From: iceman@cs.mcgill.ca (Tuan HUYNH)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Street Fighter
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:17:22 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <2+p3q2a@rpi.edu> deweeset@ptolemy3.rdrc.rpi.edu (Thomas E. DeWeese) writes:
>In article <cshotton-250193124726@oac2.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.113208.10547@ac.dal.ca>, seanmcd@ac.dal.ca wrote:
(...stuff deleted...)

>  His post was in reply to some one who obviously was unaware of the 
>hardware limitations of the Mac.  (It is IMPOSSIBLE to do full screen scrolls
>of a pixmap, on an LC class machine, @ 8bpp).  This would be a prerequisit
>for a game such as Street Fighter TM (whoever).  The person he Followed up 
>claimed that it was the simply the marketing types fault that there was
>no Stree Fighter for the Mac.  It also would be very difficult to animate 
>PixMaps the size that Street Fighter uses (that probably could be done 
>though).  So while a Street Fighterish game could be done on the Mac I 
>think the "look and feel" (we all know how important that is :) would be 
>very different (not nessesarily worse just not Street Fighter).
>
(...)

Correct, full 640x480 animation in 8-bit color is currently impossible
to attain at a smooth rate of 60fps. At that rate, it'd require a bandwith of
640x480 = 300kb per 1/60 sec = ~17 Megs/sec which is way beyond what
the Mac can provide.

On the other hand, something like 512x384 in 16 colors at 30 fps
should be feasible.

(...)
>>While you're at it, how about explaining why the Mac game world should be
>>limited to the lame resolution of PCs in the first place?
>  The Lame resoultion of the PC is very handy because it cut's the amount
>of data that needs to be moved by a factor of 4.  Thus you can move the same
>stuff four times faster or move four times as much.  And in a relatively
>fast paced game with a decently chosen pallet can completely mask the
>limited resolution.  I will agree that 640x480 is MUCH NICER, for some
>things (title screens, static backgrounds ...),  but for speed 320x200 isn't
>that bad, and makes alot of sense.

I was wondering, would people rather have an arcade game running at 512x384
at a jerky rate of 30 frames per second or 320x200 at a perfectly smooth rate
of 60fps? I'm talking here about fast-paced arcade games like Space
Invaders, Defender and the like which involve a moving background. Of
course, 320x200 on the Mac is the size of a postal stamp but hey,
think about it, *fast and smooth animation* ?!

As for 16 colors, that's enough for most arcade games (ever seen Atari ST
games like Goldrunner and Genesis? Wow.). Smooth animation makes up
for the 16 colors limitation, IMHO. A good graphic artist should be
able to use colors quite efficiently, i.e. pattern mixing and dithering.

Another topic that hasn't been discussed is sounds effects. Playing
sounds on the Mac does eat up CPU time because there's no dedicated
sound coprocessor like on the Apple IIgs, Amiga, ST, blah blah blah.
No flame there, just a remark.

How I wish the Mac had some kind of blitter and sprite engine...

-Tuan

iceman@cs.mcgill.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games