Consoles vs. PC:

>>4150962
>Compares a console game to a PC game that came out two years prior
>"Woah, it looks so primitive compared to the newer game!"
I look forward to you discovering that games on the SNES tended to have better graphics than games on the NES.

>>4150978

The Famicom is 1983 tech midn you. The comparison between Xanadu and Faxanadu is interesting since Faxanadu is the spin off of Xanadu.

If you want same year comparison, Super Mario Bros came out in 1985 as well. But that's so obvious I didn't bother mentioning it.

>>4150962
This is a PC game from 1988
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ID6OSrLHuw

This is a PC game from 1990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfVXc4D8bec

>>4151047
Totally different hardware, but alright.

Keep in mind that Xanadu allowed scrolling in all directions while SMB was restricted to scrolling to the right.
The gameplay is hardly primitive for 1985. Faxanadu is nothing in comparison since they cut out and simplified almost everything.

>>4151002
The PC88 came out in 81 and the main advantage is had over the Famicom was RAM and storage media.

>>4151670
What was the deal with scrolling? Why did some PC88 games completely lack scrolling but Thexder pulled it off just fine?

>>4151672
Is there anything surprising about that? Even on the Famicom it ends up all over the place.
It depended on the programmer's skill and the demands of the game.

>>4151053
That's my point though.

>>4150962
PC-88 wasn't a PC, it was an old home computer. PCs were shit at games, home computers were not.

>>4151985
PC88 was pretty useless for sprite based games and had originally had no sound beyond a beeper.
It was an office machine that mainly got adapted for games because it was common and its main genres were adventures, sims and RPGs, suitable for its capabilities and the more mature user base.
You can't compare it to a C64 or similar which were mainly toys.

File: 9801xanadu.png (19KB, 324x198px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 324x198px

>>4151002
>The Famicom is 1983 tech midn you.
You must be pretending to be stupid on purpose. Faxanadu is using the MMC1, so it's not running off of the base NES specs. The console doesn't need to run an OS or drivers either. And why not use pictures from Revival Xanadu which came out in 85 as well? Pic related. Nope, you chose the poorest graphical version.

If you were really interested in having a discussion about the subject, you would pick a multiplat game that was released on console and PC the same year and compare those. Instead you have cherry picked shit to support your argument.

>>4152321
>Revival Xanadu which came out in 85 as well?
It came out in 95. The PC98 version from 85 is more or less identical to the PC88 one, maybe a bit smoother do to the stronger CPU. You generally won't find many PC98 games from the 80s with 640x400 graphics and 16 out of 4096 colors.
Maybe the contemporary X1 version had better scrolling since the hardware supported it.
Another notable thing is that the MSX1 cartridge version is considered the best of the bunch despite having the weakest hardware platform.

>The console doesn't need to run an OS or drivers either.
Neither do those old computers. Even DOS is pretty barebone.

>>4151672
>Why did some PC88 games completely lack scrolling but Thexder pulled it off just fine?
>Thexder pulled it off just fine

My sides.

>>4152428
Explain.

>>4152428
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVfRGsfnI_c
You see the video there, it scrolls FINE the framerate is just a bit low

>>4150962
>It was not until 1990 when Commander Keen released for the PC that a side scroller could achieve scrolling as smooth as the Famicom.
Well that's clearly wrong. A PC game from 1987:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kE5Xg2vRVTo

>>4152335
>>The console doesn't need to run an OS or drivers either.
>Neither do those old computers. Even DOS is pretty barebone.
Oh, I was wondering why you weren't making sense.

>>4152819
Don't waste your time, this one is full blown stupid.

>>4152967
What kind of OS do you think the PC88 runs?

>>4152819
this one's pretty impressive tbqh

>>4153409
That's because the Sharp X68000 was basically a Capcom CPS1 board in computer form.

>>4153410
The X68000 came out before the CPSystem.

>>4153417
I heard the Capcom devs chose the X68k as a development kit due to its similarity with the CPS

File: firefox_2017-07-28_22-23-09.png (32KB, 1068x195px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1068x195px

>>4153428

>>4153440
You should take anything on Wikipedia with a grain of salt and check the sources yourself.
English language coverage of these things is typically rather spotty and speculative.

>>4153447
I don't know man, the X68k Final Fight port seem pretty damn accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ALSGIj4odU

>>4150962
>Famicom is still 1983 hardware.
While that specific configuration of hardware may be a 1983 product, it's made up of 1970's hardware.

File: Capcom R&D room where Street Fighter 2 coin-op was created.png (1MB, 743x585px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 743x585px

>>4153492
Does that mean that Wikipedia articles aren't pure fanboyism?
I tried searching for CPシステム and x68000 on Japanese Google and only got English links claiming that connection.
If you look at this picture from Capcom's offices you'll see a lot of NEC systems and not a whole lot of X68000 twin towers.

>>4151672
Hardware vs. Software literally.

Anyone tried the Super Mario Bros Special challenge? The Challenge being to actually complete the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txcEMPakkPg