> 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.
I really dont know, what you are talking about. Do you really mean that SNES emulation is better on MESS then on BSNES? Can you name a better emulator for SNES?
Beside all of this, I never had your problems you are talking about with BSNES. BSNES is awesome, regarding emulation. emulation will never reach the real thing. If you think you see micro-stutter in BSNES, buy the real thing. I dont have your problems, it works very well for me.
MAME (if continued project) will shine in the future. with its aim to produce accurate emulation, it can happen that it will become a better choice, but for the moment, there are a lot of games, done better in emulators that are NOT MAME. So I really dont know, how you come to the conclusion that MAME plays that games better or are playable at least. Model2, Supermodel and Demul are the best examples, why you are wrong with your statement.
cheers, u-man
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Ars article on 'unemulated games'
Reply
