24 replies to this topic

[PongHit]

I read a report from someone who attended the Austin Gaming Expo on Saturday -- he says he tried out an early version of the Activision Anthology for the GBA! He said the games he played ran great, & said the final product is supposed to have over 60 games! ASPYR is doing the GBA version: http://www.aspyr.com There doesn't appear to be any info about AA on the ASPYR site yet, but a company rep said they are planning the release for this October! WOW, I think this is great news!! :!:

-PongHit

[chrisbid]

Ken Love had mentioned that there would be a GBA port, but when AA was originally released, he said that GBA third party sales were pretty poor, so they werent considering it. Its good to see that theyve contracted a different publisher to do the game. I wonder if the homebrews are going to make it to the GBA?

[GaryH917]

60 games on 1 small cart? How could they do that, lol?

[Jasoco]

How can you not believe it? Technology is so advanced these days. How much space do you think all those games take up? All it takes is a small chip to hold them all. The GBA cart may be small, but it's still capable.

[deadtech]

I would be very pleased if there truns out to be 60 (or more!) games on this cart. I don't think that would be a challenge for a GBA cart these days, but I don't know the specifics. Anyway, the reason I am surprised to hear that is because they (people making retro compilations) don't usually put a lot of games on one volume. Even the PS2 Activision Anth. only has about what? +/- 30 games? And the Namco Museum discs for PS1 are another example. The largest commercial pack I can think of was the Konami MSX pack for Saturn (JP only). It had 3o MSX games on one disc. The PS1 version had the same 30 games, but split between 3 seperate discs (also JP-only).

That being said, if there are 60 games, I will most definately be buying the game on the day of release.

-deadtech

[MegaManFan]

I spent a lot of time talking to one of the Aspyr guys right when the show started, and he told me that it would be "patch authentic" meaning that you'd actually have to earn the ORIGINAL scores to get the patches just like back in the Atari heyday.

[PongHit]

deadtech said:

... they (people making retro compilations) don't usually put a lot of games on one volume.  Even the PS2 Activision Anth. only has about what? +/- 30 games?

I think there's almost 50 titles on the PS2 Anthology.

As for those other collections -- like Namco -- those are arcade games, so maybe its not fair to compare. But Midway just announced an upcoming collection of about 30 or so of their biggest arcade hits.

-PongHit

[slapdash]

Even at 50... they're adding games to the GBA version? Anyone know what games?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

chrisbid said:

I wonder if the homebrews are going to make it to the GBA?  

Probably only a few.

I would have had to sign a contract where I had to take all legal risks. Since both, Thrust and Jammed are based on other games (copyrights!), I had to say no.

IMO way to much risk for a free copy. Sorry!

[RCmodeler]

GaryH917 said:

60 games on 1 small cart? How could they do that, lol?

Let's say 4 kilobytes for the average Atari game. That's 4 kilobytes * 60 = 240 kilobytes *or* 1/4 megabyte. The Gameboy Advance carts can EASILY hold that much data.

So, what is the max size for a GBA cart? 32 megabytes?

[Assassin]

RCmodeler said:

GaryH917 said:

60 games on 1 small cart? How could they do that, lol?

Let's say 4 kilobytes for the average Atari game. That's 4 kilobytes * 60 = 240 kilobytes *or* 1/4 megabyte. The Gameboy Advance carts can EASILY hold that much data.

So, what is the max size for a GBA cart? 32 megabytes?

The max size for a GBA Game Pak is 256Mbits (32MBytes), but there are exactly zero commercial games that ship on a Game Pak that large (very high cost.) Most commercial games ship either on a 4 or 8 MByte Game Pak.

Yes, the original Atari ROMs were all very small, but it's not just a matter of running an emulator with the original ROM. If you did that, you'd be lucky to get about 1-4 seconds per frame. Yes, that's SECONDS PER FRAME, not frames per second. Most, if not all, GBA games run at 60 frames per second. So in order to get the games running quickly, we've had to write a LOT of extra code, so each game ends up taking a LOT more than 4K each. And before you ask, yes, the games are still emulated. We did NOT reprogram them. So they will be exactly as you remember them.

Not to mention all of the space required by the label art, box art, manual text, patch art, original music, and sound effects. Oh yeah, and the code takes up space also. So squeezing that many games on one Game Pak IS a big deal!

[hex65000]

For me this is something to look forward to...

Activision Anthology + Gamecube + Gameboy player = a bunch of 2600 carts I dont have to have in my life. Just one little GBA cart -- scrummy!

[ FANBOY! ]
Now if we could get the BIG N to start doing other giant retro anthologies I could start ditching more NES carts too. That and more US versions of Mr. Driller (Driller? I hardly knew 'er!)
[ != FANBOY ]

Hex.
[ _finally_ got an NES topoader, but perfers his NesterDC disk... ]

[Jasoco]

I have my GBP too. Might have to pick this up. 60 games is nice. And I gotta get SOME use out of the thing.

[RCmodeler]

Assassin said:

Yes, the original Atari ROMs were all very small, but it's not just a matter of running an emulator with the original ROM.  If you did that, you'd be lucky to get about 1-4 seconds per frame.

Wow.

I thought the GBA was much more powerful than that and could easily emulate a slow Atari.

[kisrael]

RCmodeler said:

Assassin said:

Yes, the original Atari ROMs were all very small, but it's not just a matter of running an emulator with the original ROM.  If you did that, you'd be lucky to get about 1-4 seconds per frame.

Wow.

I thought the GBA was much more powerful than that and could easily emulate a slow Atari.

If memory serves it wasn't until Pentium systems came about that 2600 emulation became possible and judging by how they play various FPS, I don't think SNES were that powerful, and I think the GBA was about SNES level.

Atari is tough to emulate, a lot of little details you have to get just right.

[SS]

kisrael said:

Atari is tough to emulate, a lot of little details you have to get just right.

Easier, I would assume, if you have access to the original production DOCs and are only concerned with a finite number of games rather than the entire 2600 catalogue.

[JB]

kisrael said:

RCmodeler said:

Assassin said:

Yes, the original Atari ROMs were all very small, but it's not just a matter of running an emulator with the original ROM.  If you did that, you'd be lucky to get about 1-4 seconds per frame.

Wow.

I thought the GBA was much more powerful than that and could easily emulate a slow Atari.

If memory serves it wasn't until Pentium systems came about that 2600 emulation became possible and judging by how they play various FPS, I don't think SNES were that powerful, and I think the GBA was about SNES level.

Atari is tough to emulate, a lot of little details you have to get just right.

GBA has FAR more porcessor power than the SNES.
We're talking the diffrence between 2 MHz and 33, if memory serves.

Of course, VCS emulation IS something of a challenge, as I understand it.

[kisrael]

JB said:

GBA has FAR more porcessor power than the SNES.
We're talking the diffrence between 2 MHz and 33, if memory serves.

Of course, VCS emulation IS something of a challenge, as I understand it.

Oh, didn't realize the difference was that striking.

Now I'm really amazed they got DOOM at all on the SNES...

[chrisbid]

how was the 2600 version of pitfall done on Pitfall the Mayan adventures? was it a simulation, emulation, or was the SNES dumbed down to look like a 2600?

[JB]

kisrael said:

JB said:

GBA has FAR more porcessor power than the SNES.
We're talking the diffrence between 2 MHz and 33, if memory serves.

Of course, VCS emulation IS something of a challenge, as I understand it.

Oh, didn't realize the difference was that striking.

Now I'm really amazed they got DOOM at all on the SNES...

Coprocessors count for a lot.
Doom used hte SuperFX. That'sd why it was signifigantly less shitty than Wolfenstein 3D, which was raw unaided SNES.

[rasty]

JB said:

We're talking the diffrence between 2 MHz and 33, if memory serves.

Actually, the GBA has a 16mhz CPU AFAIK...!

Ciao!
Rasty.-

[JB]

rasty said:

JB said:

We're talking the diffrence between 2 MHz and 33, if memory serves.

Actually, the GBA has a 16mhz CPU AFAIK...!

Ciao!
Rasty.-

Thanks.
Didn't have time to look the #s up. I think the SNES processor is also mroe in the 3-4 MHz range.
...
Of course, the GBA CPU is also more efficient than the SNES one. IT has more clock cycles AND gets more done per cycle.

[kisrael]

JB said:

Of course, the GBA CPU is also more efficient than the SNES one. IT has more clock cycles AND gets more done per cycle.

Huh! GIven all the ports I was assuming the processors were very alike and required minimal recoding.

[JB]

kisrael said:

JB said:

Of course, the GBA CPU is also more efficient than the SNES one. IT has more clock cycles AND gets more done per cycle.

Huh! GIven all the ports I was assuming the processors were very alike and required minimal recoding.

Not even related.
The SNES uses a 65816, which is a 16-bit version of the famed 6502.
The GBA uses an ARM processor.

[rasty]

JB said:

rasty said:

JB said:

We're talking the diffrence between 2 MHz and 33, if memory serves.

Actually, the GBA has a 16mhz CPU AFAIK...!

Ciao!
Rasty.-

Thanks.
Didn't have time to look the #s up.

You're welcome.. I've simply got the information from the Activision Anthology thread in the 2600 forum anyway

Ragards!
Rasty.-