|
Post by Sarge on Jan 7, 2019 18:40:15 GMT -5
The biggest thing, more than anything, was the bankswitching. Whereas the SMS had the ability to just flat out get to the data, the NES wasn't designed to handle games that large. The mapper chips got around that limitation, and it was probably relatively cheap to add some other niceties as well such as some extra interrupt routines and whatnot.
Now that I've looked at it, the SMS graphics chip (VDP) is a chip that built on top of the SG-1000/Colecovision TMS9908A, and where it gets most of its increased graphical prowess.
EDIT: Interesting. I thought I'd remembered right, but yeah, a lot of the NES mapper chips didn't really do much for the capabilities of the NES other than give it more data to access. The MMC1 doesn't provide any interrupt capabilities, only more PRG and CHR banks to access and the ability to change the way the nametables are mirrored. Mega Man 2 is an MMC1 game, for example. Even the super-popular MMC3 (SMB3, Mega Man 3, etc.) only added a scanline IRQ counter and more maximum space to access. The latter's utility is obvious, but the former I believe was only really used to help make split-screen scrolling easier. You can see that trick on the Mega Man 3 title screen, and it also gets used often for status menus in games.
|
|
|
Post by bonesnapdeez on Jan 7, 2019 21:00:31 GMT -5
I'm here! Nice job dudes. Figured some of you would gravitate to the Sega Coleco stuff. By the way, Turbo needs a special controller to function, so I dunno if that's emulate-able. Coleco was an interesting brand, as they also published their games for the Atari 2600 and Intellivision. The ColecoVision version was generally the best though. There's always been this "conspiracy theory" about how Coleco purposefully made shitty 2600/Intelli ports so people would instead buy the ColecoVision hardware... I think a lot of it has to do with the inherent hardware differences. The only truly "botched" Coleco title I can think of is the Atari 2600 port of Mr. Do! -- absolutely heinous. Oh, and Xeogred, Defender isn't the best choice for someone who usually doesn't go back further than the 3rd gen. For a more R-Type, Darius, or Gradius experience I would recommend Vanguard. I just reviewed it here. gamefaqs.gamespot.com/atari2600/585240-vanguard/reviews/167453Scramble and Super Cobra (both by Konami) are decent choices as well, but Vanguard is unstoppable.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jan 7, 2019 22:01:56 GMT -5
a lot of the NES mapper chips didn't really do much for the capabilities of the NES other than give it more data to access. The MMC1 doesn't provide any interrupt capabilities, only more PRG and CHR banks to access and the ability to change the way the nametables are mirrored / MMC3 only added a scanline IRQ counter and more maximum space to access. / used to help make split-screen scrolling easier. You can see that trick on the Mega Man 3 title screen, and it also gets used often for status menus in games. Bank switching is kind of a big deal for graphics though. I'd also say enhanced split-screen scrolling is a large graphical upgrade (especially for HUDs). The MMC1/MMC3 chips are only two of many chips the NES had access to. The UNROM chip drastically sped up access time to graphics data. The MMC2 increased the amount of graphics that could be displayed on screen at once. The MMC5 is a hugely powerful chip, among its many features was support for vertical split screen scrolling, enhanced graphics capabilities (16,384 unique tiles available per screen versus 256, also giving every 8x8-pixel tile its own color set). The AOROM allows single screen mirroring. The VRC6 included a cycle–based IRQ counter that doubled as a scanline counter, in addition to many other features. The FME-7 uses special IRQ techniques for split-screen effects requiring much less processing power. These chips and many more also drastically increased the NES' audio capabilities. If you add all this stuff up, the NES became far beefier when these chips were utilized.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 7, 2019 23:14:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not saying that it wasn't a big deal. You're right. It just seems like everyone treats the mapper chips as some sort of magical totem that could do anything, when most of them didn't. Now, several of the mappers were beasts. The FME-7, MMC5 (of which most of its features were never used), the VRC6, all of those were pretty hefty helpers. But most of the ones we got weren't all that special except to increase the space for level and graphics data, which of course is a big deal, just not the sort of enhancement most think about when mappers get mentioned.
Of course, a lot of the simpler mappers can just be implemented with discrete logic. I think a few of them actually do that.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jan 8, 2019 6:00:06 GMT -5
After playing some Atari 2600 games, the ColecoVision really feels like a next-generation console. The games aren't just much prettier, better-animated, and much less prone to flicker, they're faster, and, to me, generally more fun. And let's not forget that it was released a full five years after the 2600 / VCS, in mid-1982. Not only was the "3rd-gen" SG-1000 basically modeled on it, the Famicom's design was partly inspired by it, too, or at the very least, Nintendo's R&D2 saw it as the benchmark to beat, depending on how you interpret the words of Masaki Uemura. And early Famicom games are indeed similar to ColecoVision games. So I submit that the ColecoVision might be considered the first of its generation, succeeded by the Famicom and SG-1000 just a year later, rather than grouped with the 5-year-old 2600. That probably has to do with the 1983 crash and Nintendo's later American success story, I suppose, but the Famicom was already in development before the crash took place, and the crash only happened in the US and maybe Canada, while video games were on the rise everywhere else. So lumping the CV with the Atari in the 2nd gen makes sense in terms of US videogame commercialization and popular culture, but it doesn't make sense technologically nor in terms of global videogame history. Also, about all that tech talk - another major factor is the size of the cartridges. Early Famicom games were that much simpler not only because of graphical limitations, but also because memory was expensive and games were tiny. Similarly, the CV games I've played so far are only 8, 16, 22 or 32kb. SG-1000 games had similar sizes (32kb is the largest I've seen). Likewise, the Famicom's launch games were 24kb, while late releases like Dragon Quest IV and Final Fantasy III were 512kb, and a few releases even swelled up to 1mb. So the standard cartridge space expanded more than 20 times over during the Famicom's lifespan, which is insane! Could similar developments have eventually happened with the Coleco, had it not been a victim of the US market crash? bonesnapdeez yeah, I've come across that theory while looking into Coleco games, but like you, I don't think it holds water. One simply has to look at other 2600 games out around the same time to see there wasn't much more Coleco could have done with most of these. Although they didn't port Donkey Kong to the Atari 5200, but only to the weaker 2600, which was probably done to avoid competing with their own launch title. But that's completely understandable.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jan 8, 2019 8:23:33 GMT -5
So I submit that the ColecoVision might be considered the first of its generation, succeeded by the Famicom and SG-1000 just a year later, rather than grouped with the 5-year-old 2600. I believe this is a plausible theory, and that was an interesting read on its build up. Perhaps, but that would have required Coleco to have had the marketing savvy that Nintendo did in the 80s. Nintendo's rise to power had as much to do with their genius promotional skill as it did their game design or hardware evolution.
|
|
|
Post by bonesnapdeez on Jan 8, 2019 9:01:13 GMT -5
If the ColecoVision had lasted until, say, 1987, then yeah we'd call it a 3rd gen console. Remember though, the final Coleco games had been released in the U.S. about a year before the NES even launched. These "generations" are all sorta arbitrary anyway, especially in the early days.
I love the ColecoVision, but would still rank the Atari 2600 as the best pre-Fami console. Best (straightforward) controls, incredible first-party line-up, strong third-party support, and a massive lifespan equals a huge diverse library. I'd put ColecoVision at #2 though, and Intellivision at #3. Those are the Big Three.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jan 8, 2019 9:01:18 GMT -5
To be clear, I don't believe Coleco could have stopped Nintendo. Nintendo had a great sense for business, decades of experience in the home consumer market, a few great in-house game designers, ambition, and lots of money. In the early days, the difference between the SG-1000 and Famicom wasn't so clear, and both companies had arcade hits (though Donkey Kong was probably the biggest hit), yet the Famicom outsold the SG-1000 two-to-one from the start. Then big Famicom titles came out (like Super Mario), and the popularity of the Famicom exploded. But even that early advantage can probably be attributed to Nintendo's experience and know-how in the home consumer market, both in terms of promotion and relationships with retailers, while Super Mario and their other big first-party titles happened because they basically abandoned the arcade market and put their designers to work on the Famicom. From there, they got all the 3rd parties, etc. Meanwhile, Sega remained primarily an arcade company for years, and they weren't interested in granting licenses to third-parties in the 8-bit days because they saw companies like Konami, Namco, Capcom and so on as their competitors rather than potential partners (Hideki Sato alluded to this in interviews). I do wonder what ColecoVision games might have looked like by '89-'90 in a parallel universe, though. bonesnapdeez I mean, the Dreamcast was released 4 years after the Playstation, only lasted about as long as the ColecoVision, and died pretty much as the PS2 came out, yet it still gets grouped with the PS2, X-Box and GameCube. So yeah, definitely arbitrary. And like I said, it's only a valid concept in terms of the North American market.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jan 8, 2019 10:51:10 GMT -5
I'm still planning to put some actual effort into this theme in the latter half of the month. Ended up with a free hour today, so put that to use trying out these: Atari 2600Adventure Battlezone Crypts of Chaos Dragonstomper AKA ExcaliburSecret Quest Swordquest - EarthWorld Swordquest - FireWorld Swordquest - WaterWorld Dark Cavern Dark Chambers Dark Mage Fatal Run Mines of Minos Montezuma's Revenge Pitall II - Lost Caverns Solaris Venture Wizard of Wor Wizard Yar's Revenge So to talk about my brief experiences with each: Adventure = Still a classic, worth playing, I may try to beat this one.
Battlezone = Very impressive graphics and interface, it's a 3D tank combat simulator! Gets old fast though.
Crypts of Chaos = Seems intriguing, can't figure out how to get it to start, need the manual. Dragonstomper AKA Excalibur = Now this one is really cool! An open world RPG with some depth, a keeper for sure.
Secret Quest = Newer than 1983, a no go.
Swordquest - EarthWorld = Very monotonous and boring maze game, no thanks.
Swordquest - FireWorld = Very monotonous and boring maze game, no thanks.
Swordquest - WaterWorld = Quite an improvement versus the other two, worth trying due to utilizing its theme more strongly.
Dark Cavern = Like an overhead tournament FPS. Gets boring fast.
Dark Chambers = Newer than 1983, a no go.
Dark Mage = This is actually a text adventure with commands input by choosing a direction. It's really cool! It's also really too new (2003 release).
Fatal Run = Newer than 1983, a no go.
Mines of Minos = This is a maze game where you drop mines to blow up enemies. Perhaps in some way this game may have influenced Bomberman.
Montezuma's Revenge = A very interesting non-linear exploratory platformer, with impressive graphics and design. Unfortunately it's newer than 1983 by one whole year. I think Xeogred or Sarge might like this one though.
Pitall II - Lost Caverns = Super impressive graphics and audio considering its platform. It's almost like a NES game. I think Sarge might like this one as well. It's kinda hard though!
Solaris = Newer than 1983, a no go.
Venture = A difficult but intriguing overhead dungeon crawl, I might put more time into this one.
Wizard of Wor = Very much the same thing as Dark Cavern. Boring.
Wizard = Absolutely terrible waste of time.
Yar's Revenge = Kind of a shmup where you just face off against a boss. Not nearly as good as I was lead to believe it was. Vanguard destroys this. So out of all of those, looks like Dragonstomper and Venture are possible keepers for me. I plan to try a bunch of other games on alternate pre-1983 platforms, and see if any of those are good. When I end up with a pool of decent games, I'll likely beat three to five for this theme. That will happen later on this month though, my time is short for now.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jan 8, 2019 11:01:21 GMT -5
Beat 1st loop of Konami's Super Cobra (no Skills selection for this one) - this is a pretty cool shmup. The goal is to survive a 10,000 miles flight, where each 1000 miles is a level. You can fire shots ahead (w/ auto-fire!) and drop bombs. You also need to keep your fuel up by bombing fuel tanks. The first few levels are pretty easy, but the difficulty picks up around 7000 miles, with tank firing non-stop in diagonal towards you that have to be bombed precisely. You also need to avoid crashing into walls and mountainsides, and the final level revolves around that - you have to fly through narrow passages while getting rid of the enemies and obstacles in the way. You get infinite credits, and the game is pretty long for the time (about 20 minutes for a loop, compared to like 4-5 minutes for a lot of games). The level design is surprisingly solid and varied in that game. I'm guessing this was a big hit in the arcades, because it has an insane number of ports, including releases on incredibly obscure hardware (what the hell is a Sord M5?). Beat Robin Hood (Skill 1) - Turned out you could escape the castle guards if you walked away from the doors immediately after opening them. The goal is to find both Marian and the treasure in the castle. As I said, sort of an early hack-n-slash / top-down action game, definitely worth trying, if only for a single 10-minute game. Beat 1st loop of B.C.'s Quest for Tires (Skill 1) - I actually kind of struggled with that one. The basic auto-scrolling platforming isn't too hard, but there are few "puzzles" and tricky parts. It's pretty decent, though, and I like that you can adjust scrolling speed at all times, but it's easy to die before you adapt to the changed speed. This one would benefit from slightly longer levels. They tend to end quite abruptly. I find the graphics to this game have a certain charm, but both Super Cobra and Robin Hood are better games, IMO. Apparently this is based on a comic. This game has dialogues! Well, "JUMP! SUCKER" and "HELP, HELP!"
|
|