An MSX game ROM with new custom chips is

an MSX game (81 votes) 89.0%
not an MSX game (10 votes) 11.0%
Totaal aantal stemmen: 91

Reacties (43)

Van viejo_archivero

Paragon (1372)

afbeelding van viejo_archivero

21-10-2009, 12:28

imho, as long as the MSX itself is the one outing the audio and the video signal, I'd say it is an MSX game. If not, I'd say it is not.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

21-10-2009, 12:36

Well, I dunno if it's possible to have a new video chip in a ROM and route its output to the MSX itself, which is why I mentioned the G9k.

Van Manuel

Ascended (15763)

afbeelding van Manuel

21-10-2009, 13:47

Wolf: that's not possible without routing the video of the MSX through the cartridge (this is e.g. also done with the MLP-001 light pen cartridge: you connect the CVBS out of the MSX to the CVBS in of the cartridge and the CVBS out of the cartridge to the monitor), because there's no video interface on the cartridge slot.

Van Tanni

Hero (556)

afbeelding van Tanni

21-10-2009, 14:37

As MSX is intended to be extended, it's an MSX game!

Van anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

afbeelding van anonymous

21-10-2009, 15:49

I agree with Tanni.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

21-10-2009, 15:52

Interesting.

So, if we demolish an Amiga, we pick out the Motorola CPU, the Copper chip and that audiochipwhatwashernameagain, we stick it to a cartridge PCB, make a game for it, plug it into an MSX... that's an MSX game?

Note, I'm not saying that it is or isn't, I'm just pointing out the consequences, to see how far we can go.. Hannibal

Van RetroTechie

Paragon (1563)

afbeelding van RetroTechie

21-10-2009, 16:03

If the game fits inside a cartridge, then it is a game cartridge, no matter how simple or complex hardware it contains (or where the video goes). Period.

More interesting question is: Assume you can put 'infinite' amounts of logic/ROM etc. in a reasonably sized cartridge. Now, when you keep adding goodies to such a cartridge, at what point does it make more sense to add the remaining stuff (to turn it into a full MSX), and how do you determine whether you've reached that point?

In other words, how to decide between: [add yet another goodie to your 'everything-inside-it' cartridge that uses your MSX as I/O device] or [add remaining bits to turn 'everything-cartridge' into a standalone MSX] Question

Van muffie

Paladin (933)

afbeelding van muffie

21-10-2009, 16:26

Well, additionally to my comments on the news, I must agree with viejo. Sound and Video should be routed through MSX original outputs.
Like SNES Super FX...

If video is routed, you could pack an entirely n64 hardware inside. It doesnt matter.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

21-10-2009, 16:34

From that point of view, both Moonsound and Graphics9000 aren't 'MSX'. And that's complex! Back in the years we were all too happy with these new cartridges. Wasn't the G9k developed for MSX, but postponed for the tR-XT? If it would've been included in some hypothetical tR, would there be a difference between that computer and any other MSX with the G9k cartridge?

Van muffie

Paladin (933)

afbeelding van muffie

21-10-2009, 18:05

I always thought that V9990 would be included in the TR in a different way: Supporting all the legacy 9958 modes. It would be called 9978, right?
By doing that, video would be routed through TR's regular video output.

BTW, I never actually fell that Moonsound and GFX9000 were real msx add-ons. They're somehow similar to the mp3 player. Same with Brazilian VSU. That thing is a strange monster to me.

img.mercadolivre.com.br/jm/img?s=MLB&f=108735883_4703.jpg&v=E
This, is still Mega Drive.

www.computercloset.org/SegaGenesis132X.jpg
This, is a strange add-on with it's own video output.

Van muffie

Paladin (933)

afbeelding van muffie

21-10-2009, 18:21

So, if we demolish an Amiga, we pick out the Motorola CPU, the Copper chip and that audiochipwhatwashernameagain, we stick it to a cartridge PCB, make a game for it, plug it into an MSX... that's an MSX game?

Show more respect with the best "non 8 bit" computer of all times! Big smile

Agnus, Denise and Paula (OCS chipset)
Copper, as well as Blitter, were actually sub-components of Agnus.

Take a look at what Amiga does with ppl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6uh1Q_D_XU

Van AuroraMSX

Paragon (1901)

afbeelding van AuroraMSX

22-10-2009, 22:57

Take a look at what Amiga does with ppl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6uh1Q_D_XU OMG, don't tell me that's you, muffie, singing! :o

Van Yukio

Paragon (1541)

afbeelding van Yukio

22-10-2009, 23:23

In the FUTURE this could be possible ... It should be inevitable !!!

Van Salamander2

Expert (124)

afbeelding van Salamander2

23-10-2009, 15:19

just think if the 9990 have been included in the turbo-r...

according with the msx legacy, our nowadays msx machines could be java/internet machines.
maybe something like the macintosh.

an msx with nvidia gpu anyone?

Van AuroraMSX

Paragon (1901)

afbeelding van AuroraMSX

24-10-2009, 11:01

If the game fits inside a cartridge, then it is a game cartridge, no matter how simple or complex hardware it contains (or where the video goes). Period.
Ok, I'll pack a complete PC into a cartridge (slightly larger than your average Konami) and that cartridge has audio and video output, USB slots to connect a decent keyboard, mouse and game controller to, and an SD-slot to exchange files between this cartridge-PC's built-in hdd and the rest of the world. In the end, this cartridge only uses the power lines of the MSX through the cartridge slot.

Does this still fit your definition of an MSX game cartridge?

I'd say an MSX game cartridge with new custom chips is still an MSX game cartridge if the cartridge interacts with the MSX it is put in. In other words, if it uses the MSX system bus and interrupt lines. As soon as the MSX is reduced to a kludgy power supply, it is not MSX anymore (unless the cartridge itself again conforms to the MSX red book specs Murdoch )

Van AuroraMSX

Paragon (1901)

afbeelding van AuroraMSX

24-10-2009, 11:13

Just another thought. Let's say I have a Commodore Amiga and an MSX. Now I create an MSX cartridge with a cable that plugs into the Amiga. Let's call this catridge "MADNESS" (MSX-Amiga-Direct-NEtworking-SyStem Hannibal ). Then I ceate a game for the Amiga that runs perfectly on the Amiga stand-alone. But when I've plugged in my MADNESS, the MSX displays a screen full of nice statistics of my game: how many hits, how many lives I've got etc etc. Since the Amiga interacts with my MSX through MADNESS, does that make the Amiga an MSX device/extension? Or would you draw the line at the MADNESS cartridge?

Van Yukio

Paragon (1541)

afbeelding van Yukio

24-10-2009, 14:25

A computer acting as a "intelligent" terminal for a game is nothing new. Back in the old days there were several multi platform games that used ANSI texts (even with COLOURs) to play across the countries, it should be nice to do some new games with this concept.

Imagine a old style game with a brand new FRONTEND (GUI and music!) ...

Van konamiman

Paragon (1044)

afbeelding van konamiman

24-10-2009, 23:44

Easy: if it works on a real MSX, then it is a MSX game. Otherwise, it is not.

Or, put another way: are Konami games with SCC not MSX games?

Van Yukio

Paragon (1541)

afbeelding van Yukio

25-10-2009, 14:30

The MSX standard has a (mono) sound pin into the cartridge slot, this is used by the Konami SCC chip. Because sound cartridges are into the original project the SCC is nothing new, but it is great for 8-bit games! Even better because most of them are MEGAROM games (well there are the Game Collection discs too) ...

Small wavetable sound!

Van Tanni

Hero (556)

afbeelding van Tanni

26-10-2009, 15:04

AuroraMSX, a long time ago, I thought about putting an ZX81 cartridge into an advanced MSX system . . . I even contacted on of the ZX-Team members on that idea. If any sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic or can be considered as magic, why shouldn't every sufficiently advance computer technology not be able to blurr up system boundaries?

Van AuroraMSX

Paragon (1901)

afbeelding van AuroraMSX

26-10-2009, 19:38

Easy: if it works on a real MSX, then it is a MSX game. Otherwise, it is not.Really? So you would consider a PC game that runs on a PC-on-an-MSX-cartridge (which really only draws the power from the MSX) an MSX game?

Van Prodatron

Paragon (1788)

afbeelding van Prodatron

28-10-2009, 10:43

IMHO as long as the Z80/R800 inside the MSX is doing the main program logic, it's still an MSX game. As soon as you replace the CPU with another one inside the catridge (and using the MSX-Z80 only as a keyboard controller or something like this) it's not.
What I didn't like was the CMD SuperCPU catridge for the C64, as it degraded the C64 to a poor input/output terminal, whilst all logic was running on the new 16bit CPU and its MBs of ram. For me that isn't a C64 anymore.
But regarding "monster" hardware extensions for the MSX, why not, as long as its "heart" is still remaining? Just have a look at the PC: I think modern graphic card GPUs have more power than the PCs own CPU for which they are working -> but this is still a PC.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

28-10-2009, 10:58

If the core Z80/R800 is doing the main logic, how about a Z80 co-processor for music (not uncommon in consoles), or graphics (sprites management/collisions etc.)?

It's so easy to forget that extensions like Moonsound and G9k allow you to do so much more, but it typically requires more CPU time to control it. 16 sprites on a row? Great. 125 sprites on screen? Great. Let's use them. And before you know you *are* using them, which means you have to deal with far more collision checks and (re)placement routines than on a humble MSX1 or MSX2. Same with the Moonsound, all these channels are nice but you'll spend more time controlling them than a PSG.

Van Tanni

Hero (556)

afbeelding van Tanni

28-10-2009, 13:04

By Prodatron on October 28 2009, 10:43:
IMHO as long as the Z80/R800 inside the MSX is doing the main program logic, it's still an MSX game. As soon as you replace the CPU with another one inside the catridge (and using the MSX-Z80 only as a keyboard controller or something like this) it's not.
What I didn't like was the CMD SuperCPU catridge for the C64, as it degraded the C64 to a poor input/output terminal, whilst all logic was running on the new 16bit CPU and its MBs of ram. For me that isn't a C64 anymore.
But regarding "monster" hardware extensions for the MSX, why not, as long as its "heart" is still remaining? Just have a look at the PC: I think modern graphic card GPUs have more power than the PCs own CPU for which they are working -> but this is still a PC.

I would agree on your opinion concerning the C64, but still keeping my opinion concerning MSX. This is no contratiction, but is because the C64 is intended to be just a computer system, but the MSX is an open standard. If Kay Nishi or whoever has the rights on MSX now decides to do an enhanced MSX with whatever processor etc. he likes AND this device is still capable of executing legacy MSX programs by providing a Z80/R800 compatible hardware emulation, it's an MSX.

IIRC, the C128 had a built in Z80 to run CP/M. Clearly, the C128 is not a C64, it was a new system based on the C64. I don't know if C64-software run at the C128 without changes.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

28-10-2009, 13:16

That was Nishi's plan yea, an expandable system. Just like his plans to let the MSX be the OS for your house (control the curtains, control your VCR, control your CD player, control your fridge etc.). Just like his other plans. Perhaps a nice question would be: is MSX our system or his system? With the first I mean: if we (msx scene + gamers) think differently about what an MSX should be or become, who's right then? In addition, his plans with MSX date back to 1983, is it practical to regard all his old plans to make sense in 2009?

If expandability means adding all kinds of exotic chips into ROMs (or heck, even into the MSX), it would fully comply with Nishi's idea, but you can already see above that some people feel it wouldn't be an MSX anymore.

Is it safe to regard both the MSX and the original goals of an MSX as a large grey area? Hannibal

Van Tanni

Hero (556)

afbeelding van Tanni

28-10-2009, 14:34

That was Nishi's plan yea, an expandable system. Just like his plans to let the MSX be the OS for your house (control the curtains, control your VCR, control your CD player, control your fridge etc.). Just like his other plans. . . . In addition, his plans with MSX date back to 1983, is it practical to regard all his old plans to make sense in 2009?

The idea of an expandable system is self-evident. A system in it's most general sense must be expandable. He obviously searched for applications to convince people to buy his product. To my mind, controling the curtains, VCR, the fridge etc. were to far away back in the day, and still are now. You normally don't need that. You also need special hardware not yet available then. If there's a TV set and an cassette recorder, you just need an ZX81 to have a fully computer system -- and you ''need'' it at least for gaming --, but for digitally controlling the curtains, you need a special motor to move it, controlled by a ... em ... microcontroller. This kind of hardware gadget wasn't and still isn't available in the normal household. So even if Kay Nishi had this plans then, they were much too unrealistic to really being able to realised within a short period of time. So you can keep them in mind, but they're not really part of the MSX standard up to now, they just fantasies what could be or could have been.

Perhaps a nice question would be: is MSX our system or his system? With the first I mean: if we (msx scene + gamers) think differently about what an MSX should be or become, who's right then?

This would be the topic of an new thread, me thinks.

If expandability means adding all kinds of exotic chips into ROMs (or heck, even into the MSX), it would fully comply with Nishi's idea, but you can already see above that some people feel it wouldn't be an MSX anymore.

Time and experience tells what could be or should be MSX.

Van dvik

Prophet (2200)

afbeelding van dvik

28-10-2009, 15:30

I think the question is a bit ambiguous. As I said in some other post, the cartridge itself would certainly be MSX compatible if the interface conforms to the MSX specifications.

The trickier part of the question is whether the game would be an MSX game or not. A good example on where it probably isn't is an SNES game running in Manuel Pazos SNES adapter. The adapter itself is an MSX application configuring and routing inputs to the SNES, but the game running in the SNES doesn't become an MSX game just because the adapter is an MSX application.

Same thing with the Atari 2600 module for ColecoVision which allows you to play Atari games on the Coleco. There the integration is pretty nice so it almost looks like a Coleco, but the games running in the Atari 2600 aren't coleco games.

An even closer integration of systems is the GBA support in Nintendo DS. You plug in a cart into the DS just like you do with DS games, but the GBA games are still GBA games not DS games.

If you stretch this analogy a bit you can perhaps say that a game that uses a co processor for most of its work is not a game of the host system. I'm not saying that its the case, but I think the line between when the game itself is an MSX game or not is not always that clear.

Btw, I did vote on "an MSX game" in the poll, because I think the custom chips you're talking about isn't really another system, but I just wanted to point out that its not a clear answer.

Van Leo

Paragon (1236)

afbeelding van Leo

03-11-2009, 17:48

take a look at this link : Games in SD card for cellphone with thier own accelerator :

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=VGU0VQOVSX1W3QE1GHPCKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=221500032

Van Manuel

Ascended (15763)

afbeelding van Manuel

03-11-2009, 23:44

An even closer integration of systems is the GBA support in Nintendo DS. You plug in a cart into the DS just like you do with DS games, but the GBA games are still GBA games not DS games.

You can plug an MSX(1) game in an MSX2 just like you can plug an MSX2 game in it, but the MSX game is still not an MSX2 game...

Well, it doesn't use the MSX2 capabilities...

Van MadonnaMk2

Supporter (3)

afbeelding van MadonnaMk2

03-12-2009, 12:39

IMO there is a broad "gray zone" between auxiliary hardware built on a cartridge like the SCC (that does not depart much from the look and feel of the standard) and reducing the MSX to a mere standardised power supply (like the PC), outputting gfx and sounds that are virtually undistinguishable from a more or less modern console/computer, thus lacking the platform personality.

Many people ignore that zone and simply stick to one extreme or another, in the most fundamentalistic, "binary" way BA-team and the MSX is a platform powerful and RICH enough to embrace a wide range of hardware variations and addons to a (game) cartridge without having to get neither to the point of extreme austerity (no SCC, no nothing) nor to the point of extreme "power-supplyness" (substitute VDP, substitute PSG, substitute mapper, substitute processor, substitute whatever...) because once we reach that point, we realise the power supply itself is not that good, and a bog-standard PC would do the same work.

Other platforms don't have this richness and flexibility without identity compromise. Let's take advantage of it instead of just undermining.

Van Leo

Paragon (1236)

afbeelding van Leo

13-12-2009, 20:20

i am trying to think to the "lesser" msx possible , that is to say , strating from a plain msx how far can we derive and still have a viable computer :
no vdp but gfx9000 , no psg/scc/fm but moonsound , no fd but CF, no roms but ROM bios on megaflash , hmm for cpu i dont know ....

Van Alex

Master (205)

afbeelding van Alex

04-02-2010, 21:54

What I find interesting in this discussion is that the consensus seems to be that an MSX extension that is build using current components should not be considered an MSX extension any more because it would step away too far from our old beloved machine.

And yet, a modern PC is still considered a PC, although all components (even something as fundamental as the system bus) from the old IBM-PC have meanwhile been replaced by much more powerful components. Apparently such an evolution is only accepted if it is done gradually over 20 years time.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

04-02-2010, 22:33

Maybe it's because home computers had an image, a certain something 'unique'. A PC never had its own image. In the 80's, while we were MSX'ing, a PC was dull. Practical for office work, but nothing fun. And by the time PC's got popular among the crowd (roughly around the 486 DX2/66, slightly before the release of Win95), we were already used to things being modular, so we didn't care anymore. Also, a home computer got its image from its shape. A PC was just a dull white block o' chips 'n cards, not something you'd fall in love for.. Tongue

Van Latok

msx guru (3686)

afbeelding van Latok

05-02-2010, 10:37

That's why gameconsoles are more appealing to me than PC's.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

05-02-2010, 11:54

Yes, well, with a slight remark then:

Home computers in the 80's got their image from things they could do and things they couldn't do. A C64 got its image from its specific (fixed) palette and screenmodes. An MSX1 got its image from its fixed palette, the 4 mono-color sprites. An Amiga has another image: 32 colors out of 4096 (iirc) etc. Sound is even more complex as we had all kinds of expansions. In short: the image of the old computers was defined by their limitations. The more extreme these differences were, the bigger the difference in image.

The PC has had 16.7M colors for quite a while already, and modern consoles also have tons o' colors 'n things. At a certain point the videochips and soundchips aren't as important as the CPU anymore. In terms of 3D, it's all about calculating/drawing polygons, and memory is in charge of the amount of textures you can use. How much image difference do modern consoles have compared to each other? The current image difference between consoles and between PC's is either very low, or nothing at all.

Van MäSäXi

Paragon (1884)

afbeelding van MäSäXi

12-03-2010, 13:16

The Final Conclusion: Yeah, modern videogame consoles and modern PCs are utterly dull. MSX is still lovable thing as it is still unique thing.

So true. Smile

Van konamiman

Paragon (1044)

afbeelding van konamiman

24-03-2010, 10:40

Isn't about time to post a new poll?

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

24-03-2010, 11:16

Yes.. but coming up with a subject isn't easy.. Tongue

Van konamiman

Paragon (1044)

afbeelding van konamiman

24-03-2010, 11:28

What about something like, "What is the hardware extension MSX is needing the most?", with options like: Ethernet, Wifi, Bluetooth, USB, coprocessor... that would be useful for hardware developers (anyway I don't know if this was asked before)

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

24-03-2010, 11:37

What was asked before can be seen in the polls menu item (in Resources at the left)

One pitfall for such a hardware poll is that it's actually close to being a megapoll, with several voting rounds, because it's hard to just 'pick some hardware' as poll options. Someone would say "hey, why didn't you put that other hardware in the list!"

So what I'm interested in are polls with only a few clear answers which don't lead to people arguing about the choice of answers..

Van SLotman

Paragon (1215)

afbeelding van SLotman

25-03-2010, 15:01

What about a poll about how game 'mods' should be distributed?

Something like:

[ ] already patched, give me the w4r3Z!!1!
[ ] as an IPS patch file, it's more professional!
[ ] tell me which bytes I should change manually!
[ ] I don't care!!!

Wink

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

afbeelding van wolf_

25-03-2010, 23:20

agreeable!

Tho the third option sounds a bit redundant to me, an IPS patch is as easy, and as legal. I mean, even you as a programmer, would you really crank up some hex editor to fix a few bytes instead of running an IPS patcher?

Van Salamander2

Expert (124)

afbeelding van Salamander2

26-03-2010, 02:26

ok, name the next poll!