$3,000 apparently : https://www.giantbomb.com/sharp-x68000/3045-95/I remember this thing was expensive as fuck
It's kind of like the Japanese Commodore Amiga where they revised the main processor with a faster version, which some games will only work with.Weren't there multiple iterations throughout the years with updated specs? I say this before watching the video.
Hell yeah! Nice to see someone with great taste! I love their videos, very genuine and gives a lot of neat information, and I like seeing the various version of specs handle things differently depending on the hardware, especially in sound options. From the incredible art and sound design, I'm in retro heaven having more people do videos on these retro systems, especially the stuff we never got.There are some great videos to watch about niche Japanese PCs, the X68000 being of course one of them.
I recommend checking this channel for PC-88 and PC-98 : https://www.youtube.com/@BasementBrothers
Really?I remember playing the first emulator, the Japanese dev did his damnedest to stop baka gaijin from using it.
This happened back in '97, so it's been awhile, but one of the early devs did not like the attention when the emu scene learned of this fantastic machine from the mysterious east and updated versions refused to start unless it found Japanese fonts and other files. The readme file mentioned foreign pirates.Really?
Don't worry fellow old timer. I also vaguely remember everything, just not that part. IIRC a translator group did a patch or something, or there was a way to brute force through the thing.This happened back in '97, so it's been awhile, but one of the early devs did not like the attention when the emu scene learned of this fantastic machine from the mysterious east and updated versions refused to start unless it found Japanese fonts and other files. The readme file mentioned foreign pirates.
This is so early we still had single arcade game emulators and MAME was still dew fresh. So pardon Grandpa for not remembering all the details.
Well, that certainly wasn't bad, right?I'd be a PC gamer today if, I knew the X6800 existed, was available in my country and I could have afforded it. Instead I just had my PC Engine/Megadrive/SNES.
I remember playing the first emulator, the Japanese dev did his damnedest to stop baka gaijin from using it.
Seeing the Japanese version of Wings of Fury was freakin' hilarious. The original version might have been a hard sell in Japan.
That Motorola 68000 chip family at the heart of this powered so many awesome gadgets. I always saw the X68000 in magazines and I always wanted it but I never made it happen.
Had Sharp released it in the West it would have likely wiped the floor with the Amiga and would have given Commodore something to sweat about rather than just going head-to-head with the Atari ST ....and so as it was the Amiga was king of the hill in terms of "gaming PCs" circa late 80's up until about 1993...It's crazy how powerful this thing was in 1987. At the time, regular PCs were not even in the gaming space, even 8bit home computers could outperform them.
The only other computer that could barely compete was the Amiga. But even that was like comparing the Neo-Geo to a Mega Drive. And despite that, the Amiga in 1987 was considered a "dream machine" and was still very expensive.
Since the Neo-Geo AES wasn't released before 1991, that means the x68000 was the most powerful gaming home system you could possibly get... for 4 long years. That record beats the Amiga 1000, which was the state of the art for only 2 years (before the x68000 was released).
Yeah sure, there was also the Acorn Archimedes, which was technically more advanced than both and it also got released in 1987. But that one wasn't really fine tuned for games, it was more like a cheap workstation.
Not so. The reason graphics hardware was rarely mentioned back then, especially PC hardware from the 80's like this, because the graphics hardware didn't work like modern GPU's do. The chips themselves were rarely notable other than the number of things they did. Graphics hardware tended to work in service of the CPU and provided the capability to draw sprites, layer backgrounds, handle scrolling, etc. But the CPU actually coordinated it all and every chip had to do its job during the CPU cycle. Graphics hardware didn't start to become notable until video components started to provide upgradeable video co-processing capabilities, which led to actual GPU tech like we have today.The CPU was the least important part in gaming systems, even then. A lot of systems share the same 68000 technology (with some variations in speed) but their overall capabilities are night and day. What matters is the graphics silicon that never gets mentioned in the retro scene.
And the next best thing to it was the release of the Neo Geo in 1990 albeit without the support of Capcom or Konami...The Neo Geo wasn't exactly cheap either but compared to the Sharp it most definitely was the more "affordable option"The reason graphics hardware was rarely mentioned back then, especially PC hardware from the 80's like this, because the graphics hardware didn't work like modern GPU's do. The chips themselves were rarely notable other than the number of things they did. Graphics hardware tended to work in service of the CPU and provided the capability to draw sprites, layer backgrounds, handle scrolling, etc. But the CPU actually coordinated it all and every chip had to do its job during the CPU cycle. Graphics hardware didn't start to take become notable until video components started to provide upgradeable video co-processing capabilities, which led to actual GPU tech like we have today.
In regard to the X68000 the actual graphics silicon was mainly notable because it contained display components that were on par with what was In arcade machines at the time. It was one of the first, if not the first, device built to truly bring arcade quality gaming home.
Don't even try telling the Amiga faithful though haha.Had Sharp released it in the West it would have likely wiped the floor with the Amiga and would have given Commodore something to sweat about rather than just going head-to-head with the Atari ST ....and so as it was the Amiga was king of the hill in terms of "gaming PCs" circa late 80's up until about 1993...
I disagree with this. A very good CPU will offer many possibilities that a weak CPU won't. The CPU moves around everything constantly. With a good CPU and good bandwidth, you can compensate for not a lot of RAM. And it also enables CPU intensive games, where visual content is calculated on the fly. MegaDrive being the best demonstration of this.The CPU was the least important part in gaming systems, even then.
Nah, there was basically 3 cpus back then with different variants. A 6502 mos ,z80 and the Motorola 68000Not so. The reason graphics hardware was rarely mentioned back then, especially PC hardware from the 80's like this, because the graphics hardware didn't work like modern GPU's do. The chips themselves were rarely notable other than the number of things they did. Graphics hardware tended to work in service of the CPU and provided the capability to draw sprites, layer backgrounds, handle scrolling, etc. But the CPU actually coordinated it all and every chip had to do its job during the CPU cycle. Graphics hardware didn't start to become notable until video components started to provide upgradeable video co-processing capabilities, which led to actual GPU tech like we have today.
In regard to the X68000 the actual graphics silicon was mainly notable because it contained display components that were on par with what was In arcade machines at the time. It was one of the first, if not the first, device built to truly bring arcade quality gaming home.
Well I was an owner of an A500 once upon a time and fan of all things Commodore...it is only in recent years that I came across this Sharp machine which when I saw what it could do made me realise that the Amiga line wasn't quite cut above the rest as I used to think for many, many years....(the rest in as the other computers out there...I used to think the Genesis and SNES owners had it good with their graphically better games..) but the Sharp even blew those awayDon't even try telling the Amiga faithful though haha.
Τhere were 8bit arcade games that the Amiga or Mega Drive could hardly handle.I disagree with this. A very good CPU will offer many possibilities that a weak CPU won't. The CPU moves around everything constantly. With a good CPU and good bandwidth, you can compensate for not a lot of RAM. And it also enables CPU intensive games, where visual content is calculated on the fly. MegaDrive being the best demonstration of this.
Ok but you are changing your argument here. You said it was the least important thing, which I disagree with.Τhere were 8bit arcade games that the Amiga or Mega Drive could hardly handle.
And there were 16bit games the Saturn or PS1 could also hardly do, Neo-Geo stuff for instance.
Both the Amiga and Neo-Geo use the same CPU but they are like a whole generation appart. Sure there's a speed difference but surely it's not just that.
That alone show that the CPU is just one small piece of the puzzle. Maybe still important but not as much as being the only thing to measure for specs, like most people do. For me it says almost nothing.
Of course looking at only the CPU is dumb. Who even does this ? You have to look at the global picture.
Games looked a lot better on the N64 at the time than what was on the Saturn and PSX, those 2 wouldn't have been able to handle Wave Race with its awesome water effects.That was the norm in the 90's console space. The Mega Drive even had the "16bit" label on it. Then you had the 32 bit consoles, you had the 32X which was "not really 32 bit, but slightly", the Neo-Geo which was "24 bit" because it being the same bits as the Mega Drive/SNES didn't really make sense and who can forget the 32 bit + 32 bit = 64 bit Atari Jaguar? Thankfully, the Nintendo 64 (bit) was a "real 64 bit" console this time, though still not that much better than the PS1, but still more 64 bit than the Jaguar.
Meanwhile, nobody knew anything about anything else on the motherboard.
Hence, my reaction post whenever i see someone crediting the CPU only when a fancy machine does fancy things. Especially something like the X68000 or the Neo-Geo that have much more fancy hardware in other areas, which is the reason why they are so much more powerful than other 68000 based machines in the first place.
Games looked a lot better on the N64 at the time than what was on the Saturn and PSX, those 2 wouldn't have been able to handle Wave Race with its awesome water effects.
Well I was an owner of an A500 once upon a time and fan of all things Commodore...it is only in recent years that I came across this Sharp machine which when I saw what it could do made me realise that the Amiga line wasn't quite cut above the rest as I used to think for many, many years....(the rest in as the other computers out there...I used to think the Genesis and SNES owners had it good with their graphically better games..) but the Sharp even blew those away
One argument often used against the X68000, especially by Amiga fans, is the comparatively small library of games. Especially in this thread from over a decade ago:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/amig...s-which-was-the-better-gaming-machine.465508/
As much as I liked the Amiga for what it was, it showed its age, though not through its fault entirely. Limited color gradients that feel 8-bit and European game design that places more value on tech than balance, the SID arpeggio fetish carrying over from C64, among other things, soured it for me.
I agree it's the games, but many Amiga examples from the midpoint of its life could also be found on the PC in roughly just as strong form.
PC had 3D games, simulators, strategy and adventure games.It's crazy how powerful this thing was in 1987. At the time, regular PCs were not even in the gaming space, even 8bit home computers could outperform them.
FTFYDon't even try telling the Amiga Brotherhoodfaithfulthough haha.
That was the problem with Commodore/Amiga, if it had a stronger presence in the US of A and Japan who knows we may have got better ports than we did...I think its fair to say out of all things Capcom that were ported to the Conmodore machines, only Final Fight was handled relatively well, we all know how Streetfighter 2 and Super Streetfighter 2 were like on the Commodore...massive disappointments...(blame it on the developers I know...)
All true.European game developers were technically skilled and pushed the Amiga. But it would have been interesting to see what the Japanese developers could have accomplished on the Amiga. I know the 512k memory was very limiting with many North American games requiring 1meg, which makes sense for primarily PC developers. Current day fan projects that use more megs of ram are pretty impressive. The New Final Fight remake for example, or Castlevania.
As an aside, it's almost a bit unfair to compare Capcom CPS1 games to other titles, since it was the development system. It would have been interesting to see Capcom port their own titles on the Amiga. Considering European developers were rarely given assets or code for arcade conversions, they did pretty well. Not sure on the budget and resources between Japan and Europe at the time as well.
The size of the library was never an issue for me personally, it's the quality or what you prefer for games. But if you want Capcom and Konami type games, pretty solid machine. Amiga for original games. Poor ST.