/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.1681579]

First of all, don't freak out or flame the balls off of me, but I'm legitimately curious. Is there any way to improve Starfox SNES by altering any settings on emulators?

Would altering the refresh rate even do anything?

I'm not seeing any reason to play the SNES version over the N64 one.

[Anonymous No.1681608]

On some emulators you can overclock the Super FX chip and I think that actually improves the game.

[Anonymous No.1681623]

>>1681608
This. The actual cart of Starfox has too slow a PROM to handle the FX chip running at an acceptable frequency/framerate. One case of the actual hardware being inferior to emulation and emulation more accurately representing the developers intentions.

Scuttlebutt is that SD2SNES will be able to do it eventually but nothing so far.

[Anonymous No.1681658]

>>1681579
>Is there any way to improve Starfox SNES by altering any settings on emulators?
No.

>I'm not seeing any reason to play the SNES version over the N64 one
It's not a version, it's an entirely different game. Both are very worth playing.

>>1681608
>>1681623
>I think that actually improves the game
>One case of the actual hardware being inferior to emulation and emulation more accurately representing the developers intentions
Wrong.
Overclocking doesn't JUST up the framerate, it increases the game speed significantly and makes it stupid hard to the point of being unplayable on level 2 and 3. Music won't synch up properly either.
Star Fox was very meticulously designed around the low framerate you'd get normally. Speeding it up fucks it up pretty bad.

What Star Fox needs is a proper remake with a modern resolution, 60 fps but maintaining the current game speed, respectable draw distance, etc.

[Anonymous No.1681662]

>>1681658
>What Star Fox needs is a proper remake with a modern resolution, 60 fps but maintaining the current game speed, respectable draw distance, etc.

This is exactly what made me so mad about Wario Ware Smooth Moves.

They know.

[Anonymous No.1681687]

>>1681658
Wat? All those videos on youtube with the OCed carts look doable and the game itself doesn't look any faster than 64.

[Anonymous No.1681725]

>>1681687
I've only ever seen overclocking videos show the very first stage on level 1 (the easy path).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLcw3O7aTgo
Speed like this on a level 3 stage like Sector Z is retarded. It's more than hard enough at normal speed.

[Anonymous No.1681751]

>>1681579
Whether it's an "improvement" is up for debate but I've played overclocked Starfox in ZSNES. I didn't even mess with any settings, I just loaded Starfox one day and it was superspeed. I meant to explore the settings to see if it I had something turned on/off I wasn't aware of or if the emulator just doesn't do SuperFX correctly, but I didn't. It's certainly an interesting and possibly very fun experience, give it a shot.

[Anonymous No.1681758]

>>1681658

Yeah - I should give Starfox another try. But jeez, the SNES Starfox just really chugs along. It might be because when i was a kid I never heard of Starfox until N64.

[Anonymous No.1681805]

>>1681751
Yeah, ZSNES used to (maybe still does) run Star Fox at overclocking speed. I think it was just a flaw with the emulation rather than anything intentional.

[Anonymous No.1681814]

>>1681805
It was fixed in a later version, I remember that much. I still keep an older version just to play Star Fox on it.

[Anonymous No.1682310]

SNES9x-Next has an option to overclock SuperFX up to 100mhz

[Anonymous No.1683095]

>>1681579
>Is there any way to improve Starfox SNES by altering any settings on emulators?
Nope.

[Anonymous No.1683332]

>>1681579
>I'm not seeing any reason to play the SNES version over the N64 one

Better voice acting.

[Anonymous No.1683387]

I can kind of see why someone who grew up with post-5th gen games would be under the impression that all games with slow framerates are supposed to be faster than the hardware is allowing it to be, because nowadays it's feasible to keep most things at 60fps, and if a game is slower than that, it's more often than not a PC game that needs better hardware than the machine it's being played on.

However, at the time, this was really pushing the hardware, and the developers knew that. They knew what kind of framerate the game had, and they designed it to be played at that speed. If they could have made the game run more smoothly, they totally would have, but they knew it wasn't going to happen and that people were going to be playing it at a slow but consistent framerate, so they made the game in a way that is best played at that speed.

If you overclock with an emulator, it's not going to render the game at the same speed with more frames, but it's going to make the whole game go faster to increase the framerate. Assuming the game normally runs at 20fps and you're playing it at 60, you would have 1/3 of a second to react to something that would normally give you a whole second, which is kind of a big deal in Starfox, not to mention that your controls would be more erratic and jerky because your ship moves three times as far in any given direction than it's supposed to, and your boost/brakes run out three times as fast, requiring three times the precision.

If you're a bad enough dude, go for it. If you can beat the hard path like that, I'd be impressed as fuck, but if you're going to play the game in fast forward, don't judge the it for broken mechanics or impossible expectations of your reaction time.

[Anonymous No.1683396]

>>1683387

What's a matter, can't handle all that fuckin' g-force brah?

[Anonymous No.1683436]

>>1681658
>Wrong. Overclocking doesn't JUST up the framerate, it increases the game speed significantly and makes it stupid hard to the point of being unplayable on level 2 and 3. Music won't synch up properly either. Star Fox was very meticulously designed around the low framerate you'd get normally. Speeding it up fucks it up pretty bad.

I'm pretty sure this is not true. Those videos you see of the game playing too fast were from people using fucking ZSNES, whose shit timing caused the speed problems, not any real or emulated overclock.

[Anonymous No.1683442]

>>1683436
Nope.
This is the game being overclocked on actual hardware: >>1681725
You always get faster speed, not just more frames per second.

[Anonymous No.1683461]

>>1683442
Never mind, then.
How high can you overclock a SuperFX until it becomes unstable?
If you could overclock it far enough to hit a steady 60FPS, you could do a romhack that scales all the game's speed values by 1/3rd and get a version of the game that plays at roughly the same speed of the original, but at 60FPS.

[Anonymous No.1683470]

Dude SuperFX games are not that hard or fast. If you think speeding them makes them too hard to be worth the smoother frame rate you need to git gud. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.1683480]

>>1683461
Well, another thing is that even overclocking you still get serious slowdown in certain instances.
There are still moments where the framerate dips down to what looks like single digit fps, like when all these pillars appear here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRm3gFikDBI&t=17m45s
Over clocking increases the framerate overall, but it also makes the framerate more uneven. The jump from full speed to slowdown and back again is much greater and much more noticeable.

>>1683470
It doesn't make things smoother though, just faster. You get more frames per second, but there is still just as much of a jump in movement from one frame to the next regardless.
And I'm sure I could learn to play something like DoDonPachi at 2x speed, but I wouldn't want to, because that's just stupid. It was designed for the speed at which it runs. It doesn't mean I need to "git gud". Stop being dumb.

[Anonymous No.1683626]

Why bother? The first star fox is old and busted at this point, and anyone who says otherwise is wearing some serious nostalgia goggles.

[Anonymous No.1683669]

>>1683626
SNES Starfox is the best Starfox. It's not nostalgia goggles. It's more of a challenge, there are more levels, there are no "all range mode" levels, the flat shaded polygons are more aesthetically pleasing than the blurry N64 textures. The goal-based paths, the homing laser, and the tank/blue marine were cool, but seriously, to say SNES Starfox is garbage because the sequel is slightly more visually similar to real life is just silly.

[Anonymous No.1683735]

>>1683669
I don't actually care about the graphics at all. but come on. a flying game that uses a d-pad is pretty fucking antiquated.

[Anonymous No.1683738]

>>1683626
Why bother playing old games? The SNES is old and busted at this point, and anyone who says otherwise is wearing some serious nostalgia goggles.

[Anonymous No.1683761]

>>1683738
Because some games (platformers, turn-based rpgs) have aged far better than others (early 3d efforts, mario paint.)

[Anonymous No.1683778]

>>1683738
geez guy, save some butthurt for the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.1683887]

>>1683761
I hate RPGs and sincerely enjoy early 3D games. Wanna fight about it, or can you just accept that different people like different things?

[Anonymous No.1683901]

>>1683669
But that's not the reason of why i like 64 Star Fox better, it's just because i think it's an overall more polished game, every stage feels very different from each other, the anologue control is pretty good, the frame rate is much better etc. Star Fox for SNES is still a good game, but the frame rate for me is a bit messy.

[Anonymous No.1683907]

>>1683738
Not him but come on, i understand his point, i rather play good frame rate action games like Axelay or Cybernator to Star Fox.

[Anonymous No.1683932]

>>1683907
And I don't.
I love the original Star Fox (not nostalgia, I didn't get to play it until a few years ago) and dislike Axelay and Cybernator (Axelay in particular is a slow, boring shmup that only has some fancy graphics effects going for it. SNESfags just loved it because their system had so few shmups compared to the Genny and PC-Engine). So, who cares?

My point is that you guys are being fucking ridiculous, saying something is too dated or "busted" on a fucking BOARD ABOUT OLD VIDEO GAMES.

[Anonymous No.1684312]

>>1683761
Games do not age. they are the same as they always were. Star Fox has the same framerate now that it always did, and old RPGs have as much filler now as they always did. Nothing has changed over time except maybe your personal preferences, which you absolutely cannot assume all people share, and which is exactly what you are doing when you say that certain games have "aged" better than others.

[Anonymous No.1684317]

>>1684312

Mechanics appear outdated when compared to current standards making games made before those standards were common seem aged.

Yeah sure the data on the cart is the same, but the games we are comparing them to are very different.

Not that I have any opinion on Starfox SNES, I haven't played it yet.

[Anonymous No.1684338]

>>1684317
>Mechanics appear outdated when compared to current standards making games made before those standards were common seem aged.
But that's only YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE, which you cannot assume other people share.
Plenty of people have no problem with things like Resident Evil's tank controls or fixed camera angles, even if they didn't grow up with the game. They may even consider it better than some alternative, like RE4's over the shoulder view.
This guy >>1683932 didn't play the original Star Fox until a few years ago and evidently had no problem, or not enough of a problem, with its technical shortcomings, using a d-pad for movement, etc. to keep him from loving the game. I'm in more or less the same boat. I didn't play the original Star Fox until 2010, and I now prefer it to 64 which I grew up with.
You personally may believe some mechanic to be outdated or clunky, but someone else could have absolutely no issue with it, or even prefer it to more modern approaches. It's all just opinion. Saying some piece of media has "aged" is a lazy way of stating your opinion as though it were fact.

[Anonymous No.1684352]

Someone should make a StarFox campaign on the Freespace 2 Open engine, probably wouldn't even be that hard with the mission editor. They already made a Battlestar Galactica and Wing Commander game from it

[Anonymous No.1684398]

>>1683932
I LOVE old video games. I own a genesis w/sega cd attachment, a snes, a nes and a fucking 3do to name a few. I play them all the time. even still, I was scrolling through /vr/ and thought "holy shit, people still like that?"

And it's true, people have their own opinions. but it's not just the style of games. I still love f-zero and mariokart which are action oriented, I love 2d shmups. I love later flying games. but starfox snes is just as broken as this shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dds-gCCj-UI

[Anonymous No.1684410]

>>1681579

Overclock the SFX chip.

Snes9x-Next libretro in RetroArch allows for this. You can get 60fps in this. Original ran at like 12 or whatever.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/91sakv0qdyxjx9f/cGOfV7ZOKd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOU2GikRRY8

[Anonymous No.1684414]

>>1684410
>>1682310

>Retroarch

Good goy.

[Anonymous No.1684434]

Whats the real difference between and deal with frame rates? I can't see any difference whether im running something at as long as it ain't like 4. Like, at 60fps, does Slippy start giving you a blow job? Even wiith all those high fps N64 games, I can't really see z difference.

[Anonymous No.1684509]

>>1684434

You CANNOT see the difference between frame rates you're saying?

Look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOU2GikRRY8

StarFox is some pitiful 12-20 fps game. The difference is huge.

You can totally tell the difference with lower frame rate games. I played Bayonetta on the PS3. Something was "off" about it. The movement was jerky. Then I played it at 60fps. "ah. That's what it was".

[Anonymous No.1684547]

>>1684509
All you showed me was something normal, and then something fast forwarded with distorted sound. I'm talking about pure frames per second.

[Anonymous No.1684601]

>>1684547

It's 60fps. It is additionally sped up, but by only 30%.

[Anonymous No.1684635]

>>1683932
> (Axelay in particular is a slow, boring shmup that only has some fancy graphics effects going for it. SNESfags just loved it because their system had so few shmups compared to the Genny and PC-Engine). So, who cares?
>implying
I'm more of a genesis fan and i loved Axelay, indeed i wish they rid off the pseudo-mode 7 stages, being a complete horizontal game, because that way it would be easily on par with games like TF4.

And no, i never liked Star Fox a lot too begin with,my position isn't that it's "dated", it was just never that good, but it impressed at the time because of the 3D so it added to the value of the game.

[Anonymous No.1684648]

> (Axelay in particular is a slow, boring shmup that only has some fancy graphics effects going for it. SNESfags just loved it because their system had so few shmups compared to the Genny and PC-Engine). So, who cares?
>implying
I'm more of a genesis fan and i loved Axelay, indeed i wish they rid off the pseudo-mode 7 stages, being a complete horizontal game, because that way it would be easily on par with games like TF4.

The game you mean is Space Megaforce, because that game is actually slow and boring (and somewhat overrated), Axelay is challenging and filled with great action and graphics.

And no, i never liked Star Fox a lot too begin with,my position isn't that it's "dated", it was just never that good, but it impressed at the time because of the 3D so it added to the value of the game.

[Anonymous No.1684651]

>>1683932
> (Axelay in particular is a slow, boring shmup that only has some fancy graphics effects going for it. SNESfags just loved it because their system had so few shmups compared to the Genny and PC-Engine). So, who cares?
>implying
I'm more of a genesis fan and i loved Axelay, indeed i wish they rid off the pseudo-mode 7 stages, being a complete horizontal game, because that way it would be easily on par with games like TF4.

The game you mean is Space Megaforce, because that game is actually slow and boring (and somewhat overrated), Axelay is challenging and filled with great action and graphics.

And no, i never liked Star Fox a lot too begin with, my position isn't that it's "dated", it was just never that good, but it impressed at the time because of the 3D so it added to the value of the game.

[Anonymous No.1684656]

>>1683480
>It doesn't make things smoother though, just faster. You get more frames per second, but there is still just as much of a jump in movement from one frame to the next regardless.
I don't think you grasp how human beings perceive motion.

[Anonymous No.1684691]

>>1681658
>What Star Fox needs is a proper remake with a modern resolution, 60 fps but maintaining the current game speed, respectable draw distance, etc.

Oh god this. Also for Stunt Race FX and Vortex as well.

[Anonymous No.1684706]

>>1684656
I do. The motions themselves are not made any more smooth. Things are exactly as jerky, everything is just sped up.
Would you be impressed if I took this gif of Mario, made each frame last a third as long, and told you I'd made it much smoother? Would this honestly be convincing to you?

[Anonymous No.1684707]

>>1684651
They're both pretty slow and boring (gameplay wise), though Space Megaforce is much more so due to it being a Compile game.

[Anonymous No.1684724]

>>1684707
>Space Megaforce

SUPER ALESTE looks and plays better than any other Genesis shooter. I suppose the stupidly generic name it was given for its US release is why many don't remember it on this board.

[Anonymous No.1684727]

>>1684724
>SUPER ALESTE looks and plays better than any other Genesis shooter.
No it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.1684737]

>>1684727
Name these Genesis games that look and play better than Super Aleste.

[Anonymous No.1684741]

>>1684737
Name a singe way in which Super Aleste is better than all Genesis shooters.

[Anonymous No.1684752]

>>1684707
>They're both pretty slow and boring (gameplay wise)
I will fight you.

>>1684724
Come on anon, ANY other genesis shooter? Super Aleste is good, but the problem it's too long and easy, it gets boring like in Stage 4, also, the graphics aren't that good.

[Anonymous No.1684763]

>>1681579 (OP)
Personally I prefer StarFox 2. Never released, but a leaked ROM and a patch+translation tries to simulate a final version. It's really good though plays completely differently from the first and arguably is better. Might depend on if you like on-rails or stuff like all-range-mode in SF64, as the entire game is in all-range-mode (wasn't called it yet)

[Anonymous No.1684778]

I always loved the look of those early 90's polygon games in screenshots. They inspired my young imagination.

It's a shame they always ended up running in a low resolution window at a shitty framerate.

[Anonymous No.1684781]

>>1684763
Star Fox 2 pulls off all-range mode much better than 64 I thought.
Being able to boost or brake indefinitely, and being able to transform into a mech which is slower but more powerful and can stand in place and strafe totally eliminates the issue 64 had where you'd have to spend time flying away to set yourself to get to fly at some enemy and fire off a few shots, then pass him, and repeat.
It also has much greater enemy variety than any of the all-range mode levels of Star Fox 64, which generally feature a single really basic enemy basic enemy, maybe a stationary or nearly stationary boss that does little or nothing to attack you directly, missiles that just fly in a direction on one stage, and if you were lucky, a Star Wolf fight.

[Anonymous No.1684791]

>>1684781
Yeah I was just mentioning that the game is entirely all range. It does do a lot of things better and has more encounter types since the entire game is such.

Also like how you can switch between your vehicle modes depending on the situation when on land.

[Anonymous No.1684851]

>>1684724
I said it was made by Compile, obviously I know it was an Aleste game.

Like every Aleste game and every Compile shooter in general, it's ridiculously long, repetitive, and boring. Musha Aleste is no exception.

You're either a seriously deluded SNES fanboy or not an actual shmup fan if you think Super Aleste is better than anything on the Genesis or even a good game.

>>1684778
I unironically like the combination of low resolution and terrible framerate. If you have just low resolution or just low framerate, I hate it, but somehow the combination of the two is pleasing. Kinda like how most of us enjoy anime that is 24 FPS at best, and typically 12 or 8 FPS for everything but the most intense action scenes.

[Anonymous No.1684913]

>>1684851
>>1684851
I like MUSHA, while it's still a bit long, it's not so long as Space Megaforce and it's much more rad and fast-paced.

[Anonymous No.1685082]

>>1684791
>and has more encounter types since the entire game is such
The thing is it's just 64's all-range mode levels that have no enemy variety.

Like, Corneria alone has:
>regular ships (possibly two different kinds, not sure)
>butterfly looking ships
>flying saucer looking ships
>tanks (both just driving along, and parked and firing at you)
>bomb dropping bird things
>underground dudes that pop out and shoot at you
>water skiing robots
>big tank tread robots (doing a variety of things like throwing girders, spinning girders, knocking over buildings, etc.)
>all-range mode boss
>first boss from SNES game
There's a lot of variety here, and I'm even not sure I remembered everything.

Then you go to an all-range level like Katina, which has:
>regular enemy ship
>a flying saucer which spits out more regular enemy ships

And it's like this for all forward scrolling and all-range mode levels in the game except for maybe Solar which has very little variety for a stage of that type.

The levels design is comparable.
Corneria has hills and lakes and buildings and roads and a waterfall and tons of other features. All sorts of obstacles and terrain.
Katina has a small pyramid in the middle, and is otherwise a single large plane with a dirt texture on it.

I really don't understand it. It's like totally different teams worked on these things.