[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   
File: 194 KB, 784x1024, 1352637660323.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4019347 No.4019347 [Reply] [Original]

What is the furthest that 3D graphics can go while still being considered retro? Are there certain thresholds and methods that must be obeyed? E.g., polygon limit, max texture sizes, gouraud shading, simple texture filtering.

>> No.4019354

>>4019347

Anything up to and including Unreal Tournament (original) and Quake III Arena could be considered retro. It's not so much the tech as the year, since PC gaming doesn't have the leaps in hardware that console generations have (the evolution of PC gaming is all gradual).

>> No.4019364

>>4019347
When it comes to windows games using DirectX. Games using up to DX6 are retro as DX7 was released in 2000.

>> No.4019369
File: 30 KB, 660x550, Y2k4c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4019369

>>4019347
I assume you mean on PC? The 99 cutoff works fine and only excludes a handful of games that are normally not talked about much anyway but have their own threads from time to time.

Having a hardware capability cutoff makes no sense. It should be by software. Win98 is the cutoff in my opinion. Games pretty much stopped by 02 to really support win98. Also anything newer than win98 will run on a new machine without issue. I know for a fact since I was playing BF2 on my modern PC with a 6700k and 1080 without issue other than servers.

The late 90s had many standards come and go along with old standards dying out. Past win98 you don't really run into ISA slot sound cards or anything ISA really. As for other standards you have neat things like glide and a3d stuff that many games used. You're still pretty much forced to use that era of hardware to play those games. Emulation is non existent.

>> No.4019379

>>4019369
>a3d
Such a great tech killed by creative and their shitblasters.

>> No.4019418

>>4019364

Some retro 3d games used OpenGL (Quake II).
I would say OpenGL 1.2 and older is retro, 1.3 and later not.

>> No.4019432

>>4019369
>You're still pretty much forced to use that era of hardware to play those games. Emulation is non existent.


There's a Glide OpenGL plugin for Dosbox, and some OpenGL sourceports of specific games.

>A3D

Not really a standard. Nobody cared. Jewblaster was monopoly.

>>4019347
Whatever a hiro won't ban you for.

>> No.4019437

>>4019432
dosbox is a pile of shit at running late dos to win95/98 games.

Your comments about a3d are about as ignorant as you can get and reek of underage.

>> No.4019448

IMO only flat and gouraud shading can be considered "retro".

Any photorealistic texturing and T&L puts it firmly in "modern" territory.

>> No.4019458

>>4019432
>Not really a standard. Nobody cared. Jewblaster was monopoly.
Actually Creative cared enough about this they outright bought the company so it dosen't create competition for the. Arguably Aureal had a better 3d audio solution than Creative offered even years after it.

>> No.4019478

>>4019347
Maybe people should just stop using the word retro since it's a relative word and as such wouldn't have any use here.

>> No.4019507

>>4019478
>stop using the word retro
>wouldn't have any use here.

Board literally has retro in its name.

>> No.4019560

>>4019507
Yes but it's a misnomer which has been pointed out pretty much since its inception.

>> No.4019581

>>4019560
>>4019478
We use the Japanese definition of retro here.

>> No.4019584

>>4019581
Japanese retro mean's "I played that in grade school!"

>> No.4019590

>>4019581
Do we?

Please fill us in on this magical definition.

>> No.4019595

>>4019437
>dosbox is a pile of shit at running late dos to win95/98 games
Which games are you referirng to specifically?
I can even play games as modern as Quake flawlessly on dosbox.

>> No.4019607

>>4019581
go play your belt scrollers and STG Harvey-san

>> No.4019609

>>4019347
They can go to 1999

>> No.4019653

>>4019347
ps3

>> No.4019792

>>4019609
So what if you were to make a "neo-retro" game designed to be as if it were released in 1999? As long as you could make it run on a PC from that year, would it not matter how great the game looked?

>> No.4020343

>>4019437
Try PCem, it has 3dfx voodoo emulation based on mame's implementation, it does glide and d3d well enough.

>> No.4020440

All games that are 10+ year old are retro

>> No.4020462

>>4020440
read the sticky you underage newfag

>> No.4020463

>>4019347
>What is the furthest that 3D graphics can go while still being considered retro?

December, 31st, 1999

>> No.4020468

>>4020462
>I form my real-world opinions based firmly on some arbitrary rules governing a Burmese Crocheting Forum

Kek

>> No.4020479
File: 319 KB, 1024x770, 1495382139038.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4020479

>hurr durr my game came out in 2010 and its retro uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

>> No.4020575
File: 344 KB, 154x120, 1494736638994.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4020575

>>4020479
If it's aping an earlier style then yes, it is by definition retro

>> No.4020580

>>4019448

>Nvidia's GeForce 256 was released in late 1999 and introduced hardware support for T&L to the consumer PC graphics card market

>> No.4020585

>>4019418

->

>>4020580

>Direct3D 7.0
>OpenGL 1.3

>> No.4020586

>>4019347

->

>>4020580

>Nvidia defined it in 1999 as "The technical definition of a GPU is "a single-chip processor with integrated transform, lighting, triangle setup/clipping, and rendering engines that is capable of processing a minimum of 10 million polygons per second

>> No.4020590

>>4020580
Thats why I said
>IMO
Not
>In the opinion of those who imposed a totally arbitrary cut-off date for what is considered retro or not, disregarding any technical considerations for the purposes of lazy board administration

>> No.4020601

>>4020580

arcades had T&L way back to 1993

>> No.4021451

>>4019347
All the rules covering what's "retro" are in the sticky champ.

>> No.4022550

>>4020585
So then, in order to be retro, a game must be D3D 7 and 1.3 at most, running on a Geforce 256.
I'd love to see how pretty one could make a game on that using modern optimization techniques.

>> No.4022560

>>4022550
>>4020580
>>4019448
The 256 isn't one card. There are multiple versions. They supported geometry engines which is T&L. Most of these cards came out in 99 and the rest in 2000.

>> No.4022563

>>4020601
arcades were not consumer machines you could program yourself.

If you want to argue the earliest publically available machines with hardware T&L were probably some of those SGI workstations, but they were for professionals, not consumers.

>> No.4022576

>>4022560
256 DDR, the fast one, has a review from late 1999.
Not sure if it was actually publicly available, but I consider it 1999.

>> No.4022613

>>4022576
That's why I said most were released in 1999. The ones that weren't were retail cards for the most part with tv options like svideo.

Also I have no idea if other obscure companies like Savage released cards prior to 1999 with their own T&L. I'd be surprised if there wasn't an early example.

>> No.4022631

>>4019595
not him, for example when running Screamer 2 in 3dfx mode, if there's a slowdown, on an actual Voodoo the game goes into a kind of slow-motion, but the framerate is still smooth - while with a Glide wrapper the game just drops frames.

Some games that have statically linked Glide just don't work at all in DOS-Box.

Also with software-rendered games, anything higher than 320x240 can drop frames massively.

>> No.4022682

>>4022613
Savage did have T&L. It also had texture compression. Above all, it had single digit frame rates.
>>4019448
But T&L and gouraud shading aren't mutually exclusive?

>> No.4022743

>>4022682
nah Savage does opengl games ok, not as fast as nvidia or 3dfx but playable

>> No.4022851

>>4022576

it came out February 1, 2000

>> No.4022861

>>4022682
>T&L and gouraud shading aren't mutually exclusive
Never said they were.

Just that I can tolerate one but not the other in the context of "retro" games.

>> No.4022881

>>4022563

>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games. Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier.

>> No.4022997

>>4019347
there is no retro. You never stop playing the games you love, or you picked the wrong hobby.

>> No.4023031

>>4019347
Define retro first.

>> No.4023176

>>4022851
That's not true for all the 256 models. Which one are you talking about?

>> No.4023498

>>4022861
Isn't anything adhering to OpenGL already T&L? The only difference is that it's done in hardware on newer systems.

>> No.4023567

>>4019347
This is an interesting question which everyone has essentially ignored. The sticky specifies "platforms," which in the case of PCs means OSes, yet everyone ITT is using software release date as the cutoff for retro for PC gaming.

>> No.4023568

>>4023176
The DDR, which has sources stating 2000, but it was mentioned back in December.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/429

>> No.4023581
File: 104 KB, 1000x720, 1495917769799.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4023581

>>4023567
so what's the cutoff for the normal PC hardware? the setups can get pretty fluid in terms of compatibility. if we just take whatever runs on Windows 98 it means Team Fortress 2 is retro (or at the very least used to be for a long time before they gutted out older directx apis in new patches)

>> No.4023589
File: 38 KB, 600x480, 1477647815502.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4023589

>>4023567
>The sticky specifies "platforms," which in the case of PCs means OSes
wrong

>This is an interesting question which everyone has essentially ignored
it's neither interesting, nor ignored - it's been talked through a million times already. only newfags that don't lurk keep bringing it up

>> No.4023592

>>4023567
As said earlier in this thread, "retro" shouldn't be used here anyway.

>> No.4023654

>>4023568
Again, you're talking about retail cards. The 256 DDR was out in 1999.
>anandtech
Is a review site.... Did you not even look at it?

>> No.4023675

>>4023581
>if we just take whatever runs on Windows 98
That's what it means for qualifying consoles.

>> No.4023676

>>4023589
I made the second post on this board.

>> No.4023678

>>4023676
Different anon that's been here since a few months after 4chan started,
That just means you're a /v/kid more than anything. The first week of this board was a shitshow of trolling with /v/shit and QQing about 6thgen and 5thgen along with the masterbaiter trolls saying only 8 bit is retro.

>> No.4023742

>>4023654
>The 256 DDR was out in 1999.
So, these "other" cards from 2000 should just be ignored.
>Is a review site.... Did you not even look at it?
Yes?

>> No.4023785
File: 325 KB, 640x480, bump.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4023785

This is a game from 1999.
Bump mapping is retro.

>> No.4023809

>>4023742
>So, these "other" cards from 2000 should just be ignored.
I don't understand? What?
Review units were out in 1999. The cards were out in 1999. Just because one model was available in 2000 and not in 1999 doesn't mean the 256 ddr wasn't... Especially with ASUS which practiced bullshit like giving one retailer something months before another.
>Yes?
Look at the date, kiddo.

And AGAIN the 256 wasn't limited to just the SDR and DDR models. That is retail.

>> No.4023810 [DELETED] 

The PS3 is actually retro now.

>> No.4023993

>>4023809
>I don't understand? What?
Exactly. If some of the cards came later, so be it, they don't affect whether or not the DDR was released in 1999, making it retro.
>Look at the date, kiddo.
What about it?
Big reviewers like these get access to hardware before they are released to the public. It could be that the first card popped up in a store the the following year.

>> No.4024035

>>4023993
The card came out in 1999. That's the fact of it. It was available.

Also even if it was only available to reviews (it wasn't) it would mean it was available if you really wanted it.

>> No.4024093
File: 2.03 MB, 1920x1080, Supermodel 2016-08-29 11-57-08-11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4024093

This is how mid-90's retro games actually looked like.

>> No.4024112

>>4024093
except it ran at 496x384 resolution on real hardware, not at 1080p like your emulated screen shot does.

>> No.4024124

>>4024112
even then it still looks like dated shit

>> No.4024154

>>4024124
you sir, are a fucking idiot

>> No.4024158

>>4024124
>dated
K

>> No.4024309

>>4023678
I've never used /v/.

>> No.4024671
File: 353 KB, 992x768, wow it looks like shit now.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4024671

>>4024112

>> No.4024759
File: 3 KB, 126x114, 1468663262329.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4024759

>>4024035

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_256

>Release date
>October 11, 1999 (SDR)
>February 1, 2000 (DDR)

>> No.4024857
File: 260 KB, 1280x847, 1487603961823.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4024857

>>4024759
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_256
Source my ass
Citation my ass

Pro tip wiki kiddo. They both were out in 1999.

>> No.4024862

>>4024759
>I use wiki as a source giving me the right to be smug about it and feel I showed them who's boss around this here parts

ok

>> No.4025705

>>4024857

>They both were out in 1999

Source my ass

two can play this game

>> No.4025707

>>4025705
See the actual cards, kiddo.

>> No.4025716

>>4025707

https://videocardz.net/nvidia-geforce-256-ddr/

>February 1st, 2000

I'm leaving, you are a fucking retard "kiddo"

>> No.4025725

>>4025716
Again kid. See the actual cards. Not your laggy ass site that barely works in America.

>> No.4026356
File: 40 KB, 633x973, 1449676933221.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4026356

>>4019347
>tfw when all those rumors in the cover ended up being true
well, except for the new york mario land owner, but nintendo had a love hotel I think so there is that

this is a weird industry

>> No.4026407

>>4025716
>review from 1999
>"it is releasing now"
>February
Nah

>> No.4026860

>>4019347
Anything that does not use shaders, really.

>>4019364
7 was released in december '99 and some games (namely Unreal Tournament) announced support for it prior to release.

>> No.4026867

>>4026356
Things are gonna be okay, anon

>> No.4027180

>>4026860
Quake 3 has shaders. Is it not retro?