SuperDeadite wrote:X68000 can output in 15/24/31. And all of them run at 55htz.
Doesn't seem so, Chohrensha has a 61hz mode in the options, for example. It'd be a bit tragic if every other arcade-to-X68000 port couldn't run at something closer to the usual 60hz. Though somehow it wouldn't be too surprising if there aren't actually many ports that have this option, and therefore (other than rtype) are more flawed than what most people actually use to believe.
Sharp monitors were all basically arcade monitors with a TV tuner.
They are shadow mask type and the scanlines look more like a tiny grid then what
you will see on Sony PVM or the like.
Honestly these days I think a lot of people have forgotten what monitors actually looked like
back then. "Scanlines as wide as your pinky" were never a thing until years later.
Sure, but that was not the discussion here. Let me remind you my question so that we can get back on topic:
SuperDeadite wrote:There is no reason Dracula couldn't have had 15khz if the team behind it wanted to. They chose 31khz as it was the best resolution for the monitors people were using 15" or smaller. Sharp did offer a 20"er, but damn expensive and sold terribly.
I don't follow, sorry. Why was 31khz the best mode for 15'' monitors and 15khz only fine for 20''?
Did you mean to say that, as the monitors were tiny at 15'' and shadow mask type, the people wouldn't notice if the game run at its native resolution instead of linedoubled? !?
As for 030 support, I know of no place that has a confirmed list, the easter egg rumor comes
from an interview with one of the original devs. Forgot the link, but it's around.
The 030 itself is an odd beast of a machine. A few games like Mahou Daisakusen, Geograph Seal really
benefit from an 030, but the list is rather small. For those that really like to tinker and play around with
computers, it can an interesting secondary machine. But for a gamer, it's just a confusing mess lol.
OK, thanks. Even if it is like that, I hope one day a list of X68030-improved titles can be found or made. For documentation. And emulation can solve the annoyances.
While I respect Deadite's extreme amount of knowledge with this obscure computer stuff, his experiences with the 68k version are probably clouding his ability to enjoy the PS1 game, and that's fair.
However, most of us started (and remain, for obvious reasons) on the PS1 version and seem to not have an issue clearing it.
It seems so. But if SuperDeadite's right about the avatar's speed, it's hard not to think that the game is indeed flawed. And, if it's actually a 50 minutes long game no less (can everybody agree on this?), the difficulty should be very well measured - if they altered it that much when the original version was never on the easy side, that's another design flaw (unless it's not really intended for clearing it on one credit like an arcade game - when they put there savepoints, you never know, do you?). So he's right that it should always be mentioned it's a port, and a bad one at that. The Raiden ports for the system also needed to deal with the original 55hz video and Seibu solved it much better, it seems, even if they never were a replacement either.
It'd be nice that this thread could also serve to clarify if the PS1 version added the X68030 improvements, so I'm pasting them here from the interview (the few of those they mention - there're supposedly more than these):
there’s a few sections where some subtle differences will be apparent to new owners of the x68030, like places where the animation is smoother.
—Ah, like the gears in the clock tower, for instance.
Right. Another good example is the fountain. The water in the fountain will flow more quickly depending on the speed of the x68000 processor. The sparkles of flame before that part also look smoother with a faster processor. We paid attention to a lot of little details like that.
*I'm not sure if it's a translation thing, but it doesn't make much sense that just some particular elements on screen get "smoother" - maybe they mean 'with more animation frames', but that'd be a RAM attribution, not a "processor" one.*
