What if any Japanese developers got on board with the Amiga?

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by Shatterhand

I don't think thats true. The X68000 has video capabilities that goes way beyond an Amiga can push. I am not sure a 030 would be able to compensate.

I theory the X68000 does have more oomph than an 030 1200, but i don't see that in the games that were released for the system, imo, with the exception of street fighter 2 maybe.

On the other side, I think the 1200&AGA was never really maxed out in those games that were released for the platform.

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by Steril707

I theory the X68000 does have more oomph than an 030 1200, but i don't see that in the games that were released for the system, imo, with the exception of street fighter 2 maybe.

1987 X68000 had 32x16-color 16 pixel sprites per scanline vs. 1992 AGA's 4x16-color (or 8x4-color) 64 pixel sprites per scanline. i.e. X68k has twice as many 16-color sprite pixels per scanline but it can also break them up into individual 16-pixel chunks while AGA can't.

1987 X68000 had 16-bits per pixel vs 1992 AGA's 8-bits per pixel. This meant the X68000 could have 256-color dual playfields while AGA could only have 16-color dual playfields. Moreover the X68k could have 16-color *QUAD* playfields. In single playfield mode the X68k could do 65536-color hi-color, while AGA was limited to 256-color or hard-to-animate HAM8 -- technically this made *1992* AGA slightly better at displaying still images than *1987* X68000, but not very useful for games especially with the hardware sprite limits.

1987 X68000 supported hardware tilemap playfields, 1992 AGA did not. This gave the option for fast-scrolling LARGE playfields without stressing the blitter or CPU to build them up from tiles. (Also this gave the X68k screaming fast textmodes for color terminals, while AGA could only barely manage a good 16-color terminal and OCS lagged.)

1987 X68000 supported 8-channel FM sound synthesis in hardware. Its PCM DACs were not as good at 1992 AGA's Paula, so MOD-style music and sfx did not sound as good, but for synth-style music it was definitely better than the Amiga. Still, this meant that games could have full, rich soundtracks and the DACs could be used for sound effects, voices, etc. at the same time. (IMHO OCS/ECS should have included some sort of sound generator in addition to the PCM DACs, and AGA should have had a proper DSP.)

Basically there is no way 1992 AGA, even with a 68030, could keep up with all the hardware capabilities the 1987 X68000 wielded, even with its slow 10Mhz 68000.

Also keep in mind that we're comparing 1992 AGA to 1987 X68k. By 1992 the x68k's chipset had been upgraded to include stuff like 24-bit graphics, 1024 sprites, etc.

That's the interesting thing. The X68000 was called "Japan's Amiga", not just due to design similarities, but in that it was as revolutionary in 1987 as the Amiga was in 1985. I see the X68k as what could have been if Commodore had kept R&D on the front burner with the Amiga instead of the tiny incremental improvements they made. By the time the last X68k models were released (1993, same as C=), they were still on top compared to the Wintel market (which still had just dumb framebuffers with maybe a blitter) and had enough 2D hardware graphical effects to run rings around anything a 486 could pump out through software rendering.

The only downside was that Human68k was a shit OS. AmigaOS ran rings around it. Nothing a nice as AmigaOS existed in the consumer space until Windows95. In an ideal world, Sharp and C= would have teamed up to make the next-gen Amiga. =/

[Shatterhand]

IMHO OCS/ECS should have included some sort of sound generator in addition to the PCM DACs

I also agree with that. A SID would already be enough IMO and Commodore had lots of them

[tpgb12]

I could be wrong, but doesn't the Paula have some kind of sound generator functionality? Like, for example, the music in Sinbad and the Throne of the Falcon and Alien Syndrome to me don't sound sampled in any way at all.

[Locutus]

Originally Posted by AmigaHope

The only downside was that Human68k was a shit OS.

And amusingly even that had its hardcore fans, its great how the trajectory of almost every 68k platform is similar with a familiar level of hardcore fanaticism

[vulture]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

The BC Kid conversion by Factor 5 is probably the best conversion of an original japanese game on the Amiga, maybe along with Rodland, Pang and A-Train.

I'd also love to see adventure games like Snatchers or Policenauts on the Amiga, maybe the CD32. I can't see why the machine wouldn't be able to run it.

Note that Earok did make so astonishing conversion of FMV japanese games recently.

And let's not forget Parasol Stars!

[nogginthenog]

Originally Posted by tpgb12

I could be wrong, but doesn't the Paula have some kind of sound generator functionality? Like, for example, the music in Sinbad and the Throne of the Falcon and Alien Syndrome to me don't sound sampled in any way at all.

Paula allows one channel to modulate another channels frequency (and volume?). Don't think it was used much. I don't see a major advantage to this. Maybe someone can correct me?

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by nogginthenog

Paula allows one channel to modulate another channels frequency (and volume?). Don't think it was used much. I don't see a major advantage to this. Maybe someone can correct me?

A PCM DAC can make an arbitrary waveform -- this includes basic waveforms like you'd get from a simple programmable sound generator. Just point all 4 of Paula's channels at some square waveforms and you're sounding a bit like a Tandy 1000. You can then do interference tricks etc. just like you'd do on a a simple PSG.

The thing is, it's a huge waste of memory bandwidth doing this and a waste of (at the time) expensive DAC-grade ASIC. Simple PSGs at this point in time were incredibly cheap to make and you could've thrown in a couple of extra SID chips into the Amiga without adding much cost. (SIDs were among the finest of early PSGs in that they had the fancy envelope and filter controls). In fact they probably could have made a "super SID" at that point, combining maybe 18 channels on one die. That could have sounded godlike.

[donnie]

Japanese developers where always great at working within the boundaries of the hardware instead at constantly working against it.

Just compare the euro centred atari st with japanese msx. Neither can scroll worth a damn. Euros put every resource they had trying to make that peg legged fucker run. But japs, simply said fuck it. It does not scroll. Lets do lots and lots of awesome flickscreen games instead.

[Shatterhand]

Originally Posted by donnie

Japanese developers where always great at working within the boundaries of the hardware instead at constantly working against it.

Just compare the euro centred atari st with japanese msx. Neither can scroll worth a damn. Euros put every resource they had trying to make that peg legged fucker run. But japs, simply said fuck it. It does not scroll. Lets do lots and lots of awesome flickscreen games instead.

This makes a lot of sense. Give me MSX Nemesis/Gradius 2 over Atari ST Xenon 2 any day

[TurboCrash]

X68000 was a real monster for its time, completely agree with the parallel with amiga's debut in 85.
That platform has some of the best, near arcade perfect conversions. Case in point: Final Fight.
I do believe it was quite expensive, even for japanese wallets.

[tpgb12]

Yeah, I should look more into the X68000 someday. I've beaten the Beginner course on the X68k version of Super Hang-On one time and it's indeed a very impressive port. Better than the Amiga version, but honestly I was surprised how the Amiga version was still really quite good for a western port of a JP arcade game.

[MickGyver]

Originally Posted by TurboCrash

X68000 was a real monster for its time, completely agree with the parallel with amiga's debut in 85.
That platform has some of the best, near arcade perfect conversions. Case in point: Final Fight.
I do believe it was quite expensive, even for japanese wallets.

The price of the X68000 was 369,000 yen (~$3,000 USD) according to a thread on stackexchange, so quite expensive yes.
https://retrocomputing.stackexchange...e-sharp-x68000

[dmacon]

Japanese developers where always great at working within the boundaries of the hardware instead at constantly working against it.

Most people forget that the big japanese game companies (Nintendo, Konami, Capcom, Namco, ...), and even many of the smaller ones, besides having a strong background in game design, also did their own in-house custom arcade hardware in the old days. So there is quite a different level of technical expertise working here against the usual average European / American game company.

This expertise being clearly reflected even in the general japanese HW platform design.

So you don't need to go as strong (and expensive) as a X68000, when a good PC-Engine game using a 7,15MHz 6502 deriverate already delivers a superior action gaming experience compared to most OCS/ECS Amiga games.

It's hard to say whether a japanese game company would have spent the effort to develop a sprite / bob scrolling game engine on a platform which was not consciously developed towards such kind of games (being more a general purpose graphics computer).

The only Amiga company I know, which recognized this, and made a serious effort to compete against the japanese game designers, is Rainbow Arts / Kaiko / Factor 5 (3 names, mostly same people involved).

Interestingly, Fumito Ueda, the guy who did such acclaimed Playstation classics as "Ico" and "Shadow of the Colossus", was one of the few japanese Amiga users, and was heavily inspired by European games like "Another World".

[dlfrsilver]

their own custom arcade hardware ? they made their games on the X68000 !

the X68000 was the most used computer to make coin-op games !

Only a few companies used PCs to make arcade games. Taito, Capcom, Toaplan, SNK, and some others used the X68000, because it was the most adequate and competent computer to make such high standard games.

[dmacon]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

their own custom arcade hardware ? they made their games on the X68000 !

You are mixing up the development platform with the actual arcade hardware. The CPS hardware does not use the custom graphics chips from the x68000. It uses an entirely different, ROM-Based graphics system.

Only a few companies used PCs to make arcade games. Taito, Capcom, Toaplan, SNK, and some others used the X68000, because it was the most adequate and competent computer to make such high standard games.

And yet (if I take your personal word now without checking), all their actual hardware platforms strongly differ from the x68000.



Best example being the NeoGeo, which has a vastly different graphics and sound architecture, compared to the x68000.



Taito did games running on multiple monitors using multiple 68000 CPUs, while simultaneously providing smaller scale games on Z80 hardware.



There is a very good site which sums up many of the different (and diverse) custom hardware platforms designed by japanese game companies: http://www.system16.com/


My point stands that japanese game manufacturers always did their own in-house hardware platform, and thus have a substantially different background compared to european / american game developers.

This started way earlier than 1987, and provided the engineers of the X68000 a good base for their hardware specification.

Not to mention that the x68000 lacks some prominent features already established in the arcades by 1987, like hardware sprite/layer scaling & rotation.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by dmacon

You are mixing up the development platform with the actual arcade hardware. The CPS hardware does not use the custom graphics chips from the x68000. It uses an entirely different, ROM-Based graphics system.






And yet (if I take your personal word now without checking), all their actual hardware platforms strongly differ from the x68000.



Best example being the NeoGeo, which has a vastly different graphics and sound architecture, compared to the x68000.



Taito did games running on multiple monitors using multiple 68000 CPUs, while simultaneously providing smaller scale games on Z80 hardware.



There is a very good site which sums up many of the different (and diverse) custom hardware platforms designed by japanese game companies: http://www.system16.com/


My point stands that japanese game manufacturers always did their own in-house hardware platform, and thus have a substantially different background compared to european / american game developers.

This started way earlier than 1987, and provided the engineers of the X68000 a good base for their hardware specification. Not mentioning that the X68000 lacks some features which were already in-use by 1987 (like sprite/layer scaling & rotation).

the CPS 1 and 2 hardwares are carbon copies of the X68000 system. the CPS1 & 2 are planar systems like the X68000.

SSF2 was made on X68030 computers.

[dmacon]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

the CPS 1 and 2 hardwares are carbon copies of the X68000 system.

This is plain false, and easily refutable.

If you talk about "hardware", I mean actual hardware.

the CPS1 & 2 are planar systems like the X68000.

Yes, as there are many other tile based layer & sprite systems developed before and after the X68000.

You probably know that the CPS can display more sprites, and provides more CLUT entries for sprite and layer graphics than the X68000, right?

SSF2 was made on X68030 computers.

Development platform != actual hardware platform.

CPS is Capcom's own hardware platform, using their own custom engineered ASICs.

In addition, Super Street Fighter II even has a completely different sound system as the X68030.

[dlfrsilver]

This is plain false, and easily refutable.

the CP system is so near from the X68000 that Capcom had very possibly a deal to make its hardware with sharp.

Next please read video game densetsu website and also the books the untold stories of japanese developers.

Just for the record, when the X68000 was released, a higher up guy at capcom asked to their hardware engineers if they could make a carbon copy of the X68000 as arcade hardware.

the first CPS1 games were made graphically with a Sony SMC-70 computer.
The programming was done with PC-88jr computers.

From 1990, they made the games on the X68k computers, all the CPS1 game and all the CPS2 games were made on those, until 1995, where they ported the toolchain on Windows PC.

Yes, as there are many other tile based layer & sprite systems developed before and after the X68000.

We all agree on that.

You probably know that the CPS can display more sprites, and provides more CLUT entries for sprite and layer graphics than the X68000, right?

The CPS-1 display 128 sprites more than the 128 that the X68000 can display on screen. However, the X68000 has the same amount of layers than the CPS-1 = 3 independant layers, with a 16bpp support !

PS : the CPS-1 can only display 3072 colors, while the X68000 can display 65535 in 512x512

Development platform != actual hardware platform.

the deal with the x68000 was to make things almost transparent.

CPS is Capcom's own hardware platform, using their own custom engineered ASICs.

Get your facts right, it has been very recently discovered that not only the X68000 was the base for the CP system, but that it was straight forward to make the CP system games running on the X68000. It's not even ports, it's just changing the memory map and re-assemble the whole thing, and change some palette (ex: Final fight).

Ghouls'n'Ghosts is exactly the same as the CPS1 version, pixel and sound wise.

the X68000 is using a 68000 @ 16 mhz, a Z80 + a YM 2151, it has the same rotation abilities as the CP boards.....

[dmacon]

Just for the record, when the X68000 was released, a higher up guy at capcom asked to their hardware engineers if they could make a carbon copy of the X68000 as arcade hardware.

It can't be a carbon copy, as the CPS systems use different ASICS, memory layout, and even the register mapping of the CPS custom chips are vastly different from the X68000.

Other important details as VRAM management aside, you simply can not run the same code on both platforms.

From 1990, they made the games on the X68k computers, all the CPS1 game and all the CPS2 games were made on those, until 1995, where they ported the toolchain on Windows PC.

Again, I am not refuting that the X68K was Capcom's development platform (which you seem to be fixating on). I am refuting that the X68K was Capcom's actual hardware platform.

The CPS-1 display 128 sprites more than the 128 that the X68000 can display on screen. However, the X68000 has the same amount of layers than the CPS-1 = 3 independant layers, with a 16bpp support !

Having x-amount of sprites and scrolling tile layers does not make the X68K unique as a gaming platform. This has all been done before previously.

PS : the CPS-1 can only display 3072 colors, while the X68000 can display 65535 in 512x512

Yes, in bitmap mode (a mode which the CPS doesn't have). This is why I wrote CLUT entries. Therefore, in tile based graphics mode (and this is the only mode which matters here), the CPS surpasses the X68000.

It's not even ports, it's just changing the memory map and re-assemble the whole thing, and change some palette (ex: Final fight).

Nope.

As I pointed out earlier, both systems also have vastly different ways of VRAM management. The X68000 needs storage of all tile map, graphics & sprite gfx in VRAM, while the CPS, being a ROM based system, only stores the tile maps and sprite attributes in VRAM.

Simplified: to switch from Cammy to Zangief requires just a single change in the sprite attribute table on the CPS2, while the X68000 requires re-loading all the graphics data by memory copying into the VRAM.

CPS is a different hardware platform, plain and simple, no matter how many video game articles you cite (which is, for sure, a questionable source of information for a developer).

Ghouls'n'Ghosts is exactly the same as the CPS1 version, pixel and sound wise.

Yes, and Vulcan Venture also looks pixel perfect, despite running on a vastly different architecture (Konami even using 2x68000 on the original system).

the X68000 is using a 68000 @ 16 mhz, a Z80 + a YM 2151

The X68000 does not have a Z80, nor is the 68000 clocked at 16MHz (it's 10).

it has the same rotation abilities as the CP boards.....

Wrong again.

What is your point here?