/vr/ - Retro Games

>>8267806
Marathon ran at probably 10fps on my PowerMac and I was happy with it

>>8267806
Stable 30fps was considered otherworldly. Consoles were satisfied with 20.

Nobody really cared.

>>8267836
Nice revisionism.

>>8267836
Yeah, there wasn't a market for 3D accelerators to boost the frame rates in their games.

>>8267820
console games were 60fps, pc was 17

>>8267851
>>8267857
>no market
Sure, there was a market, but FPS obsession was hardly a huge thing like it is now.

>>8267836
People cared it's just that tech literacy was so low in the 90s among the vast majority of the population that no one would actually call them fps drops. It was very common that people complained about "slowdown" or that games felt "choppy."
Any this whole thread is going to end up retarded and going to be a bunch of 16 year old "pc mastur race" dipshits who didn't use a computer to play games until Steam told them their console ports could look better, and consoletards who don't even know how to open an .ini file.

>>8267806
My 2600 still ran at 50fps in the 90's

>>8267820
lol

>>8267872
https://youtu.be/Tv_GQNh9D68

>>8267836
More like people were more forgiving of frame rate due to the lack of power of consoles. Toward the early 2000s when PC gaming was becoming bigger were when frame rates became a bigger issue.

>>8267836
More like people were more forgiving toward frame rate due to the lack of power of consoles.

It was toward the early 2000s when PCfags started to brag about 60fps when it became a bigger issue.

We cared more about our connections than framerates in classic EverQuest

>>8267870
Cope.

>>8267986
>n64 game runs poorly
I know, I've been telling /v/ for like 3 years straight this. PC gamers really are insufferable.

>>8267998

>>8267924
>Digital Foundry

>>8268038
Are they wrong, though? Are they wrong?

Hell, even my boomer-ass no-game-playing tech-retarded parents commented on Stunt Race FX looking 'slow' back in the day. I recall quantifying the issue for the first time when playing Flight Sim 5 on my PC. It had a framerate counter and it would go up and down depending on the detail I selected. People noticed, tard.

It’s always been 60fps. It’s only when 3D came around that standards were lowered.

Anything less than 60fps were pleb tier in PC

Consoleniggers try their best to revision history saying nobody cared or that PCchads ran games at less than consolepleb fps

>>8268081
It's correct that framerate mattered and top end PCs did outperform consoles, but in the mid 90s that was nigh on impossible to get in many 3D games, at least in 640x480. Many games were locked to lower, even. Doom was locked to 35fps. Nobody ran Quake at 60fps when it came out. Only in the late 90s could you reasonably expect it in high resolutions with an accelerator about as new as the game.

>>8268092
>but in the mid 90s that was nigh on impossible to get in many 3D games, at least in 640x480
>Nobody ran Quake at 60fps when it came out
See >>8267851

>>8268095
I was there. My 1995 P75 computer, just a YEAR old or so, shat a brick at Quake and was Saturn tier playable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBqNXkpw3RU
P166. 1996 CPU you'd get in a new computer off the shelf. ~30fps in 320x240.

>>8268095
Let me add; GLquake wasn't out with Quake and wouldn't come out for another 9 months, so don't give me that accelerator bullshit. Even so, you'd still need to be some freak with the toppest of the top in one of the most expensive eras for PC.

>>8268095
Just one more (You) for good measure. Fuck you. You're wrong, you know you're wrong. Don't even bother replying. I've proven you wrong up and down.

>>8268107
He should be getting better performance than that.

>>8268128
33 more mhz would not push your optimal situation up to 60 though, would it? Maybe 40-45?

>>8268128
also, it may have been 240 instead of 200, didn't quite catch or discern. Either way. No Quake 60fps in 1996 barring some freaky circumstances.

>>8268128
>>8268136
There are a few other variables that affect performance. Resolution being an obvious one, but even then, there are three modes of the same resolution. The game defaults to a standard VGA mode, which is slower than VESA. Also, some 2D cards are faster than others.

I wish I had a Pentium PC so I could play around with these things.

>>8268261
Yeah I know there are a number of things we can do after the fact to increase performance a bit. I think Phil's Computer Lab had some thing for optimizing Pentium performance. Still doubt you'd crest upon 60 til at least P2 233 though, MAYBE a Pro 200 if you optimize out the ass and overclock.

https://thandor.net/benchmark/33

1997 though. I don't think you were the one calling me a 'revisionist', but in case that guy's still here.

>>8268269
You could play at 60 FPS if you reduce the window size, but who in their right mind would do that?
Vanilla Quake feels perfectly responsive at 30 FPS in software mode anyway. Too bad there isn't a simple way to cap the framerate.

Amazing to think what MMX could do to a software renderer. Carmack downplayed the importance of it, but it seriously helped Unreal practically be as good as having a hardware accelerator.

>>8267806
No one knew what frame rates were. We just played the games.

>>8268385
I knew that Starfox was really slow and unresponsive. I didn't have a word for it, but I could experience the displeasure of low framerates.

>>8268385
> anon has multi personality issues
Meanwhile non retards used Quake console commands like "show_fps 1", even back in 1996.

>>8267857
>>8267836
,> be a clown
> no market for 3d acceleratorz
> commenting on image comparing... Popular 3d accelerator cards.
Too bad that Nvidia company wasted time on that Riva shit. Could have really gone places.

>>8269082
That was sarcasm you literal autist.

>>8267820
Many great looking console games ran at 30 fps. Namco stuff comes to mind - Ridge Racer and Ace Combat series.

N64 games were choppy around 20 fps mostly.

>>8269087
Well spotted, other autist

>>8268110
vQuake

>>8269279
Ran like dogshit, but looked nice.