Again, again, why assume that a game with better gfx is de facto a game with worse playability? Yes, a great msx1 game can beat a crap msx2 game. How about a great msx1 game vs a great msx2 game? Let's for instance stick to genres and subjects in which I can mention one perfect example: which one looks better and has better playability: The Cure or Vampire Killer?

KVII MSX1 or MSX2 version, which is "better" ?

KV2-msx2

gfx

Wolf,
no I dont mean that better gfx is equal to worse playability (that's why I quoted Space Manbow)
I've just finished playing The cure and Vampire Killer ,
I stopped at stage 2 on both games for comparison,

Vampire Killer (screen 5) has better Gfx , is smoother and faster,
but The cure (screen 2) is a good and playable game too!, (by the way ,I liked the floor overcrowded with skeletons)

I Understand what you imply,I agree with you, Vampire Killer wins.
But considering V9938 versus tms9129 I rank Vampire killer 100% and the Cure 90%.

I cant go deeper into the discussion because english is not my language
and I ' m afraid I could be misunderstood

Quote:

KVII MSX1 or MSX2 version, which is "better" ?

Talking about playability, MSX1 version is faster and smoother (run the MSX2 version on a TR at R800 mode to get the same speed & smoothness).

Talking about GFX... if you compare the GFX themselves, MSX2 ones are better... but taking into consideration the limitations of each machine, MSX1 GFX are far more impressive than MSX2 ones.

So I thing MSX1 version should be declared the 'better version'.

Quote:

Vampire Killer (screen 5) has better Gfx , is smoother and faster, but The cure (screen 2) is a good and playable game too!, (by the way ,I liked the floor overcrowded with skeletons)

About speed and smoothness... if we talk about player control, I think 'The Cure' is far more better than VK... about enemies at 'The Cure' , they're moving 8x8, of course (the pattern based).

I think there is a whole other side to the discussion that is more important that this one, the point of competition. Certain limits change the competition more than others. If you look at what's best for the competition as a whole, then you would probably want to limit the amount of space for ROM and RAM because those affect the possibilities the most. If you only allow 32KB ROM and 8KB RAM, then you can't just make a standard game with lots of content (something like we did with mjtt). It means that you need to put more effort into game design instead. Which will probably attract more developers that otherwise have reservations against competing with the larger projects. In that concept the whole hardware discussion becomes an irrelevant issue because making a better msx2 game in 32K will still be down to game design and not the additional graphical capabilities. The same goes for other extensions.

A 32k game for msx2 could imply the need to resort to extreme compression schema's or even worst, to avoid the use of bitmap modes, as tile set graphic tends to be more compact....

Or, given some precalc time, script-based gfx.., just like there are texture generators on PC.

Well. I guess that SCREEN 4 is not that far from SCREEN 2, isn't it? It only requires a bit more of space for coloured sprites and palette definition, if used. And that is not a bad deal if you can, on the other hand, have coloured sprites and 8 in a row.

But I totally agree: MSX1 rulez! (I don't know if this was the topic, but for me it is always the same topic)