PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
NEC PC-FX => PC-FX Discussion => Topic started by: Artabasdos on March 20, 2017, 03:35:42 PM
Title: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 20, 2017, 03:35:42 PM
The Saturn is known for being a 2D powerhouse, especially with the likes of the 4MB RAM cart. However, looking at the PC FX's specs, it seems it is pretty capable too. So, does anyone know the answer?
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SignOfZeta on March 20, 2017, 05:42:28 PM
Nobody ever made shit for FX so there's no way to know. I'd assume the Saturn obliterates it though, especially with that four mega meter rammer.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 20, 2017, 11:56:34 PM
The Saturn is more capable in pretty much every way. The only thing the PC-FX has that's superior is more background layers.
That said, the PC-FX's capabilities aren't so terribly out classed that it couldn't pull off nice ports of most any of the Saturn's 2D games.
I'd say it would probably beat the PS1 & 3DO in 2D games.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SignOfZeta on March 21, 2017, 10:21:27 AM
I'd say it beats anything made at that resolution for 2D. Yes it can't run Geo games perfectly but it can do things the Geo could never dream of.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SamIAm on March 21, 2017, 09:23:48 PM
The PC-FX has several significant disadvantages, most of them related to sprites.
The biggest issue is that it can only draw 128 sprites on-screen at once. These come without any possible rotation or scaling effects, and they will flicker if you put too many of them on one horizontal line. Also, each sprite is limited to one 15/512 color sub-palette just like the PCE.
The Saturn's VDP1, by contrast, can draw so many sprite pixels that it can fill up the screen several times over. It could theoretically draw more background layers and sprites than the PC-FX without even using VDP2. It can rotate, scale, and otherwise warp sprites very freely, and it can draw them at a much greater color-depth. Of course, since it buffers everything, it never flickers.
The Playstation is no slouch, either. While the Saturn is so inefficient at making VDP1 sprites transparent over VDP2 backgrounds that most developers went with fake checkerboard transparencies, the Playstation doesn't have this problem, and it shows in a lot of games.
The problems for the PC-FX go on. It's got a significantly slower CPU, even against only one of the Saturn's SH2s. You're basically limited to 256x240 resolution if you want to use a lot of background layers, and there are no interlaced high-resolution modes. It can do one "Mode 7" layer and one transparent background layer, but no more than that. Video RAM for sprites and the CD drive buffer are only 256 kilobytes each vs. the Saturn's 512. Though it does potentially have more RAM for background tiles, that RAM is also where ADPCM goes, and there is plenty of motivation to want to store lots of that instead since the rest of the sound hardware is so obsolete.
About the only advantage that the PC-FX has over the Saturn is its FMV playback. You can start playing streaming FMV anytime without taxing any hardware other than the dedicated FMV chip, and you can mix it into games however you like. For example, you could easily make an auto-scrolling platformer or shooter that uses FMV as a background.
It certainly would have been possible to make beautifully animated action games for the PC-FX. It sounds like it would have been the most enjoyable system to program, too, and clever design probably could have gotten some surprises out of it. On the other hand, almost every graphically-fancy 2D game from the 32-bit era would have had to have been compromised in some way to run on the PC-FX with little room to compensate in other areas.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: fragmare on March 21, 2017, 11:11:43 PM
Let's just cut all the bullshit. Would it run Symphony of the Night? ;) lol
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SignOfZeta on March 22, 2017, 03:49:44 AM
It would flicker for sure.
What about Mr Bones?
I'd like to see a good Densha de Go! type game for FX since those work very well with FMV.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: elmer on March 22, 2017, 09:07:02 AM
It certainly would have been possible to make beautifully animated action games for the PC-FX. It sounds like it would have been the most enjoyable system to program, too, and clever design probably could have gotten some surprises out of it. On the other hand, almost every graphically-fancy 2D game from the 32-bit era would have had to have been compromised in some way to run on the PC-FX with little room to compensate in other areas.
This ... but with a few limits to my agreement.
Anything 2.5D or 3D (like Radiant Silvergun) would have needed the "3D" add-on in the PC-FXGA (basically a VDP1), to even start to compete, and then you might hit 3D-math performance issues with the V810 processor. OTOH ... it would have been able to pump out scaled & rotated sprites like mad!
But for a lot of the best 2D games that are relying on high-quality pixel art ... the Saturn's theoretical CPU power (it was MUCH lower in practical use) wouldn't be of any benefit at all.
After a quick look at YouTube ... I don't see that the PC-FX as-it-shipped would have had much trouble doing excellent versions of 2D games like Lunar or Princess Crown.
Sure, your backgrounds would probably be 256-wide instead of 320-wide ... but you could switch the PC-FX VDPs to 320-wide for the sprites if you don't mind losing its excellent multi-layer (I believe) transparency and using a Sega-style stipple-mask for shadows instead (probably not a good idea).
But where it would have dramatically lost against the Saturn in those games (in some sections) would be in the audio.
You'd *sometimes* need to keep the CD drive free for streaming new graphical assets into memory (on both the Saturn and the PC-FX), but the Saturn's audio hardware could still play back good music anyway.
Then the PC-FX would be limited to it's PC Engine sound, perhaps with an ADPCM instrument or two, and with no DSP-effects.
*PERHAPS* the PC-FX could have gotten away with streamed-ADPCM-audio, but the CD-seeking would have been rough on the drive.
Basically ... I think that the PC-FX could have done some really-nice 2D games, but there would always be *some* aspect where you'd say that the Saturn version was better.
The PC-FX's better FMV, and better transparency-control might have helped to mitigate those effects
But practically speaking, out-of-the-box, the Saturn has the more-powerful hardware ... it's just a huge PITA to program, and some of the limitations of the VDP1 and VDP2 can trip you up.
The PC-FX, OTOH, is a clean, simple and powerful architecture, just like the original PC Engine was in comparison to the limitations inherent in the "more-powerful" SNES and Genesis architectures.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SignOfZeta on March 22, 2017, 09:31:04 AM
Yeah, you don't hear it often, but Saturn chip tunes are at times first rate. For example, Panzer Dragoon Saga.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SamIAm on March 22, 2017, 03:51:08 PM
Symphony of the Night is a tough one.
The PC-FX basically couldn't do a straight port. Whether it could do a "good-enough" port really depends on where you draw the line. The game is chock full of graphical flourishes that probably would have to be cut from a PC-FX port. Tons of things rotate and scale. Alucard himself seems to be animated with the help of multiple rotating limbs.
Princess Crown, by the way, also does a lot of animating with rotation/scaling/warping. The main character's sword, for example, is actually just one graphic that gets manipulated like crazy.
From a player's standpoint, I don't think that the PC-FX is best remembered as a system that could have kept up with the Saturn and Playstation graphically in 2D if it had only had the support. I try to appreciate it more as a dream-machine for people of the 16-bit-era school of design.
Minus the sound hardware, of course.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SignOfZeta on March 22, 2017, 04:51:19 PM
The fair question is, how does the FX rate against the Playdia?
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: elmer on March 22, 2017, 05:09:40 PM
Princess Crown, by the way, also does a lot of animating with rotation/scaling/warping. The main character's sword, for example, is actually just one graphic that gets manipulated like crazy.
The stuff that I saw on YouTube ... like the sword ... just looked like things that could easily be done with sprites, or on a high-priority background layer (without rotation). I missed the scaling in the game, wherever it was.
Quote
From a player's standpoint, I don't think that the PC-FX is best remembered as a system that could have kept up with the Saturn and Playstation graphically in 2D if it had only had the support. I try to appreciate it more as a dream-machine for people of the 16-bit-era school of design.
IMHO ... that's the realistic way of looking at it.
It could have easily held its own against Sega's rumored 5th-generation 2D-gaming sprite machine ... but then Sony appeared over the horizon, and Sega saw the Playstation specs and sh*t in their pants, and they started randomly throwing hardware into the Saturn design until they believed that it could compete.
The horrible everything-including-the-kitchen-sink and only-jokingly-called-a-design that they came up with, is an absolute monstrosity compared to the simple elegance of the Playstation ... but it sure is an interesting system, and very powerful if you can afford to spend the time to tailor your design to its hardware.
The PC-FX has a lot of excellent capabilities, I really like what I see in those design docs ... but it was primarily designed for a different war than the one that it ended-up fighting in.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 22, 2017, 10:45:08 PM
The PC-FX basically couldn't do a straight port. Whether it could do a "good-enough" port really depends on where you draw the line. The game is chock full of graphical flourishes that probably would have to be cut from a PC-FX port. Tons of things rotate and scale. Alucard himself seems to be animated with the help of multiple rotating limbs.
Princess Crown, by the way, also does a lot of animating with rotation/scaling/warping. The main character's sword, for example, is actually just one graphic that gets manipulated like crazy.
From a player's standpoint, I don't think that the PC-FX is best remembered as a system that could have kept up with the Saturn and Playstation graphically in 2D if it had only had the support. I try to appreciate it more as a dream-machine for people of the 16-bit-era school of design.
Minus the sound hardware, of course.
IIRC Symphony of the Night is actually 3D as 2D, on both PS1 & Saturn, so I doubt the PC FX could handle it at all.
Was there ever a 3D add on planned for the FX?
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SamIAm on March 23, 2017, 12:00:21 AM
IIRC Symphony of the Night is actually 3D as 2D, on both PS1 Saturn, so I doubt the PC FX could handle it at all.
This...makes little sense, I'm afraid.
There is nothing in the game's core logic - the physics, the collision detection, the AI - that would have necessitated or even had any use for a Z-axis. The same goes for the vast majority of the graphics. Only a tiny number of objects and effects, like the clock tower at the very beginning of the game, use what might be described as real 3D. These things would be mostly impossible on the PC-FX, it's true, but they're just ornaments. If anything, the developers probably had do extra work to adapt those objects to work in the main 2D engine.
You might have heard that the Playstation does all 2D as 3D because it slaps 2D graphics onto 3D polygons and displays everything from one locked perspective. This is kind of true. I don't know, I'm not a programmer and I'm not deeply familiar with the hardware. I'm guessing, though, that this only makes a very superficial difference in the way a 2D Playstation game is processed, e.g. that you have to add some perfunctory Z-axis coordinates but not actually do any math with them.
Anyway, 3D is not the reason why the PC-FX would have trouble doing a close conversion of Symphony of the Night. Lack of rotation and scaling support in the graphics hardware is.
Quote
Was there ever a 3D add on planned for the FX?
Yep. They had a chip lined up and everything. There was a board they released for PCs called the PC-FXGA that was aimed at hobbyists, and it actually had the chip in addition to the rest of the PC-FX hardware. Here is a video of the demo game that came with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XowO7i8Pxg
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 23, 2017, 12:12:59 AM
IIRC Symphony of the Night is actually 3D as 2D, on both PS1 Saturn, so I doubt the PC FX could handle it at all.
This...makes little sense, I'm afraid.
There is nothing in the game's core logic - the physics, the collision detection, the AI - that would have necessitated or even had any use for a Z-axis. The same goes for the vast majority of the graphics. Only a tiny number of objects and effects, like the clock tower at the very beginning of the game, use what might be described as real 3D. These things would be mostly impossible on the PC-FX, it's true, but they're just ornaments. If anything, the developers probably had do extra work to adapt those objects to work in the main 2D engine.
You might have heard that the Playstation does all 2D as 3D because it slaps 2D graphics onto 3D polygons and displays everything from one locked perspective. This is kind of true. I don't know, I'm not a programmer and I'm not deeply familiar with the hardware. I'm guessing, though, that this only makes a very superficial difference in the way a 2D Playstation game is processed, e.g. that you have to add some perfunctory Z-axis coordinates but not actually do any math with them.
Anyway, 3D is not the reason why the PC-FX would have trouble doing a close conversion of Symphony of the Night. Lack of rotation and scaling support in the graphics hardware is.
Quote
Was there ever a 3D add on planned for the FX?
Yep. They had a chip lined up and everything. There was a board they released for PCs called the PC-FXGA that was aimed at hobbyists, and it actually had the chip in addition to the rest of the PC-FX hardware. Here is a video of the demo game that came with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XowO7i8Pxg
Here, this explains it a bit. AFAIK the Saturn version is handled in the same fashion, so is inferior to the PS1 game. No doubt had they built it from the ground up on Saturn it would have surpassed thevPS1.
That's pretty impressive. Looks around the 3DO or 32X level of 3D!
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 23, 2017, 01:01:08 AM
Also, this is a pretty nice example of the PC FX graphics wise.
https://youtu.be/4AtEpkZm3BI
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: elmer on March 23, 2017, 05:20:57 AM
Also, this is a pretty nice example of the PC FX graphics wise.
You might want to watch this video instead ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF0nHRXhTPA
Cool stuff. Makes me wanna pickup an FX even more!
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: exodus on March 24, 2017, 11:53:27 AM
Bit of a side-note, but here's a cool thing to read about the PSX vs Saturn versions of SotN! http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-sotn/documents/nocturne-port.htm
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: SamIAm on March 24, 2017, 02:02:47 PM
I had actually googled that just before.
On one hand, I could certainly buy that the Saturn version has more slowdown because they did sloppy retrofitting on the original Playstation code.
But on the other hand, the conclusion that SotN is really a 3D game and the Saturn has trouble with it because it's bad at 3D seems like it's probably a big oversimplification, and in more ways than one.
But I'll leave it at that.
You should all go play Zeroigar. :)
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 25, 2017, 06:28:58 AM
On one hand, I could certainly buy that the Saturn version has more slowdown because they did sloppy retrofitting on the original Playstation code.
But on the other hand, the conclusion that SotN is really a 3D game and the Saturn has trouble with it because it's bad at 3D seems like it's probably a big oversimplification, and in more ways than one.
But I'll leave it at that.
You should all go play Zeroigar. :)
Yeah, but is Zeroigar as pricey as some PCE stuff?
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Gypsy on March 25, 2017, 08:04:47 AM
You can play Zeroigar for 10 cents on the original hardware.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 25, 2017, 08:14:20 AM
Or pay $250+ to get a copy from Japan (last time that I looked).
It's a good game ... but not that good.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Gypsy on March 25, 2017, 09:14:21 AM
Yeah I mean, I don't want to start a morality debate or anything. Is the game available to buy digitally? A very quick and lazy search on my part says no, in which case I really see zero harm in downloading it. Ultimately it's a personal decision, but I can't see paying hundreds for it.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 26, 2017, 06:38:16 AM
Yeah I mean, I don't want to start a morality debate or anything. Is the game available to buy digitally? A very quick and lazy search on my part says no, in which case I really see zero harm in downloading it. Ultimately it's a personal decision, but I can't see paying hundreds for it.
Highly doubt it. The FX is so obscure outside of hardcore retro fans.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Michirin9801 on March 26, 2017, 07:49:30 AM
Yeah I mean, I don't want to start a morality debate or anything. Is the game available to buy digitally? A very quick and lazy search on my part says no, in which case I really see zero harm in downloading it. Ultimately it's a personal decision, but I can't see paying hundreds for it.
If the original creators, or at the very least the publishers or rights holders aren't making any money off of the game anymore, then I'd say it's fair game...
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 26, 2017, 07:38:42 PM
Yeah I mean, I don't want to start a morality debate or anything. Is the game available to buy digitally? A very quick and lazy search on my part says no, in which case I really see zero harm in downloading it. Ultimately it's a personal decision, but I can't see paying hundreds for it.
If the original creators, or at the very least the publishers or rights holders aren't making any money off of the game anymore, then I'd say it's fair game...
I can sort of agree with that. If it's cheap though I'd rather have the real thing.
Title: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: esteban on March 27, 2017, 10:27:37 AM
Hey ... you can't ban esteban ... that manual and labels are far too nice! :wink:
Thanks for those! :dance:
As amusing as you may think that suggestion is, if this site runs off a 3rd party host, even those relatively benign posts could be enough to breach the hoster's rules, therefore likely leading to a suspension at best. They won't give a shit about the wink-wink attitudes between forum members.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: ClodBuster on March 28, 2017, 11:36:26 PM
Vegeta, what does esteban's post count says about his penis length?
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 29, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
Nice, but be careful! This might be considered promoting piracy. IIRC that's against the rules.
Long timers like esteban know what's up.
The rules prohibit roms and isos being directly linked; that's it. Nobody has prohibited scans of manuals, case/disc art, magazines, or the like.
That's good. I'd just feel a bit guilty if someone got banned in a thread I made.
Also, one of those pages discusses how to burn CD-Rs. Whilst fairly benign within a community, a 3rd party hoster could well consider it instructions for piracy. After being in that industry for a bit I can assure you I've seen account terminations for less. If this site is hosted from a private server the previous doesn't apply.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: xelement5x on March 29, 2017, 07:45:20 AM
Someone should totally set that up so I can just run it through a printer with duplexing and that would be excellent. I wonder if I could also use lightscribe to make a B/W print of the disc.
Title: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: esteban on March 30, 2017, 12:31:13 AM
Someone should totally set that up so I can just run it through a printer with duplexing and that would be excellent. I wonder if I could also use lightscribe to make a B/W print of the disc.
I would love to see how a printed manual+disc would turn out.
At the time I made those, I didn't have a printer, nor a lightscribe, so I couldn't even make a "mock-up" of a the items.
I actually was going to ask Sparky, who is the MASTER of these things, to try his hand at it, but then life got busy.
If it were going to be printed properly (double-sided and stapled booklet) I would have to swap around the sequence of pages so that it could actually be printed + assembled properly (Take apart any manual you have and look at the sequence of pages).
I would love to see how a printed manual+disc would turn out.
At the time I made those, I didn't have a printer, nor a lightscribe, so I couldn't even make a "mock-up" of a the items.
I actually was going to ask Sparky, who is the MASTER of these things, to try his hand at it, but then life got busy.
If it were going to be printed properly (double-sided and stapled booklet) I would have to swap around the sequence of pages so that it could actually be printed + assembled properly (Take apart any manual you have and look at the sequence of pages).
I'll have to PM Sparky now :)
Yeah, the page setup is what I was talking about. Technically I think you'd just need to have to slice all the bits properly and re-match them, plus maybe add a bit of extra room/bleed in the middle to account for the staple when put together, and on the edges for cutting.
If you had PDF in the right format I'd think you could just go to Staples/Kinkos and say, "color print this PDF double-sided" then you'd get all the pages and all you'd need to do is cut out/assemble them by hand.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 30, 2017, 10:08:11 AM
Just to reiterate on my 3rd party host point, this is from the "Fighting Street" section rules...
"Welcome to the Fighting Street forum - Only two rules (updated 8/31/10) « on: March 25, 2009, 11:02:15 PM » Welcome to the Fighting Street area of the Pcenginefx.com forums. Here you are encouraged to have heated debates, rants, raves, or whatever else you may have on your mind.
Only have two rules: #1: No porn. #2: No links to illegal materials (warez/ISOs/roms/etc/torrents/etc).
Posting of said materials can get me in trouble with my web host so I'd appreciate it if these items remain off of the forums."
So this forum is using a 3rd party hosting service. I'd strongly suggest keeping your discussion around burning etc as vague as possible. If the host uses a service crawler to check text for keywords, you may get a nasty surprise...
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Necromancer on March 30, 2017, 10:33:42 AM
So this forum is using a 3rd party hosting service. I'd strongly suggest keeping your discussion around burning etc as vague as possible. If the host uses a service crawler to check text for keywords, you may get a nasty surprise...
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :lol:
This forum has existed in pretty much identical fashion for years and years without your sage advice. If the site owner is okay with how it's going, you should be too; you've tossed in your two cents, so just let it go.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 30, 2017, 10:43:01 AM
So this forum is using a 3rd party hosting service. I'd strongly suggest keeping your discussion around burning etc as vague as possible. If the host uses a service crawler to check text for keywords, you may get a nasty surprise...
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :lol:
This forum has existed in pretty much identical fashion for years and years without your sage advice. If the site owner is okay with how it's going, you should be too; you've tossed in your two cents, so just let it go.
That was the last I was going to say of it anyway. But yeah, it's still a genuine risk.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: EmperorIng on March 30, 2017, 03:04:54 PM
So little to talk about with the PC-FX that people have to scare up prophecies of site closure over manual and disc cover scans. Phew.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 30, 2017, 10:27:56 PM
So this forum is using a 3rd party hosting service. I'd strongly suggest keeping your discussion around burning etc as vague as possible. If the host uses a service crawler to check text for keywords, you may get a nasty surprise...
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :lol:
This forum has existed in pretty much identical fashion for years and years without your sage advice. If the site owner is okay with how it's going, you should be too; you've tossed in your two cents, so just let it go.
That was the last I was going to say of it anyway. But yeah, it's still a genuine risk.
Do you have legal permision to use that artwork for your avatar and how did you legally obtain the raw pixelart?
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Artabasdos on March 31, 2017, 03:16:11 AM
So this forum is using a 3rd party hosting service. I'd strongly suggest keeping your discussion around burning etc as vague as possible. If the host uses a service crawler to check text for keywords, you may get a nasty surprise...
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :lol:
This forum has existed in pretty much identical fashion for years and years without your sage advice. If the site owner is okay with how it's going, you should be too; you've tossed in your two cents, so just let it go.
That was the last I was going to say of it anyway. But yeah, it's still a genuine risk.
Do you have legal permision to use that artwork for your avatar and how did you legally obtain the raw pixelart?
Fair use. Legality isn't my point. A 3rd party host's EULA and/or T&Cs is. None of which are a legal document outside of disclaimer.
Now can we please stop arguing about this shit? I only mentioned it because I've seen the sort of crap hosts will suspend or ban accounts for.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: EmperorIng on March 31, 2017, 09:55:40 AM
So little to talk about with the PC-FX that people have to scare up prophecies of site closure over manual and disc cover scans. Phew.
Fine. What's your favourite PC-FX anime porn game?
Cutey Honey FX, of course! But that's more softcore than anything.
No Dragon Knight?
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: EmperorIng on March 31, 2017, 11:54:12 AM
It's no Dragon Knight 2!
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: 780racer on April 29, 2017, 08:13:35 PM
Pia carrot bitches! Best porn game on the pcfx. And is also translated, haha.
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: Serega81 on May 15, 2017, 08:53:33 PM
Sega Saturn by a mile, with the 4mb ram cart, the SNK fighters ran very smoothly better than the PSX.. RPG's that come to mind: Panzer Dragoon Saga and Tengai Makyo IV... Great character animations, FMV's, load times etc..
Title: Re: Saturn vs PC FX; Which was the better 2D machine?
Post by: geise on May 16, 2017, 01:17:32 AM
Sega Saturn by a mile, with the 4mb ram cart, the SNK fighters ran very smoothly better than the PSX.. RPG's that come to mind: Panzer Dragoon Saga and Tengai Makyo IV... Great character animations, FMV's, load times etc..