What the hell is with Genesis?????
epa...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
You see it on t.v. They're constantly and perpetually rubbing it in
your face. Sega has BLAST PROCESSING and Super Nintendo doesn't. Then they show
the dolphin game and Sonic 2(well done). But I have a question...
WHAT THE HELL IS BLAST PROCESSING?
As far as I can tell it just means that the machine can move more
screens quickly and more efficiently. But Super NES has Road Runner's Death
Valley Rally which is faster than anything I've seen. Then they show Super NES'
Super Mario Kart, which is one of the best games ever made. It got all 9's in
EGM, which is better than any Genesis or Genesis CD game (except Sonic 2)
And all my friends would take the awesome roataing, scaling and Mode seven on a
Super NES than the "Blast Processing" Genesis offers. Have you ever played
Pilotwings, or F-Zero, or SMK, or Final Fantasy 2? Those games kick the crap
out of Genesis games, or al least the ones I've played, and I've played a lot!
And what is the mass appeal with Sega products? I know that Genesis
cleaned house this Christmas and will probably dominate the market next year.
I make no excuses for Nintendo's ad campaign, though. Rarely do I see a
commercial for Nintendo, and when I do, it's either for a really sorry game, or
is an ad for a game which has no relevance with the actual game itself. Look at
the Zelda 3 ad. They show this obese Link climbing up a mountain trying to get
the sword. But do they ever show the actual game once? Oh well, getting off
subject.
Someone out there kindly post what Blast processing is, and why
people are turning to Genesis. The color's bad, the 3-D effects are inferior,
and you can't beat SNES's music, unless you talk about the CD Rom. Prince of
Persia has fuzzy graphics that SNES could do in its sleep. The music, I will
admit is no contest, but it's a CD.
My final point is that the Genesis shows in its ad; their system and
the SNES side by side. But when they show the Genesis with its 2nd controller
and Sonic cartridge, they flash on the screen for about half a second:
'Second Controller and game cartridge sold seperately'
SNES comes with 2 controllers, and SMW. I just don't get it.
Well, I outta hea. Peace.
C.J. Silverio
In article <1992Dec29.1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, epa...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
|Someone out there kindly post what Blast processing is, and why
|people are turning to Genesis. The color's bad, the 3-D effects
|are inferior, and you can't beat SNES's music, unless you talk
Sonic, Sonic, Sonic, Sonic, Sonic, and Miles. That's why I
bought mine, anyway.
The color on both isn't as good as the color on my Mac, the 3D
effects on both aren't nearly as nice as the effects on the IRIS
workstation on my desk, and the music is moot to me. I'm going
to buy Lemmings for my Mac and not for my Genesis machine.
I care about the games more than about fiddling differences
between platforms.
---
c...@eno.esd.sgi.com C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Humans are nearly panmictic (randomly breeding) -- there is a
certain amount of assortative mating [...]-- but not enough, IMHO,
that the opportunity for group selection exists." --Chris Colby,
in talk.origins
Bob Rusbasan
> WHAT THE HELL IS BLAST PROCESSING?
Oh, my God! Not again! No! ;-)
Seriously, we just went through this in a thread that was hundreds of
messages long. Let's not do it again, OK?
> As far as I can tell it just means that the machine can move more
>screens quickly and more efficiently. But Super NES has Road Runner's Death
Yes, you are right. That is all it is, and it is nothing more. Let's
leave it at that, OK?
>Valley Rally which is faster than anything I've seen. Then they show Super NES'
>Super Mario Kart, which is one of the best games ever made. It got all 9's in
>EGM, which is better than any Genesis or Genesis CD game (except Sonic 2)
Two quick points: 1) Almost everyone commenting on Sega's slam of
SMK agreed that it was stupid because SMK is a great game. 2) EGM is
generally despised on this newsgroup (for good reason, in my opinion),
so bringing it up to back up points will usually get you nowhere.
[ lengthy praise of the SNES and damnation of the Genesis deleted ]
If you have fun with your SNES, good. If people, like me, have fun
with their Genesis, good. Can't we leave it at that?
>SNES comes with 2 controllers, and SMW. I just don't get it.
The Genesis either comes with one controller and one game, or one
controller. The SNES either comes with two controllers and one game,
or one controller. Many SNES games besides SMW are sold separately,
as are additional controllers if you need them. This is nothing to
get too excited about.
> Well, I outta hea. Peace.
Peace to you. And let us all enjoy our games, shall we? Regardless
of what other machines can do and how their makers chose to advertise.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
/ Bob Rusbasan | Dance to the tension \
/ rusb...@expert.cc.purdue.edu | of a world on edge \
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
tj...@cas.org
1. The sports games on the Genesis are ten times better than
the SNES sports games. Except for NCAA Basketball, I find
the control on the SNES sports games to be terrible. Madden
football on the SNES is awful compared to the Genesis version
where the action is smooth and clear. I know some people that
do like the SNES games, but I personally do not.
2. I love the Sega controllers!!! The SNES controllers are too small and
when you've got big hands they pose a problem. I also like the three
button controls better than 4 for my beloved sports games and the bigger
buttons also make for easier play.
Just my opinion,
Trav
Andrew Grant
>your face. Sega has BLAST PROCESSING and Super Nintendo doesn't. Then they show
>the dolphin game and Sonic 2(well done). But I have a question...
>
> WHAT THE HELL IS BLAST PROCESSING?
>
> As far as I can tell it just means that the machine can move more
>screens quickly and more efficiently. But Super NES has Road Runner's Death
>Valley Rally which is faster than anything I've seen. Then they show Super NES'
>Super Mario Kart, which is one of the best games ever made. It got all 9's in
>EGM, which is better than any Genesis or Genesis CD game (except Sonic 2)
>And all my friends would take the awesome roataing, scaling and Mode seven on a
I thought it was awfull. But I am used to playing Road Rash on the Genesis
which blows SMK away. Road Rash has much better graphics in spite of the
Genesis "only" having a maximum of 64 colours on screen.
>Pilotwings, or F-Zero, or SMK, or Final Fantasy 2? Those games kick the crap
>out of Genesis games, or al least the ones I've played, and I've played a lot!
owners are saying about SMK I doubt it.
>
> And what is the mass appeal with Sega products? I know that Genesis
>cleaned house this Christmas and will probably dominate the market next year.
>I make no excuses for Nintendo's ad campaign, though. Rarely do I see a
>commercial for Nintendo, and when I do, it's either for a really sorry game, or
>is an ad for a game which has no relevance with the actual game itself. Look at
>the Zelda 3 ad. They show this obese Link climbing up a mountain trying to get
>the sword. But do they ever show the actual game once? Oh well, getting off
>subject.
>
to play SMK over the holidays has made me think again.
> Someone out there kindly post what Blast processing is, and why
>people are turning to Genesis. The color's bad, the 3-D effects are inferior,
>and you can't beat SNES's music, unless you talk about the CD Rom. Prince of
>Persia has fuzzy graphics that SNES could do in its sleep. The music, I will
>admit is no contest, but it's a CD.
of color.
> My final point is that the Genesis shows in its ad; their system and
>the SNES side by side. But when they show the Genesis with its 2nd controller
>and Sonic cartridge, they flash on the screen for about half a second:
> 'Second Controller and game cartridge sold seperately'
>SNES comes with 2 controllers, and SMW. I just don't get it.
>
> Well, I outta hea. Peace.
It's interesting that although the SNES has superior graphics in many respects,
many (non-technical) people I have spoken to seem to think that the Genesis
has better graphics. I didn't argue with them having just being playing SMK.
Andrew Grant.
Crying Freeman
>In article <1992Dec29.1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> epa...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>
>Ha Ha Ha. SMK one of the best games ever made. I played it over Christmas.
>I thought it was awfull. But I am used to playing Road Rash on the Genesis
>which blows SMK away. Road Rash has much better graphics in spite of the
>Genesis "only" having a maximum of 64 colours on screen.
Haven't seen Road Rash so I can't say which is better... Anyways, I really
think SMK is a great game. I guess everyone has different tastes.
>I have only played SMK. The other games may be better, but from what SNES
>owners are saying about SMK I doubt it.
I think Genesis has MUCH better advertising. Nintendo has some really lame
commercials... I only have an SNES now, but I'd like to get a Genesis as
well, primarily because of Ecco and Sonic 2 (I guess the advertising got
to me. :) )
>>
>I was thinking of buying a SNES in addition to my Genesis. Using someone else's
>to play SMK over the holidays has made me think again.
I'm not telling you to go buy an SNES, but judging it on only one game is
a bit harsh isn't it?
>> Someone out there kindly post what Blast processing is, and why
>>people are turning to Genesis. The color's bad, the 3-D effects are inferior,
Who said people are turning to Genesis? I have 2 friends who recently got
Genesis' (Or is it Genesi) but they both had SNES' (Or is it... nevermind)
already...
>>and you can't beat SNES's music, unless you talk about the CD Rom. Prince of
>>Persia has fuzzy graphics that SNES could do in its sleep. The music, I will
>>admit is no contest, but it's a CD.
>The Genesis colors are not bad. Games like Sonic and Road Rash make great use
>of color.
I haven't had much exposure to the Genesis, but when I saw Sonic, the colors
seemed fine to me... (I'm not really that picky...) Regardless, the graphics
of both systems are sufficient for me, anyways...
>> My final point is that the Genesis shows in its ad; their system and
>>the SNES side by side. But when they show the Genesis with its 2nd controller
>>and Sonic cartridge, they flash on the screen for about half a second:
>> 'Second Controller and game cartridge sold seperately'
>>SNES comes with 2 controllers, and SMW. I just don't get it.
It's just advertising... :) Besides, the Genesis package is $20 cheaper
than the SNES package around here...
>>
>> Well, I outta hea. Peace.
>It's interesting that although the SNES has superior graphics in many respects,
>many (non-technical) people I have spoken to seem to think that the Genesis
>has better graphics. I didn't argue with them having just being playing SMK.
Hey, it's all a matter of opinion (I had a friend who SWORE that PCEngine
BLEW AWAY any game system he's ever seen, including SNES and Genesis.)
However, using SMK as the basis for the SNES' graphics capabilities doesn't
really prove anything though (as you sort of implied I guess) What makes
the game great (IMO) is the head-to-head FUN value of it. My girlfriend and
her sisters just love the game. It's got that "cuteness" and humor factor, as
well as the competitive factor. I find that the lack of 2 player action in
many games just kills it for me... (Esp. Final Fight, Magic Sword...)
>Andrew Grant.
--
Kenneth C. Wang | University Of Illinois Champaign-Urbana
| Internet: c-w...@uiuc.edu
Laura Kozma
>
>In article <1992Dec29.1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, epa...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>|Someone out there kindly post what Blast processing is, and why
>|people are turning to Genesis. The color's bad, the 3-D effects
>|are inferior, and you can't beat SNES's music, unless you talk
>|about the CD Rom. [...]
>
>Sonic, Sonic, Sonic, Sonic, Sonic, and Miles. That's why I
>bought mine, anyway.
I'm another that bought the Genesis for the Sonic game, but
I hesitate to admit that I bought Cookie Crisp cereal for
the Sonic picture inside. :-)
>The color on both isn't as good as the color on my Mac, the 3D
>effects on both aren't nearly as nice as the effects on the IRIS
>workstation on my desk, and the music is moot to me. I'm going
>to buy Lemmings for my Mac and not for my Genesis machine.
I'm buying Lemmings II for my Amiga and not my IBM or Game Gear
or Genesis or SNES...
Laura Kozma
--
Laura Kozma
AT&T, 30 Knightsbridge Rd
Piscataway, NJ att!attmail!lkozma
Jason Keeler
A friend of mine and I are having a dispute:
He says the processor in Genesis is superior to SNES. I've heard the opposite
is true.
Anybody know for sure?
...Jason
Ian Thornton
: Hi;
Yup. A tech. sheet I saw on this group a while back stated that the
processor speed of the Genesis was about twice that of the SNES
Ian.
Krishna Kushwaha P205
the SNES has a 3.5 MHz 65816 which is a 16/8 bit CPU. The 68000 is much faster.
Andrew Grant
0
While it might seem like a processor that is 2X faster would be superior,
this is not necessarily the case. For example, an 8 bit processor such as
the old 8080 (or Z80) needs 2 CPU cycles to fetch 16 bits of data whereas a
16 bit processor (680x0) can get the same amount ot data in only 1 cycle. Now
as to whether the SNES processor is better or worse than the Genesis is really
irrelevant. To compare mcahines, you have to look at the whole system. Can
the machine perform certain graphics operations in hardware, thereby freeing
up the processor to do other mundane tasks? What about the interfaces between
the CPU, memory and graphics sub-systems? Having the fastest processor in the
world won't do you any good if you are constantly waiting for external
peripheral devices to complete their job.
Another trap to avoid is to compare the same game on different machines. The
problem is that you assume that the programmers have made full use of the
machines capability in the best possible way. What would be interesting
would be to have a standard "test" case for all video game machines. Sort
of like the benchmarks used for measuring computer performance. Only when
we have something like that will we be able to answer the age old burning
question....Which is the best game machine on the market? Of course the
best machine is only as good as its software!!
Cheers
--
T C
e-mail: tony_...@mentorg.com
Andy Cohen
It may be true......
BUT
Few seem to understand that the two systems are VERY different.
In the Genesis (which ain't a bad platform) ALL the work is done in the
68000 (the CPU chip)....Motorola designed this chip to do all of the
typical CPU work as well as graphics......at the same time. Great for
cheap Macs.
The SNES system distributes the work amongst a bunch of lessor
processors..... It's not all that easy to make out the arcitecture by
taking it apart...but it looks like the data bus through the cartridge is
the full 16 bit bus.... The result is that the SNES can have coprocessors
in the cartridge or outside the box through the expansion port.....
according to the mags, a coprocessor is exactly what we will be seeing soon
in a flight simulator shootemup..... It's hard to verify but it also
looks like the SNES offloads all it's graphics plane mgmt to a seperate
coprocessor.....
Also.....the potential for the CD addon is great..... The CD box will
likely have it's own mgrs....CD ROMs are dog slow.....enough to kill a
game....a coprocessor as in the NEC CDR 84 which manages mulitspeeds for
sound, video and data will greatly enhance the CD reaction time.......
There will also likely be more games during the next year for
SNES....although that's another thread.....
HOWEVER, I'd recommend buying the platform that has the titles you want.
Daniel Carleton
>Hi;
>Anybody know for sure?
>...Jason
The CPU chip in the Genesis is better. It's a 7 MHz 68000, the SNES
has a 4 MHz 65816(i think that's the number) which is an enhanced 6502.
Both chips are by motorola, and the 68000 is more advanced, therefore the
Genesis must have a better CPU. The only problem with that argument is that
in many types of game the CPU isn't doing the hardest work. In games like
Hard Drivin' and Race Drivin', however the graphics are of a type that these
systems dont have special hardware to do, so CPU speed would be a more critical
issue. Unfortunately neither system does a decent job of this type of game.
It is rumored that Nintendo will improve performance on polygon type games
by adding another special graphics chip rather than using a new CPU.
Another game type that might be hurt would be compute intensive games like
Sim City, but unfortunately there was no Genesis version.
To sum up, if a game needs computations that the SNES's spiffy co-processor
chips cant do, it would be better implemented on the Genesis, assuming the
programmers were equally skilled at both systems.
JT
>Few seem to understand that the two systems are VERY different.
>In the Genesis (which ain't a bad platform) ALL the work is done in the
>68000 (the CPU chip)....Motorola designed this chip to do all of the
>typical CPU work as well as graphics......at the same time. Great for
>cheap Macs.
>
>The SNES system distributes the work amongst a bunch of lessor
>processors..... It's not all that easy to make out the arcitecture by
I heard the Genesis did use a 68000 has the main CPU, but had a seperate processor for graphics, whereas the SNES had only one. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the faq, altho I don't know if I would want to be the one to post the spec table again.
No flames please... that is what I seem to remember, does anybody have the specs handy?
JT
Douglas S. Rand
What is much faster? What do you base this on? You really cannot
compare such things in any straightforward fashion. Mhz means
absolutly nothing. Mind you, I like 68Ks very much, they are
very fine processors, I own Macs, but you just cannot make
blanket statements. Even benchmarks can be quite misleading, it
depends on what you are doing with the processors.
To give two extreme examples, one processor might be blindly fast
at floating point, while another is an ultra efficient data mover.
These will not be equally good in a video game system.
In any case, I still find it dubious, to say the least, that
there is much significant difference in what the two can do at
the processor level for processing a video game. Certainly the
proof is in the pudding, and we have seen excellent games for
both systems and awful games for both system.
--
Douglas S. Rand <dr...@osf.org> OSF/Motif Dev.
Snail: 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142
Disclaimer: I don't know if OSF agrees with me... let's vote on it.
Amateur Radio: KC1KJ
and...@brtph346.bnr.ca
(Douglas S. Rand) writes:
|>In article <1993Jan6.1...@brtph560.bnr.ca>
and...@brtph346.BNR.CA (Krishna Kushwaha P205) writes:
|>
|> In article <1993Jan06.0...@sue.cc.uregina.ca>,
|> kee...@hercules.cs.uregina.ca (Jason Keeler) writes:
|> |>Hi;
|> |>
|> |>A friend of mine and I are having a dispute:
|> |>
|> |>He says the processor in Genesis is superior to SNES. I've heard the
|> opposite
|> |>is true.
|> |>
|> |>Anybody know for sure?
|> |>
|> |>...Jason
|>
|> Your friend is correct. The Genesis has a 8MHz 68000 which is a
32/16 bit CPU,
|> the SNES has a 3.5 MHz 65816 which is a 16/8 bit CPU. The 68000 is
much faster.
|>
|>What is much faster? What do you base this on? You really cannot
|>compare such things in any straightforward fashion. Mhz means
|>absolutly nothing. Mind you, I like 68Ks very much, they are
NOT TRUE
|>very fine processors, I own Macs, but you just cannot make
|>blanket statements. Even benchmarks can be quite misleading, it
speed is more than twice as fast, it also has many more internal
registers. These are strong indications the the 68000 is much faster
than the 65816 (which was used in the II GS).
|>depends on what you are doing with the processors.
|>
|>To give two extreme examples, one processor might be blindly fast
|>at floating point, while another is an ultra efficient data mover.
|>These will not be equally good in a video game system.
Neither CPU does floating point. the 68000 can move twice as much data
as the 65186. They are both general purpose CPU's
|>
|>In any case, I still find it dubious, to say the least, that
|>there is much significant difference in what the two can do at
|>the processor level for processing a video game. Certainly the
|>proof is in the pudding, and we have seen excellent games for
|>both systems and awful games for both system.
The original question was "is the processor in the Genesis superior to
the one in the SNES". The answer is clearly YES. The SNES may have
dedicated hardware which helps make up it's disadvantage in the CPU
department. However these chips will be less flexible and harder to
program than a fast general purpose CPU.
It is true that many games for the SNES do not suffer from slowdown
and that some Genesis games do. However, Genesis games generally
feel faster than their SNES counterparts. The fact tht a good SNES
programmer can produce better results than a bad Genesis programmer
do not prove that the SNES is as fast.
The 68000 has another advantage over the 65816, It is easier to port
too. There are a large number of 'C' cross compilers available for it
that produce good code. The 68000 may be old but it is a mainstream
CPU design. The 65186 is basically just a 6502 with 16 bit internal
registers.
|>
|>--
|>Douglas S. Rand <dr...@osf.org> OSF/Motif Dev.
|>Snail: 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142
|>Disclaimer: I don't know if OSF agrees with me... let's vote on it.
|>Amateur Radio: KC1KJ
Andrew D. Grant
Tony Clark
[Original question and several replies delete, because this is starting to
get a little boring]
|> The original question was "is the processor in the Genesis superior to
|> the one in the SNES". The answer is clearly YES. The SNES may have
|> dedicated hardware which helps make up it's disadvantage in the CPU
|> department. However these chips will be less flexible and harder to
|> program than a fast general purpose CPU.
NOT TRUE!! Using or not using the peripheral devices is usually optional in
most systems (I am guessing this to be true for SNES.) It is much easier
to send a data structure, representing an on-screen object, to a
graphics processor and have that processor do scaling and rotation as
opposed to managing the scaling and rotation with additional
software routines. Furthermore, this would take additional memory to
store the routines and could (and in most cases would) be slower than
doing it with dedicated HW. In addition the flexibility of the system
is further enhanced if it allows additional graphics processors to be added
as is the case with the SNES (see other posts regarding carts w/new graphics
co-processor).
|>
|> It is true that many games for the SNES do not suffer from slowdown
|> and that some Genesis games do. However, Genesis games generally
|> feel faster than their SNES counterparts. The fact tht a good SNES
|> programmer can produce better results than a bad Genesis programmer
|> do not prove that the SNES is as fast.
Another excellent point! A bad programmer can make the fastest machine run
incredibly slow. But in 99% of all cases a good programmer with access to
graphics acceleration hardware will blow the doors off a good programmer
trying to do the same function with software only.
|>
|> The 68000 has another advantage over the 65816, It is easier to port
|> too. There are a large number of 'C' cross compilers available for it
|> that produce good code. The 68000 may be old but it is a mainstream
|> CPU design. The 65186 is basically just a 6502 with 16 bit internal
|> registers.
|> |>
|> |>--
|> Andrew D. Grant
Likewise, the 6502 is very old and very mainstream. I believe that it was
widely used in the old Atari 400/800 systems and several other contemporary
systems of that time. Including some of the first Apple computers. So I am not
so sure that compilers are the issue here and BTW having 16 bit internal
registers is a BIG improvement. It means that you can do 16 bit math
operations in a single instruction!
The bottom line is that you cannot predict system performance from a single
specification. And for video gamers, its the Game not the hardware that it
runs on that is important.
David Wagner,,,
the top of my head, the Genesis run at ~7.68 MHz, whereas the SNES runs at
~3.52 MHz.
- Dave
Dave Meeks
What are you talking about, the actual CPU or the graphics processor, etc???
If you mean the main processor, then the Genesis version is undoubtably MUCH
better than the SNES. It uses the 68000 chip, and runs at about 2 times the
MHz rate (maybe more)
--
David T. Meeks || "New shadows tugging at the corner of his eye
VMark Software, Inc. || Jostling for attention as the sunlight flares
uvmark!da...@merk.com || Through a curtains tear, shuffling its beams
davem%uvm...@merk.com || As if in nervous anticipation of another day"
John N. Andrusiak
Assuming that the processor types already mention are correct, ie 68000
and 65816, then I'll confirm that the 68000 is the superior processor.
The 65816 is the processor that the Apple IIGS uses. It is a nightmare
kludge, that is only surpased by the Intel 486 architecture. Anything
I can thing of will be easier to run, easier to program and will run faster
on a 68000.
If you want to know my credentials, I'm an computer engineering student
with experience on both processors.
John Andrusiak
Douglas S. Rand
Assuming that the processor types already mention are correct, ie 68000
and 65816, then I'll confirm that the 68000 is the superior processor.
The 65816 is the processor that the Apple IIGS uses. It is a nightmare
kludge, that is only surpased by the Intel 486 architecture. Anything
I can thing of will be easier to run, easier to program and will run faster
on a 68000.
The 68000 is a wonderful processor. It is almost certainly
architecturally superior to the 65816 (although the original 6516 was
not a bad machine). This is not, however, a statement of performance.
I am not, by the way, saying that the 68000 in this use is not
superior. I'm just irritated by the very sloppy thinking involved
in the various statements, not just yours, that periodically
appear in this newsgroup. It's a tremendous waste of time.
If you want to know my credentials, I'm an computer engineering student
with experience on both processors.
I have two degrees in EE, several years working in CPU design
and microcode which included benchmarking CPUs, and more than
nine years of commercial systems software. *I* can still be wrong.
Remember that when you tout your credentials.
Richard Caley
a> The SNES may have dedicated hardware which helps make up it's
a> disadvantage in the CPU department. However these chips will be
a> less flexible and harder to program than a fast general purpose
a> CPU.
If we were dealing with a general purpose computer, this might be a
major factor. However, video games are a rather specific application
and for most of them the dedicated hardware is going to be a big win.
It would be nice if Nintendo had put a less embarassing CPU in with
the dedicated chips, but better they make their quota of brain dead
decisions on the CPU choice than where it would be more important.
Now, this all means that SEGA should have a huge advantage in doing
games involving real computation. Someone mentioned SimCity, decent
adventure games would be another way to go (have to add a keyboard,
but a cheap one could gpo with a game at the prices they charge).
Of course, in the real world, SEGA would rather have their corporate
internal organs removed with a blunt spoon than be seen to produce a
game that hadn't already been produced under different names at least
20 times.
Hm. Maybe they should have just produced a machine containing a
jump-on-the-platforms chip, a scroll-along-and-shoot-at-the-aliens
chip, a paper/scisors/rock-disguised-as-Kung-Fu chip and a
hold-down-the-button-to-throw-the-ball chip. That would cover 99% of
the games they would ever want to release and they could use all that
expensive developer time on creating new bitmaps to plug into the
games rewriting the manuals into whatever they think is how eight year
old kids are speaking this week.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk Tell me Prince of Persia is a joke. Please.
Tim Smith
>Another game type that might be hurt would be compute intensive games like
>Sim City, but unfortunately there was no Genesis version.
>To sum up, if a game needs computations that the SNES's spiffy co-processor
>chips cant do, it would be better implemented on the Genesis, assuming the
>programmers were equally skilled at both systems.
It is interesting to look at the history of computer chess. In the early
80's, the best computer chess programs were running on 6502. They beat
the 68000 programs. They beat the VAX programs. I think the best even
beat Cray Blitz, which ran on a cray. Why? Chess does not inherently
*need* 16 or 32 or 60 bits, and the programs were simply better.
Now, the programmers who produced these awsome 6502 programs are using
680x0 and 80x86, and so the 6502 is no longer kind of the chess world.
This is not to say that processor speed doesn't matter. The current
killer chess machine, Deep Thought, throws a lot of custom hardware
at the problem. The software is not as good as that on the best
microprocessor chess machines (according to the authors of Deep
Thought), but the speed is so much better (they reach about 7 or 8
full moves ahead in their search, minimum, in tournament play, compared
to maybe 4 for the micro programs) that they play really well (almost
drew former World Champion Anatoly Karpov).
In summary, for chess, and I think also for video games, programmer skill
is as important as or more important than processor speed or word size,
unless there is a fairly large difference between the processors.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>kludge, that is only surpased by the Intel 486 architecture. Anything
The GI 1600 (which was what the Intellevision used) was worse. I think
one of the old game systems used the 1802, which can certainly lay claim
to nightmare kludge status.
These things make the 486 look like a thing of beauty.
--Tim Smith
Gregory D. Lawrence
>What are you talking about, the actual CPU or the graphics processor,
>etc???
>
>If you mean the main processor, then the Genesis version is
>undoubtably MUCH
>better than the SNES. It uses the 68000 chip, and runs at about 2
>times the
>MHz rate (maybe more)
Mhz is only accurate in comparing two chips of the same type. You
just don't say it's twice as fast, there's a bunch of other factors
that have to be taken into consideration. And the fact that it uses
the 68000 chip doesn't necessarily make it at any advantage.
--
_________________________________________________
[ | | ]
-=# cb...@cleveland.freenet.edu | [Greg] | /\/\odem #=-
[_____________________________|________|__________]
ca...@csbina.csubak.edu
Can you program a Genesis in C?! Wow, what compiler would let you do that?
(I have Think C, a Macintosh/68K compiler.) I assumed most games were written
in assembly - probably not true.
Speaking of this, this reminds me of something that really surprised me when I
saw it. I was playing around with Sonic 1, and for the hell of it pulling out
the cartridge at different points to see what would happen. (Admit it, you've
done it too!) Once, though, I got a very strange 'error message'. Specifically,
the screen blacked out and in the middle it read:
EMULATOR ERROR AT FF80:ABCD
Or something like that. I don't remember the address. But what language was
Sonic written in? I thought assembly for speed but what kind of 'emulator'
would it use?
(could someone with a game copier verify this for me? Open it with a text
or sector editor and do a search for 'EMULAT')
BTW, how much would a Multi Game Hunter cost? It comes with a drive right?
Steven E Barnes
> > too. There are a large number of 'C' cross compilers available for it
> > that produce good code. The 68000 may be old but it is a mainstream
> > CPU design. The 65186 is basically just a 6502 with 16 bit internal
> > registers.
>
> (I have Think C, a Macintosh/68K compiler.) I assumed most games were written
> in assembly - probably not true.
>
my friend ported a game to the Genesis. He did his editing on
an IBM, then ran a cross-compiler, which downloaded the code
into a special "black-box" model of the Genesis.
Naturally, select portions of his code were written in assembly.
-steve