Nintendo and Nvidia team up to bring Gamecube and Wii classics to the Shield TV in China

Kioku · Dec 6, 2017

I REALLY should quit before something happens. =.=/

Spider_Man · Dec 6, 2017

Memoir said:
You mean Nintendo took a failed idea and made it worthwhile? Oh, how dare they!

Your Anti-Nintendo shtick is borderline mental at this point.

took an idea regardless, they saw this and knew instantly they could use it to save more money and combine both markets, replace the 3DS and WII U at the same time.

again i am not anti nintendo when they dont provide the option to buy todays games, repeated how many times, ironic when pointed out no one can back up your arguments to make my points sound wrong.

i would love nintendo like i used to back in the day, if it offered the option to play todays games, not wait 2 generations for ports or wait years for ports.

ill repeat again, sit back, bet you any money this time next year it will be more than just EA that dont support the switch.

so i base all my points on repeated past history.

you base yours on the fact you like them, maybe your a fan.

lets stop quoting me yea, your opinion is yours, mine is mine, leave it be.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

jt_1258 said:
eww, I just looked that thing up and it looks discusting, also, mobile games normally don't have split/same screen multiplayer/vs

it is rather bulky yes, but the fact remains the same, nintendo must have seen this and that little light bulb went TING...... TING! see, TING.

if anything nintendo are more known for making gimmicks to make its consoles seem better.

we all know its hardware (already limited) is not going to allow it to do much more than it currently can, so we can kiss away that promise of better third party support...... again!

what chance do you think it has when sony/ms release its next gen systems, whenever that day will come (not with all these slight beefed up 4k BS versions), we sure know it cant compete now, so even less chance by the time these new systems launch..... que nintendo in desperation to rush out another console, hey if your lucky it might be on par with the PS4/XBX1 and you just might get all these third party ports.

and yup while the fans slate them, im pretty sure theyll get all moist when they get ported (as they did with the current old ports).

but hey, i guess to all those that keep quoting me insisting i am wrong and anti nintendo, i guess i can go to any game store and find the same games hitting PS4/XBX1 and have the choice to buy it for the switch..... ohh wait, hmmm no we cant, and please remind me how long that has been?

I mean here:
PS1 - N64: yup it lacked majority of the titles the PS1 was getting, tho i admit the N64 still had some great games (still own my N64)
PS2/XBX - CUBE: yup nintendo did slightly better, but the PS2 again had far better support

Notice how both these systems nintendo had hardware better than Sony and on par with the XBX, but never did as well, what were both N64/CUBE lacking in comparison, nope not hardware but....?

Wii, well yes it had a shite load of games, but all were like mini party type games, third parties made massive leaps in its games and left nintendo out the picture.

Wii U, well nothing to be said here, we know why it never had the support, no support, no games, no sales.... DOA.

Switch, yup we have gone back to the Wii with a fancy gimmick hoping to reel in the mass install base, but again its lacking hardware is making it hard for devs to support it with its current new titles, porting old titles, costing more money, not likely to bring in high sales, not worth the investment, end support.

id love to be wrong, id love to be able to buy games that are coming out these days, but i do not want to buy old games i already own, there is no logic in that, if i want to play said game i will play it on the PS4 that is far superior and on a bigger screen, i couldnt give a crap if i could play it on the bus (still never seen anyone yet doing this).

would i (for example) LA NOIRE buy it again on the switch when its the PS3 port, or play it on the PS3, which saying that the game wasnt exactly ground breaking anyway, i actually found it annoying with it over facial impression acting.

PhyChris · Dec 7, 2017

Tom Bombadildo said:
That's irrelevant, PS1 emulation on Dreamcast is "easier" because both consoles were using similar RISC CPUs so most instructions didn't need to be emulated whatsoever. But even Bleemcast could barely play most games well, despite this similarity a lot of games didn't run well and it was plagued with bugs.

This is different, the Shield TV uses ARM cores which are generally weaker than x86, and emulating PPC requires much more work as it's a different architecture. The Shield TV has similar CPU benchmark scores as a low end AMD laptop APU, and ARM CPUs have just as low of IPC as older AMD CPUs did (which is one of the reasons AMD CPUs were garbage for PS2/GC/Wii emulation).

Nice, I figured it couldn't be emulated and GeForce Now made no sense in China, so it's good to see these are direct ports.

It will be emulation, trust me. they are being paid with deadlines to be met as to keep getting paid. (mouths to feed)
ARM can easily emulate X86 PPC by the way. Its all a matter of clocks.

Edit: if they still have the source then they could port it, i forgot about that lol

Tom Bombadildo · Dec 7, 2017

PhyChris said:
It will be emulation, trust me. they are being paid with deadlines to be met as to keep getting paid. (mouths to feed)
ARM can easily emulate X86 by the way.

Except the GC and Wii were PPC, not X86 :rolleyes:

But you're wrong regardless:

Radius4 said:
Hey good news
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/com..._wii_gamecube_games_come_to_china_on/dqtel8b/

NVIDIA confirmed these are ports.

LOL so funny that they would make such a big mistake on the page.

PhyChris · Dec 7, 2017

PhyChris said:
It will be emulation, trust me. they are being paid with deadlines to be met as to keep getting paid. (mouths to feed)
ARM can easily emulate X86 PPC by the way.

Tom Bombadildo said:
Except the GC and Wii were PPC, not X86

But you're wrong regardless:

I corrected that like like 30 secs later

Edit: how am i wrong?

Edit2: might want to wait 10min before replying to me I edit like two or three times before im done. haha

Tom Bombadildo · Dec 7, 2017

PhyChris said:
I corrected that like like 30 secs later

Edit: how am i wrong?

For one, it's not "x86 PPC", those are two separate architectures, x86 and PPC. Yes, ARM can emulate x86 code (as Qualcomm has shown quite well, along with Microsoft's possible ARM Windows, though there's still a lot of overhead which causes a lot of performance issues), but PPC is a completely different architecture, and not something "easily emulated" by ARM. PPC is what the GC and Wii used for their CPU. If it were "easy to emulate", we'd already have full speed Dolphin on Android. But we don't, because ARM CPUs aren't nearly powerful enough for high compatibility, full speed GC/Wii emulation.

It's also not a matter of clock speeds, this isn't 2000 anymore, clock speeds =/= performance. ARM is a low power architecture, it doesn't perform nearly as quickly as a comparable x86 CPU would.

PhyChris · Dec 7, 2017

PhyChris said:
I corrected that like like 30 secs later

Tom Bombadildo said:
For one, it's not "x86 PPC", those are two separate architectures, x86 and PPC. Yes, ARM can emulate x86 code (as Qualcomm has shown quite well, along with Microsoft's possible ARM Windows, though there's still a lot of overhead which causes a lot of performance issues), but PPC is a completely different architecture, and not something "easily emulated" by ARM. PPC is what the GC and Wii used for their CPU. If it were "easy to emulate", we'd already have full speed Dolphin on Android. But we don't, because ARM CPUs aren't nearly powerful enough for high compatibility, full speed GC/Wii emulation.

It's also not a matter of clock speeds, this isn't 2000 anymore, clock speeds =/= performance. ARM is a low power architecture, it doesn't perform nearly as quickly as a comparable x86 CPU would.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

dude everyone knows X86 and PowerPC are different. you are being an asshole now,splitting hairs. I think gamecube/wii emulation is easily possible with a paid programing team. and you don't cool, we disagree.

Kioku · Dec 7, 2017

PhyChris said:
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

dude everyone knows X86 and PowerPC are different. you are being an asshole now,splitting hairs. I think gamecube/wii emulation is easily possible with a paid programing team. and you don't cool, we disagree.

In all honesty, it's a bit more than disagreeing.. Paid team or not...

PhyChris · Dec 7, 2017

Memoir said:
In all honesty, it's a bit more than disagreeing.. Paid team or not...

well, in the end it doesn't matter, they're ports, screw emulation, it leads to arguments lol

Spider_Man · Dec 7, 2017

PhyChris said:
well, in the end it doesn't matter, they're ports, screw emulation, it leads to arguments lol

if the switch were to get GC ports, it would be via emulation, nintendo are not going to port GC games over to the switch that they dont own, why would they.

It will be (if possible) like how MS are providing its "backwards compatibility" it will be some form of emulation feature included into the system and its games will be digital/patched versions of the game to run.

note that when ms claim its backwards compatible that you cant insert any game disc and play it, that you then have to download a digital version of the game.....

saying that i find the XBX1X a pain in the arse that it also does the same for XBX1 games, your £40 disc is just a key to tell the console to download, i tested this by installing a game while online, it took nearly a full day to install.

I deleted the game, installed it again while disconnection from my network and fuck me it installed within 10-20 mins, then connected online and it downloaded its update which was far smaller than the first time.

I am actually more pissed off with MS than i was when the XBX1 first launched, Im constantly facing issues trying to play games on the XBX1X (not sure if same applies to other XBX1 consoles) but everything seems to be online only, no local data to just the HDD.

Ive inserted games and try to boot then get the error asking me if i own the game/app to fix delete the game and download again...... erm its a fucking disc.

Ive had games just go to a black screen at random points while playing, then the console wont turn off, pull the plug, console turns on then off again, try again then gives an error.

Ive had games tell me it cant sync save data to the cloud and to delete local data to fix the problem, which sets be back to the start of the game.

Ive looked in the console settings and cant find anything to tell it not to download game data, to install off the disc, cant find anything to not use save data on the cloud to use hdd only.

and when i search all the errors in MSs FAQ, and states a list, all contain XBX Live service may be down or having issues.

why the fuck should XBXL status have anything to do with me wanting to play a fucking game when its not playing online.

i hate the fact that MS still force its retarded power options, instant on, if console is left running 24/7 and forced updates, or if you dont want your console to be on 24/7 because regardless if it consumes less energy its a retarded idea, but the XBX1X takes about 20-30 fucking seconds to actually get you up and running.

Im just glad it has a massive selection of games i want to play or it would be put into storage like the switch.

jt_1258 · Dec 7, 2017

Retroboy said:
took an idea regardless, they saw this and knew instantly they could use it to save more money and combine both markets, replace the 3DS and WII U at the same time.

again i am not anti nintendo when they dont provide the option to buy todays games, repeated how many times, ironic when pointed out no one can back up your arguments to make my points sound wrong.

i would love nintendo like i used to back in the day, if it offered the option to play todays games, not wait 2 generations for ports or wait years for ports.

ill repeat again, sit back, bet you any money this time next year it will be more than just EA that dont support the switch.

so i base all my points on repeated past history.

you base yours on the fact you like them, maybe your a fan.

lets stop quoting me yea, your opinion is yours, mine is mine, leave it be.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

it is rather bulky yes, but the fact remains the same, nintendo must have seen this and that little light bulb went TING...... TING! see, TING.

if anything nintendo are more known for making gimmicks to make its consoles seem better.

we all know its hardware (already limited) is not going to allow it to do much more than it currently can, so we can kiss away that promise of better third party support...... again!

what chance do you think it has when sony/ms release its next gen systems, whenever that day will come (not with all these slight beefed up 4k BS versions), we sure know it cant compete now, so even less chance by the time these new systems launch..... que nintendo in desperation to rush out another console, hey if your lucky it might be on par with the PS4/XBX1 and you just might get all these third party ports.

and yup while the fans slate them, im pretty sure theyll get all moist when they get ported (as they did with the current old ports).

but hey, i guess to all those that keep quoting me insisting i am wrong and anti nintendo, i guess i can go to any game store and find the same games hitting PS4/XBX1 and have the choice to buy it for the switch..... ohh wait, hmmm no we cant, and please remind me how long that has been?

I mean here:
PS1 - N64: yup it lacked majority of the titles the PS1 was getting, tho i admit the N64 still had some great games (still own my N64)
PS2/XBX - CUBE: yup nintendo did slightly better, but the PS2 again had far better support

Notice how both these systems nintendo had hardware better than Sony and on par with the XBX, but never did as well, what were both N64/CUBE lacking in comparison, nope not hardware but....?

Wii, well yes it had a shite load of games, but all were like mini party type games, third parties made massive leaps in its games and left nintendo out the picture.

Wii U, well nothing to be said here, we know why it never had the support, no support, no games, no sales.... DOA.

Switch, yup we have gone back to the Wii with a fancy gimmick hoping to reel in the mass install base, but again its lacking hardware is making it hard for devs to support it with its current new titles, porting old titles, costing more money, not likely to bring in high sales, not worth the investment, end support.

id love to be wrong, id love to be able to buy games that are coming out these days, but i do not want to buy old games i already own, there is no logic in that, if i want to play said game i will play it on the PS4 that is far superior and on a bigger screen, i couldnt give a crap if i could play it on the bus (still never seen anyone yet doing this).

would i (for example) LA NOIRE buy it again on the switch when its the PS3 port, or play it on the PS3, which saying that the game wasnt exactly ground breaking anyway, i actually found it annoying with it over facial impression acting.

I would rather be known for loving gimmicks then be the type who is a 2nd rate graphics whore. There is stuff pc can do that consoles like your ps4 and xb1 can't power wise because they lock themselves down with devices you can't swap out the individual parts in for better ones, instead needing to buy a whole new build. Though tbh, we are hitting the point of diminishing returns here now, graphics aren't going to get much insanely better so ps/xb/pc have somewhat hit a stopping point with only light improvements they can make. The switch is at a point powerwise that, besides needing to be graphically downgraded, can run alright on the switch as long as devs actually make a proper port and don't shaft us like they do on pc with crappy ports. Look at doom, everyone said there was no way doom could run on the switch yet, look at it now, it is not as great looking as it's counterparts but it runs fairly well. It is a good example of devs actually trying, and showing that the switch is more capable then you would like to think.

sarkwalvein · Dec 7, 2017

Retroboy said:
It will be (if possible) like how MS are providing its "backwards compatibility" it will be some form of emulation feature included into the system and its games will be digital/patched versions of the game to run.

From the first day I've been really doubtful that what MS does with the XBX is emulation as we know it... or emulation at all.

I think they reimplemented all the required X360 core libraries and engines that most X360 games use, porting them to XB1, added some "compatibility" layer libraries to the mix, recompiled the rest of the code in the games (kind of static recompiling) and linked the library calls to the ported version of engines and libraries. Thus, achieving good speed for games.

I don't know if someone has already, but I hope someone does an in-depth analysis regarding what Microsoft "backward compatibility" technology really is, it would be an interesting read.

Kioku · Dec 7, 2017

jt_1258 said:
I would rather be known for loving gimmicks then be the type who is a 2nd rate graphics whore. There is stuff pc can do that consoles like your ps4 and xb1 can't power wise because they lock themselves down with devices you can't swap out the individual parts in for better ones, instead needing to buy a whole new build. Though tbh, we are hitting the point of diminishing returns here now, graphics aren't going to get much insanely better so ps/xb/pc have somewhat hit a stopping point with only light improvements they can make. The switch is at a point powerwise that, besides needing to be graphically downgraded, can run alright on the switch as long as devs actually make a proper port and don't shaft us like they do on pc with crappy ports. Look at doom, everyone said there was no way doom could run on the switch yet, look at it now, it is not as great looking as it's counterparts but it runs fairly well. It is a good example of devs actually trying, and showing that the switch is more capable then you would like to think.

Fairly well is subjective. I agree that it running on the Switch is pretty surprising. Wouldn't go so far as to praise it though. Lost Snapmap, halved our frames and the game just doesn't feel as smooth. I was excited to see Doom on a Nintendo platform for the first time since the N64 days (not counting GBA).

TotalInsanity4 · Dec 7, 2017

Retroboy said:
if the switch were to get GC ports, it would be via emulation, nintendo are not going to port GC games over to the switch that they dont own, why would they.

Most of the worthwhile GameCube games were Nintendo IPs

bi388 · Dec 7, 2017

Why are people buying a handheld system expecting it to run new third party AAA games when the ps4 and xbone can barely handle them? Half of their libraries are running at 720p 30fps or lower and you expect these games to run on what is essentially a handheld that plugs into a tv? You're crazy. Get a pc if you're after new AAA games, the switch is for either new Nintendo games or old games on a portable system.

Spider_Man · Dec 7, 2017

sarkwalvein said:
From the first day I've been really doubtful that what MS does with the XBX is emulation as we know it... or emulation at all.

I think they reimplemented all the required X360 core libraries and engines that most X360 games use, porting them to XB1, added some "compatibility" layer libraries to the mix, recompiled the rest of the code in the games (kind of static recompiling) and linked the library calls to the ported version of engines and libraries. Thus, achieving good speed for games.

I don't know if someone has already, but I hope someone does an in-depth analysis regarding what Microsoft "backward compatibility" technology really is, it would be an interesting read.

and is that not emulation?

modifying its code to run on another platform, but saying that it has support for XBX titles which the 360 didnt have support for.

it is an environment that emulates the titles that you download, if the switch gets the same, if nvidia can get it to work, will be the same thing, feature added to the console in a firmware update, and patched digital versions of said game to run.

well we should all know its emulation as you cant insert the legit game and run, which is what bc would be.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

jt_1258 said:
I would rather be known for loving gimmicks then be the type who is a 2nd rate graphics whore. There is stuff pc can do that consoles like your ps4 and xb1 can't power wise because they lock themselves down with devices you can't swap out the individual parts in for better ones, instead needing to buy a whole new build. Though tbh, we are hitting the point of diminishing returns here now, graphics aren't going to get much insanely better so ps/xb/pc have somewhat hit a stopping point with only light improvements they can make. The switch is at a point powerwise that, besides needing to be graphically downgraded, can run alright on the switch as long as devs actually make a proper port and don't shaft us like they do on pc with crappy ports. Look at doom, everyone said there was no way doom could run on the switch yet, look at it now, it is not as great looking as it's counterparts but it runs fairly well. It is a good example of devs actually trying, and showing that the switch is more capable then you would like to think.

yes lets bring in PCs, you do know if your ok using that logic for the PS4/XBX1 then it also makes your arguement flawed because it makes the switch even worse.

PC gaming is not this superior powerful thing that the PCrace keep ranting on about, your still getting the same games but wow higher graphical settings..... this so called superior hardware is not bringing you anything worthy of its hardware.

i mean its not like your ever going to get PS5 quality games, yup same as current gen. bravo.

so yea you kinda compare the PS4/XBX1 to a powerhouse PC that costs more and will require upgrading, where as the PS4/XBX1 will keep providing these titles on the same OLD hardware, youd think devs would be able to tap more into PC hardware if this so called OLD hardware that console are, yet can do pretty good at running the same games years later.

but problem is, thanks to gimmicks, your getting inferior ports, insert your PC arguement here, yup even worse, and thanks to gimmicks rather than hardware you know support will not provide current new titles because it wont run it, or it would cost more to port a dedicated version over thus increasing retail price which will put buyers off.

the switch is not more capable, its games are clearly visible how its not able to, i mean come on, take DOOM as a prime example, take LA NIORE that its not getting the HD remaster but a modified PS3 port to support the gimmicks.

id rather get the same experience and pay the same price not more, than playing with a detachable tiny joycons that YUP nintendo refused to accept or resolve when i reported how poor they were and always loosing connection.

bi388 · Dec 7, 2017

Retroboy said:
well we should all know its emulation as you cant insert the legit game and run, which is what bc would be.

False. 3ds has gba backwards compatibility through ambassador games and those are not emulated and no not require physical cartridges. Similarly you can run GameCube games on Wii or ps2 games on older ps3 models natively with isos and not a physical disk.

Retroboy said:
yes lets bring in PCs, you do know if your ok using that logic for the PS4/XBX1 then it also makes your arguement flawed because it makes the switch even worse.

PC gaming is not this superior powerful thing that the PCrace keep ranting on about, your still getting the same games but wow higher graphical settings..... this so called superior hardware is not bringing you anything worthy of its hardware.

i mean its not like your ever going to get PS5 quality games, yup same as current gen. bravo.

Yes. They are. A mid to high end pc is so much more powerful that maybe even the ps6 won't be on its level. A standard high end gaming pc can run a good number of games at 4k 60 fps, and the top ones can do just about any game. Heck, even my budget build gets 4k 60 on overwatch. Currently the only console that can even run games in 4k is the Xbox one x, and it only runs a couple games at 4k 30, the rest at 1080p. And stop saying the switch is bad cause of its third party support. It is a handheld system. I don't care how they market it, it's a handheld. There's no way in hell it will run all your new games well. You buy it for the portable experience or for the best 1st party games, or you don't buy it.

jt_1258 · Dec 7, 2017

Retroboy said:
and is that not emulation?

modifying its code to run on another platform, but saying that it has support for XBX titles which the 360 didnt have support for.

it is an environment that emulates the titles that you download, if the switch gets the same, if nvidia can get it to work, will be the same thing, feature added to the console in a firmware update, and patched digital versions of said game to run.

well we should all know its emulation as you cant insert the legit game and run, which is what bc would be.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

yes lets bring in PCs, you do know if your ok using that logic for the PS4/XBX1 then it also makes your arguement flawed because it makes the switch even worse.

PC gaming is not this superior powerful thing that the PCrace keep ranting on about, your still getting the same games but wow higher graphical settings..... this so called superior hardware is not bringing you anything worthy of its hardware.

i mean its not like your ever going to get PS5 quality games, yup same as current gen. bravo.

so yea you kinda compare the PS4/XBX1 to a powerhouse PC that costs more and will require upgrading, where as the PS4/XBX1 will keep providing these titles on the same OLD hardware, youd think devs would be able to tap more into PC hardware if this so called OLD hardware that console are, yet can do pretty good at running the same games years later.

but problem is, thanks to gimmicks, your getting inferior ports, insert your PC arguement here, yup even worse, and thanks to gimmicks rather than hardware you know support will not provide current new titles because it wont run it, or it would cost more to port a dedicated version over thus increasing retail price which will put buyers off.

the switch is not more capable, its games are clearly visible how its not able to, i mean come on, take DOOM as a prime example, take LA NIORE that its not getting the HD remaster but a modified PS3 port to support the gimmicks.

id rather get the same experience and pay the same price not more, than playing with a detachable tiny joycons that YUP nintendo refused to accept or resolve when i reported how poor they were and always loosing connection.

tbh, I feel like this is a diffrent strokes for diffrent folks kinda situation, you want the best version of a game possible while with me, well, I want something that's portable, games like stardew valley, skyrim, minecraft, and doom, I own them on both pc and the switch, having had them on my pc for way longer yet have spent way more time on the switch ports of them because I can take them on the go and play, I am willing to sacrifice 1080p, 60fps, keyboard & mouse support, and mod support just for being able to play on the go, but if that's not what ya want then hey, more power to ya, do what you want to do and I'll do what I want to do

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Memoir said:
Fairly well is subjective. I agree that it running on the Switch is pretty surprising. Wouldn't go so far as to praise it though. Lost Snapmap, halved our frames and the game just doesn't feel as smooth. I was excited to see Doom on a Nintendo platform for the first time since the N64 days (not counting GBA).

I feel ya on the smooth part, though it doesn't help that I'm jumping from mouse to controller for this game, ouch

Kioku · Dec 7, 2017

jt_1258 said:
tbh, I feel like this is a diffrent strokes for diffrent folks kinda situation, you want the best version of a game possible while with me, well, I want something that's portable, games like stardew valley, skyrim, minecraft, and doom, I own them on both pc and the switch, having had them on my pc for way longer yet have spent way more time on the switch ports of them because I can take them on the go and play, I am willing to sacrifice 1080p, 60fps, keyboard & mouse support, and mod support just for being able to play on the go, but if that's not what ya want then hey, more power to ya, do what you want to do and I'll do what I want to do

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I feel ya on the smooth part, though it doesn't help that I'm jumping from mouse to controller for this game, ouch

TBF I played the PC version with the controller in campaign. So it's not a huge change for me. Can still feel a bit of a sluggish tug with it though.

I agree about the different strokes part. If I want the best experience with performance and graphics, I'll get it on PC if available. The Switch is a great go to for quick sessions and OTG gaming.

sarkwalvein · Dec 7, 2017

Retroboy said:
and is that not emulation?

modifying its code to run on another platform, but saying that it has support for XBX titles which the 360 didnt have support for.

it is an environment that emulates the titles that you download, if the switch gets the same, if nvidia can get it to work, will be the same thing, feature added to the console in a firmware update, and patched digital versions of said game to run.

well we should all know its emulation as you cant insert the legit game and run, which is what bc would be.

Under my definitions that would not be emulation, but a type of semi-automated porting.

EDIT:
I mean, you are not really emulating the original machine, you don't keep record of microprocessor registers or states, if you would compare the RAM contents of the game running in the original hardware and on XBX they would be completely different.
The game, in the end, is expected to run different than the original, close perhaps, but not the same, as if it were a port.
It is like taking only some of the code specific to the game and recompiling it (static recompiling = binary translation), while all the other really resource hungry code (graphics engines, libraries, etc) are completely ported from the ground up.
(all of this is a guess from me of what would be required to achieve the performance that those games show, I have not analysed how they really make it)

In the other hand emulation would be trying to emulate the processor, the registers, the original graphic hardware (in the case I present the graphic hardware is not emulated at all, as the gfx libraries have been rewritten from the ground up for the new system), the communication bus with e.g. DVD drive, etc. That would be resource consuming as hell.

Of course, you could say than under my definition extreme cases of HLE like Cemu shouldn't be considered emulators either, but AFAIK at least Cemu still tries to emulate the processor/registers/RAM as they are in the original system.

猫。子猫です！

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dick, With Balls

Well-Known Member

Dick, With Balls

Well-Known Member

猫。子猫です！

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ella

There's hope for a Xenosaga port.

猫。子猫です！

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ella

猫。子猫です！

There's hope for a Xenosaga port.

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum