Consoles are Dying Off
Bryan A34
It seems a lot of hoopla is surrounding the release of the N64,
just as it did the release of the Saturn and Playstation. Now, the kids
of the world are engaged in heated debates about who's going to "win" the
console wars.
The answer is simple: Intel.
It's no secret that the 32-bit consoles haven't reached the market
penetration of the 16-bit platforms. The SNES and Genesis still outsold
the Saturn and Playstation last Christmas, in fact. Even more pressing
has been the simply horrid overall quality of the 32-bit console games.
There are may be exceptions such as "Nights" and perhaps "Tomb Raider,"
but the fact is that the consoles are just too limited to offer the
quality of play that a more mature, free-spending audience is now
expecting. Yet another brain-dead fighting game or derivative
cookie-cutter Japanese RPG is not what it takes, anymore. Show me any
"flagship" game on a console, and I'll show you a better equivalent
available at least two years ago for the PC.
From a vantage point inside the industry, I can say with certainty
that many game companies are not that enamored with the 32-bit market,
particularly Sony's new militant stance. They now decide which games will
and won't be published on that platform, with a number of major players in
the industry more than just a little annoyed at this. The common opinion
is that the MARKET should decide what games are good ones, not an office
in Tokyo who's also making games of their own.
For those who seem to think the N64 is the Second Coming, no dice.
Notice how few titles are available at its release, and how few will be
ready by Christmas? The collapse of the 16-bit console industry cost many
major publishers millions of dollars in useless, expensive cartidge stock
that had to be destroyed. Nintendo, in their infinite wisdom, thought
that the US publishers would suddenly forget about this catastrophe,
releasing yet another cartridge-based machine. The major problem are that
the publishers must pay Nintendo so much for these cartridges that their
profit margins are miniscule. (A company would have to sell between
500,000 and 1,000,000 units of a N64 title to reach the same profit
margins of a 50,000-100,000 unit seller on a PC.) Retailers will have
such low profit margins on these titles that they'd have to sell literally
thousands to even bother putting them on the shelves! As a result, the
cartidge-based N64 is viewed as something of a pariah by many companies
who don't feel like taking astronomical financial risks only to make
Nintendo rich.
So where does this leave the N64? Some say that the Bulky Drive
will be what sets the N64 apart, forgetting the mediocre success of the
Sega CD, and the outright failure of the 32x. The console market has
never supported expensive add-ons, and publishers don't like dividing
their development efforts even further in a market fragmented between
three major platforms.
Despite these problems, the N64 could still have a chance if it
delivered a break-through gaming experience. Despite the incredibly
dubious pronouncement by one magazine that Mario 64 was the "Greatest Game
of All Time," gamers who grew up with the plumber are now playing Quake
and Duke Nukem 3D on Pentiums, and are less than enthusiastic about a
slow-paced 3D game with no firepower or wide-area multiplayer capability.
I've played it, and though it looks good, Mario 64 gets very dull, very
fast. (Perhaps the magazine in question should change their review to
read "The Greatest Advertising Budget-Based Review Of All Time.")
Nintendo has been hyping their "analog" controller for over 6
months, evidently unaware that an entire generation of gamers were playing
computer games with analog controllers as far back as the late 70s.
Nothing like the cutting edge!
Several surveys now show that PCs are the gaming platform of
choice, and the multiplayer gaming over the internet is only turning the
screws on the consoles more. With the current console market softening,
and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
the gaming consoles are numbered.
And nobody will miss them.
erik landerholm
you are absoutely wrong. The number of PC games (and
there are a lot) shows that many retatrded developers can develop and
market a PC game. I like Nintendo's idea about trying to get the best
developers and keeping the amount of games to a minimum. There aren't any
games on the PC right now that are as interactive or as "3-d" as mario.
Even quake is not as 3-d, as you do not have 6 degrees of freedom. the
only game i have ever played that allowed you to explore your enviroment
completely was MechWarrior 2 and god its graphics stink. i don't even
think they used texture maps. The fact of the matter is is that i own
Duke and Quake, and WarCraft2, but i will never be able to play Metroid,
or Zelda, or any other Mario games on my PC. I enjoy PC games, but i also
love the ease and the speed of a cart game on a console also. Unless PC's
become as powerful as the N64 or M2 or PLaystation 2 and get some good
software support (RPG's on PC are horrible) they will not be the future of
gamimg. I know 3-d cards, but the fact of the matter is is that many
people are paying $600 at least for one and you can get an N64 with Mario,
and PW64 and import Wave Race and get 4 controllers for $505! (N64=$200,
Mario=$60, PW64=$60, import Wave Race=$95, and 3 extra controllers=$90)
I see that as a better deal. i think it would be great if nintnendo made
games for the PC and the PC's were powerful enough to run them, but no PC
could run Mario 64, at least not right now. If they could why hasn't
someone made a game as interactive using Z-buffer, anti-aliasing, and so
on. name one PC with those built in.
__________________________________________________________________________
enter my homepage: dedicated to the N64
http://www.ece.orst.edu/~landerer
sign my guestbook and don't forget to vote
for what you think will be then best game
for the N64 when in comes out!! later
you need a frames capable viewer such as Netscape 2.0 :(
__________________________________________________________________________
Visor
Bryan A34 wrote:
With the current console market softening,
> and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
> the gaming consoles are numbered.
>
> And nobody will miss them.
What this individual & so many others fail to remember is that a half
decent computer costs much much more than a console. To come close to
the abilities of an N64 you would need expensive add on 3d accelerated
graphic cards, which push the price of the computer into the 10X range
of a console like the N64. I enjoy being able to play games when I want
especially if someone else in the house needs the computer for something
more important. Don't write off consoles yet, they've been around for
a long time & are only getting better.
3...@4.com
In article <53j57k$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, brya...@aol.com (Bryan
A34) wrote:
> Several surveys now show that PCs are the gaming platform of
> choice, and the multiplayer gaming over the internet is only turning the
> screws on the consoles more. With the current console market softening,
> and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
> the gaming consoles are numbered.
>
> And nobody will miss them.
>
[Plenty deleted]
A couple of problems with the above:
1. PCs are not cheap.
2. More than 5 companies (Sun, Apple, Sony, Phillips, Acer + more) are
working on and possibly ready to ship internet in a box units for less
than 500 dollars.
So tell me what do you think people will buy? A 1500+ dollars PC which
needs to be upgraded every 3-4 years? Or a 500 dollar internet in a box?
The Internet in a bax will do games, word processing, e-mail, web and much
much more.
Oh and by the way, most of those boxes don't have an intel inside.
Dustin Wehmeyer
> erik landerholm <land...@ece.orst.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.HPP.3.95.961010...@holmes.ece.orst.edu>...
<snip>
> There aren't any
> games on the PC right now that are as interactive or as "3-d" as mario.
> Even quake is not as 3-d, as you do not have 6 degrees of freedom. the
> only game i have ever played that allowed you to explore your
enviroment
> completely was MechWarrior 2 and god its graphics stink. i don't even
> think they used texture maps. The fact of the matter is is that i own
> Duke and Quake, and WarCraft2, but i will never be able to play Metroid,
<snip>
Have you played Sega PC's Virtua Fighter. I have, it blew me away.
Running on a P100, with a Diamond 3D Edge Video Card ($300 w/ 5 Games).
You can even use a Sega controller with these games. It's good stuff. I
know that right now there is some serious controversy over the longevity
of dedicated game platforms, but in the end they will die. Not for now,
but eventually. With the advent of DVD in both the PC market as well as
the consumer electronics market will likely provide the catalyst for an
amazing transition to very powerful, versatile, multipurpose home
entertainment/information products. We have merely to wait.
P.S. Quake and Descent both have full freedom of movement in any
direction. If you doubt this, you obviously haven't played them for more
than a few minutes.
Jason Brian Chapa
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:30:55 -0300, Visor <carl...@nbnet.nb.ca>
wrote:
>Bryan A34 wrote:
>With the current console market softening,
>> and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
>> the gaming consoles are numbered.
>>
>> And nobody will miss them.
>
>What this individual & so many others fail to remember is that a half
>decent computer costs much much more than a console. To come close to
>the abilities of an N64 you would need expensive add on 3d accelerated
>graphic cards, which push the price of the computer into the 10X range
>of a console like the N64. I enjoy being able to play games when I want
>especially if someone else in the house needs the computer for something
>more important. Don't write off consoles yet, they've been around for
>a long time & are only getting better.
Yeah, I'd much rather play games on a beautifully designed ergonomic
controller, like the N64, than on a clunky keyboard and a mouse.
Jason Brian Chapa Jason...@mohican.mwsu.edu
Jason...@cyberstation.net http://www.cyberstation.net/~jasonchapa
Bishop
"Dustin Wehmeyer" <dus...@hightechsolutions.com> writes:
>Have you played Sega PC's Virtua Fighter. I have, it blew me away.
>Running on a P100, with a Diamond 3D Edge Video Card ($300 w/ 5 Games).
>You can even use a Sega controller with these games. It's good stuff. I
>know that right now there is some serious controversy over the longevity
>of dedicated game platforms, but in the end they will die. Not for now,
>but eventually. With the advent of DVD in both the PC market as well as
>the consumer electronics market will likely provide the catalyst for an
>amazing transition to very powerful, versatile, multipurpose home
>entertainment/information products. We have merely to wait.
>P.S. Quake and Descent both have full freedom of movement in any
>direction. If you doubt this, you obviously haven't played them for more
>than a few minutes.
Do you know how long Video games have been around? Anyways your predition
will NEVER come true. As long as consoles remain cheap, parents will
almost always op for a console rather than a pc. Especially, if the
primary user only intends to use it for games. Don't you think DVD will
also be incorporated in consoles? The one thing I do see coming is the
networking of consoles over the internet. Your "wait" will last you a
very long time.
Quake and Descent may also have full freedom of movement but the fact
remains is that Mario64 will crush them in sales.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
yla...@cm.math.uiuc.edu "Give me an easy life and a
car...@wolfram.com ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ peaceful death"
-The Sundays
Bryan A34
>I like Nintendo's idea about trying to get the best
developers and keeping the amount of games to a minimum.<
Who are these "best" developers? The only name that could even
come close would be LucasArts. Their (delayed) Shadows of the Empire game
has been a major selling point for Nintendo, despite the fact that the
opinions of most folks that have seen the game indicate it's a
good-looking bore.
>There aren't any games on the PC right now that are as interactive or as
"3-d" as mario. Even quake is not as 3-d, as you do not have 6 degrees of
freedom.<
How many flight simulations for the PC have come out in the past
10 years with 6 degrees of freedom? Hundreds?
>the only game i have ever played that allowed you to explore your
enviroment completely was MechWarrior 2 and god its graphics stink.<
Take a look at Mechwarrior Mercenaries running at 1024x768 and let
me know what you think? Or F-1 GP2, or Quake running on the Rendition
card, or Unreal, or...
>but i will never be able to play Metroid, or Zelda, or any other Mario
games on my PC.<
And that's a bad thing??
>Unless PC's become as powerful as the N64 or M2 or PLaystation 2<
The overall capabilities of a PC are well beyond any of those
machines even without a 3D graphics card.
>(RPG's on PC are horrible)<
By "horrible" you must be meaning take more than 2 days and an
8th-grade education to solve.
>they will not be the future of gamimg.<
They already are. Check the sales figures for '95 and '96. PC
games are outselling console games by a wide margin.
>I know 3-d cards, but the fact of the matter is is that many
people are paying $600 at least<
The top-of-the-line 3D graphics cards currently available for a
games PC retail for $300. Several excellent cards retail for less than
$200, and one will be coming out within 4 months for $80. Each of these
cards has as much or more power than the N64, PLUS the RAM of the PC to
actually make use of it.
>for one and you can get an N64 with Mario, and PW64 and import Wave Race
and get 4 controllers for $505! (N64=$200, Mario=$60, PW64=$60, import
Wave Race=$95, and 3 extra controllers=$90) I see that as a better deal.<
I see that as two very boring games and a dull grey paperweight.
>i think it would be great if nintnendo made games for the PC and the PC's
were powerful enough to run them,<
I can just see "Mario Nukem 3D" or "Command and Mario" or "Wing
Mario" or "Mario 4.0" or "NASCAR Mario."
>but no PC could run Mario 64, at least not right now.<
LOL! You should take a look at Epic's "Unreal" and then get back
to me on that one.
>If they could why hasn't someone made a game as interactive using
Z-buffer, anti-aliasing, and so on. name one PC with those built in.<
We've been working with 3D graphics cards for over two years that
did that. Enhanced versions of games like Mechwarrior and Nascar Racing
have been shipping since last year that had those features, as well.
With 3D cards, MMX processors, plummeting prices, excellent games,
and the power of the internet behind it, the PC is already taking a huge
bite out of the console market. With the pricing of the consoles already
a zero-profit situation for manufacturers and retailers, and game
cartidges a losing proposition for game developers, the PC is guaranteed
to own the future, as well.
Raymond Rowe
Jason Brian Chapa wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:30:55 -0300, Visor <carl...@nbnet.nb.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Bryan A34 wrote:
> >> and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
> >> the gaming consoles are numbered.
> >>
> >> And nobody will miss them.
> >
> >decent computer costs much much more than a console. To come close to
> >the abilities of an N64 you would need expensive add on 3d accelerated
> >graphic cards, which push the price of the computer into the 10X range
> >of a console like the N64. I enjoy being able to play games when I want
> >especially if someone else in the house needs the computer for something
> >more important. Don't write off consoles yet, they've been around for
> >a long time & are only getting better.
>
> Yeah, I'd much rather play games on a beautifully designed ergonomic
> controller, like the N64, than on a clunky keyboard and a mouse.
>
> Jason Brian Chapa Jason...@mohican.mwsu.edu
> Jason...@cyberstation.net http://www.cyberstation.net/~jasonchapa
And I would much rather play a game sitting on my couch in front of my
27 inch television than in my computer room with law books stacked all
over my desk.
Also it seems that when people spend a lot of money on a computer they
just don't want to accept the fact that a console can have better games.
Dustin Wehmeyer
> 3...@4.com wrote in article <3-1010961...@news.rust.net>...
> In article <53j57k$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, brya...@aol.com (Bryan
> A34) wrote:
>
> > Several surveys now show that PCs are the gaming platform of
> > choice, and the multiplayer gaming over the internet is only turning
the
> > screws on the consoles more. With the current console market
softening,
> > and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days
of
> > the gaming consoles are numbered.
> >
> > And nobody will miss them.
> >
> [Plenty deleted]
>
> A couple of problems with the above:
>
> 1. PCs are not cheap.
No PC's aren't cheap but if you already have one why buy something else.
> 2. More than 5 companies (Sun, Apple, Sony, Phillips, Acer + more) are
> working on and possibly ready to ship internet in a box units for less
> than 500 dollars.
> So tell me what do you think people will buy? A 1500+ dollars PC which
> needs to be upgraded every 3-4 years? Or a 500 dollar internet in a box?
These so called Internet in a box products will be very limited in what
they can do. They will be very simple as far as a computer is concerned.
They will have very little processing power, and little or no on-site
storage. The idea is to use the Internet and it's vast resources to do
much of the storage and retrieval.
> The Internet in a bax will do games, word processing, e-mail, web and
much
> much more.
I doubt that they will have any games that are of interest to anyone who
would be reading this newsgroup. (i.e.. very simple)
> Oh and by the way, most of those boxes don't have an intel inside.
>
That's because Intel doesn't think it's worth their effort right now. If
this idea succeeds, you will see Intel in the mix. I for one am siding
with Intel on this one. I feel the limitations on the current technology
doesn't warrant this type of product.
I'll take my $4,000.00+ PC any day over a useless box.
Napalm-Rabbit
Bryan A34 (brya...@aol.com) wrote:
: The answer is simple: Intel.
Hey, isn't that a warning sticker they put on the outside computers?
N.P
--
dtng...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
dtng...@force.stwing.upenn.edu
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dtnguyen
Pan of Anthrox
You're a loser. Is this the same PC that 10 years ago would never want
to be associated as a "game machine"?
I'd like to see a PC game look as good as a Nintendo 64 game. It won't
happen too soon. It took the PC 10 years to get simple multitasking into
people's homes. Now that's what I call progress.
--
+---------------------------------------------------+
| -Pan- of Anthrox http://www.anthrox.com |
| Console Programming and Game Information Web Site |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Cory Embry
brya...@aol.com (Bryan A34) wrote:
<snip>
> Several surveys now show that PCs are the gaming platform of
>choice, and the multiplayer gaming over the internet is only turning the
>screws on the consoles more. With the current console market softening,
>and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
>the gaming consoles are numbered.
>
> And nobody will miss them.
>
>
I have to agree with you. I love N64, and SNES, but I think my computer
is far superior. There's no point in buying a Sony Playstation or Saturn
when you already have a great CD-Rom drive and computer. Besides most of
the titles for Sony - Saturn are also available on PC. I play N64 and
SNES time to time, and I get tired of them alot, but I am constantly on my
computer. I can go for months without playing N64 or SNES, but, if I had
to live without my computer I would literally die.
I am fortunate to have a good job, and be able to make a computer payment,
as well as own a N64, SNES, and make a car payment. Alot of people can't
afford a good PC. But when people complain about their game console going
out of date, I think they would be much happier investing their money on a
good PC, granted if they could afford it. If not, I think game
consoles like N64, Playstation etc. are great for people who can't afford
a computer.
Aidix
Cory Embry wrote:
>
> brya...@aol.com (Bryan A34) wrote:
>
There's no point in buying a Sony Playstation or Saturn
> when you already have a great CD-Rom drive and computer. Besides most of
> the titles for Sony - Saturn are also available on PC. I play N64 and
> SNES time to time, and I get tired of them alot, but I am constantly on my
> computer. I can go for months without playing N64 or SNES, but, if I had
> to live without my computer I would literally die.
>
> consoles like N64, Playstation etc. are great for people who can't afford
> a computer.
Yeah sure...
Can you play all those great titles like Ridge Racer, Sega Rally
and numerous other games on you PC ? NO.
Besides, no PC is capable of handling 30+ fps in 640*480 *64000 colors
Especially not with crappy OS's like LOOZE-95
And what about the sound? There's nothing like a good game of (NAME ANY
GAME)
accompagnied by Londons orchestra. After all, thats the only music your
CrapBlaster AWE32ASPMCD can produce.
Geez man, a PC can never play games like a console. At least not the
current line of PC's
Aidix
Admiral Burlap
On 10 Oct 1996 11:37:24 -0400, brya...@aol.com (Bryan A34) wrote:
Snip.
> It's no secret that the 32-bit consoles haven't reached the market
>penetration of the 16-bit platforms. The SNES and Genesis still outsold
>the Saturn and Playstation last Christmas, in fact. Even more pressing
>has been the simply horrid overall quality of the 32-bit console games.
>There are may be exceptions such as "Nights" and perhaps "Tomb Raider,"
>but the fact is that the consoles are just too limited to offer the
>quality of play that a more mature, free-spending audience is now
>expecting. Yet another brain-dead fighting game or derivative
>cookie-cutter Japanese RPG is not what it takes, anymore. Show me any
>"flagship" game on a console, and I'll show you a better equivalent
>available at least two years ago for the PC.
Ummmmm.... No. I disagree. Consoles have always had the luxury of
dedicated processors and code without all that messy operating system
stuff. Two years ago, my late Jaguar [Cue horns, angels sing, burst of
light from the heavens] was performing beautifully. My PC had, Doom...
? Something like that.....
Snippy snippy.
> For those who seem to think the N64 is the Second Coming, no dice.
> Notice how few titles are available at its release, and how few will be
>ready by Christmas? The collapse of the 16-bit console industry cost many
>major publishers millions of dollars in useless, expensive cartidge stock
>that had to be destroyed. Nintendo, in their infinite wisdom, thought
>that the US publishers would suddenly forget about this catastrophe,
>releasing yet another cartridge-based machine. The major problem are that
>the publishers must pay Nintendo so much for these cartridges that their
>profit margins are miniscule. (A company would have to sell between
>500,000 and 1,000,000 units of a N64 title to reach the same profit
>margins of a 50,000-100,000 unit seller on a PC.) Retailers will have
>such low profit margins on these titles that they'd have to sell literally
>thousands to even bother putting them on the shelves! As a result, the
>cartidge-based N64 is viewed as something of a pariah by many companies
>who don't feel like taking astronomical financial risks only to make
>Nintendo rich.
Nintendo. Microsoft. Yadda yadda.
Snippity.
>
> Despite these problems, the N64 could still have a chance if it
>delivered a break-through gaming experience. Despite the incredibly
>dubious pronouncement by one magazine that Mario 64 was the "Greatest Game
>of All Time," gamers who grew up with the plumber are now playing Quake
>and Duke Nukem 3D on Pentiums, and are less than enthusiastic about a
>slow-paced 3D game with no firepower or wide-area multiplayer capability.
>I've played it, and though it looks good, Mario 64 gets very dull, very
>fast. (Perhaps the magazine in question should change their review to
>read "The Greatest Advertising Budget-Based Review Of All Time.")
I grew up with Pong. I do play Quake on my Pentium. And I play SM64 on
my Nintendo 64. Love 'em both. Will be very interested in Quake on the
N64.
The new Mario game has not ceased to amaze me. The sheer technological
achievement of the game makes it must have for me. (I collect the damn
things.) The Mario games have always been class-act creations, IMHO.
> Nintendo has been hyping their "analog" controller for over 6
>months, evidently unaware that an entire generation of gamers were playing
> computer games with analog controllers as far back as the late 70s.
>Nothing like the cutting edge!
Nothing like the tried and true!
>
> Several surveys now show that PCs are the gaming platform of
>choice, and the multiplayer gaming over the internet is only turning the
>screws on the consoles more. With the current console market softening,
>and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
>the gaming consoles are numbered.
It seems to me that Intel is on its fourth or fifth x86 generation
processor in the time that we have had three Nintendo systems.
Regardless, PC advances are moving much faster than console systems.
It's more difficult and much more expensive to keep up. I'm
discovering now that Quake would play much better on the ol' Pentium
if I just went out and bought a 3D video card. Funny, I dropped almost
$500 just 18 months ago on a 64 bit video card with 4 megs VRAM. It
WAS the best I could scarf at the time and cost a leg or two. Geez.
>
> And nobody will miss them.
I like my console. I like vegging in front of the set playing Mario.
And I like wasting computer time in Quake. :)
Tuxedo Dogbert
Visor wrote:
>
> Bryan A34 wrote:
> With the current console market softening,
> > and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
> > the gaming consoles are numbered.
> >
> > And nobody will miss them.
>
> decent computer costs much much more than a console. To come close to
> the abilities of an N64 you would need expensive add on 3d accelerated
> graphic cards, which push the price of the computer into the 10X range
> of a console like the N64. I enjoy being able to play games when I want
> especially if someone else in the house needs the computer for something
> more important. Don't write off consoles yet, they've been around for
> a long time & are only getting better.
But... No OS!!!!!! (although I would shoot myself if they used Winblows
95, or its equivelents [Winblows CS?])
Tuxedo Dogbert
Visor wrote:
> What this individual & so many others fail to remember is that a half
> decent computer costs much much more than a console. To come close to
> the abilities of an N64 you would need expensive add on 3d accelerated
> graphic cards, which push the price of the computer into the 10X range
> of a console like the N64. I enjoy being able to play games when I want
> especially if someone else in the house needs the computer for something
> more important. Don't write off consoles yet, they've been around for
> a long time & are only getting better.
But... No OS!!!!!! (although I would shoot myself if they used Winblows
95, or its equivelents [Winblows CS?]). And programming kits are a pain
in the ass to come by.
Dustin Wehmeyer
> yla...@cm.math.uiuc.edu (Bishop) wrote in article
<53jlpf$j...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> "Dustin Wehmeyer" <dus...@hightechsolutions.com> writes:
<snip>
> >P.S. Quake and Descent both have full freedom of movement in any
> >direction. If you doubt this, you obviously haven't played them for
more
> >than a few minutes.
>
> Do you know how long Video games have been around? Anyways your
predition
Yes I do know. I even have an original Pong console. Albeit, inherited.
> will NEVER come true. As long as consoles remain cheap, parents will
> almost always op for a console rather than a pc. Especially, if the
> primary user only intends to use it for games. Don't you think DVD will
> also be incorporated in consoles? The one thing I do see coming is the
DVD will be incorporated into consoles. This is my point. Consoles and
PC's will converge.
The only think that is vague is which way will things evolve. Will we see
multipurpose console's that become more and more like PC's or PC's that
become more stable and user friendly, like consoles. Which ever way it
goes, it will happen.
> networking of consoles over the internet. Your "wait" will last you a
> very long time.
>
> Quake and Descent may also have full freedom of movement but the fact
> remains is that Mario64 will crush them in sales.
This has nothing to do with the original post that stated Quake didn't
have full 3-D movement.
> --
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> yla...@cm.math.uiuc.edu "Give me an easy life and a
> car...@wolfram.com ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ peaceful death"
> -The Sundays
>
--
dus...@hightechsolutions.com
Never under estimate the power of Human stupidity. :)
Brandon Berry
gamers who grew up with the plumber are now playing Quake
> > and Duke Nukem 3D on Pentiums, and are less than enthusiastic about a
> > slow-paced 3D game with no firepower or wide-area multiplayer capability.
> > I've played it, and though it looks good, Mario 64 gets very dull, very
> > fast.
a Pentium? Quake might be an ok game but c'mon... Doom is better. At
least it has joystick support. I don't do better with a mouse. I don't
even have a mouse, I have a touchpad. And Mario does look good but it
is not dull. I can't seem to stop playing it. I already got 120 stars
twice and am working on the third time. Which is different because I
usually get bored with any game after I beat it. Anyway I thought I
would say all this since I got some free time right now. Bye.
Newman
Pan of Anthrox <pani...@tnp.com> wrote:
>Bryan A34 wrote:
>>
>> It seems a lot of hoopla is surrounding the release of the N64,
>> just as it did the release of the Saturn and Playstation. Now, the kids
>> of the world are engaged in heated debates about who's going to "win" the
>> console wars.
>>
>> The answer is simple: Intel.
[snip]
>>
>> Several surveys now show that PCs are the gaming platform of
>> choice, and the multiplayer gaming over the internet is only turning the
>> screws on the consoles more. With the current console market softening,
>> and Intel putting more high-end Pentiums in homes every day, the days of
>> the gaming consoles are numbered.
>>
>> And nobody will miss them.
>>
>>
>>
>
>You're a loser. Is this the same PC that 10 years ago would never want
>to be associated as a "game machine"?
>I'd like to see a PC game look as good as a Nintendo 64 game. It won't
>happen too soon. It took the PC 10 years to get simple multitasking into
>people's homes. Now that's what I call progress.
>
>--
There are some serious disadvantages to PCs as game machines (PCs can
do alot more, but let's focus on simply gaming)
1. Price - Console $199, PC $2000+
2. Complexity - Console, plug it in and play; PC - make sure you have
compatible CD-ROM and sound-card, proper CPU, enough RAM, HD space,
etc. etc.
3 Lifespan - Consoles have a useful life span of around 5 years. PCs
- yeah right, show me anyone using a PC that was cutting edge 5 years
ago
So for Net browsing and some light gaming I like the PC. For intense
games that are fast and 3-D, give me a N64 any day.
-------------------------------
new...@comnet.ca
Hello... Jerry
Dave Ripberger
brya...@aol.com (Bryan A34) wrote:
> It seems a lot of hoopla is surrounding the release of the N64,
>just as it did the release of the Saturn and Playstation. Now, the kids
>of the world are engaged in heated debates about who's going to "win" the
>console wars.
> The answer is simple: Intel.
> It's no secret that the 32-bit consoles haven't reached the market
>penetration of the 16-bit platforms. The SNES and Genesis still outsold
>the Saturn and Playstation last Christmas, in fact. Even more pressing
>has been the simply horrid overall quality of the 32-bit console games.
>There are may be exceptions such as "Nights" and perhaps "Tomb Raider,"
>but the fact is that the consoles are just too limited to offer the
>quality of play that a more mature, free-spending audience is now
>expecting. Yet another brain-dead fighting game or derivative
>cookie-cutter Japanese RPG is not what it takes, anymore. Show me any
>"flagship" game on a console, and I'll show you a better equivalent
>available at least two years ago for the PC.
-- snip --
I think you have unknowingly discovered the reason that N64 will be
successful. By sticking to cartridges and "kiddie" games, it will
finally be the system that moves _parents_ from SNES/Genesis. A
five-year old can't be trusted with a PC or a CD, even if it "only"
costs $50 vs $75. Besides, why should I let my kids use my PC when I
want to use it! And $300 for the console is lots less than $2000 for
a second PC. Get it?
I have noted that five-year-olds are mesmerized by Mario 64. The new
generation will be the market for the new generation systems, not us.
Dave
3...@4.com
>
> I think you have unknowingly discovered the reason that N64 will be
> successful. By sticking to cartridges and "kiddie" games, it will
> finally be the system that moves _parents_ from SNES/Genesis. A
> five-year old can't be trusted with a PC or a CD, even if it "only"
> costs $50 vs $75. Besides, why should I let my kids use my PC when I
> want to use it! And $300 for the console is lots less than $2000 for
> a second PC. Get it?
>
> I have noted that five-year-olds are mesmerized by Mario 64. The new
> generation will be the market for the new generation systems, not us.
>
Speak for yourself jerk.
I ain't no kid. I have a nice computer setup and a N64. I enjoy playing M64.
Where do you get this kiddie game thing from? Last I checked a lot of
adults play this game too.
I think you should let your kids use your PC because they probably could
use it better than you!
Ray Gjergja
Show me any
>>"flagship" game on a console, and I'll show you a better equivalent
>>available at least two years ago for the PC
O.K. Show me a better PC equivalent of [ and you can go a year into the
future
if you wish,because your 2 years back statement is ridiculous ]
Mario64
Waverace 64
Sega rally
Tekken 2
V.fighter 2
V.Goal'96
Biohazard
Panzer zwei
Philosoma
Boxer's road
Mario kart 64
F-Zero64
Starfox64
Not to mention the fact than none of Nontendo's games will ever make it
to the PC and an open admission from creators of Tomb rider that Mario64
is the very best game available [ they said it,not me ].The list is
actually a lot longer ,but I'd get pretty tired typing.Don't believe all
the 3D hype either,as all of these cards don't exactly perform the way
people expect them to perform.
When Doom 64 comes out I can even ask you about that.
A $200 dollar machine outDooming the crap out of a $5000 PC [ I could
actually put $100 000 ] because there's no Doom or Quake game in the near
future that will match N64 version no matter how much money you spend on
your PC.
Heath Alexander
In article <325E11...@htsa.hva.nl>, Aidix <chr...@htsa.hva.nl> wrote:
>Cory Embry wrote:
>>
>> brya...@aol.com (Bryan A34) wrote:
>>
> There's no point in buying a Sony Playstation or Saturn
>> when you already have a great CD-Rom drive and computer. Besides most of
>> the titles for Sony - Saturn are also available on PC. I play N64 and
>> SNES time to time, and I get tired of them alot, but I am constantly on my
>> computer. I can go for months without playing N64 or SNES, but, if I had
>> to live without my computer I would literally die.
>>
> I think game
>> consoles like N64, Playstation etc. are great for people who can't afford
>> a computer.
>
>
>Yeah sure...
>Can you play all those great titles like Ridge Racer, Sega Rally
>and numerous other games on you PC ? NO.
This should come as a surprise to all of those people playing Virtua Cop,
Virtua Fighter, Panzer Dragoon, and most recently, Sega Rally on their PCs.....
Sega currently has a line of PC ports in case you didn't know.
>Besides, no PC is capable of handling 30+ fps in 640*480 *64000 colors
Well, that's where you're wrong, especially with some of the newer 3-D cards.
Here's a news flash for you as well. North American TV's can't do more than
30 Frames per second, and their resolution is somewhere in the 320*240 range.
So much for all those high resolution games on consoles.....
>Especially not with crappy OS's like LOOZE-95
>And what about the sound? There's nothing like a good game of (NAME ANY
>GAME)
>accompagnied by Londons orchestra. After all, thats the only music your
>CrapBlaster AWE32ASPMCD can produce.
What the HELL are you on about? None of the consoles out there have wave
tables that can match the best sound cards available on the PC. Period. And
PC's are perfectly capable of doing Red-book audio and sampled soundtracks
as well.
>Geez man, a PC can never play games like a console. At least not the
>current line of PC's
Once again, this should come as a surprise to all those folks currently playing
the Saturn ports on their PCs...
Heath
Dave F.
>
> I think you have unknowingly discovered the reason that N64 will be
> successful. By sticking to cartridges and "kiddie" games, it will
> finally be the system that moves _parents_ from SNES/Genesis. A
> five-year old can't be trusted with a PC or a CD, even if it "only"
> costs $50 vs $75. Besides, why should I let my kids use my PC when I
> want to use it! And $300 for the console is lots less than $2000 for
> a second PC. Get it?
>
> I have noted that five-year-olds are mesmerized by Mario 64. The new
> generation will be the market for the new generation systems, not us.
>
Right, sure, whatever. How the hell does a game committed platform
translate to the kiddy version of a multi-tasking productivity machine which
just *happens* to be able to run games?! The N64 is certainly not a "kiddie"
system, especially considering several adults play it. The PC is a sophisticated
medium for games, but it is NOT dedicated to it, while the consoles are, making
one a game machine and one an everything else machine. Besides that, if you
plunk a 5 year old in front of SM64, they'll endlessly be stuck on the first
course -- YES! It's *that* hard for someone who doesn't know how to ride a
bicycle yet!
-Somewhat sarcastically,
Stubbs
Newman
dlri...@one.net (Dave Ripberger) wrote:
>brya...@aol.com (Bryan A34) wrote:
>
>
>I think you have unknowingly discovered the reason that N64 will be
>successful. By sticking to cartridges and "kiddie" games, it will
>finally be the system that moves _parents_ from SNES/Genesis. A
>five-year old can't be trusted with a PC or a CD, even if it "only"
>costs $50 vs $75. Besides, why should I let my kids use my PC when I
>want to use it! And $300 for the console is lots less than $2000 for
>a second PC. Get it?
>
>I have noted that five-year-olds are mesmerized by Mario 64. The new
>generation will be the market for the new generation systems, not us.
>
But it's not only 5-year-olds who enjoy playing Mario64. Yes, younger
gamers like it, but so do older gamers. It may be called a 'kiddie'
game because it is a non-violent game (unlike all the bazillion
Doom-like clones which are blood-fests -- boring and overdone ones at
that). So please stop passing off the N64 as a kiddie toy, especially
since it outperforms your PC in terms of 3D gaming.
And besides, while Nintendo may aim at a younger audience, other 3rd
party developers don't. Even N64 is getting a souped-up version of
Doom.
-------------------------------
new...@comnet.ca
Hello... Jerry
BeefLord
> DVD will be incorporated into consoles. This is my point. Consoles and
> PC's will converge.
Sure, just not in my lifetime. People are STILL waiting for the flat TV
you hang on your wall.
-BeefLord
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
| The BeefLord \ "Criticism rolls off my back like a
duck." |
| rsim...@impulse.net / -- Samuel
Goldwyn |
| a.k.a Kevin Simpson
\===================================================|
| SNACILBUPER!! AAAUGH! / N64 - SNES - SEGA CD - SPAM - GENESIS - PC -
MAC |
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Evil
My thoughts on the subject:
Consoles will not die in our lifetimes.
My reasoning is this: System Configuration Conflicts. Consoles,
while great for adults, are also usable by small children because
there's no "installation", "configuration", or "tweaking" needed to
make the latest and greatest
"squeeze-every-last-ounce-of-processing-power-out-of-your-system"
games.
Console games play right out of the box without problems because they
were designed for a consistent hardware configuration. This
consistency gives them a second benefit: PC configuration's will
always be varied and game designers will always have to create games
with a medium-level system in mind. Game designers *could* create
great PC games that required a P200, 64MB of RAM, a 32-bit Video card
with 8MB of RAM, a 10X speed CD-ROM, and a 2GB A/V capable hard drive,
but how many copies would they sell? A dozen, to the people who have
personal systems like that?
This medium-level PC will always be less powerful than what a console
can deliver, and much more expensive. So, consoles will always have a
niche.
Later,
Evil
Evil's Dominion - http://www.l0pht.com/~evil
Jeff Hanna
In article <53tuk4$9...@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca>
wo...@bnr.ca (Heath Alexander) wrote:
> Here's a news flash for you as well. North American TV's can't do more than
> 30 Frames per second, and their resolution is somewhere in the 320*240 range.
> So much for all those high resolution games on consoles.....
CCIR601 digital television standards state that NTSC is 720x486.
320x240 is WAY too low for television. It's about 1/4 of what NTSC is
capable of. Besides, 320x240 isn't even overscanned.
A better way to state the possible frames/second on NTSC television is
60 fields/sec, not 30 frames/second. TV is interlaced. Your set scans all the
odd numbered scan lines first (field 1) and then goes back and scans all the
even numbered scan lines next (field 2). So, TV can actually show 60 fields of
video each second. Yes this is semantics, but some people advertise 30 fps
devices (especially PC video capture cards) which only capture 30
de-interlaced fields each second...so in reality they are doing half of what
TV is capable of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff "Quarters" Hanna, CO -=*TH*=- | Albert Einstein nailed space time,
Kesmai Studios, Creative Services | but the "Wild Thing" had him stumped
Air Warrior CPID - Qtrs |
quar...@kesmai.com | -Thomas Dolby
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...@4.com
In article <01bbb8cf.0225e6c0$f175...@HTS.premier1.net>, "Dustin
Wehmeyer" <dus...@hightechsolutions.com> wrote:
>
> DVD will be incorporated into consoles. This is my point. Consoles and
> PC's will converge.
> The only think that is vague is which way will things evolve. Will we see
> multipurpose console's that become more and more like PC's or PC's that
> become more stable and user friendly, like consoles. Which ever way it
> goes, it will happen.
Consoles and PCs will not converge.
PCs are already a world apart.
What you will see is certain technologies being split off and put into a
console. Phillips has a webTV box that lets you browse the web and do
e-mail.
Netscape is said to be working on something for nintendo boxes. That
doesn't mean they will converge. The PC is a personal computer. A very
powerful device with enormous capabilities. To get a decent PC one will
have to pay 2000+.
But to do routine thins like web surf and e-mail a console will work just fine.
What you will see is less people buying PCs since the box that gets cable
or whatever can also surf the web.
Most people don't want to pay 2000+ to play games or do simple word process.
But they may be willing to pay around 500 for such capabilities.
The only thing going mass market is the internet. PCs will once again find
itself in the niche market bought by a few.
Ray Gjergja
BeefLord <rsim...@impulse.net> wrote:
>
>> DVD will be incorporated into consoles. This is my point. Consoles
and
>> PC's will converge.
>
>you hang on your wall.
If you have about $10 000 you can get one in Japan,today.
I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has one and he uses it instead of a PC monitor.
Ray Gjergja
>>Geez man, a PC can never play games like a console. At least not the
>>current line of PC's
>
>Once again, this should come as a surprise to all those folks currently
playing
>the Saturn ports on their PCs...
>
Sure you can play 2 year old Saturn games on your PC,but even some older
games like Sega rally have extremely slow frame rates on PC when run full
screen.Not to mention that V.fighter2 won't show up anyime soon.So it's
still the same.If you want the real game get your console ,if you are
satisfied with slowed down version stick with your PC.
GrapeApe
Consoles will not die off. You will see more consoles as Web browsing and
gaming appliances, and consoles will always exist because they are the
thing to build with less than state of the art components to meet a price
point.
The entire DVD in a console soon argument will not happen because
marekting changes much slower, and they will try to sell DVD at a richer
pricepoint (500 -1000) until there is no growth in that segment for some
time before DVD becomes integrated into less expensive mass consumer
electronics.
Dave Ripberger
3...@4.com wrote:
>In article <53sacc$2...@news.one.net>, dlri...@one.net wrote:
>>
>> I think you have unknowingly discovered the reason that N64 will be
>> successful. By sticking to cartridges and "kiddie" games, it will
>> finally be the system that moves _parents_ from SNES/Genesis. A
>> five-year old can't be trusted with a PC or a CD, even if it "only"
>> costs $50 vs $75. Besides, why should I let my kids use my PC when I
>> want to use it! And $300 for the console is lots less than $2000 for
>> a second PC. Get it?
>>
>> I have noted that five-year-olds are mesmerized by Mario 64. The new
>> generation will be the market for the new generation systems, not us.
>>
>Speak for yourself jerk.
>I ain't no kid. I have a nice computer setup and a N64. I enjoy playing M64.
>Where do you get this kiddie game thing from? Last I checked a lot of
>adults play this game too.
>I think you should let your kids use your PC because they probably could
>use it better than you!
Your computer setup is a piece of shit and you know it. All asshole
flamers like yourself should scew each other so you don't have
hard-ons all the time.
Dave
Heath Alexander
In article <53u8fn$h1r$1...@dot.cstone.net>,
Jeff Hanna <quar...@kesmai.com> wrote:
>In article <53tuk4$9...@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca>
>wo...@bnr.ca (Heath Alexander) wrote:
>
>
>
>> Here's a news flash for you as well. North American TV's can't do more than
>> 30 Frames per second, and their resolution is somewhere in the 320*240 range.
>> So much for all those high resolution games on consoles.....
>
>CCIR601 digital television standards state that NTSC is 720x486.
>
>320x240 is WAY too low for television. It's about 1/4 of what NTSC is
>capable of. Besides, 320x240 isn't even overscanned.
DAMN! Well I got jipped, because according to specifications in the owner's
manual for Samsung 19" TV it has a Horizontal resolution of 260 lines....
I believe that's comparable to computer's resolution of 320x240.
Another thing to consider, most television's have a horrible dot-pitch,
where on the order of .7-.9 versus most computer monitors in .18 range. This
is why smaller fonts of text are virtually unreadable on TV's while they are
clear on smaller computer monitors.
If you still don't believe me, then answer me this, why is there a market for
High Definition TV (HDTV), if standard televisions already have this high of
a resolution? And if normal TV's have such a great capability, why do people
shell out Hundreds or Thousands more for smaller computer monitors to use with
their computers? Why don't they just buy a TV???
>A better way to state the possible frames/second on NTSC television is
>60 fields/sec, not 30 frames/second. TV is interlaced. Your set scans all the
>odd numbered scan lines first (field 1) and then goes back and scans all the
>even numbered scan lines next (field 2). So, TV can actually show 60 fields of
>video each second. Yes this is semantics, but some people advertise 30 fps
>devices (especially PC video capture cards) which only capture 30
>de-interlaced fields each second...so in reality they are doing half of what
>TV is capable of.
At 60 fields/sec you're only getting half of the resolution because you're
using half of the scan lines. In effect what you are doing is showing two
pictures on the screen at the same time, thereby increasing the "frames" and
halving the amount scan lines each can use. So, on my abnormal TV which only
gets 260 horizontal lines of resolution, you would only be 130 horizontal scan
lines per "frame" instead of 260.
Impress me.
I pulled this off of the Toshiba web site:
Refresh rates
This figure refers to the number of times the entire screen is
scanned per second. This is expressed in cycles per second, or hertz
(hz.) The refresh rate of a Color Television is 60hz. (60 fields
creating 30 complete frames). Most computer monitors employ a
refresh rate of 72 to 75hz. to minimize flicker in high resolution
R-G-B images.
Heath
Heath Alexander
In article <540nna$1o...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
Ray Gjergja <FMG...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>>Geez man, a PC can never play games like a console. At least not the
>>>current line of PC's
>>
>>Once again, this should come as a surprise to all those folks currently
>playing
>>the Saturn ports on their PCs...
>>
>>Heath.
>
>Sure you can play 2 year old Saturn games on your PC,but even some older
>games like Sega rally have extremely slow frame rates on PC when run full
>screen.
First off, you will get much lower frame rates if you try to run something in
a windows than if you run it "full screen". The computer is trying to refresh
everything else on the screen as well as the game thus slowing the game down.
Secondly, a lot of the folks are saying that they are getting good frame rates
(20-30) on the 3-D cards at TWICE the console's resolution. Doesn't seem like
such a loss to me.
>Not to mention that V.fighter2 won't show up anyime soon.So it's
>still the same.If you want the real game get your console ,if you are
>satisfied with slowed down version stick with your PC.
Point is that to say that to say, "a PC can never play games like a console. At
least not the current line of PC's" is stupid because they ARE! Finally, while
the PC owners may not have all of the latest and greatest Saturn titles,
neither does the Saturn have any of the latest and greatest (and not-so-latest
and greatest) titles on the PC. You can't play Quake, Duke 3D, Command and
Conquer, or any of a host of other hot PC titles on the Saturn, and even if you
could, you couldn't network them against 4 or 16 other players. Add to that that
a lot of the newer games are going for simultaneous release on the PC and
consoles, and the PC is still a pretty spiffy gaming platform. Of course,
there are some games that won't be coming to PC anytime soon, such as X-Men,
Resident Evil, etc. that make the consoles very attractive to me. But to
dismiss PC's out of hand as not being able to do this stuff is just plain
silly.
Of course, the consoles have big plusses going for them such as the ease of
use, price point, dedicated usage, that make them a very good buy for a lot
of folks. Just don't let system advocacy fool you into thinking that for $200
you just bought the pennacle of computing technology today, because high
technology is never cheap....
Heath "who owns MANY consoles in addition to his PC and just wishes he had more
time!"
3...@4.com
In article <5419u3$b...@news.one.net>, dlri...@one.net wrote:
> 3...@4.com wrote:
> Your computer setup is a piece of shit and you know it. All asshole
> flamers like yourself should scew each other so you don't have
> hard-ons all the time.
>
> Dave
Doesn't sound like some dad.
Must be the 13 year old kid learned to hackcess the computer again.
Stupid dad can't even lock out his kid.
Jon Orion
> 3...@4.com wrote:
>
> >In article <53sacc$2...@news.one.net>, dlri...@one.net wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I think you have unknowingly discovered the reason that N64 will be
> >> successful. By sticking to cartridges and "kiddie" games, it will
> >> finally be the system that moves _parents_ from SNES/Genesis. A
> >> five-year old can't be trusted with a PC or a CD, even if it "only"
> >> costs $50 vs $75. Besides, why should I let my kids use my PC when I
> >> want to use it! And $300 for the console is lots less than $2000 for
> >> a second PC. Get it?
> >>
> >> I have noted that five-year-olds are mesmerized by Mario 64. The new
> >> generation will be the market for the new generation systems, not us.
> >>
> >Speak for yourself jerk.
> >I ain't no kid. I have a nice computer setup and a N64. I enjoy playing M64.
> >Where do you get this kiddie game thing from? Last I checked a lot of
> >adults play this game too.
> >I think you should let your kids use your PC because they probably could
> >use it better than you!
>
> Your computer setup is a piece of shit and you know it. All asshole
> flamers like yourself should scew each other so you don't have
> hard-ons all the time.
Is that what is happening to you? Seems like you just posted a flame.
Are you screwing that other flamer so you don't have a hard-on all the time?
How old are you really?
2?
Or is that your IQ?
Ed Hutchins
> Author: wo...@bnr.ca (Heath Alexander)
> Date: 16 Oct 1996 15:41:19 GMT
>
> In article <53u8fn$h1r$1...@dot.cstone.net>,
> Jeff Hanna <quar...@kesmai.com> wrote:
> >In article <53tuk4$9...@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca>
> >wo...@bnr.ca (Heath Alexander) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Here's a news flash for you as well. North American TV's can't do more than
> >> 30 Frames per second, and their resolution is somewhere in the 320*240 range.
> >> So much for all those high resolution games on consoles.....
> >
> >CCIR601 digital television standards state that NTSC is 720x486.
> >
> >320x240 is WAY too low for television. It's about 1/4 of what NTSC is
> >capable of. Besides, 320x240 isn't even overscanned.
>
> DAMN! Well I got jipped, because according to specifications in the owner's
> manual for Samsung 19" TV it has a Horizontal resolution of 260 lines....
> I believe that's comparable to computer's resolution of 320x240.
Horizontal resolution != number of lines (lines refers to how fine a pattern
of vertical lines can be resolved on each scan line, or roughly 520 pixels).
NTSC timing specifies 525 lines at 29.97Hz in two interlaced fields, or
262.5 lines per field at 59.94Hz. The active portion of this is smaller,
typically in the VGA range (640x480 resolvable pixels).
> Another thing to consider, most television's have a horrible dot-pitch,
> where on the order of .7-.9 versus most computer monitors in .18 range. This
> is why smaller fonts of text are virtually unreadable on TV's while they are
> clear on smaller computer monitors.
True enough, which is why the N64's superior filtering makes such a difference.
(And no, M64 isn't using all of the filtering capabilities of the N64).
IMHO the N64 at whatever rez it runs at looks a lot better than Quake at
800x600, because Quake pointsamples its filters and generally aliases all
over the place (though they do have some basic 4-level mip-mapping going
on). Accelerator cards might allieviate some of this, but until some gaming
standard emerges the majority of PC players will have to live with crappy
graphics.
For your edification, here's the video format specification
we feed into our video format compiler for the Infinite Reality:
/*
** 640x486_30i - RGB NTSC standard
*/
General
{
exported time SerrationDuration;
exported time EqualizationDuration;
FieldsPerFrame = 2;
FramesPerSecond = 29.97;
TotalLinesPerFrame = 525;
TotalPixelsPerLine = 780;
ActiveLinesPerFrame = 486;
ActivePixelsPerLine = 640;
FormatName = "NTSC";
SerrationDuration = 27.1 usec;
EqualizationDuration = 2.3 usec;
}
Active Line
{
HorizontalFrontPorch = 1.8 usec;
HorizontalSync = 4.7 usec;
HorizontalBackPorch = 4.9 usec;
}
Field
{
skip = 1;
offset = 1;
Vertical Sync =
{
repeat 6
{
Length = 0.5H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = SerrationDuration;
}
}
Vertical Back Porch =
{
repeat 6
{
Length = 0.5H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = EqualizationDuration;
}
repeat 11
{
Length = 1.0H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = HorizontalSync;
}
}
Active =
{
repeat 242
{
Length = 1.0H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = HorizontalSync;
}
{
Length = 0.5H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = HorizontalSync;
}
}
Vertical Front Porch =
{
repeat 6
{
Length = 0.5H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = EqualizationDuration;
}
}
}
Field
{
skip = 1;
offset = 0;
Vertical Sync =
{
repeat 6
{
Length = 0.5H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = SerrationDuration;
}
}
Vertical Back Porch =
{
repeat 6
{
Length = 0.5H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = EqualizationDuration;
}
{
Length = 0.5H;
}
repeat 10
{
Length = 1.0H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = HorizontalSync;
}
/*
** The number of available CBLNK edges requires a fudge of the
** position of the first line, in variance from the spec to
** instead match the position of the other half line position
** (at the other end of this field, shown at the end of this
** frame definition).
*/
{
Length = 0.5H - HorizontalFrontPorch;
Low = 0 usec;
High = HorizontalSync;
}
}
Active =
{
{
/* No sync edge transitions needed here. */
Length = 0.5H + HorizontalFrontPorch;
}
repeat 242
{
Length = 1.0H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = HorizontalSync;
}
}
Vertical Front Porch =
{
repeat 6
{
Length = 0.5H;
Low = 0 usec;
High = EqualizationDuration;
}
}
}
- Ed
Jon Orion
Ray Gjergja
>Point is that to say that to say, "a PC can never play games like a
console. At
>least not the current line of PC's" is stupid because they ARE!
That was actually someone else's quote,but I did say that Sega rally [ so
far ]
is not quite up to speed of the Saturn version.Overall PC is having
pretty hard [ impossible ??] time running older Sega's games any better
than Saturn and since Saturn is a 2 year old machine it would seem that
today's $200 console like N64 is actually a pinnacle of gaming technology.
PC does have some great games,and in the end it's up to each one of us to
decide which games we prefer and buy the appropriate system or simply buy
all of them [ I did ].
Technically speaking , though,today's PC is not up to N64's standards and
we should put this argument to rest,because it's so obvious. 3Dfx's voodo
chips may change that,but it's still a bit early to tell.But then M2 and
PSX2 will give consoles a definitive edge again,so most likely PC will
never quite catch up. Again I'd like to remind everyone interested in
discussing this that both,Saturn and PS are 2 YEARS OLD.True
technological comparison can only be made btw N64 and PC of today,and
hopefully M2 by Spring of '97.
Mark Rathwell
And here I thought this was going to be an intelligent thread about how
the console market seems to be shrinking as 32/64 bits aren't selling as
well as their counterparts in the 8-bit and 16-bit market. Instead, it's
another lame-o console vs. pc war.
: if you wish,because your 2 years back statement is ridiculous ]
So are some of the examples you chose ...
: Mario kart 64
: F-Zero64
: Starfox64
Like these three. They aren't even out and yet you're using them
in a comparison. Not that I think PC's two years ago could match any of
the NG consoles without mega upgrades but you can't base games soley on
your love of Nintendo. Try 'em first.
: When Doom 64 comes out I can even ask you about that.
Again ... you haven't played Doom64. You're just blindly assuming
again.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Rathwell
E_Mail: mrat...@uoguelph.ca
Web Page: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~mrathwel
Ray Gjergja
>: if you wish,because your 2 years back statement is ridiculous ]
>
> So are some of the examples you chose ...
>
>: Mario kart 64
>: F-Zero64
>: Starfox64
>
> Like these three. They aren't even out and yet you're using them
>in a comparison. Not that I think PC's two years ago could match any of
>the NG consoles without mega upgrades but you can't base games soley on
>your love of Nintendo. Try 'em first.
Far from ridiculous,These games are just around the corner and I've seen
unfinished versions on tape which look better than anything on PC.
Considering M64,Waverace,and PW quality it's pretty safe to assume
they'll be excellent,but you missed the point which was that no matter
how good or bad these turn out to be they'll never be available on PC and
the original poster claimed that all flagship console titles were
available on PC 2 years ago,so tell me:have you seen any of those on PC,
even the original mario kart ,,starfox and F-zero if you don't wont to
consider 64 bit versions.
Zsolt Szabo
In article <542vmv$9...@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca>,
Heath Alexander <wo...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>DAMN! Well I got jipped, because according to specifications in the owner's
>manual for Samsung 19" TV it has a Horizontal resolution of 260 lines....
>I believe that's comparable to computer's resolution of 320x240.
You sure did. NTSC is factually higher than that. In fact, I would think
that you got your TV manual mixed up with your Genesis user guide, because
NTSC doesn't even define an actual horizontal resolution. The vertical
resolution is roughly 480 lines and horizontally, it's limited by the
maximum bandwidth.
>Another thing to consider, most television's have a horrible dot-pitch,
>where on the order of .7-.9 versus most computer monitors in .18 range. This
>is why smaller fonts of text are virtually unreadable on TV's while they are
>clear on smaller computer monitors.
You're just making these numbers up, guy. SVGA monitors are not .18--where
are you getting this nonsense from? Remember, even though this is the
rgv.nintendo group, you will still find people that are technically
more knowledegable than you. TVs are perhaps .6-.7 and an SVGA is around
.25" and up. This actually works out in favor of consoles, however.
Because a higher dot pitch also means higher contrast per pixel--which
makes low res games look real ugly on PCs, compared to low res console
games displayed on TVs.
>If you still don't believe me, then answer me this, why is there a market for
>High Definition TV (HDTV), if standard televisions already have this high of
>a resolution? And if normal TV's have such a great capability, why do people
>shell out Hundreds or Thousands more for smaller computer monitors to use with
>their computers? Why don't they just buy a TV???
Because HDTV is even higher resolution (I think around 1600x900) and
displays at 100Hz interlaced, instead of 60Hz. Furhtermore it has a more
advanced and stable color coding scheme than NTSC (which is quite
outdated, compared to superior standards like PAL). Also, HDTVs will
introduce a more letterbox-sized format--which is also superior to regular
TVs. After all, your vision is panoramic, since you have two eyes
situated horizontally. As for your last point--TVs can display resolutions
of around 640x480--but due to the low dot pitch the pixels may come out
somewhat blurry. And if you want greater than 640x480, you're stuck. More
importantly, however, 640x480 is interlaced on TVs.
Nobody ever denied that overall, SVGA monitors are better for work--where
you need high resolution, a very stable picture (high refresh rate), etc.
However, for games, a TV is MUCH more suited. They're much bigger than
monitors, cost less, and due to their low dot pitch a low res game looks
much better on them than on an SVGA monitor. Need for Speed (PSX) at
320x240 on my 27" TV looks less pixelated than Need for Speed (P166) on a
friend's 17" monitor, at 640x480.
>At 60 fields/sec you're only getting half of the resolution because you're
>using half of the scan lines. In effect what you are doing is showing two
>pictures on the screen at the same time, thereby increasing the "frames" and
>halving the amount scan lines each can use. So, on my abnormal TV which only
>gets 260 horizontal lines of resolution, you would only be 130 horizontal scan
>lines per "frame" instead of 260.
>Impress me.
Look--your TV does NOT display 260 horizontal lines. If you are talking
about vertical lines (# of rows), you are blatantly incorrect. If you are
talking about horizontal lines--well, in that case you are not talking
about a standard NTSC picture, which would be around 500-600.
As for your other argument--no, you still get full resolution (480). The
images changes only very little most of the time during that 1/30th of a
second. So for all intents and purposes, you are displaying the second
half of the image during the second pass. This makes an effective
resolution of 2x240=480. Look, don't even argue about this until you have
hooked an Amiga up to a TV and used it in laced mode. It quite obviously
doubles the resolution from NI mode.
>
>I pulled this off of the Toshiba web site:
> Refresh rates
>
> This figure refers to the number of times the entire screen is
> scanned per second. This is expressed in cycles per second, or hertz
> (hz.) The refresh rate of a Color Television is 60hz. (60 fields
> creating 30 complete frames). Most computer monitors employ a
> refresh rate of 72 to 75hz. to minimize flicker in high resolution
> R-G-B images.
This is absolutely correct. However, what they neglect to mention is that
broadcast quality NTSC has a color intensity and contrast restriction,
which greatly reduces the apparent flicker on TV. Computers do not have
anything like this--at least not as a universal SVGA standard. Perhaps you
should watch TV sometime and figure out exactly how much flicker you see.
You will find that while there is some, it is within reasonable limits.
--
__ //sys 64738-code must always be as tight as possible!
-/_)_ ( _ __) __)___ //URL=HTTP://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~robodude __ One man's
_/ \(_)_)_)_/(_/_/(-__//junk is another man's protoculture-Gen. Rolf Emmerson