From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: Video Games Superior on Consoles
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:12:31 GMT

In article <34210@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) 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).

The 65816 is not vastly inferior to the 68000 in general. It depends on what
you use ot for. I have no idea what C='s 6502 MHz speed is, but the currently
available ($95 for 1) fastest 65816 is a 14MHz version made by Sanyo. I have
one in my GS and it rather interesting to compare it to the various Mac's
I have (as the latest GS OS is very similar to the Mac OS). In any case it
is far faster than all but my ci, until you get to floating point operations
and when the Mac is using a coprocessor. Not it may very well be that the
68k line is a better designed cpu- in fact I doubt that few would dipute that.
However, they is a really nice OS available for the GS, good languages for it,
etc...It has its limits, but I doubt few reach them. For what the 68000's
do, one can easily get by with a 65816.
>
>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.

Make up your mind. On the one hand you talk about the cpu not being the
central player for game consoles and then suddenly the Sega is being touted
for its excellent cpu. 
 
You might want to compare the quality of what is available for the SNES versus
the Sega. I have both (and a GS). The SNES is simply better from my 
perspective.
 
It's interesting that you talk of solving general computational problems. 
To do this at a high level you really want to get away from both the 65816
and the 68000. For the types of things one would do with a 7MHz 68k, I
see no advantage over my GS. As it stands a 65816 can handle most, if not
all, the routine tasks associated with computers. The GS is an excellent
low end video machine. Of course it doesn't compare with an Amiga and the
Video Toaster for video, but at that point you are out of the low end and
not concerned with HyperCard/HyperStudio presentation software ( both
available for the GS and on a 65816).  Any way, I'm straying as my original
intent was to discuss things in the context of video games.
 
>
>>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.

The faster cpu's will be in the CD-I part, not the base unit. No change. You
want a CD base SNES? Then pay $200 extra and drop the SNES into it. That
comes to $299 for a very interesting comsumer item. The current SNES will be
the base unit. No change. Same with the Sega. Of course, anything can happen,
but there's really not reason to change the base unit now as it gives 
excellent price/performance. 
>
>>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.

Well I didn't mean to suggest that all computer gaming would cease. I do feel
though that you will see a rapid shift away from general computers for
game use and towards the game consoles. Game consoles can easily keep up with
high end systems because they are typically optimized to do certain 
things, whether it be simply to have location, scale, rotation transformations
built into hardware (as few micros have). 
 
I am a parent, and I feel quite strongly that computers are not good platforms
for children in homes. They are too isolating and anti-social. I do not want
to have my daughters being looked after by an Amiga/Mac/GS/NeXT/etc...I'd 
much rather have a unit atached to a TV in the family room, and one which is
a braos base of software. CDTV is ideal for this, and as I indicated before
it has great potential. The solitary computer will simply retreat to the
den where people can go do whatever people do with computers...The idea is
not to get something to keep the kid happy, but to get something which can be
shared by all in the family. We aren;t talking about a silicon babysitter.
>
>>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.

Well this may be so. I'd much prefer to see the unit attached to the TV become
the information/entertainment/ mild computer use center. I think there's more
to thes devices than just games, and that will eventually come out as CDTV and CD-I become more widely known. Most people do not cherish the thought of 
coming home to an evening of C programming.
>
>-- 
>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

Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu