> > it seems much more productive to me to try to understand and discuss the reasons
> behind
> > their growth, but that's just me, to each their own.
>
> We understand the reasons, they have complete opposite goals to MAME. It takes longer
> to do things properly, so they are hoovering up users with their half baked
> solutions. It's not the users fault, it's marketed in a way that makes it attractive.
The other problem is they're Lance Armstronging it too. Doing it properly not only takes longer, it is also competing against things that are game specific hacks, basically cheating and creating unrealistic expectations in those cases meaning even when it does get done properly the proper implementation is likely to just be met with a negative response rather than the positive one it deserves.
Was bad enough with the shmupmame crowd which also employed per-game hack techniques and created a similar mess.
When you do start hacking things like that you're changing the games too, I know for a fact that some games had lag programmed in as part of the difficult balancing. Anything claiming 'better than reality' in cases like this is inherently a problem, it implies cheating, it implies game specific hacks, and it implies changing how the game are meant to play.
I maintain, RA / LR is the worst thing to happen to emulation in the last decade and they keep adding more reasons to the list of why that is all the time.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Better than reality: New emulation tech lags less than original consoles
Reply
