7 ms·

Yes. I wrote about it at https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/11/what-would-happen-if-computers-never-got-any-faster/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/11/what-would-happ

by edent 2y ago

Yes. I wrote about it at https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/11/what-would-happen-if-computers-never-got-any-faster/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/11/what-would-happen-if-comput... Look at early games on the Sega Megadrive / Genesis compared to the ones released towards the end of its run. As we learn more about computer science, we can push systems further than their creators envisaged.

surfingdino 2y ago
Sega did not ship with a programming language. Hardware was closed so it took a while to find and explore its limits. Nothing to do with advances in CS, but a lot to do with devs' curiosity.
- smolder 2y ago
  Right, by far, most of the tricks learned that improved game quality later in the life of a given console weren't based on new comp sci, but better understanding of the systems limitations (e.g. get more colors on screen by rewriting the color palettes between horizontal scan lines on the CRT) and improvements in tooling. I would say a rare exception to this is once video encoding/compression techniques came into play, in the late 90s/00s era where full motion video in games was cutting edge.
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    ... and OpenGL
    - smolder 2y ago
      What do you mean? OpenGL was a product of understood computer science.
mbreese 2y ago
How many of the new games (that looked better) had better circuitry on the game cartridge? I didn’t have a Sega (NES!), but cartridge systems could potentially have a lot more options to work with than the base system. For example, the Pokémon cartridge for the gameboy had its own battery powered memory (IIRC). Not to take away from your argument - the more you know a system, the better it can be exploited. However, in those days, it wasn’t always as simple as it seemed. This was especially true when you were (effectively) plugging expansion boards in with every game. Here’s an example from the NES side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_management_controller_(Nintendo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_management_controller_(... The reason why Super Mario 3 looked so much better than the original has a lot to do with evolution of these chips (on the cartridge).
- edent 2y ago
  Other than Virtua Racer, I don't think any Sega cartridges of that era had extra processing circuitry. There were some with extra control-pad ports, and I think one with a modem. Of course, you could count the 32X & MegaCD as a large cartridge - but that's stretching it!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hnlmorg 2y ago
Learning techniques to maximise the efficiency of games consoles isn’t CS in the traditional sense. But I can see where you’re coming from. You also have to bear in mind that cartridge based systems you ship with larger ROMs and sometimes even additional chipsets in later years of a consoles life. So even if you knew all the hacks for a specific console from day one, you still might not have a large enough ROM to take advantage of some of them.

by edent 2y ago

surfingdino 2y ago

Sega did not ship with a programming language. Hardware was closed so it took a while to find and explore its limits. Nothing to do with advances in CS, but a lot to do with devs' curiosity.

smolder 2y ago
Right, by far, most of the tricks learned that improved game quality later in the life of a given console weren't based on new comp sci, but better understanding of the systems limitations (e.g. get more colors on screen by rewriting the color palettes between horizontal scan lines on the CRT) and improvements in tooling. I would say a rare exception to this is once video encoding/compression techniques came into play, in the late 90s/00s era where full motion video in games was cutting edge.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  ... and OpenGL
  - smolder 2y ago
    What do you mean? OpenGL was a product of understood computer science.

mbreese 2y ago

How many of the new games (that looked better) had better circuitry on the game cartridge? I didn’t have a Sega (NES!), but cartridge systems could potentially have a lot more options to work with than the base system. For example, the Pokémon cartridge for the gameboy had its own battery powered memory (IIRC). Not to take away from your argument - the more you know a system, the better it can be exploited. However, in those days, it wasn’t always as simple as it seemed. This was especially true when you were (effectively) plugging expansion boards in with every game. Here’s an example from the NES side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_management_controller_(Nintendo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_management_controller_(... The reason why Super Mario 3 looked so much better than the original has a lot to do with evolution of these chips (on the cartridge).

edent 2y ago
Other than Virtua Racer, I don't think any Sega cartridges of that era had extra processing circuitry. There were some with extra control-pad ports, and I think one with a modem. Of course, you could count the 32X & MegaCD as a large cartridge - but that's stretching it!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

hnlmorg 2y ago

Learning techniques to maximise the efficiency of games consoles isn’t CS in the traditional sense. But I can see where you’re coming from. You also have to bear in mind that cartridge based systems you ship with larger ROMs and sometimes even additional chipsets in later years of a consoles life. So even if you knew all the hacks for a specific console from day one, you still might not have a large enough ROM to take advantage of some of them.