5200 vs. 7800

[jetset]

You're proving my point with those shots. Thanks. 

Do you have any clinical vision problems that we should know about?

996451[/snapback]

 

I would ask the same of you. My vision is 20/20.

Again, I see little difference, eved though your using a cropped picture. When looking on an actual television, that small difference your picture showed is even less noticeable.

But that's fine. Enjoy your opinion, I'm not a fanboy of one system over another and as such just cant see the big difference.

But if it makes you feel better, you win. Big improvement. Wow.

 

[The_Laird]

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

 

I second that.

 

And Ballblazer 7800 is vastly superior to the 5200 version, screenshots don't do it justice you have to see it moving!

[Bryan]

I always thought the 7800 version looked better (though not devastatingly so), but the enemy AI was better on the A8 and 5200 versions. I could beat droid 9 on the 7800 for some reason.

 

While we're arguing about BallBlazer, anyone remember that turd of a version that came out for the ST?

 

-Bry

[ApolloBoy]

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

 

 

Who said that?

 

Anyways, I prefer both of them. No use fighting over which is better, IMO.

Edited January 9, 2006 by ApolloBoy

[ZylonBane]

Anyways, I prefer both of them.

Over what?

[Lord Helmet]

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

996171[/snapback]

 

You're right...that's why no one bought one

[shadow460]

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

 

ROFL

 

I wondered what stunk in here.

 

You forgot that the whole thing blinks on and off. That's why the smell always comes and goes.

[Danno]

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

996171[/snapback]

 

You're right...that's why no one bought one

996871[/snapback]

 

Britney Spears sell millions of records too.

[jbanes]

WTF are you talking about? Vector mode? The Apple II version of Choplifter uses bitmaps, just like every other version.

 

*sigh* I stated "vector-like" and "vector-style" several times before I dropped the moniker. It should be obvious what I'm talking about.

 

Basically, the 5200 version appears to emulate the Apple II's use of line, box, and other primitives that can be achieved on most systems via their basic graphics routines. The routines are actually vector in nature, but are normalized to a framebuffer. The graphics work on the 5200 because the 5200 has enough memory to emulate a framebuffer, whereas the 7800 doesn't. I *believe* that the 7800 could perform the same graphical feats, save for the fact that it lacks the memory. That's part of what makes it so much easier to draw bitmap mountains in the background rather than twinkling stars. (Like in the original.)

 

You see this is where I plug my ears and stop listening.

 

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

996171[/snapback]

 

People who make stupid statements like this are ALWAYS doing themselves a disservice. This is the exact same thinking that produces the "5200 is waste of plastic and solder" line. Neither one is true, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

The truth of the matter is quite simple. The NES beat the 7800 technologically in the same way that the 7800 "beat" the 5200. Like we've been discussing, the 5200 had more memory, more powerful controllers (even if the non-centering point sucked), and a few other points in its favor. It's generally beat out by the 7800, however, by the fact that the 7800 can produce more sprites that look better, and more complex playfields.

 

In the same way, the Nintendo beats out the 7800 not on the number of sprites, but on its "cheap trick" of providing a tiling background and more earthy color tones. In addition, the Nintendo also had far superior sound and music ability, in a time when gamers were not used to background music in their home consoles. These factors combined, and made for a "superior" console to the 7800. Sure, the 7800 could push more sprites, but that doesn't help anyone when you have no need to render so many. The Nintendo's sprite capability was sufficient for most games, leaving the rest of its features to carry the day. Combine this with the superior artistry demonstrated in the games from Japan, and you will find that the 7800 never stood a chance.

[Bryan]

Basically, the 5200 version appears to emulate the Apple II's use of line, box, and other primitives that can be achieved on most systems via their basic graphics routines. The routines are actually vector in nature, but are normalized to a framebuffer. The graphics work on the 5200 because the 5200 has enough memory to emulate a framebuffer, whereas the 7800 doesn't. I *believe* that the 7800 could perform the same graphical feats, save for the fact that it lacks the memory. That's part of what makes it so much easier to draw bitmap mountains in the background rather than twinkling stars. (Like in the original.)

997368[/snapback]

 

Yes, since the 7800 has the same resolution as the 5200 with even more colors available, it could produce almost any screen the 5200 can. You're also correct that some types of games will require more RAM than the 7800 has, but it's amazing what people have done with character-based screens too.

 

-Bry

[Danno]

You see this is where I plug my ears and stop listening.

 

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

996171[/snapback]

 

People who make stupid statements like this are ALWAYS doing themselves a disservice. This is the exact same thinking that produces the "5200 is waste of plastic and solder" line. Neither one is true, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

The truth of the matter is quite simple. The NES beat the 7800 technologically in the same way that the 7800 "beat" the 5200. Like we've been discussing, the 5200 had more memory, more powerful controllers (even if the non-centering point sucked), and a few other points in its favor. It's generally beat out by the 7800, however, by the fact that the 7800 can produce more sprites that look better, and more complex playfields.

 

In the same way, the Nintendo beats out the 7800 not on the number of sprites, but on its "cheap trick" of providing a tiling background and more earthy color tones. In addition, the Nintendo also had far superior sound and music ability, in a time when gamers were not used to background music in their home consoles. These factors combined, and made for a "superior" console to the 7800. Sure, the 7800 could push more sprites, but that doesn't help anyone when you have no need to render so many. The Nintendo's sprite capability was sufficient for most games, leaving the rest of its features to carry the day. Combine this with the superior artistry demonstrated in the games from Japan, and you will find that the 7800 never stood a chance.

997368[/snapback]

 

I never liked the NES. Didn't like it when I was 13, don't like it now at 33. I'm not going to start liking it, simply because you brag about it's technological abilities (or your misperceived vision of them).

 

The color palette of the NES was suitable for quilting, or making fake throw-up. I don't particulary like my videogames to be consistently forest green, vomit fuscia, and shit brown, thanks. The "cheap trick" you refer to had one majorly dissapointing side effect - graphics that flicker so badly, most games were rendered unplayable due to their ability to trigger epileptic seizures in certain players. The artistry you claim is "superior" I always found to be childish and lacking in originality. If I want to save the world as a "Kiss-Kiss Musroom" a "Fuzzy Teddy Bear" or a smiling Pokemon inspired stuffed animal - I'd be shopping at Babies R US.

 

I like my opinion. I have nothing to be "ashamed" of for stating it, and frankly find your inability to separate a stated personal preference from a comparison rather laughable. Note - I never claimed the 7800's superiority - I simply said that the NES is a steaming pile of crap.

 

And to me - it is a steaming pile of crap.

 

get it?

 

If I wanted to discuss the merits of the NES over the 7800, I wouldn't be posting in the 7800 forum of a website called "Atariage".

Edited January 10, 2006 by Danno

[ZylonBane]

Basically, the 5200 version appears to emulate the Apple II's use of line, box, and other primitives that can be achieved on most systems via their basic graphics routines. The routines are actually vector in nature, but are normalized to a framebuffer. The graphics work on the 5200 because the 5200 has enough memory to emulate a framebuffer, whereas the 7800 doesn't.

Sweet zombie Jesus. Talk about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

 

It sounds like you think that Choplifter used the Apple's shape table functionality to draw the chopper. Well... no. First, shape table rendering is way too slow for a game like Choplifter (the Apple II was only a 1-MHz system, remember). Second, shape tables only support vector outlines, not solid-filled objects.

 

So the chopper in Apple II Choplifter is exactly what any reasonable person might think it is-- several dozen predrawn bitmaps, blitted to the screen as necessary. The Atari computer/5200 versions are pretty much straight ports, complete with the crappy artifact colors endemic of straight Apple ports.

 

Furthermore, the 5200 isn't "emulating" a framebuffer. It's using Graphics mode 8, which *IS* a framebuffer mode-- specifically, a 320x200 2-color bitmap mode.

 

While it is true that the 7800 doesn't have enough RAM to do a 320x200 bitmap (that takes 8K of RAM, the 7800 only has 4K), it does support sprites at that pixel resolution, so could have reproduced the original Choplifter graphics perfectly. Unfortunately, the company porting Choplifter to the 7800 was incompetent.

Edited January 10, 2006 by ZylonBane

[Bryan]

ZylonBane, you seem a little more aggressive lately.

 

-Bry

[jbanes]

Sweet zombie Jesus. Talk about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

 

It sounds like you think that Choplifter used the Apple's shape table functionality to draw the chopper. Well... no. First, shape table rendering is way too slow for a game like Choplifter (the Apple II was only a 1-MHz system, remember). Second, shape tables only support vector outlines, not solid-filled bjects.

997498[/snapback]

 

Who the heck is talking about shape tables? I'm talking about basic drawing commands. You know,

 

PLOT x,y Draws a dot at location x,y

HLIN x1,x2 at y Draws a horizontal line from x1,y to x2,y

VLIN y1,y2 at x Draws a vertical line from x,y1 to x,y2

 

Various points are filled in using routines like these, such as the stars, ground, and score table. Modern libraries (and even several on other systems at the time) have much more complex routines that allow for diagonal lines, filled primitives, and other fun features. (Which again, are vector in nature, but are rasterized to the screen.)

 

So the chopper in Apple II Choplifter is exactly what any reasonable person might think it is-- several dozen predrawn bitmaps, blitted to the screen as necessary. The Atari computer/5200 versions are pretty much straight ports, complete with the crappy artifact colors endemic of straight Apple ports.

 

So the stars are bitmaps? The scoreboard? The ground? I find that highly unlikely.

 

Like I said, it's not true vector graphics. But I don't know what else to call it in comparison to the full sprite versions of the Sega and 7800 versions.

[Danno]

I find that highly unlikely.

997530[/snapback]

 

So you don't really know - and you're just guessing - but you're correcting people.

 

Wow. Talk about arrogance.

[ZylonBane]

ZylonBane, you seem a little more aggressive lately.

Nah, just more prolific.

 

At least I'm trying to mix a little information in with the regularly scheduled abuse.

 

I think I'm going to give up on jbanes though... he's so clearly convinced that he really knows what he's talking about, that I'm afraid there's no dissuading him. Maybe some other coders could take a shot at it.

[jbanes]

I think I'm going to give up on jbanes though... he's so clearly convinced that he really knows what he's talking about, that I'm afraid there's no dissuading him. Maybe some other coders could take a shot at it.

997564[/snapback]

 

Nah, just trying to communicate. I'm not always successful, I'm afraid. Like I said, I called it "vector-like" for want of a better term.

 

Believe it or not, I am listening to what people are saying, and I am learning new things. Sadly, I'm not always good at making that clear. My apologies if my failure to communicate is causing you any grief.

[EricBall]

Who the heck is talking about shape tables? I'm talking about basic drawing commands. You know,

 

PLOT x,y  Draws a dot at location x,y

HLIN x1,x2 at y  Draws a horizontal line from x1,y to x2,y

VLIN y1,y2 at x  Draws a vertical line from x,y1 to x,y2

 

Various points are filled in using routines like these, such as the stars, ground, and score table. Modern libraries (and even several on other systems at the time) have much more complex routines that allow for diagonal lines, filled primitives, and other fun features. (Which again, are vector in nature, but are rasterized to the screen.)

 

So the stars are bitmaps? The scoreboard? The ground? I find that highly unlikely.

 

Like I said, it's not true vector graphics. But I don't know what else to call it in comparison to the full sprite versions of the Sega and 7800 versions.

997530[/snapback]

 

Umm... let me guess that you're not a 6502 coder and have never done anything with any kind of assembly. Any 2-D graphics library is designed to provide maximum flexibility, not speed. So it will spend huge amounts of time drawing a line point by point using Bresenham's algorithm, each point requiring multiple shifts to set the right bit in the byte. Contrast that with a simple load/store loop of a pre-rendered sprite from ROM to screen RAM. Or, even better, updating a GPU register or two if the console supports sprites.

 

There's a reason that games of that generation were custom written in assembly and typically didn't use BIOS routines for anything they could do themselves - flat out speed. Even a JSR/RTS (GOSUB/RETURN equivalent) on the 6502 requires 12 cycles. On the 2600 that's 16% of the time it takes for the TV to draw a single line, and the Apple ][ wasn't clocked that much faster.

 

Personally, I find it amazing the Apple ][ had so many good games with it's whacked-out screen RAM layout and color quirks combined with a CPU without any 16 bit address registers.

[Lord Helmet]

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

996171[/snapback]

 

You're right...that's why no one bought one

996871[/snapback]

 

Britney Spears sell millions of records too.

997078[/snapback]

 

Which means that alot of people like her music...just not me...doesn't mean it's crap. Your statement of the NES is your opinion, yet you state it as if it is fact. Seems to me that you think that the NES is completely worthless, which simply isn't the case. Surely there are 1 or 2 games on it worth your time. Even the Odyssey 2 has KC Munchkin

[shadow460]

Well, there are a couple of NES games I liked.

 

Top Gun, Burai Fighter (best 2d shooter I've played til Raiden DX came out), Castlevania, and Rad Racer were all a lot of fun.

 

The steaming pile comment is really funny to me. That's not my opinion of the NES, and neither do I think the 5200 is waste of solder and plastic. But still, I got a good laugh out of both comments.

 

I haven't considered whether the NES is better than the 7800, and it doesn't make any difference to me. When I get a hankering for more Burai Fighter, I'll get an NES and hook it up.

Saying NES, 5200, or 7800 is better is like saying Dreamcast is better than N64 or worse than PSX.

If you ask what I think is better, I'll tell you. Someone asked us all if the 5200 was better than the 7800. I gave what I thought was the best answer.

 

I'd much rather read a statement like that instead of "NES Sucks", because the comments that were made had me rolling in the floor.

 

Why don'e we all go bust out Food Fight for a while and play on the hardest setting? Like life, we can't take that game seriously. If you try to take Food Fight seriously, you'll go mad. You just gotta laugh at it (especially when you don't do well), and keep playing.

 

Oops, I've digressed. The 7800, 5200 and NES are all very good systems , but none of them can compare to the mighty Emerson Arcadia 2001.

*ducks flying oranges and high speed rotten tomatoes*

[Lord Helmet]

I typically don't really care about some system vs system debate. IMHO the more videogames and systems the better. There are plenty of good games on any system that sold a reasonable number of systems. 7800, 5200 and NES included. Hell, I even like the virtual boy for that Galactic Pinball game, so even it isn't totaly worthless.

 

Calling the NES crap, while it may be someones opinion, is still ludicrous, no matter how you look at it. then again, that's just my opinion

[jbanes]

Umm... let me guess that you're not a 6502 coder and have never done anything with any kind of assembly.

 

I used to do quite a bit of assembly on the IBM PC, and I have tried my hand at the 6502. (It's kind of fun to do, BTW. The instruction set is so simple in comparison to most other processors.)

 

Any 2-D graphics library is designed to provide maximum flexibility, not speed.

 

Not the Apple routines. These are too primitive for Bresenham's algo. They draw only horizontal or vertical lines. Which I'm not saying that Choplifter is using, but probably something similar, perhaps custom. He needs a fill routine for several areas on his screen, plus point routines to create the stars. If this was an Intel, I'd use a REP STOSW loop to blit the fill as fast as possible. Sadly, you can't do that sort of thing on a 6502, and have to resort to a standard loop or some sort of hardware acceleration. On most Ataris I've seen, this isn't such a big problem as each byte of data is used to produce 8 or 4 pixels of 1-bit or 2-bit color.

 

I confess to not knowing all the details about how the Apple II framebuffer worked (other than it's worse than programming bank switched SuperVGA), so I wouldn't quite know how the developer would go about writing the high-performance line, point, and fill routines, but the concepts are the same. You have a starting point, and ending point, and the routine performs a fill between. Taking the Atari 2600 and 7800 as examples, you can't really perform that same sort of fill without some trickery. A vertical line is not a vertical line, but rather a blip on each line that needs to be rendered. This makes programming these systems rather interesting since you don't have the memory to simply pre-compute the values, then pump them to the screen when the time comes.

 

(Side Question: Does anyone know if the SuperCharger games used framebuffer emulation? With an extra 6K of RAM to work with, it strikes me that they could have done much of the playfield rendering in memory during the Vertical Sync. The graphics could have been pumped directly from memory before and during each scanline. But I'm getting off topic.)

 

So it will spend huge amounts of time drawing a line point by point using Bresenham's algorithm, each point requiring multiple shifts to set the right bit in the byte.

 

If you want high performance, you don't use Bresenham's. At least not back then. One can get away with a lot on modern computers, but back then you tried to use something faster. Even Breshenham's, however, can be much faster in specific circumstances. For example, if you wanted to port Gravitar to a system, it's going to be a LOT faster to rotate only the end points and draw the sprite line by line rather than rotating each individual pixel. This is effectively the method used in most early 3D engines. Rather than rotate and scale each pixel in the texture, it was far faster to rotate the ends and use a line drawing algo. Of course, Affine Texture Mapping wasn't exactly the best looking, but it was screaming fast.

 

Contrast that with a simple load/store loop of a pre-rendered sprite from ROM to screen RAM.  Or, even better, updating a GPU register or two if the console supports sprites.

 

Certainly. Sprite hardware will always be faster than a frame buffer. The primary advantage to a frame buffer is that you are not limited (graphics-wise) by the hardware. So if you need to draw a highly detailed background with a large number of foreground objects (such as Microgammon SB), you're not limited by a specific number of sprites or the auto-expanding of the playfield registers/display commands.

 

There's a reason that games of that generation were custom written in assembly and typically didn't use BIOS routines for anything they could do themselves - flat out speed.  Even a JSR/RTS (GOSUB/RETURN equivalent) on the 6502 requires 12 cycles.  On the 2600 that's 16% of the time it takes for the TV to draw a single line, and the Apple ][ wasn't clocked that much faster.

997586[/snapback]

 

The Apple II, as I understand it, was actually clocked slower than even the Atari 2600. As you said, it's amazing that it was ever able to do an action game like Choplifter. Of course, with a framebuffer you do have one major advantge: Framerate. The Ataris forced programs to keep up the 60Hz signal no matter what. With a framebuffer, you can drop to 10FPS and the hardware will make sure that the screen doesn't flicker.

Edited January 10, 2006 by jbanes

[Danno]

ZylonBane, you seem a little more aggressive lately.

Nah, just more prolific.

 

At least I'm trying to mix a little information in with the regularly scheduled abuse.

 

I think I'm going to give up on jbanes though... he's so clearly convinced that he really knows what he's talking about, that I'm afraid there's no dissuading him. Maybe some other coders could take a shot at it.

997564[/snapback]

 

This is why I stepped away from teh Copyright argument that came up in that other thread. I read his replies and realized that no matter how it was explained, I didn't think he was really going to listen, simply because he's convinced himself he was so right.

 

Not to mention, I bore easily when people make longwinded, serpentine responses.

[Danno]

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

996171[/snapback]

 

You're right...that's why no one bought one

996871[/snapback]

 

Britney Spears sell millions of records too.

997078[/snapback]

 

Which means that alot of people like her music...just not me...doesn't mean it's crap. Your statement of the NES is your opinion, yet you state it as if it is fact. Seems to me that you think that the NES is completely worthless, which simply isn't the case. Surely there are 1 or 2 games on it worth your time. Even the Odyssey 2 has KC Munchkin

997590[/snapback]

 

 

Actually - it means a lot of people buy her music(that doesn't necessarily mean they like it), because they have it drilled into their heads that they should like it. It's less a conscious choice and more like a pavlovian response. Same thing with the NES. Clever and persistent marketing could make a Tyson beef-product pattie be remebered as a 16 ounce Porterhouse, if applied correctly and repetitively.

 

Sure there are a game or two that the NES deserves merit for. But I just don't like it overall. I think the graphics are overrated by many fans, the color palette is putrid, the characters are (as with all Nintendo systems) too cutesy and kidsy, and the flickering is distracting enough that I could not retain interest in playing 99% of the games.

 

And it just bugs me when someone comes into the 7800 forum to praise teh NES and pan the 7800. Do that in the other systems forums, or on another nintendo board, ya know?

[ZylonBane]

Not the Apple routines. These are too primitive for Bresenham's algo. They draw only horizontal or vertical lines. Which I'm not saying that Choplifter is using, but probably something similar, perhaps custom.

I try to get out, and they pull me back in!

 

jbanes, seriously, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. You think you do, but you don't. You really, really don't.

 

Do you realize that the "Apple routines" are just software? There's nothing magical about them. They're just 6502 code.

 

Do you realize that in HIRES mode, there's a command that can draw lines between any two arbitrary points? Not just horizontal and vertical?

 

Do you realize that a 1-MHz system simply IS NOT FAST ENOUGH to draw and fill a complex vector object in realtime? For a real example of a game that uses vector objects, look at Out of This World/Another World. That ran sluggishly on systems vastly more powerful than the Apple II.

 

Do you realize that Choplifter is not tilting (rotating) the chopper sprite data in realtime, but in fact uses dozens of predrawn bitmaps to create the ILLUSION that it's tilting it?

 

Ngnggnnngggnn....