Name a bigger mistake

[Anonymous No.5238992]

[Anonymous No.5239000]

It’s a mistake that the PAL system which was designed for and is superior to NTSC for television viewing is usually worse for games?

Blame the developers who almost never took advantage of it to produce good optimisations rather than the format itself.

[Anonymous No.5239004]

>>5238992
Fuck France and USSR

[Anonymous No.5239010]

>Name a bigger mistake

(you)

[Anonymous No.5239034]

>>5239004
>prefers AM to FM

[Anonymous No.5239083]

>>5238992
NEVER-THE-SAME-COLOR looked like shit in comparison. It also was the technologically inferior format.

[Anonymous No.5239218]

Playing games on a television was a mistake, by extension so are consoles.

[Anonymous No.5239220]

>>5239004
SECAM was so bad that France ended up mandating TVs by law to have SCART inputs.

[Anonymous No.5239228]

[Anonymous No.5239234]

>>5239083
This is an Apple II. Its graphics relied 100% on NTSC color bleed. Consequently it was impossible to get any color with it in Europe and the thing massively flopped.

[Anonymous No.5239236]

POL

[Anonymous No.5239239]

50Hz gaming feels like you're wading through tar.

[Anonymous No.5239240]

>>5239000
Technically it would still be inferior to NTSC just because of the refresh rate which dumps the fps to 25 instead of 30 but pretty much agree with you.
Devs chosen the laziest path and how the fuck sony allowed this is a mystery to me.

[Anonymous No.5239243]

Did you know also the whole demoscene on the C64 and a lot of effects done in games were only possible because of PAL? I was always puzzled why Americans never had a demoscene, but I eventually realised that it was because NTSC doesn't give you enough time between frames for it.

[Anonymous No.5239250]

>>5239234
I'm fairly sure the price tag was a reason as well. The Apple II works on sort of the same design concept as the ZX Spectrum, but cost four times as much. Why Apple never developed a cost-reduced version for the European market I don't get.

[Anonymous No.5239256]

>>5239250
>>5239234
1. The Apple II was expensive by American standards too, it was a school computer for most people unless you lived in California.
2. About 75% of Apple II setups had a green mono monitor and many people never even knew the things had color at all.

[Anonymous No.5239259]

>>5239239
It feels like that if the game ties its speed to the framerate, which is a shit practice and should never be done. This stayed a problem into the PS2 era for fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.5239267]

>>5238992
The problem in Europe isn't PAL, but the 50hertz.
Pal better quality picture.
60hrz better speed.
Nikola Tesla would 220v-60hertz for europe but the leader in electicity was Schneider, who want 50hrz by metric logic.

[Anonymous No.5239268]

One thing I can say is that the Apple II had one of the lowest shovelware ratios of any 8-bit computer. The game library looks and sounds crude compared to a C64 or whatever but most stuff is pretty high quality.

[Anonymous No.5239276]

>>5239268
1. The Apple II's game library is 99% US/Canadian
2. It was expensive so the high cost of entry largely kept out shovelware

[Anonymous No.5239280]

>>5239240
Sony didn't realize async framerate was going to be the standard for the PS1.
Still, after Crash Bandicoot and the devkit was a thing: I don't get why they didn't just make it the default for the second devkit.
Same on the Nintendo side of the fence, where sub 30fps was common just like on the PS1 side.

>>5239234
>>5239256
>Apple II
>Euro import tariffs anywhere thats somewhat nationalistic
>Non native support and manuals
Euro PC marked was a mess for this exact reason. Brittain, French and German zone had very different PCs and standards. Outskirts like Scandinavia got whatever was imported at a reasonable volume.

[Anonymous No.5239296]

But Europe still wins because our TVs have SCART as well as dual NTSC/PAL support. US and Japanese sets did not.

[Anonymous No.5239304]

>>5239296
No not really. Most European TVs from the CRT era were not dual standard except some top-end models.

[Anonymous No.5239310]

Uggh, console games pre-5th gen were an utter disaster for Europeans.

>games run at a snail's pace
>huge borders around the screen
>games reach Europe sometimes years after being released in Japan and North America

[Anonymous No.5239336]

seriously the only place you ever saw an Apple II was the one your school had but they never let you use it except on a day when it was too rainy to go outside and then maybe they'd let you play Math Munchers and that stupid turtle program where you draw lines on the screen.

[Anonymous No.5239337]

>>5239310
I think you mean pre 6th gen, and even then only thanks to the Dreamcast pushing mandatory 60hz option so hard; and even then during the first years of the PS2 a lot of games were getting awful 50hz ports (Final Fantasy X, Onimusha, etc)

[Anonymous No.5239347]

>>5239243
>>5239239
One thing that always bugged me is that if you look at C64 game videos on Youtube, they're all like that because dumb uploaders run their emulators in PAL mode (the start up default setting) even when it's an American.

[Anonymous No.5239420]

>>5239000
>Europoor engineering
>Europoor programming
>European "innovation"
>PAL

[Anonymous No.5239441]

>>5238992
I don't get why they just didn't use PAL60 for consoles. It's non-standard but any TV should be able to understand it.

[Anonymous No.5239516]

>>5239441
TV's are setup to match how the end output of the power grid works, so early low tech TVs need less parts.
And as a result things like refresh rate is tied to that, since its a natural progression in cheaping the tech.
So you get that PAL vs NTSC is basically a extended proxy of a earlier phenomena:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents
Today its standard to have a large gigantic complex PSU to convert input to whatever the device wants(i.e 5v DC). But back then things costed more money, and tech was more barbaric. So the early waves of tech has a lot of dependency on the power lines.

[Anonymous No.5239627]

>>5239240
>Technically it would still be inferior to NTSC just because of the refresh rate which dumps the fps to 25 instead of 30

It would also drop less frames because of that. It could even allow to go a bit overhand with what's displayed on screen, assuming it uses the same amounts of cycles as the 60Hz counterpart.

Also, going from 30 to 25 fps isn't even that much of a jump. Not that 60 to 50 is either if you're not used to both, why didn't you mention those?