From: kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video Games Superior on Consoles
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:23:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug13.102321.2427
Organization: Morty's Bar and Grill...Home of the JackalBurger

In article <34210@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.184600.1898@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>
>>Your disparaging comment re the 65816 is based on ignorance. The Genesis is 
>>very good. The 7MHz 68000 is no better than the 63816 which are now coming 
>>out. Programming in assembler for the 65816 yields great results, and the 
>>games on the SNES show it. 
>
>I detect ignorance, but in a different direction.  The 65C816 in any available 
>form is vastly inferior to the 68000.  I worked with these puppies back in '85,
>they're only a modest improvement over the 6502 (in fact, C= now make a CMOS
>6502 varient for internal use that's generally faster than the best 65816 
>chips, just based on clock speed).

Thanks, Dave.  I was beginning to think that Philip might have had some 
special knowledge of the 65816 that eluded me for the few days that I spent
writing 65816 assembly code on an old Apple IIgs...  

Programming the 65816, having come from the 6502, really wasn't that bad an
experience.  If the chip had appeared a bit earlier, it could have been a
really kick-ass low end microcomputer CPU.  But arriving in force in the IIgs
which was priced about the same as the Atari ST and the Amiga didn't bode
that well for it.

I've heard of, but not actually seen, current 6502 variants that are supposed
to actually rival or beat the 816 in terms of clock speed.

>However, little if any of the total appeal of a games console can be attributed
>solely to the host CPU.  CPU power is too expensive to spend on a games console.
>A CPU is real handy for solving general computation problems, which is why high
>powered CPUs have been so successful on personal computers.  Games consoles, on
>the other hand, don't need to solve general problems, they just solve the 
>specific problem of game play.  Cheap dedicated video hardware is used here, no
>games console will survive without it.  The best advantage you get from a high
>powered CPU is easy games porting.  Nintendo must have selected the '816 as an
>attraction to the 6502 programmers -- the 6502 has been the standard games CPU
>since the 70's.  To effectively program competitive games on the SNES, the
>programmer is required to take full advantage of the video hardware.  On the 
>Sega, the 68000 is powerful enough to handle relatively simple ports from the
>Amiga, Atari ST, or Mac, so it's not always necessary to take full advantage
>of the Sega's video hardware.  That's a programmer's advantage -- custom video
>hardware is very system specific, often requiring lots of rethinking on the part
>of the porting programmer.  68000 code can manage all but the actual video 
>display, in the simplest case.  So it's generally easier to port to Sega, giving
>the Sega a significant advantage.  Hardware system wise, I don't personally know
>if one has a significant advantage over the other, but CPU wise, the Sega will
>mop the floor with the SNES.

Good point.  The portability gain in moving from Amiga/ST/Mac to the Genesis
hadn't really occurred to me before, but I'm pretty ignorant of the titles 
out for the Genesis and whether many of them have roots on micros.

>
>>and we shall see what happens when the 14 and 20MHz 65816's being made by 
>>Sanyo find their way into the SNES/CD-I unit.
>
>Perhaps.  The problem with full consumer units, whether SNES, Sega Gemini, or
>the old C64 is that you have only one chance at doing it right.  A computer
>can enforce a level of upgrade every now and then -- computer folks expect it
>and understand why its necessary.  A games console or games computer can't.
>So no matter what's available on the SNES next year, the standard was pretty
>much set the day it was introduced.  Now, any change essentially defines a new
>product.  If the addition of a CD player goes with an enhanced CPU, that's a 
>new product, no problem.  But it means that older systems need a CD and CPU
>upgrade to "add-on" the CD capability.  And you probably can't go to a faster
>CPU next year.
>
>>if Commodore and Philips get their acts together on CDTV/CD-I,
>>then the days of computer gaming with quickly come to an end.
>
>Computer gaming will never come to an end.  Simply put, a games console will
>never be able to keep up with a mid to high end computer of the same base
>technology level in all things.  It may do some things better, of course (eg,
>most games consoles have many hardware sprites, VGA has none, Amiga has a few).
>Also, if I have a modern computer, it's fully capable of playing games.  Why
>should I bother also buying a games console, at least for my personal use.  On
>the other end, if a computer becomes cheap enough w.r.t. a games system, it
>can attract a significant volume of business just based on the fact it is a
>computer.  After all, parents buy these things, not 8 years olds.  And few
>parents want to think they're simply finding another way to veg the minds and
>atrophy the muscles of their kinds.  Some bow to pressure and economics and 
>get the games box, others will get the computer as long as it can keep up
>reasonably well with the games box to keep the kid happy.  CDTV and CD-I help 
>here.  At least with CDTV, it's now officially a computer.
>
>>I still maintain that people want things attached to the TV and not have to
>>sit in a solitary fashion in front of some 12" screen [not directed to you].
>
>Yes and no.  Personally, I'd like to have a game console/computer on the living
>room TV for casual and games use.  I would have it networked to my office 
>computer, but I'm atypical.  The typical use changes, though.  You'll want the
>thing on your main TV for your own use, perhaps after the wife and kids are in
>bed (or there aren't any of these), you relax, pop open a beer, and procced to
>play MindWalker or something.  Once the kids like video games better than that
>movie or StarTrek:TNG season finale you've been waiting to see, a separate
>screen of some kind makes lots of sense.

This reminds me of Rauser's "Computer games suck because I can't lie in 
bed playing them and have to use my spine to sit at a desk" post of a few
weeks ago.  Definitely a matter of taste.  If I had my way I'd have a 
hammock/harness that would hang me from the ceiling with the keyboard, 
monitor, books and any other items necessary in front of me... then all of
my muscles could atrophy into nothingness until my legs became shrivelled
vestigial stumps..... :-)

>
>-- 
>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
>   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      BIX: hazy
>	"Work like a horse, drink like a fish"	- Psychefunkapus
> 


-- 
Jerry Kuch (t-gerldk@microsoft.com) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns