Viewing Thread:
"Gameboy Unadvanced uses Sega Gamegear screens"

Is there any truth in the rumour that the Gameboy Unadvanced uses Sega Gamegear screens which sega flogged off cheap to Nintendo, then again I am not sure if the Sega Gamegear screens are better.

Also who in there right mind wants to play SNES style games from the GBA on there Gamecube as if.

A 486 is basically a lump of unspecialised silicon which approaches all tasks given to it via brute force. Compared with a GBA, this brute force is considerable, but the GBA has specialised chips which give it a great 2D advantage over a 486, and similar 3D power. Sure, if you were to run a prime number generator on a 486 and compared it to a GBA, the 486 would win.

All games machines are effectively a crud processor strapped to a winning graphics card. What's your point? You argued that the raw grunt of a 486 is better than the specialised power of a GBA - you are wrong. 486 games from 1992 looked appalling at the time compared with SNES games, and todays GBA look better than the SNES. Whether you think otherwise is a moot point - you are wrong.

Miserableman wrote:
> You realise those same computers wouldn't have a snowflakes chance in
> hell of running the likes of Metroid Fusion, don't you? PC's that old
> have no 2D horsepower, certainly nothing compared to the GBA.
>
> Are you forgetting that Doom was released on the SNES, and the GBA has
> equivalent or better 3D power than the SNES? Quake may be a bit beyond
> the GBA, but can you imagine playing Quake on a Gameboy?
>
> I don't see why you can't just leave the thing alone. It has quite
> enough power for the rest of us, if it had a Sony sticker on the front
> no doubt you'd be lapping it up.

So, you think Quake is beyond the GBA. Why? I used to run early versions of quake on computers with (by your standards) less power than the GBA.

Next, DOOM. Having seen this running on the PC (the early version) and now again on the GBA, is easy to see that the old PC with the "old" version of DOOM looks 10x better than the GBA version looks now.

As for 2D/3D power, modern computers have accelerated chip sets to speed up 2D/3D tasks. That's a good thing. But you must remember, that in the days of the 486/Mac Quadra, there was no such additional power. The CPU did everything. This then makes the results I saw back then even more impressive, since those "old" computers were not getting any "help" from other hardware.

I knew some 1 would say about running modern games on old computers. I thought this was obvious, and an explanation not required. But anyway, you will never get a 486/Mac Quadra/or similar to run the latest software (games or otherwise). Some of the software requires more Ram than almost all the old computers can even have installed in the box for a start. Point is, a game made in say 1992 worked well enough on a 1992 PC, and it looked far better than todays GBA games on the GBA. If some company now made a really good looking game which in real terms looked like a good PC game from 1992, but for the GBA, it (the GBA) wouldn't be able to handle it.

You realise those same computers wouldn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of running the likes of Metroid Fusion, don't you? PC's that old have no 2D horsepower, certainly nothing compared to the GBA.

Are you forgetting that Doom was released on the SNES, and the GBA has equivalent or better 3D power than the SNES? Quake may be a bit beyond the GBA, but can you imagine playing Quake on a Gameboy?

I don't see why you can't just leave the thing alone. It has quite enough power for the rest of us, if it had a Sony sticker on the front no doubt you'd be lapping it up.

Miserableman wrote:
> I think you'll find you're looking at the past with distinctly
> rose-tinted spectacles. The GBA has enough 2D grunt to demolish any PC
> up to perhaps a Pentium II, and could probably match a top-end 486 for
> 3D power. It's basically a hand-held SNES, with slightly less 2D power
> and slightly more 3D power. What's wrong with that?

No, I think GBA has about half the power you think it has. I did use a 40Mhz 386 PC with 8Mb RAM/120Mb HD/256col card. I also used a Mac LCIII (030/25Mhz/8Mb Ram/80Mb HD/256col card), and a Mac Quadra 800 (040/33Mhz/8Mb Ram/250Mb HD/upto Millions of colours) which is roughly a good 486. The 486's and Mac Quadra ran DOOM, and the early versions of Quake. Also Marathon for the Mac Quadra. Also Wolfienstien worked on them all very well. Only loading times were fairly slow. The Mac LCIII and 386pc ran their respective versions of Wolfienstien best in Med graphic mode (setting within the game). All ran games like SimeCity easily. I can't see the GBA ever reaching this level. As for the early Pentium pc's and Power Mac, the GBA will have to dream on.

Update2.01 wrote:
> JSR? What was all the fuss about?
>
> As for the GBA, I have seen what it actually looks like. I wouldn't
> put my opinion forward in a public forum, if I had not see the thing
> working first. So my point of view is valid. GBA graphics are not up
> to much. Saw the CM2 game on GBA. Nice try, but it's still poor.
> Artificial looking colours & low res. Is it supposed to be a 32bit
> CPU? Well, I remember things like DOOM and the original Civilisation
> game on the PC around 10 years ago. Even a fast 386 pc could smash the
> GBA - seriously! And the Mac too could do it back then - better than
> the GBA. Don't forget at that time, most games ran in only 256cols -
> and it was still better than the GBA!


I think you'll find you're looking at the past with distinctly rose-tinted spectacles. The GBA has enough 2D grunt to demolish any PC up to perhaps a Pentium II, and could probably match a top-end 486 for 3D power. It's basically a hand-held SNES, with slightly less 2D power and slightly more 3D power. What's wrong with that?

The fact is the graphics can't be amazing, you can't fit many pixels in such a small screen. Plus, once you've seen games like Golden Sun and Doom, then you'll see how the GBA can look.

JSR? What was all the fuss about?

As for the GBA, I have seen what it actually looks like. I wouldn't put my opinion forward in a public forum, if I had not see the thing working first. So my point of view is valid. GBA graphics are not up to much. Saw the CM2 game on GBA. Nice try, but it's still poor. Artificial looking colours & low res. Is it supposed to be a 32bit CPU? Well, I remember things like DOOM and the original Civilisation game on the PC around 10 years ago. Even a fast 386 pc could smash the GBA - seriously! And the Mac too could do it back then - better than the GBA. Don't forget at that time, most games ran in only 256cols - and it was still better than the GBA!

So how old is Top Score?

Sounds a lot like Techno Freak!

I'm gonna guess 13...

Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Who popped this crap to the top?

Flebu did it.

Like an ant colony, they will consume everything with sheer numbers.