> > I personally don't truly consider something emulated until it's in MAME/MESS. The > > problem with a lot of the one off emulators is that they just have shitty video > > output. > > > > Take Demul, for example. Yeah, maybe it emulates Naomi games better than MAME does, > > but it has microstuttering and runs like ass even if you're getting 100% speed. > > > > MAME has no microstuttering. It runs very well. > > You wouldn't see microstuttering even if there was any given that naomi never reaches > 100% in mame. And demul currently has much better rendering quality than mame. > > > > MAME's the only emulator that really feels bulletproof when you actually play games > > on it. It's kind of ironic given MAME's goal of being a documentation project; it > > plays games better than any other emulator I can think of. > > It's not ironic. We really try to find out how things are really working inside. Not > all emulator authors do (or did, emulators-only-for-playing as quite passe by now). > > OG.
You can find out how things really work inside and still be a shitty application that's effectively worthless in terms of actually playing games. BSNES is a shining example of that.
From MAME's "About" statement:
"Of course, in order to preserve the games and demonstrate that the emulated behavior matches the original, you must also be able to actually play the games. This is considered a nice side effect, and is not MAME's primary focus."
It is ironic that an emulator that doesn't place its primary focus on playability is more playable than most of the emulators that focus on playability. Although, if we're really being honest with ourselves here, MAME's playability is largely the result of Aaron's work on the Windows version of MAME.
Index 
Flat 
Re: Ars article on 'unemulated games'
Reply
