/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.6374914]

A triumph for Saturn :)

[Anonymous No.6374918]

>>6374914
Looks cool but also looks awful to play on. He's moving like he's playing Ultima Underworld. Is there a way to get M+KB on the Saturn version? Maybe via emulator or something

[Anonymous No.6374926]

Consolefags need to be genocided if they think this looks okay.

[Anonymous No.6374958]

I used to think my analysis was a tragedy...

[Anonymous No.6374960]

>>6374958
But now I realize it was a bespoke comedy.

[Anonymous No.6374961]

>>6374914
The real reason the Saturn failed, it was complete dogshit at rendering 3D.

[Anonymous No.6374983]

>>6374914
That's how your Q1 gameplay looked like in 1996 also on PC

[Anonymous No.6375086]

Cute, but looks more like a Doom mod than Quake

[Anonymous No.6375246]

>>6374983
I don't miss my 486, but I wonder what happened to it sometimes. Probably was tossed.

[Anonymous No.6375261]

>>6374958
His Youtube Voice has the same annoying qualities as the My Life in Gaming guy. Why can't any of these retro youtubers talk normal? I would honestly prefer to listen to a tranny over one more
>They are quite rather very, indeed

[Anonymous No.6375270]

>>6374914
You realize that at the time this was made, most computers couldn't run Quake, and those that did, didn't run it any better?

... right?

[Anonymous No.6375274]

>>6375270
Pentium 133MHz was out by 1996 and runs Quake (the real Quake, not the cut down port for the Saturn) at 30FPS.

[Anonymous No.6375279]

>>6374914
>>6374960
it actually looks really good, like it has its own darker, grittier style.
you arent supposed to compare it to todays 4k source ports

[Anonymous No.6375282]

>>6375261
I read all "-oomer" shitposts in their voices. It's about all they're good for.

[Anonymous No.6375283]

>>6375274
And the vast majority of consumers would buy a new computer on average every 3-4 years at the time

[Anonymous No.6375284]

>>6375279
>you arent supposed to compare it to todays 4k source ports
I'm not.

[Anonymous No.6375469]

>>6375261
His face just looks so autistic like the fat MLG guy.
Also don't forget:
>something something mind you

[Anonymous No.6375476]

>>6375274
That CPU alone went for ~500$ in 1996. A Saturn (complete system) could be had for nearly half.
Saturn Quake is horrible to play, but it had its place back then, if only for a while.

[Anonymous No.6375527]

>>6375476
That CPU was only 95 dollars by the time Quake hit the Saturn.
https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-slashes-prices-across-board/

[Anonymous No.6375586]

>>6374914
It's amusing how they couldn't get it either to run at an acceptable framerate or to render the world as it was intended, yet they added stuff like colored lights and such. Priorities, I see.

[Anonymous No.6375613]

>>6375586
They had the dynamic lights in the engine already when they made it for Powerslave

As for the world, the lack of triangles make some things impossible, which is why the Saturn port of DN3D using the same engine lacks slopes for instance

The framedrops are when there are too many enemies/objects on screen, too many polygons at the same time. That's the difference with Powerslave and DN3D which used sprites for those.

It's a great port for the time. You're not going to find many full 3D polygonal Saturn games that are technically better.

>>6375284
>P3 450

>>6375527
Either you guys weren't there at the time, or you were from a minority of rich spoiled brats, or you're just pretending.
Between 1996 and 1997 I knew maybe one person who could run Quake as well as that Saturn port on his computer, and that included rich kids too.

[Anonymous No.6375619]

>>6375613
Here is a timedemo of 1997 hardware.

[Anonymous No.6375643]

>>6375619
>1997 hardware

You realize a pentium 200 wasn't common to see in people's homes before at least 1-2 years after that?

I went from a 486 to a P3 500mhz in 1999 if I recall, and that's coming from a well off family that did care about computers. I only knew 2 other kids with similar hardware by that time, 1 of which got it before we did.

At the time, things moved really fast and computers were outdated in a year. No family would update his computer every year, and showing CPU price doesn't nearly cut it as, outside of adding more RAM or getting a bigger HDD or a faster CD-rom drive, changing parts in your computer wasn't as common as it is these days and you'd be more likely run into compatibility issue. In other words, you wanted that "95 dollars CPU", chances were you needed a whole new PC.

Meanwhile recent consoles were more affordable and more likely to be seen, also because not many parents cared about computers then. There is a reason why these console ports of PC games even exists despite the games not being built with those architecture in mind. Unless we're talking about adults who cared about games and a job, Quake was a game few people could play on PC and those who did hardly ran it better than on Saturn.

Speaking of that, the reason why Lobotomy was chosen for this port and why the port is a recreation was exactly because they already had a full 3D engine built for the Saturn.

Few could have made a better job and Quake could certaintly not have been ported as such.
It's the same with people who don't understand why Doom plays like shit on Saturn and PS1. Those games were meant for CPU heavy architecture you don't see on console.

It's very easy to look at things in 2020 and say "this existed and was possible" but it's completely taken out of context.

[Anonymous No.6375649]

>>6375643
>You realize a pentium 200 wasn't common to see in people's homes before at least 1-2 years after that?
That doesn't make it not 1997 hardware.

[Anonymous No.6375659]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.6375669]

>>6374983
On a poor man's PC maybe

[Anonymous No.6375675]

>>6375649
What is your point then? The Sega Saturn was released in Nov 1994.

Try running Quake on a 1994 PC if you want that kind of comparison then.

[Anonymous No.6375679]

>>6375613
How can this be the same engine tha Powerslave uses when the latter looks and runs far better than this?

[Anonymous No.6375686]

>>6375679
Like I said mostly because Powerslave and DN3D use sprites

[Anonymous No.6375694]

>>6375675
That wouldn't be a fair comparison since the game was designed around 1996 PC hardware specifically.

[Anonymous No.6375695]

>>6375686
Also, the "lack of triangles" argument is kinda invalid. VESA/SVGA cards "had no triangles" either, yet Quake's software rasterizer still ran better than the Saturn port.

[Anonymous No.6375697]

>>6375694
So by that logic you're saying your comparison with the Saturn is unfair too then since not only it's older hardware, but the game wasn't designed with that hardware specifically either.

Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.6375701]

>>6375697
>the game wasn't designed with that hardware specifically either.
The Saturn port was literally made just for the Saturn.

[Anonymous No.6375726]

Only rich kids in my neighborhood played shooters, since they were the only ones with PCs. I played Doom once it came out for PS1, but by then everyone had played it.

[Anonymous No.6375739]

>>6375274
Lol you’re fucking kidding right? You think people were buying state of the art kit for quake?

[Anonymous No.6375743]

>>6375739
>You think people were buying state of the art kit for quake?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6375758]

>>6375743
Most people ran quake at like single digit FPS. Most 3D games ran high single digits or maybe 15 on the average gaming computer back then man. You’re delusional if you think people were running P2s and P1s for quake.

[Anonymous No.6375859]

>>6375758
I played it early 97 on a pentium 120mhz.
Most of the other players had better hardware and isdn.

[Anonymous No.6375878]

>>6375739
they actually were, dude, it was like crysis. or rather crysis is like quake in that it drove a lot of pc building to run it specifically

[Anonymous No.6376158]

>>6375758
>Most people ran quake at like single digit FPS.
Maybe for you, 3rd-world poornigger.

[Anonymous No.6376542]

I was going to make some webms of the game showing that OPs videos wasn't the average performance but while I was recording honestly the only time the game wasn't chugging like that was in narrow corridors. Still cool from a technical perspective.

[Anonymous No.6378267]

>>6375643
This guy right here gets it

[Anonymous No.6378276]

>>6374983
>>6374914
i remember running Q3 on my school's Pentium II machines with no dsicrete GPU. they still look better than this shit. and they ran at minimum 640X480p.

PC was already master race in late 90s.

[Anonymous No.6378279]

>>6375643
>It's the same with people who don't understand why Doom plays like shit on Saturn and PS1. Those games were meant for CPU heavy architecture you don't see on console.

yes, pc glorious master race. console fags cope.

[Anonymous No.6378374]

>>6375643
>>6378279
Doom ran pretty bad on CPUs before Pentiums anyway.

The game came out in 1993, before 5th gen consoles came out. I always found it pretty inane that (modern day) PC gamers are like why were consoles, like the Sega Mega Drive and its 7 MHz Motorola 68k from 1988 unable to play Doom?

Just stupid. Doom and Quake were both designed for systems where the CPU had to do all of the work. Even with the newer Saturn and PS1s with their ~30 MHz non-superscalar RISC CPUs weren't going to cut it against Pentiums without help from their 3D acceleration components. Because those systems were never designed for loads which were 100% CPU dependent.

[Anonymous No.6378397]

>>6374914
>>6374960
64 fans are always trying to shit up the board.

[Anonymous No.6378571]

>>6378374
>Doom ran pretty bad on CPUs before Pentiums anyway.
That's wrong. Doom ran smoothly on the 486. It was designed to run on 486, a pre-pentium processor. But yes back in 1993 the only console that could play Doom with a steady framerate and PC quality graphics was Jaguar.

Even Quake could run on i486 with a higher framerate than the Saturn port.

[Anonymous No.6378582]

>>6378571
>Even Quake could run on i486 with a higher framerate than the Saturn port.
That's a lie.

[Anonymous No.6378592]

>>6374914
This port is -glorious- fuck you

[Anonymous No.6378623]

>>6378571
>That's wrong. Doom ran smoothly on the 486. It was designed to run on 486, a pre-pentium processor

Try 24.58 FPS on a i486 DX2/50, which is your pretty typical latter-day 486.

https://thandor.net/benchmark/32

No i486, other than the super highly clocked i486 DX4/100 can run Doom at its framecap of 35 FPS.

If you play Doom without a framecap, it took a Pentium 90 to finally run it at 60 FPS.

[Anonymous No.6378630]

>>6378623
Oh and by the way, these benchmark scores for Doom are when you play the game with a small border ha ha

[Anonymous No.6378643]

>>6374914
Turok 2 on N64 has a friend

[Anonymous No.6378676]

>>6374918
playing at those framerates with a mouse would be a fucking nightmare. Get it? like the difficulty level.
I'll be here all week.

[Anonymous No.6378678]

>>6375613
Duke3D on Saturn has slopes.

[Anonymous No.6378728]

>>6374914
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8Ve7uB7A4

[Anonymous No.6378745]

>>6378643
and if this is too extreme for you, there's always multiplayer which is about twice as choppy

[Anonymous No.6378825]

>>6374914
>Get
>Got
Can't even decide on which tense to use.
Sad.

[Anonymous No.6378853]

>>6378745
>playing Turok 2 multiplayer
That’s what Rage Wars is for

[Anonymous No.6378858]

>>6378853
Don't actually play this game, it's fucking garbage.

[Anonymous No.6379643]

>rocket doesn't even explode

[Anonymous No.6379679]

playing this game in easy really makes the performance better for some reason

[Anonymous No.6379801]

>>6375261
He sounds fine you are just a fool

[Anonymous No.6379838]

>>6379679
Because less enemies, herp derp.

[Anonymous No.6379952]

>>6375261
yeah we need more HELLLLLLLOOOOO BOYS AND GIRLS my fellow GAMERS WELCOMETO DF RETROOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.6380193]

>>6378582
Not really. There were 100-150mhz 486s out there. By turning off some of the effects and using pixel doubling you could run it at a playable framerate. Oh and you needed to use a fairly decent graphics card. At least that's how I remember it.

>>6378623
>24.58 FPS
That's still like 10 FPS more than all the console ports except for the PS1 and Jaguar. The PS1 and Jaguar had to simplify the AI, double the pixel, and tone down and lighting to achieve a comparable framerate.

>>6378630
>This means I didn't change the window to maximum screen!
That's what the website says, so it's the standard border, just like all the console ports, except for the 32x which was even smaller. Also I assume it's running at high quality settings by default. Most console ports ran at lower than low quality, SNES port in particular.

[Anonymous No.6380208]

>>6380193
>Not really.
This is a lie.

[Anonymous No.6380224]

>>6380208
Nope. You had to overclock it to 150-160 mhz and use voodoo card though. 486 DX4 is an absolute minimum.

[Anonymous No.6380230]

>>6380224
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE59Sra10DM
this runs worse than saturn quake
https://youtu.be/MrQHiuwGAo4?t=879

stop lying

[Anonymous No.6380237]

>>6380230
Resolution too high. The bottom HUD looks small.

[Anonymous No.6380238]

>>6380237
post proof liar

[Anonymous No.6380249]

>>6380238
I only have a ryzen PC now.

[Anonymous No.6380252]

>>6380238
I do have this though.
https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=42880

[Anonymous No.6380257]

>>6374914
Git gud frame-faggot. Go on and play on newer systems if you want perfectly technical boringness.

Fucking zoomer.

[Anonymous No.6380258]

>>6380237
Voodoo can't do 320x240.
It struggled in Quake because it didn't support multitexturing, but slow CPU's usually bottlenecked it anyway.

[Anonymous No.6380270]

>>6380238
GLQuake defaults to 640x480, he has a shortcut for Voodoo's lower res mode of 512x384 but doesn't use it.

[Anonymous No.6380275]

>>6380252
comical levels of delusion at this point

[Anonymous No.6380314]

A low frame rate on Voodoo is absolutely unbearable.
The extra layer of hardware adds additional input lag not found in software mode. 20 feels playable on an authentic machine.

[Anonymous No.6380318]

>>6380314
Turn off vsync.

[Anonymous No.6380332]

>>6380318
Vsync is arguably worse at high frame rates, af least on modern hardware that queues up old commands.
Turning it off is not a magic bullet. It still feels sluggish compared to software mode with equivalent fps.

[Anonymous No.6381137]

>>6374960
>Additive light blending

[Anonymous No.6381151]

>>6381137
This is how light in games work brainlet

[Anonymous No.6381158]

>>6375261
the voice isn't the problem, these are.

[Anonymous No.6381168]

>>6381137
I recorded that webm with a worse capture card, here is the new hotness.

[Anonymous No.6381220]

>>6381151
No it doesn't, you fucking retard.

Lighting is multiplied with the surface in order to modulate the brightness while retaining texture saturation. Additive lighting only looks right on completely white surfaces.
The Playstation, along with PC hardware, uses multiplicative lighting, which yields correct results.

https://segaretro.org/Sega_Saturn/Hardware_comparison#Vs._PlayStation

[Anonymous No.6381246]

>>6381220
Don't use Sega Retro as a source for anything, it's a misinfo site

[Anonymous No.6381252]

>>6381246
At least it's sourced.
http://www.shinforce.com/saturn/information/3D-Capabilities.htm

>Contrary to popular thought, the Sega Saturn does have hardware support for Gouraud lighting effects. The Saturn uses additive lighting whereas the PSX uses multiplicative lighting. Multiplicative lighting is generally easier to work with, but very dramatic lighting effects (as in Quake for Saturn) are easier to create with the Saturn's use of additive lighting.

And it shows.

[Anonymous No.6381272]

>>6381252
I don't doubt that this particular detail is right, but the problem is that the actual interpretations of the sources on Sega Retro is completely wrong.

Exhibit A: They actually think VDP2 outputs two pixels per "clock" because the sourced documentation says that the chip outputs two "cycle". Except the definition of "cycle" in the documentation doesn't mean what they think it means.

[Anonymous No.6381282]

>>6381272
Oh yeah. That site is definitely loaded with cultist bias. The Dreamcast comparisons are ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.6381295]

>>6381282
The "Dreamcast had a 3.2 GPixel/s fill rate" is hilarious. That's just the speed of the depth buffer (which you'd expect is mighty fast since it's a tile-based deferred rendering chip) because it has an array of 32 culling pipes (a single line of a tile)

Then they somehow pulled a 3.2 GTexel/s number out of their ass, even though the Dreamcast's GPU only has a single texture and single pixel output unit. It doesn't even make sense they way they have it, because the whole point of a tile-based deferred renderer is to only write the final pixel once. Obviously you don't need texturing capabilities anywhere *near* as fast as the depth buffering.

[Anonymous No.6381319]

>>6381295
I'm laughing at this piece.

>The Dreamcast's CPU–GPU transmission bus is faster than the Voodoo3 and has a higher effective bandwidth than the GeForce 256 due to the Dreamcast's efficient bandwidth usage, including its lack of CPU overhead from the operating system, textures loaded directly to VRAM (freeing up CPU–GPU transmission bus for polygons), higher texture compression

No source to confirm the effective bandwidth, but if the AGP speed benchmarks indicate anything, it's that they were hardly bottlenecked. Besides, the Geforce 256 is capable of S3 texture compression and direct VRAM access.

[Anonymous No.6381390]

>>6381319
or maybe the dreamcast was actually a beast and something we will never see again in our lifetimes?

[Anonymous No.6381401]

>>6379643
Saturn Duke was pathetic, even worse than the censored N64 version.

[Anonymous No.6381406]

>>6381390
Judging from the equivalent PC hardware PowerVR brought over and Nvidia ran a desperate FUD campaign against until they stole their technology a decade later-

yeah, Dreamcast was really, really good hardware. Still not sure why the Nintenschizos are desperate to spread FUD about a company they don't even compete against.

[Anonymous No.6381417]

>>6380314
yeah, play it software mode and 240p, and it totally kicks the ass of any halfassed console port. consolefags always cope.

[Anonymous No.6381425]

>>6381390
The Dreamcast hardware was extremely powerful for 1998, and the PowerVR2 GPU is possibility one of the best designed in all gaming history, but there's far too much delusion on Sega Retro, making it seem like magic chip that could even take on the Xbox if only devs pushed it harder.

Like most tile-deferred rendering chips, it's bottlenecked on the heavy duty triangle setup that these kinds of chips need, and they tend to have bad performance for any operation that can't be done in one pass.

Alpha blending is particularly slow on these kinds of chips because you always need 2+ passes. Another weakness is the PowerVR2 couldn't do single-cycle trilinear filtering, but needed two cycles like N64.

Don't want to seem like I'm putting it down, the image quality of this chip is bloody outstanding, but yeah it's not going to beat even the PS2 for performance.

[Anonymous No.6381532]

>>6375758
Dunno, it ran pretty sweet on my Pentium 166. I don't remember what GPU I used at the time, probably a GeForce.

[Anonymous No.6381540]

>>6380193
>a fairly decent graphics card. At least that's how I remember it.
Wasn't Doom using Software Rendering only?

[Anonymous No.6381642]

>>6381532
>Pentium 166
>GeForce
the fuck

[Anonymous No.6382048]

>>6381390
I am not saying that the Dreamcast is not good, but it's not the powerhouse that this leads you to believe.

[Anonymous No.6382057]

>>6381642
Actually logical combination. Slow CPU's benefit from hardware TnL immensely

[Anonymous No.6382083]

I first played Quake on a then two year old Pentium 90 with 8 MB and a Diamond Stealth and it ran more than OK.

[Anonymous No.6382086]

>>6382048
Wrong

>t. worked on homebrew titles

[Anonymous No.6382167]

>>6382086
Dreamcast does not have a monopoly on texture compression, and the triangle rate taken from a Le Mans article is most likely bunk. I think a synthetic benchmark peaked at 7M triangles per second.
Don't get me wrong, that is some serious stuff, but compared hardware can do at least as well.

[Anonymous No.6383097]

>>6374914

> Has more level geometry and pushes more polys than the N64 version

The Saturn had really solid ports of Duke Nukem 3D, Powerslave, and Hexen. If only the Doom port wasn't a rushed shitshow the Saturn would have been the go-to system for home console ports of PC FPS games of the era.

[Anonymous No.6383105]

>>6383097
>> Has more level geometry and pushes more polys than the N64 version
Why was this anyway? Why is the colored lighting so schizophrenic in the N64 release too? Looks like they went wild with the colors. Disco Quake.

[Anonymous No.6383112]

>>6383105
Bragging, and rightfully so.
Quake's lack of colored lighting on PC was quite the shortcoming.

[Anonymous No.6383114]

>>6383097
>The Saturn had really solid ports of Duke Nukem 3D...
Hahaha, no.

[Anonymous No.6383117]

>>6383112
Much prefer the more restrained colored lighting in the Saturn version.

[Anonymous No.6383130]

>>6383114

The building explodes in the demolition site, maybe that's a bug.

At any rate, the Saturn version had a better framerate, wasn't censored for nintoddIers, and also had online multiplayer.

[Anonymous No.6383136]

>>6383117
>The building explodes in the demolition site, maybe that's a bug.
The port is generally lacking in environmental destruction, LA Rumble doesn't even have an earthquake.
>the Saturn version had a better framerate, wasn't censored for nintoddIers, and also had online multiplayer.
The gameplay balance is all off in this "port", it's basically a very loose interpretation. The N64 version is pretty shit too but the gameplay is at least way closer to the PC version. Just look at what they did to the Enforcers, these guys are supposed to be among the fastest enemies in the game and constantly chip away at your health.

[Anonymous No.6383139]

>>6383136
Meant for
>>6383130

[Anonymous No.6383149]

>>6383130
N64 had the best framerate.

[Anonymous No.6383153]

>>6383117
I actually really like the look of the saturn version to. I wouldn't want to play it though.

[Anonymous No.6383157]

>>6383153
Didn't find it too bad in my playthrough last year, if you can stomach Rare shooters this one isn't anything worse in terms of performance.

[Anonymous No.6383159]

>>6383136

What difficulty are you playing on?

Don't lie to me.

[Anonymous No.6383163]

>>6383159
Come Get Some, I play Duke 3D on nothing else.

[Anonymous No.6383168]

>>6383163
>Come Get Some, I play Duke 3D on nothing else.

A man of culture, I can appreciate that.

[Anonymous No.6383206]

>>6375261
They speak slowly, like to brag about disproportionately overpriced electronics made by essentially free slave labor, and sound like they're always reading from a thesaurus, which gives their narration a condescending, patronizing vibe while perpetually flexing or humble bragging.

[Anonymous No.6383243]

>>6383206
Better than some heavily accented person who thinks fast talking equates a high rate of conveyed information without providing subtitles.

[Anonymous No.6384606]

>>6383206
We have reached a new level of pettiness

[Anonymous No.6384902]

>>6375613

My Pentium60 ran Quake ok 1996.
I remember playing it later on on a P166MMX and I was blown away how smooth it was running(in software mode).

[Anonymous No.6384910]

>>6383105

New features often get abused.

[Anonymous No.6384936]

>>6378374

High clock rate helped more than anything. The 120/133mhz AMDs were more than capable of running Doom smoothly given they sat on a high end motherboard with good timings and a fast 2D card. Btw, an overclocked iDX4WB(120 ala 3 x 40mhz fsb) was a seriously capable Doom cpu.

Back then people were even playing it on 386s... poor saps.

[Anonymous No.6385017]

>>6378374
>Doom ran pretty bad on CPUs before Pentiums anyway.
lol no.

[Anonymous No.6385128]

>>6385017
Define bad. It was certainly not stable on even the most powerful 486.

[Anonymous No.6385136]

>>6385128
No problem playing on my DX4 100, even deathmatch

[Anonymous No.6385143]

>>6385136
https://thandor.net/benchmark/32

Just barely averages above 35 FPS.

[Anonymous No.6385379]

>>6385143
>Doom
>35fps
>barely
zoom zoom

[Anonymous No.6385396]

>>6385379
Are you actually going to elaborate, or do you just like making Doom rhymes?

[Anonymous No.6385404]

>>6385143
Perfectly playable at the time

[Anonymous No.6385407]

>>6385143
Original Doom has a hardcoded framerate cap of 35, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.6385413]

>>6385404
Playable, sure, but far from stable.
Unless you are willing to sacrifice image quality, and 320x200 is already stretching it when it comes to clarity (or lack thereof).

[Anonymous No.6385415]

>>6385407
God, you're fucking retarded. Why do you think I mentioned that number?
Timedemos are not capped, therefore frame rates surpass 35.

[Anonymous No.6385430]

>>6375643
>You realize a pentium 200 wasn't common to see in people's homes before at least 1-2 years after that?
lol poorfag detected we had a 200Mhz in 97. Honestly what hampered it was the shitty onboard S3 ViRGE

[Anonymous No.6385454]

>>6378279
Saturn Doom is bad because it's a shit port that draws the scene in a very stupid way for the Saturn. Seriously just look at the VDP1 debug window when running it in something like YabaSanshiro. The Saturn ports Hexen, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, and Powerslave all run better than Saturn Doom. And all those games are far more demanding than Doom on PC.

There's really no reason the Saturn shouldn't have been able to run Doom at 20-30fps.

[Anonymous No.6385605]

>>6385454
>There's really no reason the Saturn shouldn't have been able to run Doom at 20-30fps.
Apparently the original engine had it running at 60. This was with a dedicated Saturn engine that thoroughly exploited the hardw
are. It had the usual Saturn 3D quirks too, from mild texture swimming and tiling, Carmack wasn't a fan so he shot it down.

[Anonymous No.6385637]

>>6385605
Yeah, I question the legitimacy of that. Saturn Doom running at 60fps with Polygons tells me one thing, they were huge polygons with tons of warping.

Just look at what this version of 3DO Doom modified to use polygons looks like to get an idea of how it probably looked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ytaHm7ABk

If that's what Carmack was shown I don't blame him for shooting it down. After all the 2x SH-2s in the Saturn should be able to handle Dooms software renderer just fine. After all the Jaguar and the 32X(Same 2x SH-2s just clocked slower) handle it fine and their versions of Doom run far better than Saturn Doom.

[Anonymous No.6385668]

>>6385637
>I question the legitimacy of that
Are you a better programmer than Jim Bagley?
>they were huge polygons with tons of warping.
Considering it was tailored to the Saturn, I doubt it.
>Just look at what this version of 3DO Doom
What does this have to do with Saturn exactly?
>If that's what Carmack was shown
It wasn't, since that's a 3DO homebrew.

It was normally Romero's job to handle ports and approval of things like this, he was on vacation at that time. Bagley got a chance to ask him why id shot the port down at the time and he said it's because Carmack was covering for him while he was away. Romero went on to say to Bagley if he had it running at 60fps full screen, he would want the port finished, and then ported to PC.

What's with the bias against the Saturn here? All this conjecture and talking out of the ass. Get a grip.

[Anonymous No.6385692]

>>6385637
Is that guy Greek?

[Anonymous No.6385745]

>>6385668
>Are you a better programmer than Jim Bagley?
No idea, but only 2 people have seen this prototype, Bagley and Carmack. Considering Carmack let Quake on Saturn and Doom on PS1 slide with some levels of Texture Warping, this port of Doom had to have worse warping.

>Considering it was tailored to the Saturn, I doubt it.

Saturn still gets texture warping, it happens when polygons are huge and they get near the camera. If you have levels with Geometry on par with Doom being rendered with Quads on the Saturn at 60fps, you most likely are using huge quads to keep the polygon count low so you can maintain 60fps.

This guy is optimizing the shit out of his engine, and he's still only hitting 30fps at best and his geometry is far less complex:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8Ve7uB7A4

>What does this have to do with Saturn exactly?

They both render quads in a similar kind of fashion. It gives you an idea of what you can expect to see when you try to render Doom with large polygons that aren't subdivided properly to hide warping.

On systems like the Saturn you can either render large polygons fast, but with tons of warping, or smaller polygons slower but with less warping as you need more of them to make up the scene.

>It wasn't, since that's a 3DO homebrew.
Yes, it was being used as an example to show you what happens when you try to render Doom with large quads. Try to keep up.

>Bagley sob Story

All that tells us is he had a version of Doom running at 60fps using quads. We still have no idea how it looked or performed. Again if you're getting 60fps on the Saturn rendering a full polygon scene with geometry on par with PC Doom, you have to be using large quads. Otherwise you wont be hitting 60fps.

>What's with the bias against the Saturn here?

No bias, I love the system. But let's be realistic here and not demonize Carmack over a prototype only 2 people have seen.

[Anonymous No.6385761]

>>6385745
>Doom on PS1 slide with some levels of Texture Warping
Doom on PS1 doesn't have texture warping. http://fabiensanglard.net/doom_psx/index.html
>you most likely are using huge quads to keep the polygon count low so you can maintain 60fps
Not necessarily.
>This guy is optimizing the shit out of his engine
Yeah I talk to XL2 here and there, he said he wanted to target 30fps to get the most out of the visuals. He said he could do 60fps no problem, and has, with the much earlier Sonic Z-Treme which has a 60fps mode with the usual subdivision techniques applied.
>his geometry is far less complex:
than doom? lol
>Yes, it was being used as an example
an irrelevant example.
>We still have no idea how it looked or performed.
You seem to have the best idea of all, using a 3DO homebrew as an example. Shut the fuck up you idiot.
>you have to be using large quads
nope.
>not demonize Carmack over a prototype only 2 people have seen.
he said himself in retrospect, he should have allowed it.

[Anonymous No.6385806]

>>6385761
>Doom on PS1 doesn't have texture warping.
Yes it does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=784MUbDoLjQ&t=43m42s

>Not necessarily.
Yes necessarily. Look at any Saturn game running at 60fps. The polygon counts are quite low. If you're using those polygon counts to render a scene like Doom, you're going to have huge polygons.

>Yeah I talk to XL2 here and there, he said he wanted to target 30fps to get the most out of the visuals. He said he could do 60fps no problem, and has, with the much earlier Sonic Z-Treme which has a 60fps mode with the usual subdivision techniques applied.

Yes, but with significantly lower polygon counts and a significantly shorter draw distance. Again not ideal for Doom. So if this port had the full draw distance and geometry as the PC version (as Bagley claims) then it had to be using large quads if it was hitting 60fps.

>than doom?

Yes. He may be rendering more polygons as they're smaller, but PC Dooms levels are much more complex geometry wise, especially when you get into the likes of Doom 2.

>an irrelevant example.

It's quite relevant since both consoles render polygons in a similar fashion. XL2 has even stated that he'd use the 3DO source code for Doom as a base for a port for this very reason.

>You seem to have the best idea of all, using a 3DO homebrew as an example. Shut the fuck up you idiot.

It's a pretty good example as it shows you exactly what happens when you try to render a game like Doom with large quads that aren't properly subdivided.

Honestly there's no reason the Saturn shouldn't be able to handle Doom's software renderer. The 32X handles it fine on the same CPU set up but clocked slower after all. Hexen handes it fine too.

>nope.
Yes if you're rendering scenes like Doom at 60fps on the Saturn.

>he said himself in retrospect, he should have allowed it.
He said he should have allowed for more experimentation, which to me sounds more like him not trying to restart a 20 year old pissing match.

[Anonymous No.6385851]

>>6385806
>Yes it does:
John's wrong, it's not even visible when he's trying to demonstrate it. DOOM PS1 uses a workaround to prevent warping.
>you're going to have huge polygons.
No, this isn't the case.
>shorter draw distance
Maybe, maybe not considering the Saturn has ways to control for long distance rendering with infinite planes. That and Doom is fairly compartmentalized already.
>then it had to be using large quads if it was hitting 60fps.
It didn't have to, as you can see with XL2's Sonic Z-Treme demo.
>It's quite relevant since both consoles render polygons in a similar fashion
No, it's not relevant because it's another port. Bagley's isn't available for comparison.
>He said he should have allowed for more experimentation
Yeah, meaning he should have allowed that version of Doom to be released.

[Anonymous No.6386045]

>>6374983
Who the F played Quake on PC in 320x240?

Always played mine on 1024x786. Then went to gl Quake like a normal person.

[Anonymous No.6386048]

>>6386045
What actual super computer did you have to play Quake at that resolution back then? Even a Pentium III clocked at 800MHz would struggle to reach 30FPS at that res.

[Anonymous No.6386084]

>>6386048
Depends on your video card, but I can't remember what I had.... Diamond maybe?

[Anonymous No.6386139]

>>6375261
>His Youtube Voice has the same annoying qualities as the My Life in Gaming guy.
>not liking Try's southern drawl
Faggot.

In DF Retro's case, my issue with John is how he always seems to have played damn near every game he covers "at launch". It's enough that he has to be fibbing in certain cases. Even MLiG and Game Sack will admit when they missed the boat on certain games they discuss.

[Anonymous No.6386169]

>>6385851
>John's wrong, it's not even visible when he's trying to demonstrate it. DOOM PS1 uses a workaround to prevent warping.

It uses a work around to minimize it, not entirely prevent it. The warping happens at extreme angles. It's very subtle, but it is there.

>No, this isn't the case.
Yes it is if you're hitting 60fps with complex geometry.

>Maybe, maybe not considering the Saturn has ways to control for long distance rendering with infinite planes. That and Doom is fairly compartmentalized already.

VDP2 planes would be pretty much useless in something like Doom because you have multiple levels for floors. That was kind of a big deal about it's engine when it came out and the maps like to show it off. Now if this was Wolf3D then you might have a point there.

>It didn't have to, as you can see with XL2's Sonic Z-Treme demo.

Here's the last version he had running at 60fps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1qc8F7xflM

Note the very short draw distance, the very simple level geometry, and the texture warping as the polygons get close to the camera.

If you want to get 60fps for something like Doom, your polygon counts would need to be similar, which means if you want to draw the entire scene you need to use large quads.

>No, it's not relevant because it's another port.

Both systems render polygons as distorted quads. It's a pretty good example of what you'd see with large quads rendering levels in Doom. And again, XL2 has even stated that using the 3DO code as a base would be the best fit for a modern port.

All we know about Bagley's version is what he's told us and that it was denied by Carmack for Texture Warping problems. It's not hard to connect the dots here.

>Yeah, meaning he should have allowed that version of Doom to be released.

Or let them continue to try and refine the renderer instead of releasing that exact build.

Again though, I see that more as Carmack not trying to restart a 20 year old pissing match.

[Anonymous No.6386180]

>>6385851
>>6386169

Going even further since you seem to be putting Bagley on a pedestal, the guy may have been awesome at ZX Specturm coding, but I seriously question his Saturn coding abilities when looking at what Saturn Doom is doing.

The game is rendering everything as 1 Pixel high sprites. Yeah he ported that from the PS1, but that's going to be slow on Saturn as VDP1 is slow and it has a lower fill rate than the PS1. But what makes this even worse is he does a shit ton of user clipping commands, which bogs things down even more.

Now let's look at Hexen on Saturn. This game was ported by ATOD but is another game using the Doom Engine. What did they do? They ported Doom's software renderer, and they have it do all the software rendering for the scenery in RAM, then send the final frame over to have VDP2 draw it to one of it's background layers. Then enemies are drawn as sprites over top the background layers with other sprites drawn over top of them to mask them when they go behind walls. The result is that Hexen runs at around an average of 20-25fps, with it peaking at 30fps in some spots. Considering PS1 Doom runs at around 30fps but dips to the mid to low 20s during intense spots, I'd say Hexen gets a lot closer to the mark.

[Anonymous No.6386601]

>>6386169
>but it is there.
prove it. John couldn't prove shit.
>Here's the last version he had running at 60fps:
No, all versions support 60fps. You need to stop being so disingenuous.
>Note the very short draw distance, the very simple level geometry
Post a later version.
>If you want to get 60fps for something like Doom, your polygon counts would need to be similar
not very hard, ztreme is pretty dense.
>All we know about Bagley's version is what he's told us and that it was denied by Carmack for Texture Warping problems
No one quite knows how severe they were, if they were severe at all. Carmack seems to have a distaste for it on any level, so it could have been the usual edge distortion. You like to assume the worst a lot, don't you?

>>6386180
>I seriously question his Saturn coding abilities when looking at what Saturn Doom is doing.
Considering how Bagley Doom had to be scrapped, and ended up being a scraped together PS1 port, what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.6387301]

>>6386084
>Depends on your video card
>Before going to gl Quake

[Anonymous No.6389829]

>>6381401
The censorship in Duke64 was creative at least. Damn shame they didn't use a 64MB cart (like RE2) for Duke. They would have been able to put the entire game (Atomic included), the level editor and the soundtrack.

[Anonymous No.6389831]

>>6381642
Reminds me of my old setup based on a workstation mobo. We could put 128MB of RAM in that. With a 3dfx card and pencil overclocking, I could get it to run UT99, albeit only with a few bots.

[Anonymous No.6389879]

>>6386045
I did on my pentium 100 mhz. Butter smooth 20 fps