Namco's lost console: 'Super System'

[Rev. Rob]

Hi all,

 

For about two years I've been doing some research on the aforementioned subject, and I have yet to uncover any internal specs, games, or hardware from Namco.

 

All the info I have found is here:

 

http://www.revrob.com/content/view/50/49/

 

Anyone else have anything?

 

Thanks!

[raindog151]

Interesting read.

 

You may want to respell "Kalona" as "Klonoa".

[Rev. Rob]

Interesting read.

 

You may want to respell "Kalona" as "Klonoa".

 

 

Good call!

[Rev. Rob]

Just a bi-annual bump to see if any other info has surfaced about this.

[malducci]

Hi all,

 

For about two years I've been doing some research on the aforementioned subject, and I have yet to uncover any internal specs, games, or hardware from Namco.

 

All the info I have found is here:

 

http://www.revrob.com/content/view/50/49/

 

Anyone else have anything?

 

Thanks!

 

Seems you have a lot of speculation, but little/no proof. I've already seen this discussion before. The only fact known is that supposedly NEC and Namco were in talks. Nothing else. And this was taken from magazine gossip - no official sources. A lot of companies were/have been in "talks". It doesn't mean anything. Supposedly Hudson already developed the PC-Engine hardware and were in "talks" with Nintendo about licensing it to them - as the next generation system. Other than what people 've posted, there's no hard proof links to this at all. Magazine gossip doesn't count. It's all just speculation. Still.. it makes for a fun read.

 

There's also a good reason why the SuperGrafx didn't receive a sound upgrade. NEC/Hudson had already started moving development over to the CD system/format. Which the SuperGrafx connects too. The only bad decision NEC/Hudson made was not to include the extra SGX hardware into the Duo unit. I also love the rumor that the SGX cpu couldn't handle the extra hardware because it's the same cpu as the PC-Engine. And yet, it would have less work/overheard on the SGX because it wouldn't be simulating multilayer BGs with animating tiles and sprites. The extra vram in the SGX also means less work load/overhead on the CPU as well. Also given the PC-Engine and SGX design, the system is better off with the 8bit '6280 @7.16mhz than a 68k of the same speed. Given all the interrupt calls (68k has a nasty overhead for interrupts). And given optimized code, it'll run toe to toe with the 68k. Having coded for both consoles, I'm perfectly happy with the speed of either system's CPUs. I'm not sure what the internal conflict was that killed the SGX, but the system was a fine upgrade. It's sprite per scanline limit kills both the SNES and Genesis and has a real (and actual usable) 512x240 res mode with the right amount of vram to back it up. The only down side to the SGX I can see, is the lack of increased color DAC. Given that the VCE is a newer revision in the SGX too, why it wasn't upgraded to 4bit (4096 colors). The number of subpalettes though (and from the original PCE), still kills the Genesis and SNES with its 32 sixteen color subpalettes. All simultaneous usable at once.

Edited November 17, 2009 by malducci