Main > Main Forum
New(ish) Rambo shooter
<< < (8/12) > >>
Beretta:

--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on August 12, 2009, 04:33:03 pm ---Yes, gameplay is more important than graphics, but that's not what the argument is about. It was claimed that with the PlayStation, you could have graphics as good or better than what was in the arcade. I disagree. For mainstream consoles, I say that the Dreamcast was the first one to provide graphics as good as anything in the arcade; because it was essentially NAOMI, and NAOMI was one of the best arcade hardware platforms going at the time.

Yes; with the PlayStation you could have Tekken's ghetto graphics at home, but if you wanted something that actually looked good, like Cruis'n USA, you were out of luck. The PS didn't have the berries for it, and neither did the newer N64. Of course, the PS never got a Cruis'n USA port, but the N64 did and it was not on par with the arcade version; and if it had've been ported to the PS, it would have undoubtedly looked worse than the N64's version; in the same manner that the PS's port of Hydro Thunder looked worse than the N64's version (which in turn couldn't compare to the arcade version).

--- End quote ---
wow dude you are lost in the sauce.

it's already been stated the .vs system was as close as could be considered "as good".. or maybe you can nitpick that apart.. i can't tell the difference but im sure there is some minute difference in game play and graphics that you'll claim or maybe some minor hardware difference, oh wait you dont have to enter quarters at home and it does'nt say insert coin damn.. not as good.

you say you original respones started from me stating that playstation was the tipping point where you could get as good or better at home, this lead to the fall of the arcades, i never made a claim that consoles before it did'nt hurt arcade attendance, only i think PlayStation was the point of no return for the death of the arcade.

i guess i should very carefully and long windedly spell out exactly what i mean because then you get on this kick about neo geo which i personally knew no one that actually owned one besides dealers.. so im sure that the true arcade graphics.. after all it's extremely similar to the arcade hardware and extremely high price tag for it is what cause the death of the arcades not the PlayStation.. no no it was the nearly non existent neo geo.

then there is a rebuttal that the playstatoin was actually the basis for some games in teh arcade, but you come back that oh no those graphics suck.. well im not sure if you are claiming the playstation port sucks, or the graphics of the arcade also suck, at which i'd say it's really in the eye of the beholder and that they are in my opinion "as good" as what i played in the arcade, but again im sure you have found some tiny difference that is only noticeable to people such as your self to either goes over the hardware with a fine tooth comb which amounts to nothing, or one or two pixels are out of place.

i find it funny that you defend neo geo on the basis of hardware, not the basis of great games or great graphics way back in the way back that you claim is so important for it to trump the playstation.

yet the playstation which was also the platform for some arcade games has what you consider poor graphics so it does'tn get the same respet, wow man like to have you cake and eat to too dont you?

also i distinctly remember playing tekken before playing it on playstation.. it was a 1st generation game on playstation.. so i think your argument that playstation came before the arcade is wrong it was either developed for both uses in mind at the same time OR it was in the arcades first.

which does'nt really matter because rather it was used in teh arcade is of no consequence.
the games on playstation was as good or better then what was in teh arcade at the time..

this is a blanket statement, this does'nt mean oh you could play neo geo games, oh you could play vs games before it.. no i mean reguardless of platform a large % of the games ported to playstation was as good as what was in the arcade reguardless of their original hardware..

the or better part comes from playstation or home console born games, obviously it's hard to get better then what was in the arcade when it's being the baseline standard of what you're trying ot port in the first place.

one of the games i mentioned before was jumping flash.. i for one at the time thought the game was quite breath taking.

infact all those "ghetto" 3d games was considered good graphic wise back then.

of course game play is more important then graphics but if arcade games dont have good game play in the arcade they dont last very long, my originla point was playstation was the tipping point where nearly all of it's games was comparatively as good or better then what was typical in the arcade at the time, game play aside as every platform has crappy games.

as for playstation not being able to handle cruisin usa, we'll never know since rare ware was in exclusive agreement with Nintendo at the time.
Namco:
Whoa, look how many Infrared LEDs there around the screen of that Rambo shooter!
DJ_Izumi:

--- Quote from: Ginsu Victim on August 12, 2009, 04:43:15 pm ---Yeah, but I remember going all the back to the 2600 port of Pac-man and thinking, "What the hell is this crap?!?"

--- End quote ---

This is why I put the NES as the real start of consoles leading to an arcade decline.  The Atari didn't come close to recreating a lot of the fun on the arcade.  Pac Mac is a good example with it's flickery crap.



On the other hand, the NES came far, FAR closer with Pac Man.  No, the home console hardware couldn't touch the arcade hardware from the same time period but consoles reached a 'good enough' point, you didn't have to leave home to play and you didn't need to shovel quarters into it.


--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on August 12, 2009, 04:52:53 pm ---The NES dealt the first blow, but it was far from decisive.
--- End quote ---

It was absolutely not decisive, it was the beginning of a long weigning death over the next 20 years.


--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on August 12, 2009, 04:52:53 pm ---I did.
--- End quote ---

Yes but your a hobbiest, it doesn't matter if YOU cared.  It's clear that the majority mainstream audience did and it was their quarters that the machines slowly stopped getting.  If you look at arcades across the last 20 years you can see them slowly closing (It getting far worse in 2000 and beyond).  The arcade sorta stopped sprouting up every where after the video game crash and while there were new locations, more closed than were opened.  Slowly, the arcades withered.
MaximRecoil:

--- Quote from: Beretta on August 12, 2009, 05:07:41 pm ---wow dude you are lost in the sauce.
--- End quote ---

Go practice your juvenile comments elsewhere.


--- Quote ---it's already been stated the .vs system was as close as could be considered "as good".. or maybe you can nitpick that apart.. i can't tell the difference but im sure there is some minute difference in game play and graphics that you'll claim or maybe some minor hardware difference, oh wait you dont have to enter quarters at home and it does'nt say insert coin damn.. not as good.
--- End quote ---

The Vs. system and PlayChoice were both 1983 NES home console hardware stuck into arcade cabinets years later. It was not developed for the arcade. Nintendo was still developing arcade hardware during the time that they made the NES hardware, and it was far more powerful than their NES hardware (e.g., Punch-Out hardware); because it was intended to be arcade hardware, like nearly all other hardware platforms used in arcade machines.

So of course a NES version of a game was "as good" as the Vs. or PC-10 version; I obviously never claimed otherwise.  


--- Quote ---you say you original respones started from me stating that playstation was the tipping point where you could get as good or better at home, this lead to the fall of the arcades, i never made a claim that consoles before it did'nt hurt arcade attendance, only i think PlayStation was the point of no return for the death of the arcade.
--- End quote ---

I never said that you did.


--- Quote ---then there is a rebuttal that the playstatoin was actually the basis for some games in teh arcade, but you come back that oh no those graphics suck..
--- End quote ---

My rebuttal actually is that the PlayStation was developed as home console hardware; in fact, its development started out as a CD drive add-on for the SNES; and that's why arcade games which used this platform had bad graphics. If Namco had spent the time and money to develop custom hardware specifically for the arcade (where they wouldn't have had to worry about making it affordable for home consumers like console developers did), Tekken could have had far better graphics.


--- Quote ---well im not sure if you are claiming the playstation port sucks, or the graphics of the arcade also suck,
--- End quote ---

They both suck. They're the same thing.


--- Quote ---i find it funny that you defend neo geo on the basis of hardware, not the basis of great games or great graphics way back in the way back that you claim is so important for it to trump the playstation.
--- End quote ---

Neo Geo did have great graphics; equal or better than anything else in the arcades at the time. I've said this before, whether you realize it or not. The reason it had great graphics is because it was developed as an arcade platform; they used a 12 mHz processor; custom graphics chipset; its cartridges supported 330 Mb (41 MB) of ROM (about 6 times the size of arcade SFII); top-end expensive stuff at the time.


--- Quote ---also i distinctly remember playing tekken before playing it on playstation.. it was a 1st generation game on playstation.. so i think your argument that playstation came before the arcade is wrong it was either developed for both uses in mind at the same time OR it was in the arcades first.
--- End quote ---

It was developed as home console hardware. Somewhere along the line, Namco saw it as a quick and dirty solution, and Namco System 11 was born. They both came out in '94.


--- Quote ---which does'nt really matter because rather it was used in teh arcade is of no consequence.
the games on playstation was as good or better then what was in teh arcade at the time..
--- End quote ---

Show me a PlayStation game that can match arcade Cruis'n USA (1994). Given that the newer N64's port couldn't do it justice, the PlayStation wouldn't have stood a chance of doing it justice.


--- Quote ---this is a blanket statement, this does'nt mean oh you could play neo geo games, oh you could play vs games before it.. no i mean reguardless of platform a large % of the games ported to playstation was as good as what was in the arcade reguardless of their original hardware..
--- End quote ---

All 3D PlayStation games looked like crap. Fortunately, only a handful of arcade games at the time looked like crap; namely the Namco System 11 games.


--- Quote ---as for playstation not being able to handle cruisin usa, we'll never know since rare ware was in exclusive agreement with Nintendo at the time.

--- End quote ---

It is easy enough to figure out. The N64 had better looking graphics than the PlayStation, so if the N64 port didn't stack up to the arcade, a PlayStation port definitely wouldn't have. As I've said several times now, compare N64 Hydro Thunder to PlayStation Hydro Thunder to see how the two consoles compare to each other when porting the same game.
MaximRecoil:

--- Quote from: DJ_Izumi on August 12, 2009, 05:37:35 pm ---This is why I put the NES as the real start of consoles leading to an arcade decline.  The Atari didn't come close to recreating a lot of the fun on the arcade.  Pac Mac is a good example with it's flickery crap.

--- End quote ---

The ColecoVision (1982) and the Atari 5200 (1982) both had very respectable ports of somewhat recent and popular (at the time) arcade titles.


--- Quote ---It was absolutely not decisive, it was the beginning of a long weigning death over the next 20 years.
--- End quote ---

Not exactly. In the 90's, arcades were huge again; the biggest they'd been since the Golden Era. Some of the bigger ones had rows of like a dozen SFII machines; bringing to mind the hysteria surrounding Space Invaders and Pac-Man years earlier.

What really happened was life support in the late '80s; rise to former glory in the '90s, and a rather abrupt death around the late '90s/early '00s. The '90s resurrection lasted longer than the Golden Era did (which most people place at '79-'83).

I think people's tastes in gaming have changed to a type of gaming that is inherently at odds with the arcade experience. People today seem to want a deep, engrossing odyssey that can last months or even years. You're only going to get that from a console, PC game, or especially from an online game (my little sister has been playing World of Warcraft for like 4 years straight, for example). I'll grant you that The Legend of Zelda (NES) was probably a significant spark for that fire.

Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version