SNES diserves a better Emulator!

[16bit_chainsaw]

Super Nintendo Entertainment System was the best Console of its time,almost every good game had its snes version,but unfortunately there is no emulator that emulates the snes console with accuracy. Everythings fine but its the picture quality Im talking about.If you turn on 2xai or super 2xai filtering,then it fails to look like the actual thing.

On the other hand Sega Genesis has the best emulator.it has good bilinear filtering just like MAME,and CVBS effect,by which the picture quality becomes closer the Genesis console's picture quality

http://roeluuu.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/kega.jpg

http://mac.downloadatoz.com/resources/soft/mac/download/img/z/s/zsnes-free.jpg


with 2xai or super2xai filtering
http://images.pbidir.com/screenshots/zsnes4.png

[Red Earth]

i guess i dont really care for snes emulation because i have a real console with real games and it looks great everytime. i dont have to worry about someone making a better emulator, i put in my game and play as originally intended. what a concept :)

[kedawa]

I don't like filtering of any kind.
I have absolutely no nostalgia for crappy old televisions and their blurry images.
Give me nice sharp whole number scaling and I'm happy.

[theclaw]

Well SNES and Genesis were designed to use RGB-based graphics without filtering. They should initially (important word here) have a razor crisp purity with every pixel as distinct as possible. Before any encoding for composite/svideo users, or emulator special effects.

NES emulators that look inaccurate are due to failure to recreate that system's composite PPU.

Though problems are unavoidable on Virtual Boy or vector graphics. Those use video hardware too distinct from common TVs or monitors to quite get right.

[Cers]

Try BSNES and thank me later ;)

[Polygon]

i guess i dont really care for snes emulation because i have a real console with real games and it looks great everytime. i dont have to worry about someone making a better emulator, i put in my game and play as originally intended. what a concept :)

This.

I'm not a huge fan of emulation. I get the consoles and the games that I want. I even have older computers just to play those older games. There's nothing like playing it on the original hardware. The only emulation that I like is MAME because I can't buy all the arcade cabinets that I would want. I would really like a MAME box.

[16bit_chainsaw]

Try BSNES and thank me later ;)


bsnes sucks as well.

[Sharpking89]

pictures and stories like this make me want to hug my Nintendo/Sharp cobo tv's lol
there is no emulator that will produce what the original hardware and software did,clones systems have been at it for almost 2 decade's (all fails) so i dont think pc will hack it anytime soon.
for best pic quality in vintage carts,you need a crt/rgb or if you can find one a NES Sharp 19sv111 as they are like an 80's HD tv FOR ALL GAMES! even my Gamecubes gameplay/picture quality is enhanced by one of those!

[Jimmy Yakapucci]

If you don't like the current crop of SNES emulators that are available, then by all means feel free to go out and create your own. After all, it is not like the current emulators just appeared out of thin air.

[Kiddo]

bsnes sucks as well.

As someone who actually knows what bsnes's problems are and considering that you harped about "accuracy" (and then referred to Kega Fusion, which while better than other Genesis emulators is not as hardware-accurate to the Genesis as bsnes is to the Super Nintendo), what would you say is wrong with bsnes?

[Sharpking89]

*turns on sharp and grabs popcorn*

[SparTonberry]

bsnes sucks as well.

Why is that?
It runs almost everything (the few things it doesn't are literally a few Japanese games most people have never heard of anyways) and its sound quality is a lot better than ZSNES.
Though the only bad thing I can imagine is it requires a good CPU to run, and it won't run BS-X games directly (requiring you to actually load them within the BS-X BIOS).
I know someone at some point wrote filter plugins for it that even do attempt to recreate a CRT look, including a curved screen (including overscan cutoff, though that filter I used didn't have an option to off-center the image) and a fuzzy RF connection (though I don't think anyone's taken it to the extreme by adding random interference to really re-create the experience of playing a SNES on a crappy TV in the '90s). Now THAT is an effort to look like the real thing. :)

[Kiddo]

and it won't run BS-X games directly (requiring you to actually load them within the BS-X BIOS).

The method of running Satellaview ROM data bsnes has is more hardware-accurate than any of the other emulators, and as such this ROM loading method is a necessity for it. If you don't like it, then by association you'd rather sacrifice the hardware-accurate nature for convenience.

That being said, it's compatibility is still low. For the Soundlink entries a "hardware accurate" method would involve having to set up the online environment again - thankfully someone is working on that (http://bsxproj.superfamicom.org/index.htm). And there's also still issues with Data Packs and their compatible games.

[Sharpking89]

"a fuzzy RF connection (though I don't think anyone's taken it to the extreme by adding random interference to really re-create the experience of playing a SNES on a crappy TV in the '90s). Now THAT is an effort to look like the real thing"

uhh...what? what if my nes is hardwired/runs straight to the tv? or im using a vcr av out no rf's? lol
now thats the real "classy way"

[Kitsune Sniper]

bsnes sucks as well.

And by that you mean your Pentium can't run it.

Sure, there are some features that could be considered "standard" in an emulator that just aren't in there, but other than that, the actual emulation is wonderfully accurate. And playable.

And the program isn't nearly as slow as it was two years ago.

[MarioMania]

Steve Snake did a great job on Kega Fusion

I been playing my games real hardwear now, But I still fire up Kega & ZSNES

[intvsama]

Haven't we sealed the 'emulator vs real thing' portal already? This is fucking 2012 people, not 1998. Play what you want in the manner that you want, no one else cares.

[theclaw]

Unfortunately it's near impossible for North American users to grasp how these older consoles were intended to look. People here carry a strong association between them and composite blur. Those who've always been exposed to RGB from the outset, whether they realize it or not have a better grasp how console visuals work on a technical level.

[megasdkirby]

Super Nintendo Entertainment System was the best emulator of its time,

LOL

Oh man, that's priceless. Never knew the Super Nintendo Entertainment System was the best emulator of it's time.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/koatdg/double-facepalm.jpg

[Aussie2B]

Unfortunately it's near impossible for North American users to grasp how these older consoles were intended to look. People here carry a strong association between them and composite blur. Those who've always been exposed to RGB from the outset, whether they realize it or not have a better grasp how console visuals work on a technical level.

No, it's the other way around. Developers didn't live in some magical bubble in which they had no clue how their games would be played. Developers, if they were smart at least, would design their games based around a non-pixel perfect display. If they intended for their games to be viewed in a pixel-perfect manner, then they were just plain stupid because everyone knew that wasn't the reality.

That's why, for example, you see weird checkerboard-like meshes in some games when emulating or playing in RGB. On the expected output (RF, composite, s-video, whatever), where it would be blurred some, that pattern would look like a transparency effect. That effect is lost with a pixel-perfect display.

Personally, when I emulate (which is rare), I don't use any filters because they make games look like smeared crap (and completely unlike how they'd look on the real hardware too). But when I use my consoles, I don't at all feel like I'm getting the "wrong" experience by playing in composite or whatever.

[theclaw]

Yeah dev choices can be VERY strange. As I understand things... For whatever reason SNES decided to offer native hardware transparencies, while even Saturn didn't. Not that creative programmers couldn't find a software way! :)

[16bit_chainsaw]

lol

oh man, that's priceless. Never knew the super nintendo entertainment system was the best emulator of it's time.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/koatdg/double-facepalm.jpg


oh crap i meant ''console''

but that's no fucking big deal.

[The Dord]

What's worse, is the OSX versions of BSNES ( and NESTOPIA) make you save the save state and or load it instead of being able to press a function key to make an instant save state (like KEGA).

[Gamevet]

No, it's the other way around. Developers didn't live in some magical bubble in which they had no clue how their games would be played. Developers, if they were smart at least, would design their games based around a non-pixel perfect display. If they intended for their games to be viewed in a pixel-perfect manner, then they were just plain stupid because everyone knew that wasn't the reality.

That's why, for example, you see weird checkerboard-like meshes in some games when emulating or playing in RGB. On the expected output (RF, composite, s-video, whatever), where it would be blurred some, that pattern would look like a transparency effect. That effect is lost with a pixel-perfect display.

Personally, when I emulate (which is rare), I don't use any filters because they make games look like smeared crap (and completely unlike how they'd look on the real hardware too). But when I use my consoles, I don't at all feel like I'm getting the "wrong" experience by playing in composite or whatever.

Yeah! Super Castlevania IV looks like ass, if it isn't slightly blurred.

[Jorpho]

oh crap i meant ''console''

but that's no fucking big deal.You mean it's not diserving?

[badinsults]

This thread is a pretty big troll. I am just curious as to why he chose to do this trolling on DP, rather than some emulator based forum (unless he has been banned from there).

[JSoup]

I haven't looked into SNES emulation in a long time, but I used to use ZSNES. I haven't actually tried it yet, but there is a version of ZSNES for Homebrew Channel that seems to be the popular way to emulate SNES games on the Wii.

[Bloodreign]

There's a great emulator out there, it's called the real thing. None of the issues emulation can bring. No it isn't free, but you get what you pay/don't pay for.

[Taiyaki]

When you mod a Snes to run RGB and connect it to an LCD monitor, you'll see that it looks identical to what you get with Snes9X or Bsnes. Snes9x is a lot more accurate than people tend to give it credit for, on the other hand Zsnes I have always found to be the least accurate of the three but somehow it remains a fan favorite.

[Pr3tty F1y]

To the OP:

Like it or not, BSNES is *the* best SNES emulator. It is as accurate as you are going to get (thus why it probably doesn't run well on your machine). Accuracy comes at a cost, and that cost is more CPU horsepower needed to sync the timing of all of the original components.

BSNES easily tops KEGA Fusion (also a fine emulator) in terms of accuracy.

If you don't like it, then you have three choices. 1.) Use original hardware, 2.) Code your own emulator, or 3.) use another emulator and deal with it. Personally, I'm not a fan of the full number of vertical scanlines being displayed in BSNES 0.83 and after (and I'm too unskilled and lazy to figure out how to remove them), so I still use version 0.82 when I want some SNES goodness. However, that's my problem and an not an issue with the emulator. It is very, very, very accurate. Period.

Undoubtedly original hardware is the best, but when that's not an option or your preference, BSNES is the way to go. Hell, it's even open source so you can alter it to your heart's content or at least use the emulation core in other applications (see SSNES).

The additional benefit of emulation at this degree of accuracy is also documentation. I'm very much looking forward to the upcoming SD2SNES cart that, without the work of Byuu and others, would not be a reality. It's awesome that after more than 20 years, the limits of the SNES are still being pushed. I mean, there is currently a homebrew version of the FMV arcade classic Road Blaster (available on Sega CD) being ported to the SNES.

But it just sounds like someone pissed in the OP's breakfast. In the end, if you're going to complain about an emulator, think of it this way: You get what you pay for.

[Kiddo]

No, it's the other way around. Developers didn't live in some magical bubble in which they had no clue how their games would be played. Developers, if they were smart at least, would design their games based around a non-pixel perfect display. If they intended for their games to be viewed in a pixel-perfect manner, then they were just plain stupid because everyone knew that wasn't the reality.

That's why, for example, you see weird checkerboard-like meshes in some games when emulating or playing in RGB. On the expected output (RF, composite, s-video, whatever), where it would be blurred some, that pattern would look like a transparency effect. That effect is lost with a pixel-perfect display.

Personally, when I emulate (which is rare), I don't use any filters because they make games look like smeared crap (and completely unlike how they'd look on the real hardware too). But when I use my consoles, I don't at all feel like I'm getting the "wrong" experience by playing in composite or whatever.

Also, the Satellaview restricted all of it's video to composite.

[Greg2600]

If your PC can't run BSNES, you have more problems than just that application.

[Lady Jaye]

For anyone suggesting the real thing: I find that even the GameCube RCA cable does a pretty good job to improve the graphical quality of games. That's what I use (connected via a RCA splitter box, no less) and SNES games look nice on my 32-inch HDTV.

[kedawa]

If your PC can't run BSNES, you have more problems than just that application.

What is that supposed to mean?
The emulator has pretty steep requirements as far as CPU is concerned.
My PC can't handle it.
I guess that means I've got some serious problems.

[skaar]

Derp.

I love BSNES, Actraiser sounds great on it.

[BlastProcessing402]

For anyone suggesting the real thing: I find that even the GameCube RCA cable does a pretty good job to improve the graphical quality of games. That's what I use (connected via a RCA splitter box, no less) and SNES games look nice on my 32-inch HDTV.

Improve compared to what? RCA/Composite is pretty much the bare minimum. Was there even an RF adapter for GC?

Also, it's not going to do anything for SNES that an ordinary SNES RCA cable does, because they're the same exact thing (also same as N64). Yeah, it'll be better than an RF box, but that's pretty much a given.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Improve compared to what? RCA/Composite is pretty much the bare minimum. Was there even an RF adapter for GC?

... kinda. There was this:

http://www.8-track-shack.com/images/DSCF8723070916.jpg

and you stuck an old-school RF cable onto that. There's lots of third party ones, too.

[SparTonberry]

Yep, that was originally used on the N64 (where it was sold separately). It seems the N64 was the first Nintendo console to only include a composite AV cable in the box.

[theclaw]

Yeah as for other cables, to our knowledge Nintendo NEVER released to retail an s-video cable that specifically by name had N64 branded packaging. You had no choice but use a SNES one.

[weirdguy]

Here's an interesting article about SNES emulation and why it's so hard to do.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-one-mans-3ghz-quest-to-build-a-perfect-snes-emulator.ars

[LaughingMAN.S9]

fuck original hardware, i'll take smooth as butter edges and bright colors that pop with all the filters you can imagine, 4x anti aliasing, hq2x, the wholeeeeeeee 9


lol you people just hang on because you spent all this money on physical cartridges, admitting emulation is superior is admitting that your collection is meaningless

[jperryss]

fuck original hardware, i'll take smooth as butter edges and bright colors that pop with all the filters you can imagine, 4x anti aliasing, hq2x, the wholeeeeeeee 9

lol you people just hang on because you spent all this money on physical cartridges, admitting emulation is superior is admitting that your collection is meaningless

Classic systems never look good on a modern displays. Ever.

Also, emulation actually made me want to start buying original gear and actually got me INTO collecting. Imagine that.

Emulating is convenient, I'll give it that.

[Kitsune Sniper]

fuck original hardware, i'll take smooth as butter edges and bright colors that pop with all the filters you can imagine, 4x anti aliasing, hq2x, the wholeeeeeeee 9

hq2x makes things look WORSE THAN FUCKING RF.

[RedBeans]

So as a noob who recently resurrected my old SNES, what's the best possible setup? Kinda dissappointed with the way it looks on my 32'' HDTV....sprites just look too "big" if that makes any sense. Thanks!

[kedawa]

Yep, that was originally used on the N64 (where it was sold separately). It seems the N64 was the first Nintendo console to only include a composite AV cable in the box.

It was also used for the SNES2, which didn't have a built in RF modulator. I don't know off hand if the SNES2 predates the N64 or not.

[buzz_n64]

It was also used for the SNES2, which didn't have a built in RF modulator. I don't know off hand if the SNES2 predates the N64 or not.

The SNES model 2 came out October 20, 1997, so the N64 was first.

[theclaw]

Right and there was no PAL model 2.

[JSoup]

Classic systems never look good on a modern displays. Ever.

Kinda a moot point, depending on how you game. If I'm emulating an old game, it's an old game I'm probably never going to get my hands on, either do to price, scarcity or both. As long as the game is playable and I can tell what's going on, it's good enough. I don't tend to graphic whore about old systems.

[Jorpho]

Kinda dissappointed with the way it looks on my 32'' HDTV....sprites just look too "big" if that makes any sense.It doesn't.

[JSoup]

It doesn't.

To you. I get what he's saying and let's less of an issue than he thinks. Some games show their imperfections more on larger/newer TVs, but the game doesn't actually play any worse. It's just one of the things you either get used to or just never noticed to begin with.

[buzz_n64]

I used to play my Atari 5200 on a tiny portable black and white screen sometimes, and I just had to deal with it. So, bitching that a TV is too nice to view 8 bit graphics on is laughable. Sure you might notice some pixelation if your staring at some big ass HDTV, but it's better than blurriness.

[SparTonberry]

Top-loader NES on an HDTV...
I can only remember trying to play Simon's Quest for like a minute before deciding to keep playing on my old CRT.
I remember it being among the fuzziest image I've seen, really magnifying the "lines" issue. Only thing that looked worse was playing a SNES as a kid in the '90s with an RF connection under severe interference (rolling/wavy picture, wrong colors, etc.)
However, the difference is that THAT is NOT how it was intended to be seen.

[Rob2600]

Super Castlevania IV looks like ass, if it isn't slightly blurred.

100% wrong.

[Miss Boris Yeltsin]

For me, the main problem with SNES emulation is that of the "Big Three" emulators, two of them (SNES9X and ZSNES) are laughably inaccurate (especially when it comes to sound), to the point where you basically have to make a mental list of games to run in SNES9X and games to run in ZSNES - not to mention that ZSNES's "custom" UI is, to put it charitably, a love-it-or-hate-it sorta thing.

The programmer of the third one, BSNES, had a real adverse reaction (in common vernacular, I believe the term would be "a meltdown") to retarded idiots on message boards - understandable, but still tragic - and ripped out a bunch of features that he personally didn't want or use. The ones that come to mind are native handling of .ZIP files and native handling of certain semi-archaic but still widely-used legacy formats (primarily .SMC files), but there were a few others. As far as I know, there's only one or two versions that handle .ZIP and .SMC while also providing a way to map GUI functions (savestates and such) to the controller without resorting to the fetid pit of rage-inducing garbage that is AutoHotKey and the like. I think v.070 is the last one that has both.

BSNES is still the best by a longshot (and makes the other two look like NESticle by comparision), but the picky file support makes playing games a tedious and space-wasting experience. Thankfully, I don't think v.070 has any serious bugs, so I suppose I can live with it.

[JSoup]

100% wrong.

I'm far from a Super Castlevania IV expert, but I've seen a number of reviews that seem to agree with the 'blurry = better' opinion.

[Jorpho]

For me, the main problem with SNES emulation is that of the "Big Three" emulators, two of them (SNES9X and ZSNES) are laughably inaccurate (especially when it comes to sound), to the point where you basically have to make a mental list of games to run in SNES9X and games to run in ZSNESI won't deny that BSNES is superior and the way of the future, but nonetheless SNES9x and ZSNES were entirely adequate for a very long time. The way some people talk about them now, you'd think using them was like trying to play a SNES with forks stabbed into your eyeballs, or something.


native handling of certain semi-archaic but still widely-used legacy formats (primarily .SMC files)I thought the format was still supported, but the files have to be named properly.

[TonyTheTiger]

I won't deny that BSNES is superior and the way of the future, but nonetheless SNES9x and ZSNES were entirely adequate for a very long time. The way some people talk about them now, you'd think using them was like trying to play a SNES with forks stabbed into your eyeballs, or something.

That's how I feel about it, too. I love the philosophy behind bsnes. I think it's not only the way of the future but also a fantastic endeavor to preserve the hardware (at least a super close approximation of it). But back in 1998 we weren't gonna be running no bsnes. I mean, really. It just wasn't happening. And to look back on that era and scoff is silly. It was what it was and time/technology pushes forward. Those emulators served their purpose when they mattered. That's really what's important. I think the real complaint isn't so much against ZSNES and SNES9X as it is against the community being against change, even when that change is for the better (standardizing formats, eliminating copier headers, etc.).

[Miss Boris Yeltsin]

I won't deny that BSNES is superior and the way of the future, but nonetheless SNES9x and ZSNES were entirely adequate for a very long time. The way some people talk about them now, you'd think using them was like trying to play a SNES with forks stabbed into your eyeballs, or something.
Well, NESticle is the same way - it was perfectly adequate in the 90s, heck, I'd even go so far as to say it was "awesome". But no way would I even touch it today, not with FCEUX and NEStopia around. Even back in the day, I could recognize that there was a definite reason to keep the old console plugged in and ready to be fired up, there were actual tradeoffs involved. NESticle offered convenience, the NES offered authentic graphics and sound and real controllers.

Now, though, with current emulators and USB pads, the "to emulate or to play on the console" question is more like owning a classic car: sometimes the finicky nature is appealing in and of itself - the blowing, the wiggling, the way the sound goes through cruddy interference-laced RF or RCA - but ask me which car I'd use to go down to the store, run errands, or do any sort of real driving with, and it's no contest at all.

Once you've tasted paradise, the old world just doesn't quite cut it anymore.


I thought the format was still supported, but the files have to be named properly.

Yeah, according to http://byuu.org/bsnes/legacy-formats this is the case - but it's still a pain in the ass, since virtually every ROM distribution outlet uses the .SMC extension. I think what adds to the frustration is the knowledge that BSNES isn't the #1 emulator, not by a longshot, so it's not like the emulation scene is going to jump up and rename their files properly just to support an emulator with maybe 20% of the "marketshare", no matter how good it is.

You can't really bully without a bully pulpit. :D


That's how I feel about it, too. I love the philosophy behind bsnes. I think it's not only the way of the future but also a fantastic endeavor to preserve the hardware (at least a super close approximation of it). But back in 1998 we weren't gonna be running no bsnes. I mean, really. It just wasn't happening. And to look back on that era and scoff is silly.

Personally, I think it's silly to bolt on a pair of rose-colored glasses and make excuses for the past. Only a complete idiot doesn't understand the processing reality of the situation, so constant reminders about history just get tiresome after a while. It's similar to the old "back when I was your age, we had to walk five miles in ten feet of snow uphill both ways, so how dare you complain about a one mile walk in pouring rain" canard. Yep, there are children starving in Sudan, but it honestly doesn't change the fact that undercooked chicken and raw cauliflower on burnt toast tastes like shit to me!

Anyone who uses NESticle in this day and age is flat-out crazy - it's not like retro consoles, where you have a completely different architecture, set of games, control methods and whatnot - the cycle-accurate emulators of today are objectively better than the frame-accurate emulators of yesterday, which are themselves objectively better than the old "smoke and mirrors"-accurate hacky emulators of yore, so it's only natural to scoff, today, about the notion of using emulators from that era, back then, which, interestingly enough, is not, in fact, today, to play games on, on this day. Wax cylinders were a marvel of their time too, but to claim their fidelity is anything remotely sufficient for modern-day archiving or serves any purpose besides quaint indie-pop gimmicks in this day and age is just thick-headed.


It was what it was and time/technology pushes forward. Those emulators served their purpose when they mattered. That's really what's important. I think the real complaint isn't so much against ZSNES and SNES9X as it is against the community being against change, even when that change is for the better (standardizing formats, eliminating copier headers, etc.).

Exactly, +1, this, etc :)

And lest anyone get me wrong - byuu (the BSNES coder) is ridiculously talented and creating incredible work. I agree that his endgoals are noble in their intent, and can even understand why he doesn't include native .ZIP support. He deserves a ton of credit for taking the time to explain his decisions. It's just frustrating that you have to jump through hoops and waste a ton of hard drive space* to fully experience the latest versions. It's a bit of a catch-22, as well - he sorta scoffs at people who collect entire ROMsets, but when you have to manually extract and rename every single ROM to get it to work in BSNES, I think you'd be crazy not to download the whole ROMset and do it all in a single batch. Otherwise it's a 2 minute clicky-clicky-tidy-namey ordeal every time you get the urge to play a new game.

*hard drives may be relatively cheap, but try collecting lossless audio concerts and doing video work from time to time while stomaching 2+ gigs of wasted space - the true limiter isn't the amount of space on a single drive, but rather the amount of slots and ports and power outlets to plug the new hard drives into! @_@

[SirPsycho]

100% wrong.

100% Sarcasm.

[TonyTheTiger]

Personally, I think it's silly to bolt on a pair of rose-colored glasses and make excuses for the past.

It's not rose colored glasses. It's just the way things were. I look back on the VHS era and chuckle at how much money we all spent on blank tapes. But it's silly to look back on that and talk about it as if we were all foolish for putting up with it, as if it were possible to hook up a DVR or fire up a µTorrent in 1992. You either taped your shit or you were SOL. Obviously it's archaic now. But back then it was top of the line and did its job. It's not foolish or an excuse to point that out.

[Miss Boris Yeltsin]

It's not rose colored glasses. It's just the way things were. I look back on the VHS era and chuckle at how much money we all spent on blank tapes. But it's silly to look back on that and talk about it as if we were all foolish for putting up with it, as if it were possible to hook up a DVR or fire up a µTorrent in 1992. You either taped your shit or you were SOL. Obviously it's archaic now. But back then it was top of the line and did its job. It's not foolish or an excuse to point that out.

I'm not sure who's really saying people were fools - certainly not me. People who put up with it TODAY are fools, but like you said, it's not like there was much of a choice.

The closest I get is shaking my head with a wry chuckle - "man, how did we ever manage to put up with that?" - but nothing more than that.

[BetaWolf47]

And lest anyone get me wrong - byuu (the BSNES coder) is ridiculously talented and creating incredible work. I agree that his endgoals are noble in their intent, and can even understand why he doesn't include native .ZIP support. He deserves a ton of credit for taking the time to explain his decisions. It's just frustrating that you have to jump through hoops and waste a ton of hard drive space* to fully experience the latest versions. It's a bit of a catch-22, as well - he sorta scoffs at people who collect entire ROMsets, but when you have to manually extract and rename every single ROM to get it to work in BSNES, I think you'd be crazy not to download the whole ROMset and do it all in a single batch. Otherwise it's a 2 minute clicky-clicky-tidy-namey ordeal every time you get the urge to play a new game.

*hard drives may be relatively cheap, but try collecting lossless audio concerts and doing video work from time to time while stomaching 2+ gigs of wasted space - the true limiter isn't the amount of space on a single drive, but rather the amount of slots and ports and power outlets to plug the new hard drives into!
I thought the reason for not including .rar and .zip support was because Windows had file compression built in. You can right click on "properties" and tick the box that says "compress files to conservce space" and it'll do its job without changing the format. Granted, I just prefer to zip them myself.
Hard drives aren't cheap anymore by the way.


That's how I feel about it, too. I love the philosophy behind bsnes. I think it's not only the way of the future but also a fantastic endeavor to preserve the hardware (at least a super close approximation of it). But back in 1998 we weren't gonna be running no bsnes. I mean, really. It just wasn't happening. And to look back on that era and scoff is silly. It was what it was and time/technology pushes forward. Those emulators served their purpose when they mattered. That's really what's important. I think the real complaint isn't so much against ZSNES and SNES9X as it is against the community being against change, even when that change is for the better (standardizing formats, eliminating copier headers, etc.).
ZSNES and SNES9x are still useful for being runnable on netbooks. SNES9x is the next most accurate emulator after bsnes, while ZSNES hasn't been updated in five years. Heck ZSNES is trumped by even SNESGT right now. Either way, I wouldn't run bsnes on an Atom or an E-350.


I'm not sure who's really saying people were fools - certainly not me. People who put up with it TODAY are fools, but like you said, it's not like there was much of a choice.
The closest I get is shaking my head with a wry chuckle - "man, how did we ever manage to put up with that?" - but nothing more than that.
Actually, we still put up with a lot of crap. Blu-ray players need to be constantly updated to play newer movies. Streaming video reeks of lossy compression. DVD recording has input latency. Our video games are plagued with DLC and DRM. We never needed to put up with that in the 90's. I'd like to say we're going to look back on this stuff and wonder how we put up with it, but it doesn't look like the current trend of inconveniences is going to end. The industry has a stranglehold on legitimate consumers.

For the most part, I skipped over DVD unless there was something new I had to own. The video and audio quality wasn't that much better over VHS to me. Blu-ray, on the other hand, is a night and day difference. On a personal note, I still use VHS to record gameplay. I do have a DVD recorder which I thought had no input latency, but when I went to record a fighting game match, there it was.

[Rob2600]

I'm far from a Super Castlevania IV expert, but I've seen a number of reviews that seem to agree with the 'blurry = better' opinion.

That makes no sense. Super Castlevania IV is a beautiful game. The only reason I could see blurring the graphics is if someone really really hates pixel graphics and blurs *every* retro game. There's nothing about SCIV that would warrant blurring more or less than any other retro game.

Pop it into an emulator and see for yourself. The (non-blurred) graphics are still fantastic today.

[JSoup]

That makes no sense.

Welcome to the internet.

[TonyTheTiger]

How a game is "supposed to look" is certainly up for debate. I happen to think that S-Video and up often ruins some intended visual effects on certain Genesis games where the designers counted on some blurring to happen to squeeze out some additional colors/effects. Of course, to counter that, there's also the simple fact that games overall do look better when you start moving past composite. It's one of the reasons why I sort of hedge the difference and opt to use the best natively available output on my consoles (when practical) but never mod them to use unintended ones. It's somewhat arbitrary, I know. But I like to get the best out of my consoles as I can while at the same time remain committed to an "authentic" experience that is as close as possible to what was originally intended. It's a work in progress philosophy. :p That being said, I've never really had this issue with Super Nintendo. I don't remember ever seeing anything on the system that looks as if it's aesthetic design counts on bleeding or blurriness.

In the realm of emulators, I figure the argument is much the same. There's really no difference between saying an emulator looks "weird" on a certain display and saying a SNES looks "weird" on the same display via S-Video or something. But even if it does look weird, unfortunately the NTSC filters that are supposed to make emulators look like they're displaying on an old CRT end up just looking strange and awful.

[Zing]

Why was this thread created when bsnes exists?

[theclaw]

How a game is "supposed to look" is certainly up for debate. I happen to think that S-Video and up often ruins some intended visual effects on certain Genesis games where the designers counted on some blurring to happen to squeeze out some additional colors/effects. Of course, to counter that, there's also the simple fact that games overall do look better when you start moving past composite. It's one of the reasons why I sort of hedge the difference and opt to use the best natively available output on my consoles (when practical) but never mod them to use unintended ones. It's somewhat arbitrary, I know. But I like to get the best out of my consoles as I can while at the same time remain committed to an "authentic" experience that is as close as possible to what was originally intended. It's a work in progress philosophy. :p That being said, I've never really had this issue with Super Nintendo. I don't remember ever seeing anything on the system that looks as if it's aesthetic design counts on bleeding or blurriness.

In the realm of emulators, I figure the argument is much the same. There's really no difference between saying an emulator looks "weird" on a certain display and saying a SNES looks "weird" on the same display via S-Video or something. But even if it does look weird, unfortunately the NTSC filters that are supposed to make emulators look like they're displaying on an old CRT end up just looking strange and awful.

Yeah I think we need to look at this from developers' point of view. I'd argue composite based effects are the exception, not the rule. No doubt they sometimes happen of course.

Console makers had a reason for dropping composite based PPUs as soon as they could. And why would most self-respecting creators LIKE what RF or composite most commonly does to their work? That'd be silly. They know how rich it looks from the hardware end after all. Plus major developers have enough money they'd be able to run multiple types of TV and monitor in the studio for comparison.

[Berserker]

Today bsnes has become the first SNES emulator to achieve 100% compatibility. (http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2538)

Just thought that diserved some recognition.

[charles__99]

Nothing brings back the nostalgia like cleaning the cart, tossing it in and grabbing an official snes controller...no emulator can ever bring back the good times like that.