and technically on the Genesis as well. If you miss a vblank flag by 10 cpu cycles, it's no different than missing it by 10,000 cpu cycles; game logic is stalled for one frame.
Parallax takes cpu resource on all three systems. It's not free. I'd say the PCE cpu is more than up for the task. Of course one can make an easy/fast routine, bloated and slow in operation, as well graphic designs for such effects. Sometimes "just enough" is the standard. Especially if that's enough to standout to other competition on the platform. I.e. PCE and parallax. If that standard isn't being pushed, then other game developers don't have much of an incentive to go beyond that. Just look at the Genesis; parallax standards were pushed to a high level. To the point where gamers thought that the SNES couldn't do the parallax on the level of the Genesis. The irony is that the SNES is capable of much more complex parallax, but the snes game developers didn't. That didn't become the focus - other effects did. And some of those other effects on the SNES took up much more cpu resource than complex parallax.
Ninja Spirit has the background darker to hide the 'black spot' problem, not really noticeable:
And yet the next level with tree leaves that have no such issue and the dynamic tiles appear perfectly on a pixel level behind the tree leaves. And those leaves aren't part of the pre-compiled animation either (or realtime rotated pixels).
The PCE definitely has limitations when it comes to how complex a scene can be, but what you get out of it is the directly related to what you put into it. Lords of Thunder is a great example (and it's doing more than both NS and SS). That 'black spot' problem in Ninja Spirit and ShapeShifter can be avoid or 'fixed', with or without sprites. The linescroll issue you bring up, is also an issue with the Genesis and SNES when used in the far BG layer. You need solid color transition areas to hide the seam when straight edges aren't an option, when two BG layers can't be used in composition. Whether is looks 'cheap' or not, doesn't effect the gameplay though. Unless you consider it a distraction.
Edit: Scroll speed isn't limited by parallax effects.
-
The parallax discussion in this thread is the type of thing that would make a great article on the future pcefx super site, in my opinion.
As a total layman, I love these technical breakdowns. Bonknuts points out what I've come to understand, that the human factor is really the biggest.
-
*ahem* I genuinely think this looks as good or better than anything on the Genesis or SNES (slight spoiler, this is the last area of Legend of Xanadu):
Final Stage
~1:20-2:00 is just amazing. Many layers of complex overlapping parallax.
All the side scrolling areas in that game that I've seen look great. See here for the first area.
-
*ahem* I genuinely think this looks as good or better than anything on the Genesis or SNES (slight spoiler, this is the last area of Legend of Xanadu):
Final Stage
~1:20-2:00 is just amazing. Many layers of complex overlapping parallax.
All the side scrolling areas in that game that I've seen look great. See here for the first area.
The cloud section looks like it has 3 layers of parallax. Looks good, what techniques are employed there?
-
Sprites + scanline is my guess. I think people underestimate what you can do with sprites. :)
-
All you need is sliding strips of tiles and sprites in the right places, including "behind" the tiles. Sprites can float around on the base color of the tile palettes like a third layer. Since they don't penetrate the rest of the tile art, all kinds of neat effects can be achieved.
-
*ahem* I genuinely think this looks as good or better than anything on the Genesis or SNES (slight spoiler, this is the last area of Legend of Xanadu):
Final Stage
~1:20-2:00 is just amazing. Many layers of complex overlapping parallax.
All the side scrolling areas in that game that I've seen look great. See here for the first area.
Agreed, gonna be great to see this fan-translated one day which might just be some time next year!
-
*ahem* I genuinely think this looks as good or better than anything on the Genesis or SNES (slight spoiler, this is the last area of Legend of Xanadu):
Final Stage
~1:20-2:00 is just amazing. Many layers of complex overlapping parallax.
All the side scrolling areas in that game that I've seen look great. See here for the first area.
Agreed, gonna be great to see this fan-translated one day which might just be some time next year!
I am very much looking forward to translated Xanadus! :D
-
Parallax takes cpu resource on all three systems. It's not free. I'd say the PCE cpu is more than up for the task.
That 'black spot' problem in Ninja Spirit and ShapeShifter can be avoid or 'fixed', with or without sprites. The linescroll issue you bring up, is also an issue with the Genesis and SNES when used in the far BG layer. You need solid color transition areas to hide the seam when straight edges aren't an option, when two BG layers can't be used in composition. Whether is looks 'cheap' or not, doesn't effect the gameplay though. Unless you consider it a distraction.
Edit: Scroll speed isn't limited by parallax effects.
I really wasn't comparing the PCE to any of its competitors. With all that text I just wanted to say that parallax doesn't come for free and the design of the game is significantly influenced by how the BGs are designed to behave and look. Perhaps I'm too influenced by the NES but I always see these effects as "oh shit this is going to be 90% of my processing time isn't it", specially when it depends of a lot of Video RAM updates.
The line scroll technique looks great in Samurai Ghost but it does look cheap when the solid color of the edge clashes with the background that's supposed to be behind it isn't of a solid color as well. Well at least for me. My opinions suck, so what. :lol:
edit: an example that's the opposite of Samurai Ghost: Atlantean. Now that's a damn great looking game, because sprites are used to hide the linescroll and the BG is designed to be a set of rectangular walls one in front of the other. That's what I meant, it is a cheap technique processing time wise (specially with the built in line interrupt!) but it does show unless you go the extra mile, inducing flicker with too many sprites on screen.
You sure it doesn't? I don't see myself making a game update the virtual BG with new tile indexes as fast as a game like Sanic or Bio Force Ape while it uses part of vblank to also update the tile sets. Doesn't sound viable to me. I'm not challenging your opinion or anything, I just want to hear a detailed explanation of your statement.
-
*ahem* I genuinely think this looks as good or better than anything on the Genesis or SNES (slight spoiler, this is the last area of Legend of Xanadu):
Final Stage
~1:20-2:00 is just amazing. Many layers of complex overlapping parallax.
All the side scrolling areas in that game that I've seen look great. See here for the first area.
Agreed, gonna be great to see this fan-translated one day which might just be some time next year!
Be sure to make a special Tobias edition that infects his systems with malware.
-
Parallax takes cpu resource on all three systems. It's not free. I'd say the PCE cpu is more than up for the task.
That 'black spot' problem in Ninja Spirit and ShapeShifter can be avoid or 'fixed', with or without sprites. The linescroll issue you bring up, is also an issue with the Genesis and SNES when used in the far BG layer. You need solid color transition areas to hide the seam when straight edges aren't an option, when two BG layers can't be used in composition. Whether is looks 'cheap' or not, doesn't effect the gameplay though. Unless you consider it a distraction.
Edit: Scroll speed isn't limited by parallax effects.
I really wasn't comparing the PCE to any of its competitors. With all that text I just wanted to say that parallax doesn't come for free and the design of the game is significantly influenced by how the BGs are designed to behave and look. Perhaps I'm too influenced by the NES but I always see these effects as "oh shit this is going to be 90% of my processing time isn't it", specially when it depends of a lot of Video RAM updates.
The line scroll technique looks great in Samurai Ghost but it does look cheap when the solid color of the edge clashes with the background that's supposed to be behind it isn't of a solid color as well. Well at least for me. My opinions suck, so what. :lol:
edit: an example that's the opposite of Samurai Ghost: Atlantean. Now that's a damn great looking game, because sprites are used to hide the linescroll and the BG is designed to be a set of rectangular walls one in front of the other. That's what I meant, it is a cheap technique processing time wise (specially with the built in line interrupt!) but it does show unless you go the extra mile, inducing flicker with too many sprites on screen.
You sure it doesn't? I don't see myself making a game update the virtual BG with new tile indexes as fast as a game like Sanic or Bio Force Ape while it uses part of vblank to also update the tile sets. Doesn't sound viable to me. I'm not challenging your opinion or anything, I just want to hear a detailed explanation of your statement.
Although 16-bit consoles could always be pushed further, anything already achieved is proof of what is possible at the very least. It doesn't matter how something might seem to be theoretically, like the resource impact of dynamic tiles, because we already have so many PCE games which already make liberal use of dynamic tiles for stuff like parallax, while at the same time still run an "intensive" game like a shooter.
-
You sure it doesn't? I don't see myself making a game update the virtual BG with new tile indexes as fast as a game like Sanic or Bio Force Ape while it uses part of vblank to also update the tile sets. Doesn't sound viable to me. I'm not challenging your opinion or anything, I just want to hear a detailed explanation of your statement.
Well, the tilemap itself would have more entries to update, but dynamic tiles are just the position number/frame to write to vram. Dynamic tiles and hsync scrolls aren't affected by scroll speed. They are a constant factor. That just leaves the tilemap update.
How fast does Sonic scroll? Let's say it's 64 pixels per frame. That's 15 full frames scroll per second in PCE low res. That's pretty damn fast! A full screen has completely scrolled by in just 4 frames (there are 60 frames in a second for the video). That's 8x2x28= 448 bytes to update to vram. Just using a simple load/store loop (no block transfer), that's ~11 cpu cycles per byte. That's 4,928 cpu cycles (4.1% cpu resource per frame). There's 16,380 cpu cycles in vblank with a frame of 256x224. (262-224-2)* 455 cpu cycles. That still leaves 11,452 cpu cycles left over in vblank.
But here's the thing; I wouldn't update the tilemap during vblank for scrolling. The PCE can write vram during active display. And the virtual map is large enough to write offscreen during this time. I would (and do) do this during active display. That frees up all of vblank. SATB doesn't need to be updated during vblank either. There are also ways to do dynamic tiles without having to resort to vblank as well. Vblank time is more of a NES, Genesis, SNES time of thing/limitation. That's why the Genesis and SNES have local to vram DMAs, because such a short amount of time - the cpu isn't fast enough to update vram. The NES only has a sprite DMA option.
Vblank should be saved for critical things that can't be double buffered or done off screen during active display (like palette ram updates, etc).
Edit: Scrolling 64 pixels per frame is ridiculous and unrealistic, or a rare special case. Even 8 pixels per frame is pretty fast for scrolling (almost two screens per second).
*If you're using HuC and the default map libraries, well then maybe you'll run into some issues. Those map routines are slow and unoptimized. They're are meant for general flexibility.