/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.6344962]

Why was the Saturn so egregiously weak compared to its contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.6344970]

Why did you make such an egregiously gay thread?

[Anonymous No.6344971]

>>6344970
Because I am, in fact, a massive cum guzzling faggot.

[Anonymous No.6344972]

>>6344962
It bet on arcade-perfect ports, which was the wrong call, painfully obvious in hindsight.

[Anonymous No.6344973]

>>6344962
Because it wasn't designed for 3d. It was meant to be a 2d focused system with arcade ports in mind but then they reacted to the PSX and paniced at it's 3d capabilities and crammed in twice as many CPUs and video processing chips in attempt to compensate. What came out is a powerful fuck a fucking cluster fuck of a system that forces devs to juggle 2 CPUs and 2 video processors.

[Anonymous No.6344982]

>>6344962
Man that's really impressive. Saturn had a lot of hidden power in it to pull off something like this.

[Anonymous No.6344994]

>>6344982
Its not really the quake engine. The team that make Quake on the saturn actually made a new custom engine from scratch and ported Quake's assets to it. Its still really impressive work, but you can notice it's not real polygons when you get close to the walls since everything warps when you do.

[Anonymous No.6345000]

>>6344994
Even more impressive that it just uses rotated and skewed sprites instead of polygons. Saturn is so powerful at 2D it can do a 1996 high end 3D PC game on it, just in 2D. Better lighting and similar framerate too.

[Anonymous No.6345047]

>>6344962
I heard that Saturn was originally meant to be a 64-bit console, which was why Sega of America made the 32X. To compensate for the time needing to make the console since Sega of Japan told them that the console released was originally meant to be a beta. But as >>6344973 said, Sega freaked out about the PSX's capabilities and Japan rushed the product out in 1994 causing the whole spill. Could've been a whole different ball game had Sega had their communication in check. I still enjoy the system for what it is.

[Anonymous No.6345053]

>>6345047
The real reason for the 32X was due to the Saturn looking to cost quite a bit for consumers so they were going to have a cheaper upgrade path for current customers and float 2 platforms for 3-4 years, a cheaper path for those that could not afford that Saturn, and the high end more expensive path. This turned out to be an awful idea since it split up resources at a critical time when all hands on deck should have been working on the Saturn alone to fix it's issues and get it to a cheaper price point before launch.
I forget where I read it but there is a lengthy interview from the Sega of America president about the 32x. He realized it was a giant mistake basically just right before it launched but it was too late to pull the cord since manufacturing and marketing already happened.

[Anonymous No.6345054]

>>6345047
they could have also given us a beefier system-16 gen-compatible nomad getting a couple year headstart on and completely btfoing the gba.

[kuuhaku No.6345054,1]

>>6345047
you are so wrong mate in 1993 sega of japan wanted to release a new console which was retro compatible with megadrive cartridges and maste system cartridges but sega of america said "why make a new console if it run the old games just make it an addon and that was the born of the 32x the console sega of japan planned was just a middleground for the new sega saturn to be released in 1994.
The sega saturn looking at the specs is a 32bit+32bit CPU so is a 64 bit in the term while not a full 64 bit cpu like the n64 still is a 64 bit console that design used proved to be so advanced it was put in use in some modern machines.

Ps2 is just a 64 bit + 64 bit cpu in other words never had a 128 bit cpu.
Ps3 is just a 128 bit + 128 bit cpu in other words never was on the same ground as the others (xbox36 and wii had exclusive 256 bit CPU)

The sega saturn was designed since the beggining lik that problem was it was too advanced for the time and now so there hasn't been a programer who can take adantage of the whole sega saturn (similar to ps3 problems they had the advantage but in the end the wii was more popular)

[Anonymous No.6345313]

>>6344962
tomb raider on looked better on saturn than on psx

[Anonymous No.6345525]

>>6344973
>Because it wasn't designed for 3d
Stop with this fucking myth. You're an absolute moron if you think Sega wasn't designing it for 3D when they were the ones fucking pioneering 3D in arcades at the time.

[Anonymous No.6345529]

>>6344962
Gif of Quake running at 20 fps on 1994 hardware not related?

[Anonymous No.6345537]

>>6345313
lmao

[Anonymous No.6345615]

>>6345313
lol

[Anonymous No.6345621]

>>6345525
Anon, its been confirmed in multiple interviews for years, mostly info from SoA's leadership.
Sega despite all their incredible talent they had in house, they also had some pants on head retard management in Japan. They made tons of stupid as fuck decisions beyond the design scope of the Saturn.

[Anonymous No.6345658]

>>6344962
>egregiously weak
the power of a console is often gauged by how bad the programmer wants it and how much time and money is on the line

enough of these stupid threads you morons

[Anonymous No.6345720]

>>6344962
Because Sega were trying to do what they did with the Genesis by adapting their arcade hardware as best they could for the home market, but didn't realize the idea didn't scale up well when taking 3d graphics in mind. The Saturn architecture was a confusing and poorly-documented mess that developers struggled with thanks to it's multiprocessor setup and use of four sided shapes as a graphical primitive (when the standard continues to be three sided shapes - the 3DO used quads as a primitive as well and look what happened there).

[Anonymous No.6345731]

>>6344994
It was the same team behind PowerSlave, Lobotomy Software, and yeah it was their SlaveDriver engine (also powered the Saturn port of PowerSlave), really impressive what they pulled off, sadly bankrupt after that...

[kuuhaku No.6345731,1]

>>6345621
oohhh yesss blame the main headquarters.
sega of america is hat ruined sega as a whole,you know why they are a software developer now is because sega of america ruined them producing a console that was sold only on USA the american dreamcast was what killed sega,who in their fucking mind would produce a second console with american parts and sold without profit instead of just selling the same console it was sold on europe and asia.
american are retarded when they are faced with facts what ruined most if not all of sega console market was american decisions.
.- sega japan we have a new console in the meanwhile already desinged compatible with all teh library in the market of sms and megadrive and megaCD we call it the super32x it can be sold at the same price of the megadrive,answer of sega of america was "why make a new console when we already have retrocompatibility now make it an addon and we can profit"
.- sega of japan we made 2 designs for the dreamcast this is really expensive made with american parts and this other is based on our arcade hardware with cheaper japanese made parts,answer of sega of america was we will sell the made made with american parts losing money to keep a low price if we sell enough we will reign over the competition
.- sega of japan releasing the sega saturn on 1994,answer of sega of america "is too soon we don't have software we will delay the launching while sony already released the ps1 on the US"

in light of all that i think you meant to say
>6345525
Sega despite all their incredible talent they had in house, they also had some pants on head retard management in America. They made tons of stupid as fuck decisions beyond the design scope of the Saturn.

[Anonymous No.6345757]

>>6345720
t. someone who doesn't program

[Anonymous No.6345761]

saturn 3d has way more soul though
i much prefer the warmer color palettes and darker shadows. tomb raider on saturn looks way better than PS1, including light scattering on the surface of water and other little effects

[Anonymous No.6345765]

>>6345615
>the dark corner is fully lit on PS1
The lighting was broken. I'd trade slightly lower resolution for better shading and water effects any day. Compare two screenshots of Lara swimming and see what you think.

[Anonymous No.6345784]

>>6344994
If it's not polygons what is it? Looks 3d to me.

[Anonymous No.6345808]

>>6345784
Quads. A 4 point polygon.
The Saturn creats it's polygons by taking a sprite and stretching+skewing it. In a round about way, you can say that the Saturn actually can't do true 3d polygons as its all preformed as sprites, unlike the Nvidia NV1 videocard that actually does draw 4 vectors and fills the polygon just like tris polygons you're likely familiar with.
Really, a polygon can have any amount of points above 3, but the industry found the it was most efficient to accelerate 3 pointed ones and standardized around it. By 95 quads was mostly dead in most 3d implementations, but the Saturn went with it anyways, partially because they were making 2d focused hardware do 3d.

[Anonymous No.6345828]

>>6344962
Because it renders polygons as efficiently as the SNES' Super FX chip, which is basically brute force everything through sprites, or worse, software like the 32X.

[Anonymous No.6345845]

>>6345784
>>6345808
Following up on this, quads are still common today, just not in gaming or in accelerated hardware. Much of movie, tv, advertisement 3d effects are done with quads but are rendered using software (your CPU) or though a GPU using OpenCL/CUDA.

[Anonymous No.6346117]

>>6345000
The framerate isn't bad at all, that's pretty much the FPS a decent computer would give you with Quake at the time, and just as you say, it has colored dynamic lights, which GLQuake didn't even have.

The Saturn port of Quake is a very good piece of work. Shame the Playstation version was never released, it'd probably have been as good.

[Anonymous No.6346124]

>>6345053
>I forget where I read it but there is a lengthy interview from the Sega of America president about the 32x. He realized it was a giant mistake basically just right before it launched but it was too late to pull the cord since manufacturing and marketing already happened.
That must be such an incredible sinking feeling in your stomach. Goddamn.

[Anonymous No.6346129]

>>6344982
Arcade and home console teams were completely different.
If I remember correctly, yu suzuki told the saturn team to focus more on 3d which they ignored. A couple years later they asked him to write a library (SGL) to make writing 3d games for their clusterfuck of a system easier.

[Anonymous No.6346131]

>>6344994
Quads are polygons, a polygon is just a 2d shape with 3 or more sides.

[Anonymous No.6346132]

>>6345529
1996, but yes, exactly. Rather few people had the hardware to get 30fps with Quake at the time.

[Anonymous No.6346194]

>>6344994
Completely wrong. Well actually the first bit about it being a different engine is true. But was NOT 2d or 2.5d. It was fully 3d. It was the slavedriver engine developed by lobotomy, also used for their game Powerslave and their port/recreation of Duke Nukem 3d. Texture warping is actually proof its 3d if anything.

[Anonymous No.6346196]

>>6345765
Enjoy your 15 fps game, bro.

[Anonymous No.6346198]

>>6346132
Saturn was released 1994

[Anonymous No.6346217]

>>6346198
Yeah, but Quake was 1996.

[Anonymous No.6346223]

>>6344962
Yeah and 32bit doom is just a pimped snes doom

[Anonymous No.6346496]

>>6344962
Meanwhile from homebrew devs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8Ve7uB7A4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgVhx9le6vc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piE54fx4Mv0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo2frV3NPFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1qc8F7xflM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foMLX3Lz8fQ

[Anonymous No.6346506]

>>6346217
That's my point. They got 1996's biggest tech demo running, with fancier lighting effects, at a framerate considered acceptable at the time, on a 1994 console.

[Anonymous No.6346514]

>>6346506
>on a 1994 console.
That didn't couldn't do floating points and drew distorted sprites instead of actual polygons.

I think that makes it even more impressive.

[Anonymous No.6346527]

>>6346506
>with fancier lighting effects, at a framerate considered acceptable at the time,
I swear you Saturn fanboys live in your own reality.

[Anonymous No.6346531]

>>6346527
Now show one of Turok 2 on the N64.

[Anonymous No.6346535]

>>6346531
It is so far ahead on a technical level despite sharing the same framerate, you sure that's a good comparison in Saturn Quake's favor?

[Anonymous No.6346539]

>>6346535
Oh, I thought you were actually taking issue with the statement. It turns out you're just shitting up the thread with retarded console warrior faggotry. N64 is a way more powerful console than the Saturn and was released several years later.

[Anonymous No.6346546]

>>6346539
How dare I shit up this thread about the Saturn being weak compared to its contemporaries by responding to someone else bringing up its contemporaries. The gall of it.

[Anonymous No.6346554]

>>6346546
Go to bed, Bernie, no one cares.

[Anonymous No.6346578]

>>6344962
That's entirely dependant on what you wanted to do with it. It was a beast for 2D games, and it could pump some polygons if the dev in question knew how to use it.

[Anonymous No.6346581]

>>6344962
>playing quake on normal
What are you, a girl?

[Anonymous No.6346585]

>>6345621
>Anon, its been confirmed in multiple interviews for years, mostly info from SoA's leadership.
This is a complete fantasy, it seems you lie out of compulsion.

[Anonymous No.6346589]

>>6345765
Those are pre-baked shadows, friendo. You didn't expect either console to do real time shadows, did you?

[Anonymous No.6346590]

>>6346132
Good, because Quake 1 was designed to run at 33FPS, even the animations run at that rate.

[Anonymous No.6346591]

>>6345765
Here is your framerate bro.

[Anonymous No.6346602]

>>6346527
Yeah there's some choke points on harder difficulties, but for the most part it does run at an acceptable frame rate for the time.

Did you ever see DOS Quake running on it's recommended requirements? It's not pretty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmwra9YAEs

[Anonymous No.6346613]

>>6346602
>but for the most part it does run at an acceptable frame rate for the time.
Not really.
>Did you ever see DOS Quake running on it's recommended requirements?
Pentium 75MHz is minimum, not recommended. Recommended is Pentium 133MHz.

[Anonymous No.6346668]

>>6346613
>Pentium 75MHz is minimum, not recommended. Recommended is Pentium 133MHz.

Not according to the box.

[Anonymous No.6346672]

>>6346668
Those are minimum requirements, not recommended.

[Anonymous No.6346683]

>>6346672
Yet it clearly states minimum and recommended for everything else but the CPU.

[Anonymous No.6346687]

>>6346683
It says "or better" indicating that 75MHz is the bare minimum for the game being playable.

[Anonymous No.6346701]

>>6346687
Yet it says nothing about a 133MHz Pentium being recommended. So that's clearly a number you pulled out of your ass.

>75MHz is the bare minimum for the game being playable.

So then we can agree that what we see in the 75MHz video is an acceptable frame rate for the time?

[Anonymous No.6346724]

>>6346701
Pentium 133MHz was a very popular processor back in the day and is the recommended for many games around Quake's release. It doesn't outright say 133MHz but it does say higher than 75MHz.
>So then we can agree that what we see in the 75MHz video is an acceptable frame rate for the time?
Not really, that is the absolute lowest that could be considered playable.

[Anonymous No.6346728]

>>6346724
>It doesn't outright say 133MHz but it does say higher than 75MHz.

So a number you pulled out of your ass.

>Not really, that is the absolute lowest that could be considered playable.

Wouldn't playable be acceptable?

[Anonymous No.6346731]

>>6346728
>So a number you pulled out of your ass.
No I gave you the context, I didn't just name a random number higher than 75.
>Wouldn't playable be acceptable?
Just barely playable is just barely acceptable and not a very good experience.

[Anonymous No.6346749]

>>6346731
>I-I didn't just name a random number higher than 75.
>J-Just barely playable is just barely acceptable and not a very good experience.

Nice goalpost moving. If 75Mhz was the bare minimum to be playable, then we can say that's our baseline for an acceptable frame rate for the time. Considering Saturn Quake runs better than that 75MHz demo at that particular part, I think it's safe to say it runs at an acceptable frame rate for the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFTwb7ZUuW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM6FKm1dqjA

[Anonymous No.6346762]

>>6346749
You're attempting to justify the Saturn port of Quake's performance by comparing it to the absolute bare minimum of what is considered playable for PC. Keep in mind the Saturn version isn't even running on the Quake engine and is downscaled in every aspect. Why even bother?

[Anonymous No.6346776]

>>6346496
Oh wow basically the same performance as Saturn Quake. Wish this guy made a proper original game instead of remaking a Saturn game that already exists.

[Anonymous No.6346778]

>>6346514
>and drew distorted sprites instead of actual polygons.
What is this bullshit, quads are not polygons? Ok zoomer.

[Anonymous No.6346783]

Meh, I can stomach Saturn Quake because I like Quake, and I like seeing the Saturn rendering 3D.

[Anonymous No.6346808]

>>6346762
No, I'm pointing out that you're nitpicking and comparing Saturn Quake to how it would run on an absurdly powered PC for the Time rather than what your average person had access to. I remember when Saturn Quake came out and how myself and quite a few of my friends were excited to play it because it ran better than the PCs we had access to.

>>6346778
The Saturn doesn't really draw Quads. It draws sprites and distorts them to it's frame buffer. The only polygons it can actually draw as polygons are flat shaded single color ones.

>>6346776
Actually it runs better than Saturn Quake. His engine is hitting 30fps most of the time. And he's not remaking Quake. He's making his own engine and his own game. He's just using Quake Assets for testing.

[Anonymous No.6346812]

>>6346808
>The Saturn doesn't really draw Quads. It draws sprites and distorts them to it's frame buffer.
This is pure semantics. The Saturn's rendering primitives are quads, how they're generated is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6346815]

>>6346808
>No, I'm pointing out that you're nitpicking and comparing Saturn Quake to how it would run on an absurdly powered PC for the Time rather than what your average person had access to.
P 133MHz came out an entire year before Quake was released. That is not absurdly powerful by 90s standards.

[Anonymous No.6346818]

>>6345808
>The Saturn creats it's polygons by taking a sprite and stretching+skewing it.

No, it does not. This is not what a quad is.

[Anonymous No.6346823]

>>6346812
No, it's the truth. It's why 3D is so bonkers on it. Straight from the mouth of a developer who pulled off some of the most impressive 3D on the thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDJgeuoaSvQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdD0GvVRSMc

[Anonymous No.6346826]

>>6346815
Yeah and how much did it cost?

>>6346818
That's exactly what it's doing because it's not drawing quads. It's drawing distorted sprites.

[Anonymous No.6346830]

>>6346826
>Yeah and how much did it cost?
By April 1996 it was just 257 bucks
https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-releases-new-prices-on-pentiums/

[Anonymous No.6346834]

>>6346826

Sprites do not work that way. You may be confusing the fact that many 2D games on Saturn and PS1 used a textured poly with alpha channel background in lieu of conventionally rasterized sprites (SotN for example, although the Saturn version did have proper sprites)

This does not mean the quads rendered by Saturn are "distorted sprites". The rendering methods are completely different. Saturn rendered quads, which were just four point polygons. Texture mapping those does not make them sprites.

[Anonymous No.6346837]

>>6346830

i.e. the price of an N64 which could play 3d accelerated Quake before GLQuake was a thing. So add the cost of a Voodoo Banshee to that figure

[Anonymous No.6346840]

>>6346837
>i.e. the price of an N64 which could play 3d accelerated Quake before GLQuake was a thing
GLQuake release date: January 22, 1997
Quake 64 release date: March 24, 1998

[Anonymous No.6346842]

>>6346840

Ok nerd you win the gayness trophy today

[Anonymous No.6346847]

>>6346842
I should of pointed out that VQuake existed before GLQuake which makes it the very first 3D accelerated method of playing Quake and was released December 2, 1996.

[Anonymous No.6346848]

>>6346847

Which was the year the N64 came out in north America, $250 hardware which could run 3d accelerated Quake even if it wasn't out on that platform yet, for the same price as just the CPU you'd need to run Quake without 3D acceleration on PC

[Anonymous No.6346853]

>>6346830
>By April 1996 it was just 257 bucks
Which would be about $430 in today's money. You could get a Saturn and a game for that price:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNr6GfpjNp4

>>6346834
That is how they work on the Saturn. Go read the documentation. The Saturn doesn't texture map the polygon in the same way the PS1 texture maps a triangle. On the Saturn the texture IS the polygon. It draws it as a sprite which it distorts to the to the size and shape it was given.

[Anonymous No.6346856]

>>6346834
See >>6346823

[Anonymous No.6346857]

>>6346848
By July 1997 you could get a Pentium 133 MHz for just under 100 dollars. The N64 Quake port was always kind of superfluous even if it ran well.
https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-slashes-prices-across-board/

[Anonymous No.6346858]

>>6346853
>You could get a Saturn and a game for that price

Not if you also factor in inflation like you did for the N64

[Anonymous No.6346859]

>>6346857

Add the cost of a Voodoo 1, TNT or comparable early 3d card to that figure

[Anonymous No.6346870]

>>6346858
I factored it in for the Pentium but ok.

May 1996 Sega Saturn Price: $199.99
Sega Saturn Game 1996 Price: $40-$60.

So let's say 199.99 + $50 for a game. That's $249.99 or $418 in today's money. That's still less than the cost of the 133MHz Pentium 1 at $257(96)/$430(2020).

So yes, you could get a Saturn and a game for that price. And you can actually play that Saturn and the Game for that price. You're going to need to buy a couple more things to play a game with that Pentium.

[Anonymous No.6346871]

>>6346859
Voodoo 1 launched at $300 but dropped to $200 in less than a year. The price to performance ratio was excellent though, it was simply the fastest consumer 3D at the time.

[Anonymous No.6346878]

>>6346870

...That was my point too? What do you think my position is? Who are you arguing against?

[Anonymous No.6346883]

>>6346878
I think you're the one who doesn't know who you're arguing against then.

This is what I was replying to >>6346858

If that's you, then you were saying that what I said about getting a Saturn and a game for the same price as a Pentium in 1996 was wrong if I factored in inflation. Correct?

[Anonymous No.6346901]

>>6346883

No, not correct. I was comparing the cost of an N64 to the PC hardware necessary to play 3D accelerated Quake in the mid to late 1990s

[Anonymous No.6346907]

>>6346901
So then why did you reply to me talking about the price of a Saturn in comparison to a Pentium in 1996?

[Anonymous No.6346916]

>>6346907

I must have missed that you were comparing it to the Saturn.

[Anonymous No.6346920]

>>6346916
As I said, I think you're the one who got confused about who you're arguing with.

[Anonymous No.6347089]

>>6346808
Affine transformed 2d rectangles are polygons.

What does it mean to "draw as polygons"? There are many, many polygon drawing algorithms.

[Anonymous No.6347107]

>>6344962
Lacked a dedicated but all-purpose geometry professor (the DSP was not all-purpose) and VDP1 is not an efficient chip.

Saturn can rule the roost in situations where VDP2 can really stretch its legs but those situations are few and far between, particularly in 3D. All VDP2 would be doing in that Quake port is drawing the bar at the bottom of the screen.

>>6346857
I mean, technically speaking, the N64 was more powerful than just a Pentium CPU. Even putting the hardware pixel renderer aside, it has vector unit that can do 8 multiplies per cycle. That’s a lot of T&L performance, putting it somewhere in the range of a P2 350 if you include the main CPU.

[Anonymous No.6347132]

>>6344962
>saturn
>weak

>while showing one of the best 3D engines made for Saturn

You're dumb. Few people could run Quake at this kind of framerate at the time, meanwhile on Saturn you could for a cheaper price.

Saying the Saturn wasn't mean for 3D is not true either.
It had dedicated 3D hardware, something the vast majority of computers at the time still didn't have.

[Anonymous No.6347138]

>>6347132
>It had dedicated 3D hardware, something the vast majority of computers at the time still didn't have.
And yet it runs worse than PC games running in software mode at the time, which is why OP asked his question.

[Anonymous No.6347146]

>>6347132
If you were still rocking a PC from 1994 in 1997, then yeah, the Saturn version was good

[Anonymous No.6347263]

>>6347107
>All VDP2 would be doing in that Quake port is drawing the bar at the bottom of the screen.
And the weapon and the sky (I can't recall if it actually does in Saturn Quake, but they're common use cases for VDP2).

[Anonymous No.6347273]

>>6344972
>arcade-perfect
Cope.

[Anonymous No.6347472]

>>6346591
Very soulful framerate

[Anonymous No.6347851]

>>6347089
Because there are a number of posters, perhaps influenced by some retard's youtube video, I don't know, who think that unless a game is rendered in a specific way, it isn't "really 3d". Instead of the actual definition of 3d, that being having 3 dimensions.

[Anonymous No.6347867]

>>6344962
>>6345615
>>6346527
>>6346535
>>6346591
>>6346613
I really like how dark the Saturn is. It looks comfy. Probably plays like shit though.

[Anonymous No.6347869]

>>6346535
>>6347867
Just realized this ones N64. Still looks comfy.

[Anonymous No.6348505]

>>6346527
That framerate is as said, on par with what you'd get with a middle of the road PC in 1996, most people who played Quake experienced it at about 20fps average.
If you were getting +30fps average playing Quake in 1996, you had a pretty damn good computer.

[Anonymous No.6348532]

>>6346830
A Sega Saturn and a copy of Quake would be far cheaper than buying a good enough computer capable of better performance. You already had a TV anyway.

[Anonymous No.6348551]

>>6348505
Saturn Quake is 20 FPS *at best*. Even a Pentium 75 can run the game at 20 FPS *on average*

[Anonymous No.6349081]

>>6347089

But that's not what's going on with the Saturn. The Saturn doesn't do affine texture mapping. That requires having UV Texture coordinates so you can render specific parts of a texture to the polygon. The Saturn can't do this because it has no notion of texture coordinates.

What the Saturn is doing is taking a texture and drawing it as a 2D Sprite. That sprite is then warped to a specific set of coordinates. The Entire texture is always drawn and pixels get overdrawn on top of each other. This is what makes things like Transparencies, Environment Mapping, etc. complete nightmares to try and accomplish on the system.

It's all described in the VDP1 developers manual.

>>6347273
You're the ST-V retard aren't you?

>>6348551
>Even a Pentium 75 can run the game at 20 FPS *on average*

I think it's safe to say that Saturn Quake runs better than DOS Quake on a Pentium 75:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-PbdVMEuM

[Anonymous No.6349095]

>>6344994
>but you can notice it's not real polygons when you get close to the walls since everything warps when you do.
See tourists, this is how you bait.

[Anonymous No.6349113]

>>6344962
he says as he posts a saturn technical triumph that wasn't even on ps1 or n64

[Anonymous No.6349148]

>>6349113
Quake is most definitely on N64.

[Anonymous No.6349156]

kys OP

[Anonymous No.6349253]

>>6349113
you write that like the ps1 couldn't handle quake... yet it got a port of quake II
https://youtu.be/uhqtZjfGuSc?t=360

[Anonymous No.6349593]

>>6346672
Minimum stats are also just a recommendation of sorts. A mate of used to run Quake (in a small window) on a 486, proving the 'minimum' wrong.

[Anonymous No.6349628]

>>6346856
Not the same guy you're having a tiff with, but perhaps you are confusing the quad rendering method with the Nvidia NV1, which actually did render quad polygons, and had some faithful Saturn ports because of comparable rendering approaches.. As I understand it with Saturn, their rendering approach was an evolution of their sprite scaler technology they've been doing since Space Harrier/Hang On. A Saturn is just really good at scaling/translating/rotation a lot of sprites. Back then consoles didn't have Z-buffers (except N64?), drawing was done with sorting lists, so the render hardware didn't really see the image it's meant to generate in 3D anyway, that's why you get texture warping so bad in old games, especially close to the camera.

[Anonymous No.6349818]

>>6349081
>I think it's safe to say that Saturn Quake runs better than DOS Quake on a Pentium 75:
Looks quite comparable to the Saturn version to me. Shouldn’t have said it was better, but the same. I apologise.

[Anonymous No.6350297]

>>6349113
The PSX had a port developed by the same guys, it's just no publisher was interested and it wasn't released.
The N64 had a port actually published.

[Anonymous No.6351746]

>>6349081
I've seen this argument that affine texture mapping requires interpolation of UV coordinates a couple times now and its just bizarre and I'm not sure what it's founded on other than conflating the most common approach with the term in general.

[Anonymous No.6351754]

>>6349593
I mean, the minimum is that it will run. I played Diablo on a 486 that had been cranked up to 32MB of RAM and it ran fine.

[Anonymous No.6351852]

>>6349253
>had to be remade from scratch with simplified geometry and textures

[Anonymous No.6352272]

>>6351852
Like the Saturn port of Quake, and actually a bunch of console ports of classic shooters.

[Anonymous No.6352276]

>>6352272
saturn port of quake is really cool. Lots of fun too. If you enjoy Quake you would enjoy your time it to see how it differs.

[Anonymous No.6352836]

>>6351754
minimums have always been "minimum to run at normal/default settings with a good framerate", and are sometimes a bit overkill due to not having tested the game on that many systems before release
sometimes you can get away with much less, especially with lower than normal settings
for example, last night i played spyro: reignited trilogy on my 2013 laptop with a GT 740M, while the minimum requirement is a GTX 660, which is ~279% faster (userbenchmark)
just had to lower a couple things... and run it in 640x400, and it can do 60fps in most places

.. i've even run nier automata on this machine (min requirement GTX 770, or 536% faster), this required a bit more effort to get playable, but it can do 30fps most of the time, not bad for a $30 machine

[Anonymous No.6354878]

It's interesting as a product of its time and a marvel for the console, but it's hardly enjoyable.
>t. finished Quake Saturn

[Anonymous No.6354886]

>>6354878
I disagree and enjoyed it very much.
>t. AD dev

[Anonymous No.6354903]

>>6346591
you chose literally the lowest framerate part of the game. that room specifically is full of vines that make the framerate chug just as much on PS1.

[Anonymous No.6354908]

>>6344970
to appeal to egregiously gay people like you.
>>6347273
neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.6355079]

>>6352836
The GPUs in most laptop CPUs made in the past five years can play the majority of modern games at 720p at around 30 fps, sometimes more, sometimes less.

[Anonymous No.6355083]

>>6355079
720p at lowest settings, I mean.

[Anonymous No.6355392]

>>6344972
I never wanted one in the 90s. Now I love it specifically because it's an arcade machine. All the GnG games, all the Thunder Force games, a zillion arcade shmups, a handful of decent fighters (not really a fighting game guy), die hard arcade, house of the dead. Its awesome. But even though I kinda wanted to play nights back in the day, mario 64 and crash bandicoot seemed way more appealing to 8 year old me

[Anonymous No.6355414]

>>6344962
it wasn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8Ve7uB7A4

[Anonymous No.6355420]

>>6346527
stop, I can only take so many SOULS per second

[Anonymous No.6355538]

>>6355079
this laptop is older than 5 years, and was not a high end machine in the first place (it even has a ULV cpu)

[Anonymous No.6355821]

>>6354903
Have you playes The Cistern, City of Khamoon or The Collosseum? Saturn craps itself in large open areas.

[Anonymous No.6355845]

>>6349081
Oh wow a 1990s document on brand new 3D graphics uses dated terms?