Which had better hardware: Sega CD or SNES

Which of these had better hardware Sega CD or SNES?

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

Darkman2007

I already did say that the "stock" SCD hardware was better.

But with a SFX GSU 2.0 chip, I think SNES could have the edge even over SCD in 3D.

The Sega CD since a CD Rom could hold 10X as much as Nintendo biggest cartridges. 64mb for SNES VS 700mb Sega CD. Even Nintendo's most advanced cartridges cannot match a CD.

But the Sega CD didn't use it's potential to make great games. Despite more room for game information and CD quaility sound. Nintendo was able to make the most of it's experience with cartridges. The Sega CD should have really succeeded. But not quite.

The Sega CDX the stand alone 16-bit CD system should have outlasted Super Nintendo system. And even the Nintendo 64. Some of NEC CD Rom games really did bring a lot to some of their games.

The Sega CD Should have rocked. Sega later CD Roms Sega Saturn and Sega Dreamcast also ended up short. The truth is CD ROM is better the carts. But Sega did not quite get CD right. The Sega CD does get the nod, Just barely.

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

nameless12345

Does the SNES hardware win over Sega CD if you include the FX Chip 2?

the sega cd, because cd added so much at the time. play a game like snatcher ot lunar eternal blue to see my point

the sega cd, because cd added so much at the time. play a game like snatcher ot lunar eternal blue to see my point

bultje112

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

nameless12345

I could be wrong but I remember reading that you couldn't access the Genesis' processor when using a Sega CD

so technically it's just one processor

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

rilpas

I could be wrong but I remember reading that you couldn't access the Genesis' processor when using a Sega CD

so technically it's just one processor

Whas the best looking segacd game? Curious because Donkey Kong Country was being hailed as a game that could have been mistaken for a 32bit game.Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"]Whas the best looking segacd game? Curious because Donkey Kong Country was being hailed as a game that could have been mistaken for a 32bit game.Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]Whas the best looking segacd game? Curious because Donkey Kong Country was being hailed as a game that could have been mistaken for a 32bit game.Heirren

the MCD did get its own version of MK1 (which from what Ive seen is just the Mega Drive version with better music) Darkman2007

Pretty much. I remember being super excited to get it and then being pissed that it was basically the same game I already had w/ super long load times.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

Meta-Gnostic

Does the SNES hardware win over Sega CD if you include the FX Chip 2?

That's a good question.

For 3D graphics, I'd say SNES + SFX 2 was better as it could handle textured polygon and voxel engines.

But SCD had some impressive scaling capabilites too and it had way more storage space meaning it could sport games SNES couldn't. (FMV-type games and such)

It would be interesting to see how a potential SNES CD would turn out to be if it wasn't scrapped.

Here's an interesting vid comparing the SCD version of Road Blaster with the SNES (homebrew) port using the MSU-1 chip which gives it way more storage space:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef-AIIooS8w

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

rilpas

I could be wrong but I remember reading that you couldn't access the Genesis' processor when using a Sega CD

so technically it's just one processor

I wouldn't know of that but it's likely just a software limitation.

[QUOTE="Meta-Gnostic"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

nameless12345

Does the SNES hardware win over Sega CD if you include the FX Chip 2?

That's a good question.

For 3D graphics, I'd say SNES + SFX 2 was better as it could handle textured polygon and voxel engines.

But SCD had some impressive scaling capabilites too and it had way more storage space meaning it could sport games SNES couldn't. (FMV-type games and such)

It would be interesting to see how a potential SNES CD would turn out to be if it wasn't scrapped.

Here's an interesting vid comparing the SCD version of Road Blaster with the SNES (homebrew) port using the MSU-1 chip which gives it way more storage space:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef-AIIooS8w

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

nameless12345

I could be wrong but I remember reading that you couldn't access the Genesis' processor when using a Sega CD

so technically it's just one processor

I wouldn't know of that but it's likely just a software limitation.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

I could be wrong but I remember reading that you couldn't access the Genesis' processor when using a Sega CD

so technically it's just one processor

Darkman2007

I wouldn't know of that but it's likely just a software limitation.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

I wouldn't know of that but it's likely just a software limitation.

StaticOnTV

well , the 68000 was meant as a CPU , its not meant to do either, also on the Saturn there is a whole sound system , the 68000 just controls it , so to speak (there is still the DSP and the RAM)

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] Im actually wondering if that 68000 in the MCD is usable at all actually, could be like the SH1 on the Saturn , which is there just for loading or decompressing files from the disc for instance.if thats the case then one might as well discount it as far as performance.Darkman2007

well , the 68000 was meant as a CPU , its not meant to do either, also on the Saturn there is a whole sound system , the 68000 just controls it , so to speak (there is still the DSP and the RAM)

[QUOTE="Heirren"]Whas the best looking segacd game? Curious because Donkey Kong Country was being hailed as a game that could have been mistaken for a 32bit game.Darkman2007

one example I can think of that uses the Mega CD are the driving levels in Batman Returns, not necessarily the best looking, but it uses the ASIC chip in the MCD to create the scaling, which would have been nearly impossible on the Mega Drive (if you compare the sprite scaling here to something like Mario Kart, you notice the difference, since its not scaled on Mario Kart)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMc0IDbkzCs

Soul Star was another example of this

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aMjGyhDNiA

quite honestly the Mega CD was more about storage , not necessarily better visuals per se (although it does do that too obviously)

Now you said the sprites are not scaled in Mario Kart? How do you know this because when I watch it on Youtube they do look like they're scaled, for instance the characters and pipes look scaled except that there are less amounts of sprites used.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Sega CD quite easy.

Two Motorola 68000 CPUs (clocked@7.6 & 12.5 Mhz respectively), two graphics processors (one with in-built scaling and rotation capabilities), two sound chips and a CD drive were quite above the "stock" SNES.

However, the SNES could actually display more colors on-screen to my knowledge (256 colors at once from a pallete of 32.000 whereas the Sega CD was still limited to 64 colors max from a pallete of 512 - some devs used "pallete-swapping tricks" to get more colors) and it could also utilize the custom hardware chips like DSP, SA-1 and Super FX, which increased it's capabilities.

So there were some odd situations where the SNES had better 3D perfomance and more colorful games than the Sega CD did.

But as far as FMV playback, sound and "stock" hardware power is concerned, the SCD had the edge over it.

 

You may want to check out these videos tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmUhQfFij0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_60V8UdYEY

Darkman2007

I could be wrong but I remember reading that you couldn't access the Genesis' processor when using a Sega CD

so technically it's just one processor

here we go

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]Whas the best looking segacd game? Curious because Donkey Kong Country was being hailed as a game that could have been mistaken for a 32bit game.Meta-Gnostic

one example I can think of that uses the Mega CD are the driving levels in Batman Returns, not necessarily the best looking, but it uses the ASIC chip in the MCD to create the scaling, which would have been nearly impossible on the Mega Drive (if you compare the sprite scaling here to something like Mario Kart, you notice the difference, since its not scaled on Mario Kart)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMc0IDbkzCs

Soul Star was another example of this

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aMjGyhDNiA

quite honestly the Mega CD was more about storage , not necessarily better visuals per se (although it does do that too obviously)

Now you said the sprites are not scaled in Mario Kart? How do you know this because when I watch it on Youtube they do look like they're scaled, for instance the characters and pipes look scaled except that there are less amounts of sprites used.

they look scaled (especially on a youtube video where things a bit blurry) , but its not.

basically, the SNES is simulating scaling by constantly redrawing the sprites at different sizes, thats why the scaling looks choppy , because its not one sprite being scaled, its several sprites being redrawn over and over. not to say that it looks bad, they did what they could and its well done, but its not real scaling per se (as far as I know , I don't think the SNES is capable of hardware scaling, which is different from the rotation used in mode 7)

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Meta-Gnostic"]

Does the SNES hardware win over Sega CD if you include the FX Chip 2?

StaticOnTV

That's a good question.

For 3D graphics, I'd say SNES + SFX 2 was better as it could handle textured polygon and voxel engines.

But SCD had some impressive scaling capabilites too and it had way more storage space meaning it could sport games SNES couldn't. (FMV-type games and such)

It would be interesting to see how a potential SNES CD would turn out to be if it wasn't scrapped.

Here's an interesting vid comparing the SCD version of Road Blaster with the SNES (homebrew) port using the MSU-1 chip which gives it way more storage space:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef-AIIooS8w

That was also demonstrated in games like Slipheed which used FMV, pre-rendered backgrounds and 3D polygon space ships and looked better than Star Fox in places despite displaying considerably less polygons on screen at once.

Full FMV games like Rebel Assault were also an interesting attempt at making a "playlable movie" in times when 3D graphics were yet in their infancy.

The problem was just that Sega CD had very limited FMV playback capabilities.

I think even the CD-I outdid it in the quality of video playback.

[QUOTE="Meta-Gnostic"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

one example I can think of that uses the Mega CD are the driving levels in Batman Returns, not necessarily the best looking, but it uses the ASIC chip in the MCD to create the scaling, which would have been nearly impossible on the Mega Drive (if you compare the sprite scaling here to something like Mario Kart, you notice the difference, since its not scaled on Mario Kart)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMc0IDbkzCs

Soul Star was another example of this

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aMjGyhDNiA

quite honestly the Mega CD was more about storage , not necessarily better visuals per se (although it does do that too obviously)Darkman2007

Now you said the sprites are not scaled in Mario Kart? How do you know this because when I watch it on Youtube they do look like they're scaled, for instance the characters and pipes look scaled except that there are less amounts of sprites used.

they look scaled (especially on a youtube video where things a bit blurry) , but its not.

basically, the SNES is simulating scaling by constantly redrawing the sprites at different sizes, thats why the scaling looks choppy , because its not one sprite being scaled, its several sprites being redrawn over and over. not to say that it looks bad, they did what they could and its well done, but its not real scaling per se (as far as I know , I don't think the SNES is capable of hardware scaling, which is different from the rotation used in mode 7)

SNES could do scaling & rortation on a single, background layer, but it could not do scaling on the sprites themselves.

It's a Mode 7 limitation and the work around is what you said, i.e. re-drawing each sprite to give the impression of scaling. (if un-smooth)

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="Meta-Gnostic"]
I vaguely remember hearing back in the day about how good Batman Returns was on Sega CD, at least in technical terms. The scaling of the sprites is really something compared to other games of that era and especially to what was popular (mostly SNES mode 7 games).

Now you said the sprites are not scaled in Mario Kart? How do you know this because when I watch it on Youtube they do look like they're scaled, for instance the characters and pipes look scaled except that there are less amounts of sprites used.

nameless12345

they look scaled (especially on a youtube video where things a bit blurry) , but its not.

basically, the SNES is simulating scaling by constantly redrawing the sprites at different sizes, thats why the scaling looks choppy , because its not one sprite being scaled, its several sprites being redrawn over and over. not to say that it looks bad, they did what they could and its well done, but its not real scaling per se (as far as I know , I don't think the SNES is capable of hardware scaling, which is different from the rotation used in mode 7)

SNES could do scaling & rortation on a single, background layer, but it could not do scaling on the sprites themselves.

It's a Mode 7 limitation and the work around is what you said, i.e. re-drawing each sprite to give the impression of scaling. (if un-smooth)

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

 

they look scaled (especially on a youtube video where things a bit blurry) , but its not.

 

basically, the SNES is simulating scaling by constantly redrawing the sprites at different sizes, thats why the scaling looks choppy , because its not one sprite being scaled, its several sprites being redrawn over and over. not to say that it looks bad, they did what they could and its well done, but its not real scaling per se (as far as I know , I don't think the SNES is capable of hardware scaling, which is different from the rotation used in mode 7)

Darkman2007

SNES could do scaling & rortation on a single, background layer, but it could not do scaling on the sprites themselves.

It's a Mode 7 limitation and the work around is what you said, i.e. re-drawing each sprite to give the impression of scaling. (if un-smooth)

The scaling effects in Yoshi's Island are done on the Super FX tho, so I guess the SFX could be used for sprite-scaling purposes as well.

Wolf3D on SNES also uses some sort of a Mode 7-like trick for it's graphics. (game was very low-rez on the SNES tho)

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="Meta-Gnostic"]
I vaguely remember hearing back in the day about how good Batman Returns was on Sega CD, at least in technical terms. The scaling of the sprites is really something compared to other games of that era and especially to what was popular (mostly SNES mode 7 games).

Now you said the sprites are not scaled in Mario Kart? How do you know this because when I watch it on Youtube they do look like they're scaled, for instance the characters and pipes look scaled except that there are less amounts of sprites used.

nameless12345

they look scaled (especially on a youtube video where things a bit blurry) , but its not.

basically, the SNES is simulating scaling by constantly redrawing the sprites at different sizes, thats why the scaling looks choppy , because its not one sprite being scaled, its several sprites being redrawn over and over. not to say that it looks bad, they did what they could and its well done, but its not real scaling per se (as far as I know , I don't think the SNES is capable of hardware scaling, which is different from the rotation used in mode 7)

SNES could do scaling & rortation on a single, background layer, but it could not do scaling on the sprites themselves.

It's a Mode 7 limitation and the work around is what you said, i.e. re-drawing each sprite to give the impression of scaling. (if un-smooth)

So what looked better than Donkey Kong Country?Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"]So what looked better than Donkey Kong Country?Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]So what looked better than Donkey Kong Country?Heirren

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

So iyo what do you think are the bes looking cd games? I ask because I have little experience with the console.

...i don't understand how you don't find DKC impressive, though. There's a lot of layers going on, and the game even has that dynamic shift in lighting. IMO its probably the graphics king of that gen.Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"]So what looked better than Donkey Kong Country?Darkman2007

well it obviously depends on wheter youre talking art or technical.

artstyle is opinion based, one person could think DKC has great art, some people won't

personally Im not a huge fan of the pre renderd look , not just in DKC but in general , I thought it looked cool at the time (I remember thinking "its like 3D.....but its not), but now I prefer either just "proper" 2D sprites or 3D polygons .

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"] I'm just curious. DKC is also impressive on an animation standpoint as well. Not to mention the great audio...StaticOnTV

Neo-Geo?

Not a mainstream console, sorry...

p.s.: PS was not more powerful than N64. Look up the specs - there's a generational difference between the two. (it was poorly designed console tho; if I was designing it, I would clock it's CPU higher, give it 8 MB RAM by default, give the devs more control over the micro-codes and perhaps an extra geometry chip similar to Super FX; everything else could stay the same but I would drop the prices on the cartridges so that devs could afford higher capacity ones)

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well the SNES had good audio capabilities for its time. personally I don't find DKC to be that impressive, its got a nice look to it, but thats more from its design than anything technical, and the animation can be down to a few things (from how much RAM the system has (SNES had more RAM , same VRAM though) to how much space constraints were on the cartridge) though personally I think Vectorman is a similar game that does some things well, maybe better.nameless12345

Neo-Geo?

Not a mainstream console, sorry...

p.s.: PS was not more powerful than N64. Look up the specs - there's a generational difference between the two. (it was poorly designed console tho; if I was designing it, I would clock it's CPU higher, give it 8 MB RAM by default, give the devs more control over the micro-codes and perhaps an extra geometry chip similar to Super FX; everything else could stay the same but I would drop the prices on the cartridges so that devs could afford higher capacity ones)

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] :lol: wait no it didn't, it's competition not named Genesis or TG blew it out the water in audio.Heirren

Neo-Geo?

Not a mainstream console, sorry...

p.s.: PS was not more powerful than N64. Look up the specs - there's a generational difference between the two. (it was poorly designed console tho; if I was designing it, I would clock it's CPU higher, give it 8 MB RAM by default, give the devs more control over the micro-codes and perhaps an extra geometry chip similar to Super FX; everything else could stay the same but I would drop the prices on the cartridges so that devs could afford higher capacity ones)

I ment the 64.

When I say "a gen ahead" I don't neccessarily mean a "console gen" but that the hardware is a generation better. (i.e. NEC VR4300 > MIPS R3000, RCP vector co-processor > "geometry engine", 4-8 MB RD-RAM > 1 MB V-RAM + 2 MB system)

The 64 could do "next-gen effects" like linear filtering, anti-aliasing, mip-mapping, reflection mapping, ect. (whithout which you wouldn't have your Wave Race 64 water and similar)

That was my point.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"] well the SNES had good audio capabilities for its time. personally I don't find DKC to be that impressive, its got a nice look to it, but thats more from its design than anything technical, and the animation can be down to a few things (from how much RAM the system has (SNES had more RAM , same VRAM though) to how much space constraints were on the cartridge) though personally I think Vectorman is a similar game that does some things well, maybe better.StaticOnTV

Neo-Geo?

Not a mainstream console, sorry...

p.s.: PS was not more powerful than N64. Look up the specs - there's a generational difference between the two. (it was poorly designed console tho; if I was designing it, I would clock it's CPU higher, give it 8 MB RAM by default, give the devs more control over the micro-codes and perhaps an extra geometry chip similar to Super FX; everything else could stay the same but I would drop the prices on the cartridges so that devs could afford higher capacity ones)

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] :lol: wait no it didn't, it's competition not named Genesis or TG blew it out the water in audio.Meta-Gnostic

Neo-Geo?

Not a mainstream console, sorry...

p.s.: PS was not more powerful than N64. Look up the specs - there's a generational difference between the two. (it was poorly designed console tho; if I was designing it, I would clock it's CPU higher, give it 8 MB RAM by default, give the devs more control over the micro-codes and perhaps an extra geometry chip similar to Super FX; everything else could stay the same but I would drop the prices on the cartridges so that devs could afford higher capacity ones)

Yeah, they were probably limited in that department from the cartridge tech providers.

Maybe the disk drive wouldn't be a bad decision after all but it would have to happen earlier than it did (i.e. late 1997 at the latest) and they would have needed to support it thoroughtly.

The CPU could easily be clocked in the 130 Mhz range and it would speed-up performance in some games. (altho the real performance killer on the 64 was the Z-buffering or so I read)

The texture cache could also be upped so not all textures would need to be squeezed into the small 4kb texture cache. (PS1 had the same amount but could store the texture in the V-RAM and load them directly from the CD; 64 could use the extra memory expansion to compensate for better textures tho)

Yeah, it used special micro-codes which were apparently locked to developers.

Read about it here.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]
DKC had some crazy amounts of parallax scrolling going on. It had the layer you play on, at least 1 foreground layer in front of that, and then more than half a dozen background layers. I forgot how many, I'll have to count next time I play it. Then it also showed more of certain layers when you changed heights.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]So what looked better than Donkey Kong Country?Meta-Gnostic

well it obviously depends on wheter youre talking art or technical.

artstyle is opinion based, one person could think DKC has great art, some people won't

personally Im not a huge fan of the pre renderd look , not just in DKC but in general , I thought it looked cool at the time (I remember thinking "its like 3D.....but its not), but now I prefer either just "proper" 2D sprites or 3D polygons .

the pre renderd looks to me like the worst of both sprites and polygons, pre renderd characters tend to have this poorly animated , almost artificial way of moving (yeah I know it sounds weird, but I just find their animation in most games to be very odd) it also gives characters this....plasticy look , for a lack of a better term , almost like youre seeing toys move around on the screen.

it works for some games, but alot of others just look odd to me.which is why I prefer a traditional 2D sprite or just polygons.

oh and as for N64's micro codes, I don't think they were locked, its just that it was too much hard work , and when youre under a tight budget and don't have much time, you don't want to mess around with things like microcodes unless its as easy as possible

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well the SNES had good audio capabilities for its time. personally I don't find DKC to be that impressive, its got a nice look to it, but thats more from its design than anything technical, and the animation can be down to a few things (from how much RAM the system has (SNES had more RAM , same VRAM though) to how much space constraints were on the cartridge) though personally I think Vectorman is a similar game that does some things well, maybe better.Darkman2007

Except the Amiga wasn't competition for SNES and neither was the Neo-Geo...

The Genesis and TG, on the other hand, were.