[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
Yeah, "if" is the key word there. And even if they did, SMB3 on NES can do it without a special chipEmerald_Warrior
For a person who admitted before you were not a techhead, you are only also admitting you are just here defending the NES when i am not even attacking it The Super Mario Bros. 3 cartridge uses Nintendo's custom MMC3 (Memory Management Controller) ASIC to enhance the NES capabilities. The MMC3 chip allows for animated tiles, extra RAM for diagonal scrolling, and a scanline timer to split the screen. The game uses these functions to split the game screen into two portions, a playfield on the top and a status bar on the bottom, allowing the top portion to scroll as the character navigates the stage while the bottom portion remains static to display text and other information
SMB.3 used a chip, a lot of good looking NES games used a chip. Anybody else could have and has used chips in carts before to improve machines. The 2600 did it, the N64 did it, the Intellivison did it, the Genesis and SNES did it.All I am saying is that it was not an impressive console, and I also said that for the other two, nothing is being singled out. 3rd gen was 2nd gen systems being released in the U.S. late, and not offering much more imo to what was already there. So i moved on to arcade and Computers, or played the already large libraries other 2nd gen systems had.
I don't need to be a techhead to see the clear differences between 2nd gen games and NES games. I mean we're talking games like Space Invaders, Dig-Dug, Frogger, and Pac-Man vs. games like SMB 3, Crystalis, Metroid, and Castlevania. Hell, most games 2nd gen were static screens or "game boards". It's a very clear difference.
Most late 2nd gen games scrolled, unusually more vertically, your list of games clearly tells me your comparing the 2600 and not late 2nd gen consoles, which the NES is. As i said before your better looking games (barely) mostly around 1988 were done by chips. This can be done on any other console and it was. The SMS used chips to, although it was already better looking at first than at least the ColecoVision, but they never quite got it to get that power yet until later. (Since the SMS was a Colecovision with a better graphics chip, which even Sega themselves admitted) I again, am thinking you are just defending the NES thinking I am attacking it because it's factually not technically impressive at all. The fact is, this is comparing it to Colecovision and the 5200, I am not even comparing it to the other powerful games consoles that costed more and if they were cheaper you would have thrown all three of the 3rd gen consoles in the trash. Actually, there where a few a nice prices that were a bit affordable. Also SMB3 may seem impressive to you of a game, but: 
It's all about the chip and it still does not make it seem that impressive. Throw in a chip, bam, probably will look better from what I am looking at here. 
Log in to comment