PingPong: well, I'm waiting for your entry for the Passion MSX contest!

Well, IMHO already the msx1 was inferior to C64 for graphic and music (MSX1 had in average alos less ram ).
Only with megaroms the msx1 was able to compete with C64 games, but they arrived too late and too few.
(Prolly I would never had admitted at that time ;-)

Quote:

Well, IMHO already the msx1 was inferior to C64

Yeah I kindof agree, and I sometimes thought about it at the time too. However it was early in the home computer era and people didn't know better. At the time MSX2 came about people were smarter so not that many made the same mistakes they did when they bought their MSX1's Remember also, there were other 2nd generation systems that didn't do that well either, like Sinclair QL for example.

Wow! The latest posts are really amazing! The problem of MSX is the MSX-1??? Sure, and the problem of Pentiums is the backward compatibility with older 80x86, right. But without the oldest generations, the newer ones would have not suceeded and probably, not existed. If one really thinks that backwards compatibility is a major problem, then let's forget about MSX and focus on... X68000, for instance. Much powerful, japanese videogames and do not have the problems of being compatible with MSX-1. The perfect MSX-2!

Being a problem of "success" and "failure" or not, it is somehow ridiculous to talk in such terms nowadays. Both MSX1 and MSX2 are, for gamers in 2008, equally "obsolete". I wonder if Amstrad users talk in the same terms about CPCs and CPC-Plus.

Again, regarding the MSX Dev I am very surprised that it is seen as a contest that actively stops MSX2 development. I know that the "typical" MSX2 game is conceptually larger than a "typical" MSX1 game. I also know that MSX2 requires larger development times, mainly because the higher amount of graphics and graphical possibilities. But I am surprised that, for some people, presenting an MSX1 game to the Dev prevents MSX2 development instead of, simply, delaying the MSX2 projects.

My opinion is that the lack of MSX2 games is *not* due to the MSX1 game development, but to the lack of time because we are getting older and have many other responsibilities. So, it is easier to develop a short MSX1 game rather than a large MSX2 game. And my opinion is also that, without the MSX Dev, almost no new MSX games would have been released since 2003.

My particular situation is that I learned MSX1 programming thanks to the MSX Dev contest. Now, I am improving my MSX1 programming skills by spending some time to my new MSX-1 game. And in a few years, I will start with MSX2 development. And then, if I can't present my MSX2 project to the MSX Dev, I will not blame the MSX Dev for this!

Still, msx wasn't a failure in japan at all... I wonder if there has been any platform that had so many different manufacturers and dfferent add ons (from vdeo capturing units to laserdisc, rs 232 to FM) as the msx. I suppose the diversity would suit everyone's individual needs, on the workfloor, for dtp, designers, musicians etc.
I suppose the devlopment of the msx in japan has been a growing process. If only it wouldn't have been restricted to Japan. Msx 2 indeed should have been the standard, you can say what you want about the snes and atari st or amiga 500 but that's no fair comparison, since these were 16 bit machines and the logical next step. Even the msx 2 wouldn't have been able to compete, I guess the same would go for the turbogfx 16/pc engine. no Match for the sega megadrive or snes, despite the 16 bit gfx.

Quote:

Quote: the problem is that the failure of msx have it's roots in msx1 Without throwing too much crap, I think MSX2 is the big failure. A lot of people around Europe had MSX1's, but when it was time to upgrade almost everyone went for better solutions, such as Atari ST or Commodore Amiga. MSX2 was simply an inferior system when it was released.

of course everyone could have it's opinion, but i think is extremely clear that if the msx2 and newer generations were failures it's only for one reason.
The crappy gfx features of msx1.
If the msx1 never existed and the first gen standard started with msx2 without boring about compatibility the msx would not be so limited.

The reason, to be objective is only one -> bad gfx -> TMS VDP. No others. Even the PSG with it's limited flexibility when compared to SID is not a valid reason to justify the limited overrall performances of msx1.
Now, for a kind of love to the platform we can say what we want, but to be objective..... this is the reality.

Read the first line of the first post of a people at this link: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s=1ebfd45048457dbe06fe6263414e8992&showtopic=80130&st=0&p=1126200&#entry1126200

in one row of text, Bruce Tomlin give an indication of how is crappy the TMS chip. It's perfect example of how to make things limited consuming a lot of resources. gfx in the screen 2 mode looks often badly compared with c64 screen gfx mode, while the c64 uses only 8000bytes for vram and TMS 12000!

Well done. the worst results, with the maximum use of resources (VRAM)!

Not to speak about the crappy screen 1. Only an idiot can imagine a color table of 32bytes. It's like to have a monocrome display.

Quote:

Msx 2 indeed should have been the standard, you can say what you want about the snes and atari st or amiga 500 but that's no fair comparison, since these were 16 bit machines and the logical next step. Even the msx 2 wouldn't have been able to compete

I must agree. the msx2 should have been the first gen of msx. But as said it was too late when arrived. the msx1 had gained all the poor gfx reputation of msx platform. It was too late....


Comparing atari st with msx2 is ridicolus. Even if the atari ST had only a 16 color mode without any blitter gfx support, and the same soundchip (PSG) of msx. That is a bit strange for a 16 bit machine.
Of course the Amiga is a real gem about it's architecture, but this is another point.

Quote:

I must agree. the msx2 should have been the first gen of msx.

I also think that would have been great and I'm sure I wouldn't have been as jealous of my friends that had C64's if I had one. I think that if the MSX2 standard would have been released 1983 with some machines available for a decent price, things would look very different. But the MSX2 was unfortunately released too late. Even if its unfair to compare MSX2 with Atari ST, Amiga 500, Sinclair QL, ... these computers were the actual competitors because of the quite late release of the MSX2.

I think we are missing the point here. Of course the MSX1 vdp had serious limitations, as did the MSX2/2+ vdp. But the point is, to most of the active msx users, MSX1 was the MSX they remember and love, for the simple reason that this was the machine they had to play, program, work, etc in the golden years. And because of that, this is the machine they want to code their games on. I really desired an MSX2 when I was a kid, but I never got one. Today, I have a MSX2+ with 7 mhz, 1 megabyte ram and 4 internal slots, but I must confess that, other than filling an old desire (to have a MSX2) it doesn't make much difference, probably because I could only buy it too late (exactly 10 years later). When I think about MSX games, I think about msx1 games. And I really hope to see any of the old classics ported to MSX1, like the amazing Ghost and Goblins demo. It doesn't matter to me that the colours and the graphics would be better at MSX2/2+, I'm not looking for a perfect port (why would I need that, if I can just play the original?), but just for the best version that can be done using just the good and old MSX1 vdp.

PS: Let's stop offending the msx1 vdp, you are starting to make me angry, talking like that of my beloved machine.

PingPong: whatever you say... MSX1 rules, it kicked some 80's computers' ass back then, and it still rocks! (this is the REAL Karoshi style, dammit!)

Nah, just wanted to shout it out. I understand you like just MSX2 or upper, so I hope you can understand people just like MSX1. That's all. Now, can we have some beers?

Indeed! So we can expect that WIP list in the finished column soon?

Quote:

Should I call MSX2 as commercial failure?

Must say, that I said this partly as a joke. But some people seem to get offended about it.

But outside Japan and Holland, there wasn´t many MSX2s. Probably one reason is that MSX2 would had harmed sales of MSX1. But still it is somewhat hard to understand why MSX2 was not marketed as strong as MSX1? Or to say truth, why it was not imported (almost) at all? Maybe sellers thought it would be too expensive 8-bit machine for buyers in 1986-1988? Don´t know... But (at least in Finland, and probably in other countries as well) MSX-1 was not cheapest 8-bit computer around when it was published in end of the 1984-beginning of the 1985. Of course prices dropped later, but what I mean is that as MSX-1 wasn´t that cheap at the beginning, try to imagine how much more expensive more high-tech MSX-2 would have been? I know, that nowadays it is easy to say "it was not that expensive", but you must realize, that in mid-80s, people were NOT buying computers as much and not as easily as nowadays. Computers were still strange and new things, they were things that were NOT needed by every average Joe and his wife like like nowadays almost everyone seem to have must to buy one. And nowadays, people don´t care that much how MUCH they may spend to computer. Situation was different in 1980s.

Must say that all this "msx-1 is crap because..." sounds much like that crap what Commodore 64 owners threw at msx owners in the eighties... they too couldn´t understand why someone could want and KEEP msx instead of getting Commodore 64 like most of "sensible" people did.....

But I somehow understand, that people who never got MSX-1 or any other "inferior" machine before getting MSX-2 as their first computer, they can have problems to understand what MSX-1ers can see in much simpler graphic modes.

"We just like it, and that´s it!"

Cool. But "commercial failure" can only be stated using sales and revenues of the different partners of the MSX standard. Quality is not at all necesarily related to commercial success. Therefore, mind your comments here. Probably, all the problems shared by the MSX, MSX2 and MSX2+ are just one: it is an standard adopted by different manufacturers. None of them obtained a big share of the home computer market, therefore making it economically less interesting. If an activity is not profitable, then it is promptly abandoned or, at least, the investment is reduced. Perhaps only Sony and Panasonic got decent figures. Maybe Philips and Sanyo too. And this, my friends, is an economic matter. I do not care if TMS rocks or Amiga is cooler than MSX2. We're talking about MONEY.

It's a matter of advertising and market.
In those days, me and many of my friends got a MSX, less users than C64 but much much more than Spectrum or other platforms (at least in my area, near Venice).
But... software? Where to buy original software??? 99% of pirated software only available...
And was MSX software and hardware covered by those days magazines? Yes for the applications and programming, but nothing for the videogames...
So my conclusions are: bad manufacturer's market strategies and only a few/bad videogames reviews on magazines.
Personally I don't like very much Speccy or C64 graphics and sound, nor the playability or brilliant ideas: never seen a game like Payload for others than MSX.