From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video Games Superior on Consoles
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:05:13 GMT
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

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).

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.

>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.

-- 
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
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.video