135 replies to this topic

[eseles]

mbd30, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:16 PM, said:

Is it that big of a deal that an emulated version of a game is not the exact same as the original? If you can have fun with eg. a very imperfect console port of "Donkey Kong", you should be able to enjoy an emulation that is like 99.9% faithful to the original title with some minor difference.

Admittedly some games crash or are otherwise unplayable with certain emulators. It would be annoying to get pretty far in a game and then have it freeze due to faulty emulation or bad ROM image. That kind of thing can sour someone to emulation.

I think the argument is that if you can have fun with emulation, go for it. But there's no way that it's as good as the real deal (the 0.1 percent that is off, even though most of the time it is a much larger percent from my experience). & thus that's why there are 'collectors', people who won't settle for a (even slightly) sub-par experience.

I'm going to agree with Jibbajaba here. It's strange to lump people who want the real deal as snubby-nosed collectors.

[Underball]

I would understand the complaints about emulation being inaccurate if it were still the 1990s, and we were all still trying to run emulation on a Pentium II.

But seriously now - C'mon!

With very, very few rare exceptions, current emulators like Stella, prosystem, FCE ultra. SNEStyl, Kega fusion, etc. and the existence of USB adapters for pretty much every classic controller, the current state of emulation delivers a nearly flawless gaming experience.

The lack of RF noise/static and crappy low resolution interlaced displays is the best reason for emulation.

To say otherwise is either prejudiced foolishness, or the mark of someone who is uninformed.

Edited by Underball, Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:38 PM.

[Tr3vor]

I'm about 75/25. I like consoles a lot more, but only the games that are good or that are affordable. If I can't afford it or just want to try it just because its just that bad, then I'll use emulation.

also, If I hacked my PSP when I could (is there a way to hack it on firmware version 6.38?) I would be running plenty of emulators for my favorite games on it.

I'm ok with whatever anyone does, Its not my choice and I couln't care less.

[Jibbajaba]

Underball, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:32 PM, said:

To say otherwise is either prejudiced foolishness, or the mark of someone who is uninformed.

So now if I don't agree that emulation is a nearly flawless gaming experience, I am clueless and uninformed? I guess I can't complain about that statement, because I think that anyone who doesn't play the original hardware, in RGB whenever possible, is getting an inferior gaming experience. So maybe I am a snob. But I don't judge people who don't game the way I do, I just try to spread the word and show people the light.

And I'm not saying that if someone uses emulation that it means that they don't care. I'm just saying that they probably aren't as into the whole classic gaming experience as other people are. For instance, if there were emulators for modern consoles, I'd be fine with that because modern games aren't a big draw for me. So I could play some emulated, sub-par version of Halo and not really give a shit. But I can't play Super Mario Bros. in an emulator because the subtle differences bug the crap out of me. So I would say that someone who plays the classics primarily via emulation is more of a "casual" retrogamer. I don't play my games on the real hardware because I'm a snob or because I'm clueless or because I'm a "collector" and not a "gamer", I do it because I'm hardcore about it, as it is my main hobby. I basically have a room in my house dedicated to retrogaming, as many of us do.

Someone who primarily plays via emulation would be comparable to someone who's really into model railroading, but who plays Railroad Tycoon or Microsoft Train Simulator instead of having a model train setup. As long as you have the room and the scribble, why wouldn't you want to have the real thing? That's how I look at it anyway.

Chris

[Underball]

Some people don't want to clutter up their houses with tons of old games systems cables boxes carts etc.

Just because you have room doesn't mean you should fill every inch of it with dusty old stuff.

Edited by Underball, Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:10 PM.

[Jibbajaba]

My house isn't cluttered at all. I have a nicely organized game room. And if someone doesn't want to keep those systems around, then that's totally fine. Again, they probably aren't that in to retrogaming.

Chris

[Underball]

That doesn't make sense. You're saying anyone who doesn't own all the original systems for all the games they like probably aren't into the games they like.

If I owned the original systems and individual carts for all the games and systems I enjoy, my house would look like an episode of Hoarders.

I have a 7800 with a harmony cart and about 15 7800 carts, a sega genesis with an everdrive, and a custom firmware launch model PS3 with emulators for everything else.

Am I really into these games, or am I just fooling myself?

Edited by Underball, Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:20 PM.

[Jibbajaba]

Meh. After reading through some of your old posts, I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my opinions on this subject clear.

Chris

[98PaceCar]

Underball, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:32 PM, said:

I would understand the complaints about emulation being inaccurate if it were still the 1990s, and we were all still trying to run emulation on a Pentium II.

But seriously now - C'mon!

With very, very few rare exceptions, current emulators like Stella, prosystem, FCE ultra. SNEStyl, Kega fusion, etc. and the existence of USB adapters for pretty much every classic controller, the current state of emulation delivers a nearly flawless gaming experience.

The lack of RF noise/static and crappy low resolution interlaced displays is the best reason for emulation

To say otherwise is either prejudiced foolishness, or the mark of someone who is uninformed.

I'm curious... If getting away from an interlaced crt is such a great thing, why do people work so hard to build specific hardware or software options to emulate scan lines on lcd and other supposedly "better" display technologies? You do realize that a good number of classic consoles rely on the inherent limitaions of crt technology to properly render their graphics, right?

[save2600]

Underball, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:32 PM, said:

To say otherwise is either prejudiced foolishness, or the mark of someone who is uninformed.

Nah, all depends on what kind and at what level someone wants to take their gaming experience to.

[save2600]

Underball, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:16 PM, said:

Am I really into these games, or am I just fooling myself?

[Underball]

98PaceCar, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:25 PM, said:

Underball, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:32 PM, said:

I would understand the complaints about emulation being inaccurate if it were still the 1990s, and we were all still trying to run emulation on a Pentium II.

But seriously now - C'mon!

With very, very few rare exceptions, current emulators like Stella, prosystem, FCE ultra. SNEStyl, Kega fusion, etc. and the existence of USB adapters for pretty much every classic controller, the current state of emulation delivers a nearly flawless gaming experience.

The lack of RF noise/static and crappy low resolution interlaced displays is the best reason for emulation

To say otherwise is either prejudiced foolishness, or the mark of someone who is uninformed.

I'm curious... If getting away from an interlaced crt is such a great thing, why do people work so hard to build specific hardware or software options to emulate scan lines on lcd and other supposedly "better" display technologies? You do realize that a good number of classic consoles rely on the inherent limitaions of crt technology to properly render their graphics, right?

You answered your own question. The whole point of emulation is to recreate the original experience as accurately as possible, minus the static/noisy picture of RF.

Not finding a way to accurately emulate the 15 and 30 hz flicker of the 2600 would render certain games unplayable. That's why anyone who's played recent versions of Stella knows the has been done very well in emulation.

It almost seems like the people here who are saying emulation is so inaccurate haven't actually played any emulators since their computers still ran Windows 98.

Edited by Underball, Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:01 AM.

[jaybird3rd]

I suppose it all depends on what your priorities are, as the OP says.

The creation of emulators for classic computers and consoles is one of the best things that ever happened to the PC, and every PC that I've built for myself over the last fifteen years has had some sort of emulator installed on it. They're especially useful to me as development tools, particularly for unit testing of new software for classic systems, because they're far more efficient than burning an EPROM or uploading code to the original machine to test every tweak. If the emulator has a built-in monitor or debugger, so much the better.

As for playing games, it's difficult to make a blanket statement about whether I prefer emulation to "the real thing", because it all depends on the system being emulated and how I'm interested in using it. For the systems I use the most and am most familiar with, I generally prefer the original hardware. I enjoy playing the games on the original systems (and a genuine CRT television, if that's what they were designed for) as a total, integrated experience: it's the only way to play the games as the developers and designers intended them to be played. But emulation is sometimes the only viable option for me in the case of exceedingly rare systems, for platforms that would be impractical for me to own (such as arcade cabinets), or for systems that only have a handful of games that I'm interested in playing. I'm generally content using emulators in these cases. Playing NES and Genesis games on the original systems, for example, doesn't add enough to the experience to make the systems themselves worth owning for me, mainly because they're both popular systems for which there are many well-polished emulators available, so the few games I like on those systems are usually played in an emulator.

Having said all that, for my "core" systems, I still find emulators to be inferior to the original hardware for reasons that have nothing to do with the emulation authors or the quality of their work. First of all, flat plastic LCD displays are just a poor substitute for phosphors shining through a glass tube. The increased clarity of LCD make the graphics look too blocky, you lose many of the effects (such as phosphor bleed) that the games were designed to take advantage of, and the reproduction of the original colors and brightness levels never seems to be quite right. I'm aware of the various options for "simulating" some of these effects, such as the garish "scanline effect" offered by many emulators, but it's still not the same. LCD monitors also look like ass if they're not used at their native resolution, whereas CRT monitors can handle lower or "non-standard" resolutions with ease. Sound is another issue for me: I have a hard time explaining exactly why, but the sounds and music from an emulator often seem "colder" or more "hollow" to my ears compared to those produced by the original hardware.

All of this assumes that the emulators themselves are 100% accurate, and the ones for the more popular systems are probably approaching that now. But many times, that's not the case: there are certain niche platforms that only have one incomplete and often unsupported emulator, and for some systems, there simply isn't a viable emulator available at all. The most notable example of the latter that I can think of is the Atari Jaguar, but given the bizarre attitudes of that "community," I suppose it's because emulation authors are simply afraid of being burned at the stake.

There's also the question of how to adequately simulate the original controllers. For systems that used gamepads, like the aforementioned NES and Genesis, I generally don't have a problem mapping the original controls onto modern gamepads and using those instead; I usually prefer them to the originals anyway. For other systems, there are USB adapters available for the original controllers, although they sometimes introduce noticeable amounts of lag. That seems to be true of the paddle adapters I've read about, which is especially problematic considering how timing-sensitive many paddle games were. But there are certain weird exceptions that are much more difficult to emulate. Imagine an Intellivision with two 16-direction hand controllers--both with their own 12-button keypads and side buttons--connected to an ECS Computer Adaptor with a Computer Keyboard or Music Synthesizer plugged into it. You'll never find a satisfactory way to simulate all that on a modern system.

I suppose I prefer using the original hardware for the same kinds of reasons that many golden-eared audiophiles still prefer listening to their music from LP records instead of Compact Discs. If you look into the kinds of arguments they offer in support of their position, and at the kinds of subtle differences which they can notice but that the less-discerning public might easily miss, there are certain similarities to what I've written about here. Again, it all depends on the level of enjoyment you're looking for. As they say, de gustibus non est disputandem.

[bradx]

golden eared audiophile(also lifelong musician with perfect pitch) here: i collect vinyl records, have some 7-10,000 of them, and though i prefer the original hardware, emulators were good enough that i sold the vast majority of my video game collection and have not regretted it one bit. yeah i have a nice set of paddles and a 2600 for those games, but other than that, 99% or so of games are emulated just fine in my opinion.

i agree with whoever said the free emulators are better than the official collections. god bless MAME, since i discovered that i havent looked back. in a way i guess it is similar to my golden ear audiophile tastes. i was talking with some other vinyl afficianados recently, and remarked that often if i want to hear a song i will download it, because when you have such a vast collection its usually quicker to download than to dig through stacks and stacks of records. same goes for emulation, if i want to play an atari game do i go down in my basement and dig through all my junk and dig it out, or double click an icon on my desktop?

unless i am itching to play a game of kaboom the answer should be obvious...

Edited by bradx, Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:13 AM.

[Underball]

Thus far in this thread, the sentiment seems to tilt towards emulation being mostly a crappy, inaccurate, sub-par experience.

I would suggest that those say this haven't actually played a game on a recent/current version emulator.

But, let's look at the other side of it.

Regardless of emulators, often times obtaining, connecting, and successfully running 30ish year old game systems can just as often be a thoroughly frustrating, disappointing, and lackluster experience.

Finding a good working console and the specific games you want at a reasonable price can take YEARS. Often with having to deal with getting ripped off by unscrupulous sellers or having your purchases get lost in transit.

Then when you do find one, it is often plagued with problems. They wont play on 99% of TV's made in the last 5 years without modification or sacrifices. They won't play because of dusty, dirty insides. They won't play because they're a Front Loading NES, which didn't play 1/2 the time even when it was new. The cart you bought online is dead, or has bit-rot and is unplayable. The console you bought didn't come with a power supply or some essential cables, which you can't normally get on their own and now have to spend all that money again on another whole console. The screen rolls because Oops!, it's a PAL game and the eBay seller forgot to mention that. The gamepads or joystick you bought can't go left like they are Derek Zoolander.

The list goes on and on. Classic gaming often isn't worth the time, effort and cost investment, when compared to emulation.

Edited by Underball, Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:30 AM.

[98PaceCar]

Underball, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:57 PM, said:

98PaceCar, on Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:25 PM, said:

I'm curious... If getting away from an interlaced crt is such a great thing, why do people work so hard to build specific hardware or software options to emulate scan lines on lcd and other supposedly "better" display technologies? You do realize that a good number of classic consoles rely on the inherent limitaions of crt technology to properly render their graphics, right?

You answered your own question. The whole point of emulation is to recreate the original experience as accurately as possible, minus the static/noisy picture of RF.

Not finding a way to accurately emulate the 15 and 30 hz flicker of the 2600 would render certain games unplayable. That's why anyone who's played recent versions of Stella knows the has been done very well in emulation.

It almost seems like the people here who are saying emulation is so inaccurate haven't actually played any emulators since their computers still ran Windows 98.

Fair enough. But do you really think that emulators get down to the state of absolute perfection or "just good enough"? No other display, no matter how many filters or processors are applied, is going to look like or react like a CRT. Using things like the amount of time the phosphors glow after the electron beam hits them to trick the eye into seeing something that isn't really there is probably doable, but lets be honest here. Are most people that are into running emulation going to even notice that level of detail? Nope, so the developers of the emulators are not going to spend the time doing it. There may be a few exceptions, but they are the vast minority and by no means the rule.

There's a vast difference between how the emulated software runs and the experience that the emulator provides. That's what people here are trying to tell you. While the software may run as well, if not better than the original platform, it's never the same because the subtle nuances are not replicated, or at least not well. Fire up MAME and run a vector game, any vector game. Then play that same game on a real vector monitor and you'll get the point. I don't care how new or good the version of MAME is, it's just not the same experience.

Now before you start claiming that I'm just not a fan of emulation, I've had a MAME cabinet for about 8 or 9 years now and do a pretty decent job of keeping it up to date. I'm not on the latest version, but within about a year or so. It's an amazing test bed for trying out games that I may want to buy and even has a lot of draw for my non-enthusiast friends that want to play a game or two. But anytime I have true gamers over, my MAME sits idle while all of my other arcade games get played nearly nonstop. I've never taken the time to ask why that is, but I suspect it's the same reason that I will seek out and buy a game I want instead of just playing it on the MAME. It's not the same experience. To me, the display is too sharp and sterile, all of the soul of the game is gone because of the "perfection" of the emulation.

Art comes from limitation and the limitations on video games are due to the technology. When you change the technology that is rendering the art, the art changes and becomes something completely different. For those of us that were fortunate enough to live through the golden age of video games, you'll never be able to duplicate the experience on anything less than the real hardware. Emulation has it's place, but if that's what you are looking for here, you are in the wrong group of people.

Underball, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:00 AM, said:

The list goes on and on. Classic gaming often isn't worth the time, effort and cost investment, when compared to emulation.

Ah, I had suspected this. For you, classic gaming isn't worth the time, effort, and cost. For others it is. Though the cynic in me suspects that maybe you want to own more of the real hardware and games, but don't have the means to do so at this time. So, you rely on emulation as a stop gap measure and try to get others to validate your decision to make yourself feel better. But again, I'm a bit of a cynic so actual mileage may vary! :-)

[Underball]

98PaceCar, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:00 AM, said:

Fair enough. But do you really think that emulators get down to the state of absolute perfection or "just good enough"?

I think in most cases now, the perceptible difference is barely noticeable if at all - with a few rare exceptions. And really, the only people who do notice it are the same people who are also visibly bothered by an almost imperceptible 2 millimeter crease on the corner of a cardboard box that a 2600 game was packed in 32 years ago, thus ruining their week and feeling like their world is dashed until they find another one that is "PERFECT - MINT - VIRGIN" or whatever.

I know what you're saying about CRT. I do still have a CRT in my Basement game room, because light gun games and the Sega 3D glasses don't work on LCD. But I have my Atari 7800 and my Genesis hooked up to the LCD TV and they look fantastic. One of the things that always bugged me about CRT/RF as a kid was the shit-awful picture through those clunky RF switchboxes, and all the RF wavy static. Not to mention the bad geometry of Picture Tubes, and the corners/edges of games getting cut off because of the bubbled/rounded corner effects.

I ALWAYS wanted the home console games to be as pixel-accurate as computer games and lots of Arcade games were. But they weren't. They were terrible looking in some cases. Now, with good emulation, shaders, scalers, and a pristine 1080p LCD - It looks 1,000% better than I could have ever hoped for as a kid, while I was cursing that damned RCA junkbox TV and fiddling with the stupid rabbit-ears.

[Underball]

98PaceCar, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:00 AM, said:

Underball, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:00 AM, said:

The list goes on and on. Classic gaming often isn't worth the time, effort and cost investment, when compared to emulation.

Ah, I had suspected this. For you, classic gaming isn't worth the time, effort, and cost. For others it is. Though the cynic in me suspects that maybe you want to own more of the real hardware and games, but don't have the means to do so at this time. So, you rely on emulation as a stop gap measure and try to get others to validate your decision to make yourself feel better. But again, I'm a bit of a cynic so actual mileage may vary! :-)

What you're describing isn't "Classic Gaming".

It's "The giant pain in the ass that is collecting classic game equipment".

Classic Gaming is PLAYING these games, in any form.

Hence the difference between GAMING and COLLECTING. The only people who care about this distinction are fanatical collectors.

I own a 7800 with a Harmony cart, a Genesis with an Everdrive, a PS2 with a mod and 40 games on the internal Hard drive, and a PS3 with Custom firmware, 32 games, and emulators for everything else. I have the ability to play pretty much every game I'd like in original console format, if I so choose.

As for your dig about "having the means", LOL, I'm pretty sure I have the means to own every piece of everything the fanatics on this site collect. What I don't have is the desire to deal with trying to acquire it all, or the patience to deal with the scumbags who try to rip people off in the process.

But again, this is all rinse and repeat. Any time someone suggests to a self-described "collector" that emulation can be just as good a gaming experience, or just as rewarding and fun - out comes the snobby, "You don't have the money to compete with my AWESOME COLLECTION" attitude in response. It's one of the things that makes this site unbearably childish sometimes.

[Reaperman]

Here's an odd one, which is probably a prejudice on my part. Does anybody else just love the clone systems coming out, and favor them over much more accurate software emulation?

Also is software emulation control lag all in my head, or is there really measurable slop there? I'm perfectly willing to accept the truth of it, which I somewhat suspect disagrees with my hands on the subject.

[Underball]

Reaperman, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:39 AM, said:

Here's an odd one, which is probably a prejudice on my part. Does anybody else just love the clone systems coming out, and favor them over much more accurate software emulation?

Also is software emulation control lag all in my head, or is there really measurable slop there? I'm perfectly willing to accept the truth of it, which I somewhat suspect disagrees with my hands on the subject.

If it weren't for my unnatural love for the Sega 32x, I would have gotten one of those Genny clones long ago.

As far as control lag - it really depends on the controller, and the moreso, the speed of the PC the emulator is running on.

I have two at home with emulation on them.

One is a 7 year old Athlon XP with 1gb of ram and a shitty GeForce 5000 something card. It has issues with the bigger games in MAME, and certain other emulators. controls are laggy, and I blame it on moth the PC speed and Windows XP.

I also have a recent Core2Duo machine with Windows 7 and 8bg ram/1gb video card. It runs pretty much every emulator I throw at it flawlessly. and the same USB controllers/adaptors have no timing issues that I can see.

[Smatchmo]

Reaperman, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:39 AM, said:

Here's an odd one, which is probably a prejudice on my part. Does anybody else just love the clone systems coming out, and favor them over much more accurate software emulation?

Console clones are a step up from emulators, imo, because you can use carts and, depending on the clone, you can use the same controllers, but they're still not as good or desirable as the original consoles. I've thought about getting a Genesis clone, primarily for s-video hookup so's I can play it on the big screen, but....*sigh* i dunno, it wouldn't be the same.
Maybe I am a snob....

[Reaperman]

Underball, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:49 AM, said:

As far as control lag - it really depends on the controller, and the moreso, the speed of the PC the emulator is running on.

I have two at home with emulation on them.

One is a 7 year old Athlon XP with 1gb of ram and a shitty GeForce 5000 something card. It has issues with the bigger games in MAME, and certain other emulators. controls are laggy, and I blame it on moth the PC speed and Windows XP.

My last major experience with emulation was on xbox1, so I suspect that my experience compares poorly to even that 7 year old athlon. I had been assuming that the lag was due to putting controllers on USB, but processor speed makes a lot more sense.

[Underball]

Reaperman, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:57 AM, said:

Underball, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:49 AM, said:

As far as control lag - it really depends on the controller, and the moreso, the speed of the PC the emulator is running on.

I have two at home with emulation on them.

One is a 7 year old Athlon XP with 1gb of ram and a shitty GeForce 5000 something card. It has issues with the bigger games in MAME, and certain other emulators. controls are laggy, and I blame it on moth the PC speed and Windows XP.

My last major experience with emulation was on xbox1, so I suspect that my experience compares poorly to even that 7 year old athlon. I had been assuming that the lag was due to putting controllers on USB, but processor speed makes a lot more sense.

Although there aren't a lot of Emulators out yet, the PS3 Custom Firmware emulators are so far absolutely fantastic. GenesisGXPlus and Stella are great with the Sixaxis Dual Shock.

[jaybird3rd]

Underball, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:38 AM, said:

What you're describing isn't "Classic Gaming".

It's "The giant pain in the ass that is collecting classic game equipment".

<SNIP>

But again, this is all rinse and repeat. Any time someone suggests to a self-described "collector" that emulation can be just as good a gaming experience, or just as rewarding and fun - out comes the snobby, "You don't have the money to compete with my AWESOME COLLECTION" attitude in response. It's one of the things that makes this site unbearably childish sometimes.

Okay, I think we get the point already. Collecting the original hardware is too much trouble for you, the emulators work just fine for you, you think that ought to be true for everyone, and anybody who says otherwise is just a fanatical childish snob who's only interested in showing off the size of their collection. Got it.

Personally, I think you're being just as dismissive of certain people's reasons for wanting to own the original hardware as you're accusing them of being towards the merits of emulation. I gave some of my reasons, and not all of them can be dismissed by simply saying "Bah, you just haven't tried any new emulators since the Windows 98 days!" Well, yes, I have. I try newer emulators and replace my old ones regularly, although I do keep some older versions of MAME around for some of my old ROM sets. While the accuracy of the emulation and the available horsepower have improved, the more fundamental issues I discussed have not changed.

One other topic I neglected to mention in my previous post: the availability of multi-carts and flash cartridges has eliminated many of the "headaches" that people enjoy complaining about. If you can load up a system's entire library onto a multi-cart without having to own a drawer full of cartridges, and if the system is working great and you take good care of it, where are all these "headaches" of owning the original hardware? Having it take up an extra two square feet of space (or less) on a shelf? Having to keep an extra controller or keyboard around? Having to dust the thing off every few weeks? Just get an extra power strip and a switchbox for your TV, use some basic cable management techniques, and you're done. If classic gaming really matters that much to you, these kinds of "headaches" are easily mitigated, and if it doesn't, why do you continue to belabor the point?

[Underball]

jaybird3rd, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:11 AM, said:

Underball, on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:38 AM, said:

What you're describing isn't "Classic Gaming".

It's "The giant pain in the ass that is collecting classic game equipment".

<SNIP>

But again, this is all rinse and repeat. Any time someone suggests to a self-described "collector" that emulation can be just as good a gaming experience, or just as rewarding and fun - out comes the snobby, "You don't have the money to compete with my AWESOME COLLECTION" attitude in response. It's one of the things that makes this site unbearably childish sometimes.

Okay, I think we get the point already. Collecting the original hardware is too much trouble for you, the emulators work just fine for you, you think that ought to be true for everyone, and anybody who says otherwise is just a fanatical childish snob who's only interested in showing off the size of their collection. Got it.

Personally, I think you're being just as dismissive of certain people's reasons for wanting to own the original hardware as you're accusing them of being towards the merits of emulation. I gave some of my reasons, and not all of them can be dismissed by simply saying "Bah, you just haven't tried any new emulators since the Windows 98 days!" Well, yes, I have. I try newer emulators and replace my old ones regularly, although I do keep some older versions of MAME around for some of my old ROM sets. While the accuracy of the emulation and the available horsepower have improved, the more fundamental issues I discussed have not changed.

One other topic I neglected to mention in my previous post: the availability of multi-carts and flash cartridges has eliminated many of the "headaches" that people enjoy complaining about. If you can load up a system's entire library onto a multi-cart without having to own a drawer full of cartridges, and if the system is working great and you take good care of it, where are all these "headaches" of owning the original hardware? Having it take up an extra two square feet of space (or less) on a shelf? Having to keep an extra controller or keyboard around? Having to dust the thing off every few weeks? Just get an extra power strip and a switchbox for your TV, use some basic cable management techniques, and you're done. If classic gaming really matters that much to you, these kinds of "headaches" are easily mitigated, and if it doesn't, why do you continue to belabor the point?

We were talking about the pros and cons of collection vs. emulation, and the person I quoted DIRECTLY SUGGESTED TO ME that I don't have "the means" to acquire all the classic gaming equipment I would like to own.

That's snobbery, straight up, no chaser. There's really no other way to put it. And I've seen that exact scenario play out dozens of times on here with various users. To the point where some users who were starting to build up a modest collection (Shadow460, for example) was completely shunned by some of the "tough guy" collectors who look down their nose at everyone who doesn't own multiple copies of Chase the Chuckwagon and Video Life, and was chased out of threads and treated like crap and picked on until he left.

That's why I belabor the point. Because it's bullshit behavior that is allowed to persist. The conversation always seems to gravitate to someone eventually dropping a "You're just jealous of my collection" accusation. I don't like it. So I say something about it.