If you really want to prove this, do so with technical details - GIFS are a comparison piece but not a technical piece. If you are going to call Zool a good example of the N64 doing poor sprite scaling, show how and why. What's the technical limitation, if any?
I've done this multiple times in the thread. You either aren't reading it as you imply or are being selective in what you are reading to come to this conclusion. I've explain the sprites and the capabilities and what each console can do well or not using those gifs clearly as an example as well (with their own bullet points) so in the best case scenario you are being disingenuous.
Being rude shows how weak your arguments are.
You do a lot of projecting. Guess you think people can't read. But I guess you have to get out such a poor argument, but I'll try once more to simplify my examples and explain this to you below one more time.
there is no way a board based on a modern (at the time) 100mhz CPU is less capable than a board based on a measly 68020 CPU at 16 Mhz
Variation aside you have no idea what you're talking about, how hard to I have to downgrade my examples until you actually get how this works? Outside of what Ki does to show off, that arcade machine can't do anything that the Super Chase machine can do NOTHING. it can't spin the sprites based on angle at that speed, it can't do all the sprite tricks, it can't have the draw distance, it can't have allt he effects, and do what it can with objects and backgrounds, it can't do any of that because the machine doesn't have the capability to do so and when playing a Sprite based games, the latter is going to be more impressive, and it is.
Let me tell you how poorly uneducated and thought out your position is with an even more simple example you can't possibly dispute.
Let's look at 2 gaming capable systems for this example, the Sega Mega Drive and the any manufacture of the CD-I devices.
This is you're argument, you are saying that because the CD-i players have hardware that is more modern and in someway more powerful than that Mega Drive, than it i more capable with sprites. This is the argument you are making just with different hardware but it's the same argument.
The CD-I let's call them consoles, can produce a much more colorful, brighter, more detailed, and larger sprite easier than the Mega Drive.
However, the CD-I's capabilities with sprites
stopes there. In certain games the quality of the sprites drops in real time, in fact for games with this advantage specifically the console can't actually move sprites fast at all. Something as simple as Sonic running, then jumping which is followed by a sprite change into a fast spinning ball, and an instinct change back to a standing run on ground impact, with momentum, is not possible on the CD-i. Yes, something that simple.
There would be a
delay in between those frame changes and the animations would be slower OR, a graphical downgrade would have to be implemented (still at a slower speed just no delay) in order to achieve this, and most likely those animated background objects in the level may have to me removed and some being unanimated, or cutting the frame rate down.
The Mega Drive has impressive games, but
even Sonic 1 is too much for the CD-I the bonus stage with the rotating blocks, the trippy background, the flashing, the CD-I cannot do any of that. When you look at some of the better space shooters they have ships doing all kinds of cool things, with many of them on screen, lasers everywhere, cool background and animation effects, waves and parallax in the background, same with the more impressive action games and platforms, and the CD-I can do none of it.
Vectorman performing as it does, with all the cool stuff it does that impressed people who owned a Mega Drive, not possible.
Things get even worse for the CD-I wit the Sega CD, an addon that uses a weaker format who's technology is dependent on the Mega Drive as the base. The shit you can do with backgrounds, sprites, and objects in non-FMV Sega CD games is not feasible with CD-I.
But even with all this technically, the CD-I
is more powerful. It can create better simple sprites and in some cases static backgrounds, but if it tries to push its capabilities the limitations show up, sometimes resulting in worse looking games. At best this makes for great first impressions while playing and screenshots in magazines until you play for more than 5 minutes and then realize the hardware is a disaster
despite being more powerful.
Power has nothing to do with capability. You have to be able to do better than what the weaker hardware can do or you end up with a less fluid looking, simpler, more limited experience usually at a lower frame rate with poor animation and incapable of doing even the most basic techniques.
This goes back to the Jaguar and N64, the N64 CAN produce better screenshot in magazine quality sprites, but it's less impressive, it can't do much with them or sprite backgrounds (which barely any games have). Another thing you are neglecting is the Jaguar, like the Saturn actually
has hardware support for sprites, the N64 nor the PS1 are the Dreamcast they don't have enough raw power to make up the difference all these consoles are in the same range but only 2 had ever aimed for high fidelity 2D sprites during development, the PS1 isn't even double the strength of the 3DO, (but it was enough to improve the frame rates thank goodness and add better, though messier, texture mapping and higher count polygons) and you are here trying to act as if both the N64 and the PS1 can outdo a console fomr the same gen that actually has hardware for sprites? You must be joking?
The PS1 is a 3D system with limited sprite capability because like 3DO it wasn't made for it, though has enough power over 3DO to play the same 2D games at a higher frame rate, but has to use resources to create "fake" sprites using the 3D engine which back then was a liability because of how early it still was for 3D gaming on consoles, it took up resources that the PS1 couldn't afford to lose which is why any complex sprite 2D is significantly better in capability and performance on the Saturn. If it's simpler the gap is smaller (the Mega Man games) otherwise it's always one direction wins for the Saturn unless the developers are lazy or some other reason not hardware related pops up. The N64
is even worse in that regard which is why nearly all it's games that even have sprites need other features in order to perform well (to N64 standards) if they try to do anything more than the basics.
The Atari jaguar in contrast, most of the time generates polygons through an engine & tools that are made for 2D to create 3D (RISCS are often underutilized), and technically doesn't even have dedicated hardware for decent 3D acceleration. While it has Z buffer and can do Gouraud shading it has no geometry support. The Jaguar has problems with rendering polygons and often has processors competing for access to the bus, along with cycling issues.
But with sprites the jaguar doesn't have similar problems. It's also something Atari has always been good at compared to the competition in sprites, outside the 2600 this is true for every gaming device and computer they put out, except ST computers before the Falcon. Not only is the Jaguar architecture optimized for sprite capability it also has specific processors to help with enhancing the 2D experience and controlling the sprites which the PS1 and N64 do not have, this is also true for the Saturn which was aiming higher and
has even support for sprites, not to mention VDP2.
It shouldn't be a surprise the sprites are better on consoles that were dedicated to the craft than the ones that weren't. Now if you are talking about 2.5D where you have polygons instead of sprites, Kirby 64, or limited sprites, the Jaguar will be worse, but if the playfield is all sprite or nearly so, the Jaguar is better than all of them except the Saturn because of hardware specializing in the it's sprite capabilities..
What's more is
no one here with basic knowledge is going to say the Neo Geo is more capable than the Saturn at sprites, they know WHY the some Neo geo games have problems being ported over
including you, they and you know
it has nothing to do with capability but because of the RAM and how it works with the rom size. one user made an incredibly dumb argument about the Neo geo CD having 7mb proved the disc drive was the problem, ignoring that the Saturn has a 2X drive not 1x. Look at what games run with the 4MB EXTERNAL expansion and hw close they are to fixing the issue, now imagine it has another 3MB or 4MB more? Those games would likely be perfect, but that's got nothing to do with the fact that the Saturn can do thing with sprites in Pseudo 3D games that the Neo Geo would overheat trying to handle. Everyone knows this. But even if the disc drive is the problem, than that argument still rules out the Neo Geo being more capable with sprites, the argument is based on unrelated technology. The Neo Geo is not going to fold, bend spin, and flip the sprites with a rotating background with a flag effect with 5 layers of parallax like the Saturn. No one will deny this.
But for some reason when it's the Jaguar, common sense is out to lunch. (granted You specifically already admitted (but then tried to take back) that the Jaguar is more capable with 2D sprites than the Neo geo so there you go)
PS1 is not going to be able to beat that generations dedicated 2D hardware or the N64 it's not possible, they are both in the same generation and are in the same range of power as all the other consoles the world gave a minimum crap about. They can't produce the same results trying to simulate 2D with a 3D engine which takes enough resources as is.
As I shared with the CD-I example, they can both produce some great stills and maybe with limited motion seem as if they are more impressive until you realize that's just not the case. As shown pages ago the PS1 struggles with number of sprites on the screen, draw distance, half the frame rate, and worse muddy graphics in Night Striker, compared to the Saturn version, in a basic scaler, I'm talkin about marginally better than Space Harrier which the Jaguar has 3 examples better of just in the OP, the other scaler game on PS1 is even worse and attempts to cram more in, while Saturn Night striker has more buildings much faster sprites, more enemies on screen, and 60fps. We have already seen the Jaguar produce larger sprites at a much higher speed with smoothness and can move objects faster. Saying that "the gifs are 30fps" is a cop out, you now the names of the games, the gifs themselves still show the differences but you can always look up the videos, don't be dishonest as if you can't just type the name on youtube and see the games at their native frame rates yourself. All the gifs are accurate presentations
and you damn well know it.
These are the same advantage that the Mega Drive has over the CD-I despite there being more GENERAL raw power in the CD-I console. Means nothing in the end unless that power is a generation or two ahead, and none of the consoles had that in raw power that generation (some say pippin but I have doubts about that).
So unless you have an argument about how the CD-I has more impressive sprite games and backgrounds despite all the limitations it has I mentioned above, along with a lack of background support (unless it's video) compared to the Mega Drive
(you don't) then you don't have much of a reason to keep going because that is what you are arguing just with a different set of hardware.
No one in their right mind is going to say that the CD-I is more capable in what can be done with sprites than the Mega Drive. Everyone knows it can produce a better sprite based game.
Now when it comes to colors, certain animation techniques using the CD-I disc storage, FMV, video objects, yes the CD-I is better. Even the Zelda games while not the best the console has to offer, looks great and the media screenshots were jaw dropping to many people, and has nice CD audio too, but in reality even Bubsy has more going on with sprites than any sprite game on the CD-i, and at 3X the speed.
So why change the rules after the CD-I? Doesn't make sense.
Even the 3DO can produce better looking simple sprites using the power of it's entire hardware since t's overall more pwoerful, and can put something that looks great in a magazine, but then you play them and
find that many are 30FPS or less, lacking fluidity, and the 3DO can't really do much in the way of sprite tricks and fast sprite movement.
I will give it credit for what it managed to do with Samurai showdown and some parts of Gex, even the scaling in the Sailor Moon fighter, though that game dips in the frame fate and those sprites barely do anything, but to say that the 3DO using your argument, would be more capable of 2D sprite gaming because it's overall more powerful with it's hardware is just lolworthy at best. All these consoles are in the same generation, Jag and Saturn were both originally targeting lower level 3D, limited texture mapping, flat polygons that were smooth and fluid, Gouraud shading and had more of a focus on next generation 2D (for consoles)
Of course Sega had made some changes to the Saturn to increase to better compere in 3D, though it turns out they couldn't afford to do that, at least they were able to as Atari didn't have the money to do that, and their hubris made them think that had some super man console for 3D anyway, stopping them from even considering doing the same thing. Both were developed
to match early 90's sprite arcade hardware, Atari being earlier in development targeting a lower benchmark than Sega, and had capabilities to meet that in kind.
The PS1 and N64 do not, don't have sprite hardware, and have to waste resources to imitate what the Sprite hardware for the Saturn and Jaguar can do for free or with less resources. The only consoles that would be powerful enough to be better than both Saturn and jaguar with sprites just on raw power alone is the Dreamcast. Some people say the Pippin too but I have doubts about that. You can see this with the Mega Man games, the Saturn version is better but the gap isn't huge, but the Saturn is also barely using horsepower but the PS1 is. The sprites in these games can work on the SNES and did (rockman and Forte) as all the Mega Man "32-bit" sprite games have sprites that aren't beyond what MD/SNES can do, the element that can are the colorful and uncompressed Jpgs that make up everything around the sprites and the backgrounds (and in X6 some of the environmental effects), Video objects and backgrounds, and FMV cutscenes which are the result of the large storage on CDs (except the X6 environmental effects) otherwise all the sprite related technology is no greater than on the SNES (outside slightly better res) and we have seen that sprite engine run on the SNES. The PS1's weaknesses are shown off here, if Capcom really tried the gap between the Saturn and PS1 versions of the shared Mega Man games would be much larger as seen with other more complex sprite games. X4 and MM8 have moments of slowdown that the Saturn version does not have among other weaknesses.
So going back to the Killer Instinct arcade machine, it's made to make sprites look pretty and epic, not to be technically impressive, and it shows, because Super Chase isn't the only game using the hardware or variations of the hardware, and all the same advantages are present. All look more impressive than a MK/SF rip off made specifically to have visual appeal in the arcades.
Again, unless you have an argument about how the CD-I has more impressive sprite games and backgrounds despite all the limitations it has I mentioned above, along with a lack of background support (unless it's video) compared to the Mega Drive
(you don't) then you don't have much of a reason to keep going because that is what you are arguing, just substituting with arcade hardware, and Jaguar vs. PS1/N64 (both of which don't have dedicated sprite flexibility support, the latter needing to use other features to have something look presentable since it can't handle an all sprite playfield well) like the other 3), and if that's what you're argument is going to be y
ou may as well also argue that the N64 has better 2D capabilities than the Saturn.
But then you won't go that far because you know the argument is poor. s demonstrated with the arcade hardware examples, the CD-I vs Mega Drive example, and so on. I know you are aware of this, no reason to pretend you are not.
