Why I prefer emulation

[youki]

I use emulators to test games and for development.

 

what i like in emulator is that i can put them on my netbook and put tons of rom and be able to discovers old games i never tired before not being at home.

 

But it is clear that playing under emulation as good it is , does not compare with playing on real hardware.

 

I tried to reproduce the "real" gaming experience using emulation. to do that :

- i took a fast PC

- i put a Stella Adapter to be able to use my beloved Atari CX24 Joystick.

- I put an ArcadeVGA cardin the PC that allow to output 15hz native resolution that matches with the original system.

- I put a 15khz CRT Arcade Screen.

 

So i have to admit, it was lot better than the "standard" modern PC emulation.

 

But Still :

 

- Control was not as responsive than on original machine (that's normal, just imagine the number of software layers your "input" is crossing before being interpreted by the emulator even if your machine is extremely fast it won't be faster than a simple hardware contact)

 

- sound and Music sounds different.

- the "feeling" was different.

 

I love emulation thanks to it , i can test and discover lot of game and machine i don't own , but playing on real machine is another world!

[Petran79]

Now we have also reached a limit. while previously 1-2 people could write an emulator of an old system, now we need many developers for the newer consoles.

 

 

I mean, while a PS2 is much harder to emulate than a Gamecube or Wii (they have more similarities to PC) actually a lot less developers are working on it than in the Dolphin emulator.

 

Imagine the number of developers a PS3 emulator would require, even with the appropriate hardware if something like that ever happens. Emulation has also to do with the fulfillment factor.

 

 

It is easy to dismiss emulators but at least one should appreciate the effort those programmers and engineers put into, mostly without getting paid, in order for us to be able to play and enjoy the games.

 

also some info:

 

http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-pcsx3--18632?pid=145180#pid145180

 

The best solution to have PS3 games running on the PC is to "port" them

 

That's what people used to do in the early 90's, before Nesticle. PCs had very limited graphics memory throughput, and consoles had all kinds of clever hacks to let them do certain effects and sprite drawing very quickly. So from the time the NES was released in 1984, it was entirely unrealistic to think it could be emulated until roughly 1993-94. So yes, everything's possible, but also everything goes in cycles -- and right now we're cycling into a zone where consoles once again have the upper hand on PC tech, big time.

 

 

 

 

 

I thought of using a 17" CRT monitor (2005 model) for the PC but considering the radiation, the energy consumption, the size, the picture quality and most of all the toxic lead which harms the environment I prefer the better looking LCD displays. Just one advantage is not enough to switch. I also lack office space for dual monitors.

You mad?

 

Although LCDs these days are pretty good. I never thought I'd warm up to one based on some early computer monitors I'd seen. They were too jerky. My current monitor is super awesome, though.

 

 

It is difficult when you are used to the slim LCD displays that can be carried easily to go back to the CRT monitors. I set it in my office to try.

 

It was taking all the space and the distance to my eyes was shortened. I had also to adjust the geometry which was not always accurate.

 

Plus 1024x768 resolution is not enough to enjoy the PC. 1280x1024 which would be OK flickers a lot.Now that I am used to 1920x1080 I am not going back.

hard to imagine some years ago that I thought 800x600 was OK and 1024x768 was amazing.

[Hatta]

Plus 1024x768 resolution is not enough to enjoy the PC.

 

Nothing wrong with Mode 13h as long as the art direction is good.

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

[Tubular Gearhead]

emulation sucks balls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. -just thought this thread should be taken to the next level.

 

your welcome.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Tubular Gearhead

[jaybird3rd]

p.s. -just thought this thread should be taken to the next level.

Well, if it's reached that point, then Godwin's Law should be just around the corner.

[+save2600]

your welcome.

No... *you're* welcome!

 

 

 

[SlowCoder]

p.s. -just thought this thread should be taken to the next level.

Well, if it's reached that point, then Godwin's Law should be just around the corner.

So, er ... Nazis! Germany! Hitler!

 

 

Did I just lose the discussion?

[Tubular Gearhead]

your welcome.

No... *you're* welcome!

[Emehr]

Emulation is good for:

- arcade games (because it's impractical for some of us to own arcade machines)

- portable retro-gaming (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread)

- preservation of the hobby

 

Flash carts are a good middle-ground. They allow us to try out games, discover prototypes, and test in-development games, which are things that are doable with emulation but made better on real hardware.

 

Emulation will never match the tactile experience of playing on real hardware. Those are memories I wouldn't trade for anything. Not only that, but I believe emulation tends to promote attention-deficit impulses. It's much harder to focus on one game when there's a list of thousands of games that can be played just one "back button" away.

 

Emulation, as opposed to physical hardware, is a constantly moving target, which is another point of contention with me. We have to regularly upgrade our computers and/or operating systems just to get the newest, most accurate emulator.

 

One of the biggest reasons I will always prefer the real thing is that, for emulation, it takes a fairly powerful computer and years of ongoing emulator development to perfect an experience that can be had by hardware that was specifically designed for the task.

[HatefulGravey]

Ahhh, flash carts. The grey area of the gaming world. I would own a few, but I can get many real games for the cost of 1 flash cart for the system. When faced with these options your real thoughts on the emulation vs owning the real carts come out. If you are going to play all the games it is cheaper to get the flash cart, if you are going to play a few games the game are normally cheaper, and if you are just lazy its easier .

 

I'll be getting a harmony very soon, and I really want the Sega and SNES carts too. It has gotten to the point where getting the games I don't have is starting to cost a chunck of change. Not to mention I haven't found a place to buy Genesis, NES, and SNES carts like I buy Atari carts here.

 

I also have concerns about the games that will and wont play in flash carts for the SNES. It seems those games have more issues in flash carts then Genesis and NES games.

[Atari_afternoon]

I prefer emulation only for the Colecovision, NES and Atari 2600, beause I´m not having them right now any more.

 

In all other cases, emulation has finally led me to buy those damn things in their original format, consoles and cartridges. My fave games I MUST get in cartridge format (most recently, the GB "Faceball 2000"! Bought from half around the globe again because no European seller had a reasonable cart-only offer) under all circumstances LOL.

 

I have found too often that games that play "lame" on PC emulation are a blast on original hardware, because they were made just for them back in time

 

I see emulation great for testing and for allowing us to play incredible rarities and funny or improved hacks

Edited April 27, 2011 by Atari_afternoon

[Atari_afternoon]

Just saw those arguments coming up...

Gentlemen, BOTH are good! Emulation (glad it´s there for testing, storing, looking for what´s actually worthwhile) and the real thing (without us collectors, much would be lost to history).

 

I think everyone who takes classic gaming seriously will not end with "just" emulators.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Atari_afternoon

[Schizophretard]

I realize that I'm opening myself to flaming by posting this, but my hope was to get some inteligent conversation going, to see if others feel the same way, and to hear what others think.

 

Since hanging out around here, I've noticed the vast majority of people here are collectors, who grew up during the 'classic gaming' era (1974-1984), and stick their nose up at emulation.  I'm not sure of all of the reasons, but it seems some of it is related to wanting the 'real' experience of the games and consoles, with all their pluses and minses.  It seems kind of snobby sometimes, as if the die hard collectors only consider 'their way is the right way' (although most people here are very friendly and helpfull, even to newcomers).

 

I'm the first to admit that while I had a Atari 2600 as a kid and enjoyed the system, my fav systems were the NES/SNES (and yes, age probaly has something to do with it.)  I do still enjoy playing the games.  And most of the ports of the classic games are just not as good as the real thing.

 

However, since embracing emulation over 10 years ago, I see it as being the best of both worlds -- I get the 'pluses' of the system and games with none of the 'minuses' of it.  Why?  

 

I persent for the court the following pieces of 'evidence':

 

1) It's cheaper.  Rather then spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars to get a system and games, as well as all the extras that comes with it, I can spend less then a hundred to get some critical things for it.

2) I use the real controllers so no need to mess around with a mouse and keyboard (2600 joystick, NES pad, etc, all modified for USB input)

3) I don't need to bother about repairing old systems, cleaning games, making sure that they work, dealing with hassles, etc....I can just fire up the emulation program and ROM and go.

4) Save states.  Enough said.

5) Can use a nice modern large gaming setup with superior sound and options, even on a LCD monitor.

6) Can play over the internet with friends.

7) Less space needed.  Just a fairly good computer system and several CD's with the ROM's.

 

I certinaly understand why people feel attached to playing on the real system, but I don't just get it.  It's the games that matter, not what you play them on.  With the emulators just as good (and in many cases, better) then the original systems, with using real controllers, and less hassle, it's a win-win.

 

I thought maybe that this 'real systems vs emulation' argument would come down straight along the 'collector vs gamer' lines, but it doesn't seem to be that way either.  I wonder why?

 

People are hard to figure out.  

 

I read this thread and found it interesting. I'll try to explain my point of view.

 

The purpose of emulation is to preserve the real thing in a digital form for when access to the real thing isn't possible. So, I view emulation as a plan B. I view playing, collecting, and preserving the real thing as plan A. Therefore, if I switched to       emulation before it is absolutely necessary I would feel like I'm skipping plan A and since plan B is dependent on plan A I would feel like I'm going against the purpose of plan B. 

 

I still have access to the real thing. If I switched to emulation I would be making a choice to play the way that will be the only option in the far future. I rather enjoy the real thing while it is still an option.

 

I don't exactly view emulation as cheaper. If I were to switch purely to emulation it would feel like I'm choosing to allow others to pay for my games instead of paying for them myself. I feel better about paying for my games in all cases possible. Air Raid might not be possible for me to buy but Yar's Revenge is. Even if I did switch completely to emulation I would still be buying the real thing to collect. When I bought the Harmony Cart I didn't stop buying VCS carts.

 

I don't mind the hassles of collecting the real thing. They aren't bad enough for me to switch. Besides I'll probably be gaining new hassles like getting the picture to look identical on a CRT TV as it does with the real thing plugged in, lag issues, incorrect emulation, problems with light gun games... I don't exactly know what all the hassles would be but learning what these hassles are and how to solve them is a hassle. 

 

The ability to play online with friend's doesn't give me much of a benefit. That would actually create another hassle because then I'll have to find friends to play with.

 

Using less space wouldn't happen because I would still collect the real thing and if I didn't then I would have another hassle of figuring out what else to fill all the empty space with. I don't have a desire to make space empty. I desire more space to fill up.

 

I don't want a nice modern large gaming setup with superior sound and options on a LCD monitor. I want a nice retro large gaming setup on a CRT TV. Actually many CRT TV's because sometimes I'm in the mood for flat screen, round screen, big screen, little screen, console TV,... My Ideal game room would have the least amount of modern anything in it. I like the look of old entertainment centers, furniture, TV's,... 

 

Just as you don't get the real thing, I don't get emulation. When I first checked out Stella I was disappointed. It was probably a similar feeling that people who first played PAC-MAN in an arcade felt when they first played it on the VCS. It looked and felt like a bad port of the VCS. I just didn't get how it could replace the real thing.

 

I could see myself using emulation in addition to the real thing but I couldn't see myself only using emulation. 

[SoulBlazer]

Wow, I forgot I wrote this.

 

The major thing for me in emulation vs real systems is that I'm a game player, not a collector. I totally understand and get why a collector would want real games and systems. I don't care about that, I just want the games. And while it may not be 100 percent accurate, 99 percent is good enough for me.

[Ransom]

The major thing for me in emulation vs real systems is that I'm a game player, not a collector. I totally understand and get why a collector would want real games and systems. I don't care about that, I just want the games. And while it may not be 100 percent accurate, 99 percent is good enough for me.

 

Well said. And I understand completely. I'm primarily a gamer but I'm also something of a collector (although I'm not a completist -- I don't feel like I have to own everything ever made for any given system). I recently realized I wasn't getting much out of most of my post-crash game systems (other than the TG-16 and PS2), so I sold them. I'm fine with emulation for those, on the rare occasions I want to play those games. But at the same time, I love having a closet full of pre-crash carts and disks to play on my genuine consoles and computers.

[Schizophretard]

Wow, I forgot I wrote this.

 

The major thing for me in emulation vs real systems is that I'm a game player, not a collector. I totally understand and get why a collector would want real games and systems. I don't care about that, I just want the games. And while it may not be 100 percent accurate, 99 percent is good enough for me.

 

I don't really see a game player and a game collector as two different things. The reason collectors collect games is because they are gamers. The more games they like and are fans of the more they collect. I can't see where you could draw a line between a gamer and a collector. A gamer without a collection would probably be someone that only plays other people's games or plays at arcades and a collector that isn't a gamer would be someone who has a game collection but never plays it. Other than that I don't see a line. If you are a gamer you most likely own games and those games are your collection. If I switched to emulation only I would still have a collection. I would have a collection of emulators and ROM's. It might even be a bigger collection than I currently have of the real thing. The only difference is one collection is digital and the other is physical. So, I don't believe emulation=gamers verses real thing= collectors is what determines which way someone plays/collects. There has to be other factors.

 

From your list of reasons for emulation it seems like there are others things you rather use your money, time, and space on other than games. I'm the opposite. Could it just be as simple as that?

[Mirage]

A gamer without a collection would probably be someone that only plays other people's games or plays at arcades and a collector that isn't a gamer would be someone who has a game collection but never plays it. Other than that I don't see a line.

 

<belabor>

 

I think that is the line. I suppose you could say that someone who collects roms is a collector, but I would say it's obvious that when pretty much anyone says "collector" they are implying a "collector of physical things", in other words, a collector of carts, floppies, books, whatever. In other words, say one guy has a "collection" of PDFs of all Atari-related books ever made, and a second guy has actual originals of every Atari-related book ever made. Which one is the collector? To most people, the second guy is. I have a huge (1TB) hard drive with emulators, roms, scans, information, but if I sold off my entire physical collection and only had that one hard drive left, I would no longer consider myself to be a collector. Maybe an enthusiast, or a gamer, or a digital hoarder, but not a collector proper.

 

In other other words, a game player and a game collector can most certainly be two different things. Or, one can be both.

 

</belabor>

Edited February 25, 2012 by Mirage

[TheGameCollector]

Personally I'd rather burn or flash games to the original console because that wipes out the majority of the inaccruacies emulators have. It's not emulation, it's just flat out game burning.

 

I think it's also really messed up, buying a high end laptop because you want it to run Sega Saturn emulators, and then it has more hiccups than my old Windows XP desktop computer did when running the other emulators with lower requirements; like they max out the ram or something when that isn't the case. I'm pissed off because I feel like I wasted money on the wrong model of computer, but at least I can actually capture and edit video on this one.

[Schizophretard]

A gamer without a collection would probably be someone that only plays other people's games or plays at arcades and a collector that isn't a gamer would be someone who has a game collection but never plays it. Other than that I don't see a line.

 

<belabor>

 

I think that is the line. I suppose you could say that someone who collects roms is a collector, but I would say it's obvious that when pretty much anyone says "collector" they are implying a "collector of physical things", in other words, a collector of carts, floppies, books, whatever. In other words, say one guy has a "collection" of PDFs of all Atari-related books ever made, and a second guy has actual originals of every Atari-related book ever made. Which one is the collector? To most people, the second guy is. I have a huge (1TB) hard drive with emulators, roms, scans, information, but if I sold off my entire physical collection and only had that one hard drive left, I would no longer consider myself to be a collector. Maybe an enthusiast, or a gamer, or a digital hoarder, but not a collector proper.

 

In other other words, a game player and a game collector can most certainly be two different things. Or, one can be both.

 

</belabor>

 

Where would the line between gamer and collector be before emulators were created?

[Mirage]

Where would the line between gamer and collector be before emulators were created?

 

<double belabor>

 

Collector = collects games, but doesn't play all the games he has (collects).

Gamer = buys games and plays them all. may trade them or pass them along after playing. OR plays on emulators or via other method (flash cart).

 

One can be a gamer AND a collector. MANY are both. (I am both). I think this may be where the lack of clarity comes in, since many of us are really both. The only grey area I see is maybe if a gamer buys games, plays them, then tosses them in a pile, never playing them again, but not selling them either. Is that collecting or just keeping and not selling? I guess the distinction there would just be with the person themselves... meaning, what is their motivation? Is it just laziness in not passing them along, or do they consciously keep them to collect... in which case they become a collector and a gamer.

 

Again, I really don't see any lack of distinction whatsoever between a gamer and a collector. To me, there's no confusion whatsoever. A gamer has one definition (one that plays games), and a collector has another (one that collects items, in this context, we're generally referring to physical items by default). But, each definition is not mutually exclusive. One can be both.

 

The definition of gamer and of collector is not dependent on the existence of or non-existence of emulators in any way. Emulators just enable people to be gamers without owning hardware or purchased (new or used) software.

 

Ultimately, I think it comes down to intent/motivation in any case. What does the person think they are? If I only have 1 cartridge, but I would like to get more, but just can't find or afford any, maybe I consider myself to be a collector (though most would think that collection is pathetic perhaps!). If I play that game too, then maybe I'm a gamer AND a poor collector!

 

</double belabor>

Edited February 25, 2012 by Mirage

[Mirage]

Oh, here's a better way to put it. "Game" and "collect" are two distinct verbs. That's the difference. You can do one or the other, or you can do both.

[+LS650]

I'm not sure why some people are on either side, almost sounding like they want to pick a fight. I have some substantial collections, and I also run emulators frequently. Both methods have their merits and their disadvantages.

[Schizophretard]

Where would the line between gamer and collector be before emulators were created?

 

<double belabor>

 

Collector = collects games, but doesn't play all the games he has (collects).

Gamer = buys games and plays them all. may trade them or pass them along after playing. OR plays on emulators or via other method (flash cart).

 

One can be a gamer AND a collector. MANY are both. (I am both). I think this may be where the lack of clarity comes in, since many of us are really both. The only grey area I see is maybe if a gamer buys games, plays them, then tosses them in a pile, never playing them again, but not selling them either. Is that collecting or just keeping and not selling? I guess the distinction there would just be with the person themselves... meaning, what is their motivation? Is it just laziness in not passing them along, or do they consciously keep them to collect... in which case they become a collector and a gamer.

 

Again, I really don't see any lack of distinction whatsoever between a gamer and a collector. To me, there's no confusion whatsoever. A gamer has one definition (one that plays games), and a collector has another (one that collects items, in this context, we're generally referring to physical items by default). But, each definition is not mutually exclusive. One can be both.

 

The definition of gamer and of collector is not dependent on the existence of or non-existence of emulators in any way. Emulators just enable people to be gamers without owning hardware or purchased (new or used) software.

 

Ultimately, I think it comes down to intent/motivation in any case. What does the person think they are? If I only have 1 cartridge, but I would like to get more, but just can't find or afford any, maybe I consider myself to be a collector (though most would think that collection is pathetic perhaps!). If I play that game too, then maybe I'm a gamer AND a poor collector!

 

</double belabor>

 

What catagory would you put Rom Hunter in? What category would you put someone that downloads his collection? What if they have his collection but don't play all the games? It isn't physical but it is a collection of games. What if someone downloads every single emulator and ROM known to exist? Are they still just a gamer all because it isn't a physical collection?

[Mirage]

Where would the line between gamer and collector be before emulators were created?

 

<double belabor>

 

Collector = collects games, but doesn't play all the games he has (collects).

Gamer = buys games and plays them all. may trade them or pass them along after playing. OR plays on emulators or via other method (flash cart).

 

One can be a gamer AND a collector. MANY are both. (I am both). I think this may be where the lack of clarity comes in, since many of us are really both. The only grey area I see is maybe if a gamer buys games, plays them, then tosses them in a pile, never playing them again, but not selling them either. Is that collecting or just keeping and not selling? I guess the distinction there would just be with the person themselves... meaning, what is their motivation? Is it just laziness in not passing them along, or do they consciously keep them to collect... in which case they become a collector and a gamer.

 

Again, I really don't see any lack of distinction whatsoever between a gamer and a collector. To me, there's no confusion whatsoever. A gamer has one definition (one that plays games), and a collector has another (one that collects items, in this context, we're generally referring to physical items by default). But, each definition is not mutually exclusive. One can be both.

 

The definition of gamer and of collector is not dependent on the existence of or non-existence of emulators in any way. Emulators just enable people to be gamers without owning hardware or purchased (new or used) software.

 

Ultimately, I think it comes down to intent/motivation in any case. What does the person think they are? If I only have 1 cartridge, but I would like to get more, but just can't find or afford any, maybe I consider myself to be a collector (though most would think that collection is pathetic perhaps!). If I play that game too, then maybe I'm a gamer AND a poor collector!

 

</double belabor>

 

What catagory would you put Rom Hunter in? What category would you put someone that downloads his collection? What if they have his collection but don't play all the games? It isn't physical but it is a collection of games. What if someone downloads every single emulator and ROM known to exist? Are they still just a gamer all because it isn't a physical collection?

 

I've already answered all these including the non-physical collection question(s). I actually thought of Rom Hunter too, when I was typing those responses. I'm sure you can figure out the rest by yourself. The verbs "game" and "collect" are different verbs. One can do one or the other, or one can do both. Any further conversation on this is obviously just semantics and delving into specific cases of the uses of those 2 verbs.