Are you guys still theorizing 'n' speculating about recreating a game for MSX that was technically impressive for Amiga at the time, but plays about as pleasantly as a baseball bat to the nutsack? 
(even the general Amiga fan will admit that much, as it's more like a tech demo than a game)
My two cents: Use all that awesome knowledge to create a game that's actually fun to play. 
Never have seen the back-to-back line spliced screen without any blank lines or artifacts.
That’s totally possible though, I’ve done it and I’ve seen others do it. The horizontal blanking period is 86 pixels / 57 cycles long (94 pixels / 62 cycles when border masking on V9958), plenty to get at least one regular register write in, possibly followed by a quick second write via indirect register access.
(Tried to make a Turrican II-like sky gradient with palette splits. An earlier version had dithering even, but I didn’t like the look of it.)
Also, looks like this turned into another system vs system bitching thread.
I second that.
Use all that awesome knowledge to create a game that's actually fun to play.
And second that too.
I can't see anything productive in bitching about the way the MSX hardware is, while idealizing how other systems are. All systems had their limitations and flaws. There was no perfect 8-bit architecture.
If it's not only for the pleasure of whining, then there are only two possible productive approaches: A V9990 cartridge, or to code for another system that has the desired characteristics. But that the summer love for such systems might not survive the actual hardware reality. 
What I really see on other systems, specially the C64 (and more recently the CPC) is that they're well aware of the system restrictions and take it for granted. They then challenge their brains to produce the best possible outcome under those restrictions.
Are you guys still theorizing 'n' speculating about recreating a game for MSX that was technically impressive for Amiga at the time, but plays about as pleasantly as a baseball bat to the nutsack? (even the general Amiga fan will admit that much, as it's more like a tech demo than a game)
My two cents: Use all that awesome knowledge to create a game that's actually fun to play.
I agree with all of that. But did you know that the 8-bit conversions of the game were actually considered good games on the 8-bit machines? I just read some reviews from the C64, CPC and the Spectrum versions, and they were very glad that the game plays well, even if they had to cut some corners. And unlike the Amiga version, you don't have to load the disk every other screen.
It is telling, though, to see that many people here would rather like to theoretise about porting not-very-good games to the MSX. An outsider (like me) would think these MSX people don't like good games.
Anyway, back to this parallaxing thing, if I wanted do parallax scrolling on the MSX, I'd probably use a lot of pre-calculated tiles. As someone who doesn't have a lot of knowledge of the VDP, I do wonder how easy it is to switch between tile banks (not sure if they are called that here) on both the MSX1 and 2.
I’m always in favour of making new games, really, rather than porting an existing game .
But when just theorizing on the forum, looking at an existing game makes for an easy subject to talk about. And maybe the techniques can be used for something new.
Changing the pattern table base address is simply a register write. Can also be done in a split. On MSX1 I would say the amount of video memory would be the biggest challenge but on MSX2 memory is a non-issue for the tile modes.
