Game Sack

Quote:

---

Listen! I never said there was a screenshot from 1993! I said that I recall seeing a screenshot of the game in a 1994 magazine

---

Please, there wasn't any in 1994 the game hadn't even began actual production then . Sorry for the typo, but there wasn't any screenshots of Tomb Raider in 1994 and you'll never be able to show a magazine shot of the game from 1994.

Quote:

---

Funny, because the article you posted is talking about late 1993, a few months before Sega and SOJ decided to create the 32X

---

Sega America got the call to make the 32X in Jan of 1994 , well all know the story and we all know why SOJ were worried of the 3DO and Jag threat, Scott Bayless went into great detail with Retro. So sorry not in 1993 but 1994 and SOA even lifted the Saturn SH-2 for good messure too, so they knew full well of the Saturn and its main SH-2 CPU's .

Quote:

---

It sure does. They quoted an interview from a 1997 Edge Magazine with one of the team members. He was talking about their team (in 1993) trying to come up with a working 3rd person view game with a camera in a 3D environment

---

I have every EDGE issue since it launch and no sorry the Team don't talk of issue of getting TR going in 1993 and neither does it your link, I wouldn't say too much, but in your other link it contradicts the 1993 date says game started its life in 1994 and also quite clearly shows the main design document with its date 1995 before it's signed off and green light to go into actual production
Do you ever bother to read your links?

Quote:

---

And take note that in the Treasure interview, he says that he's more interested in developing for 32-bit, over developing games for CD-ROM. Hmmm

---

I get from the interview the CD-ROM is Mega CD given it was also asking about CD-Rom game in then present 1993 , or it may have been the FM Towns Marty, looking over that it could have been Treasure were looking more for the Jupiter for their 32 Bit SEGA plans.

That's overlooking the main point of SOA knew full well of the Saturn even in 1993 and not only SOA, so did most 3rd parties and most of the press.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

I don't. Never looked on or thought The Sims as SEGA In-House team even though they only worked with SEGA in the 16/32bit era and SEGA also owned a stake in the Group. Never looked on Alpha Denshi Corporation as an In-House SNK team even if they only ever seemed to work with SNK.

---

I'd have no problem considering SIMS an in house team considering they were a joint venture and a lot of their people came from Sega. Hell they were even owned by Sega Sammy Corporation until the bought all their stock and became independent in 2004. I'd have no issue with you considering that in house for the time between 1991 and 2004. And Intelligent Systems has a much closer relationship with Nintendo than that. Hell their games are all owned by Nintendo and considered Nintendo franchises for crying out loud.

Alpha Denshi Corporation though I wouldn't consider in house. They're more in line with what would be considered a 2nd party developer. Do you understand those subtle differences or do you need them explained to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

You know full well what I'm on about and that's a fully 3D transparent effect wrapped around a polygon or even a Sprite . That's why the Saturn had issues, not using VDP II transparent effects in a 3D game.

---

Not really since the above statement is incoherent and isn't anything like what you said. You flat out said, as I already quoted you saying, that the Saturn had no hardware support for transparencies in 3D. That's not true. No matter what nonsense explanation you pull out of your ass, it wont change the fact that there is support for 50/50 transparencies through VDP1 that can be used on both 2D Sprites and 3D Polygons. The same limitations apply to both situations. VDP1 considers both sprites and polygons the same thing, so it can apply the 50/50 transparency in both instances. However the sprite warping results in pixel overdraw which can cause errors. It's also quite slow. VDP2 has nothing to do with this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

I said it's not 3D becasue you can't see the sides, but never mind

---

I like how you avoided the questions I asked about other games that have similar 3D objects. Are those objects not 3D because "You can't see the sides"? Why would you waste polygons drawing the sides of a pane of glass? Just use one polygon and be done with it. It still has 3 Dimensional coordinates that effect how it's drawn. It still moves in the world in 3 Dimensions as well. It's not like when sprites get used for the Bob-Ombs in Mario 64 or the Chips in NiGHTS where they are constantly facing the same direction and only move in 2 Dimensions..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Dear GOD man you're having a laugh. When the transport is used there's no player interaction the game is in complete control of the camera angles and what's happing on screen. It's in those scenario's that the engine can go to town with the maximum number of effects and polygons like most games do .

---

What would happen if you had to transport a person surrounded by flames? Something that happens quite often. Boom, overlapping transparencies. Something the VDP2 trick being used wouldn't be able to handle. That would make the illusion break more than it already does. Using VDP1 transparencies wouldn't be ideal either due to the speed and possible other issues that could pop-up in that already non-conventional rendering set up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

But in BR we still need a Mesh, but there even when I post a interview with Yuki Naka and the issues of Saturn Hardware you'll still not accpet it

---

I'm fully aware there's limitations to it and I've been illustrating them to you this entire time. That doesn't change the fact that there's still hardware support for 50/50 transparencies through VDP1. The Mesh use in Burning Rangers is most likely due to the rendering set up would probably cause more problems with VDP2 layer blending than normal, and it would introduce a big performance dip to a game already having performance issues. And the VDP2 method being used does not allow for overlapping transparencies.

But why do I even bother explaining this to you. In your mind it's all black and white with no gray area. Unfortunately for you, there's quite a bit of gray area in this specific issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Grandia is just same. Another miracle in Saturn programming from the GODs that were GameArts. In that game we see great VDP II full transparent effects, we even have 2D VDP 1 based ones too (like on the chimney smoke) but the moment the game needs a 3D transparent effect we need the mesh to come out as see on the Save sections

---

Very simple explanation really. The game makes heavy use of VDP2 planes and layers. VDP1 transparencies either blend with VDP1 objects or VDP2 objects, not both. So you'd either have Sprites disappear when those transparencies happen, or you'll have VDP2 layers disappear under those transparencies, which wouldn't be ideal either. That and again we have an instance of a game pushing the Saturn pretty hard where VDP1 transparencies slowing stuff down wouldn't be an option.

Seriously why is it so hard for you to understand this concept? There's hardware support for 50/50 transparencies, but it's not ideal to use it for every situation. Which is why you see it not being used a whole lot. Most developers took the easy way out and used Meshes instead or used a Mix of meshes and real transparencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Hardware issues ? Why you have such an issue with accepting Saturn had issues with 3D transparent effects I do not know, its there in every 3D game one can think of . Or can you name one Saturn 3D polygon game that doesn't use the Mesh effect at any stage for transparent effects?.

---

I'm fine with accepting it had issues with transparencies. The issues are there regardless of 2D or 3D. 3D presents itself more though due to the sprite warping.

The problem I have is you saying it has no hardware support whatsoever. That's not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

You're right Outrun is below 20fps Super Hang-On much better but still nowhere near 60 fps. So why the big deal over having a Mega CD version of those games at 21 fps but with full ASIC hardware scaling with Arcade Perfect music and Arcade quality sound effects I do not know?.

---

They're not even 20fps. Super Hang-On is in the teens last I checked. Using the ASIC you'd be lucky if you even hit 15fps. You'd be better off just running the Genesis code on the Sega CD's 68k and hoping the higher clock rate would give you a better level of performance. The ASIC isn't magic, it has some pretty hard limits which you don't want to accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Knowledge base as, and if you need an answer or help just do a google never mind how much better modeling software tools, Nobody back in 1992 would say would could have a better version of Road Adv on the Super Famicom than on the Mega CD on a Cart, Most people base PC hardware can do so much and you can do so many tools off the web from free, what did most budding indie coder have back in 1990 that's right an Amiga or ST. You didn't have emu back in the early 90's now don't even need a base Mega Drive to test ones code .Good luck back in 1990 having your 386 or 486 running a MD emu anywhere near the levels a basic PC can do today.

WE've moved on to what was around and what was thought possible to that back in the every early 90's

---

Dear god do you proofread before you post? This incoherent rambling is pretty hard to follow, throwing in your nonsensical logic just makes it more of a pain to read.

So I guess your complaint is "We now have google and emulators!". Well back then you had official Sega Technical Support and official Dev Kits. I'd bet some homebrew developers would love to have the ability to reach out to Sega officially to help them figure out what's wrong with their code. Things are different now, but where in some places it may be better, in others it's worse.

And it still doesn't change the fact that if it runs on real hardware, it counts in a debate of what the hardware is capable of doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

So nothing from key Members of GE/MM much less AM#2 or SEGA AM#. Arcade dept on Model 1 being developed by them or helping SEGA out. Just seems to back up everything Yu Suzuki said that it was Model 2 not Model 1 .
I know you hate it, but maybe EDGE and www.system16 were wrong and Yu Suzuki was right.

---

What's funny is what I linked is what's used on SegaRetro as the source to say Model 1 had no GE/MM involvement. But the interview clearly states that Sega and GE had a working relationship as early as 1990. And the interview you're speaking of and refuse to link is right here:

https://archive.is/qJee4

Guess what, it says nothing about Model 1 other than it was his first 3D board and that he was involved in the development from the beginning. It does not confirm nor deny GE's involvement. We're not saying the chip came from GE, we know that's not the case. We're saying it's still pretty possible that GE was invovled in some kind of consulting level seeing as how they had a relationship growing all the way back to 1990.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Please, there wasn't any in 1994 the game hadn't even began actual production then . Sorry for the typo, but there wasn't any screenshots of Tomb Raider in 1994 and you'll never be able to show a magazine shot of the game from 1994.

---

Yes it did. Next Generation Magazine even talked about the game being in development for nearly 2 years.


http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d7...psc9pmijtb.jpg

Quote:

---

Sega America got the call to make the 32X in Jan of 1994 , well all know the story and we all know why SOJ were worried of the 3DO and Jag threat, Scott Bayless went into great detail with Retro. So sorry not in 1993 but 1994 and SOA even lifted the Saturn SH-2 for good messure too, so they knew full well of the Saturn and its main SH-2 CPU's .

---

They are lower clocked than the Saturn SH2s. They were brought over from the Jupiter project.

This is an interesting read on how SOJ wasn't revealing the Saturn hardware to SOA at the time of that meeting.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Db...upiter&f=false

Quote:

---

I have every EDGE issue since it launch and no sorry the Team don't talk of issue of getting TR going in 1993 and neither does it your link, I wouldn't say too much, but in your other link it contradicts the 1993 date says game started its life in 1994 and also quite clearly shows the main design document with its date 1995 before it's signed off and green light to go into actual production
Do you ever bother to read your links?

---

Did you not know that the game was originally being designed around a male character? Those drawings are from around March of 1995 (19 months before the early Saturn UK launch), with the updates for a female character and additional level design ideas.


Since you have every issue of Edge Magazine, you might want to check out the January 1997 (#41) issue that has the interview they are referencing.

Again!

Quote:

---

Also Core in early interview with Edge talk of Tomb Raider starting out on MCD, 12 months BEFORE BC Racers was finished, but could’nt get camera system working. Interview with Core Design in EDGE issue 41 (Jan’97) Has Jeremy Smith talking of concept of character in a cinematic environment, being initial concept for T.R, but they had immense issues designing a system around the character that would let them move within a camera system and Artist, animator and designer at Core, Stuart Atkinson said: ‘We already had the sketches and ideas for the game for about a year before we even finished BC Racers (on MCD). So any claims Tomb Raider was ORIGINALLY designed for Jaguar CD is not true, it was designed during MCD era, Core just waited for tech to reach point concept/ideas could be turned into full blown game.

---

Quote:

---

I get from the interview the CD-ROM is Mega CD given it was also asking about CD-Rom game in then present 1993 , or it may have been the FM Towns Marty, looking over that it could have been Treasure were looking more for the Jupiter for their 32 Bit SEGA plans.

---

Project Jupiter did not include a CD-ROM. That is, more than likely, the reason why they stated that they were interested in working with 32-Bit technology, over CD-ROM.

Quote:

---

That's overlooking the main point of SOA knew full well of the Saturn even in 1993 and not only SOA, so did most 3rd parties and most of the press.

---

No, they knew full well of Project Jupiter, which was supposed to be a cartridge based console that did not have a CD-ROM drive. It was in May of 1994 that Sony revealed the hardware specs for the PlayStaion; That was probably the moment where SOJ chastised their hardware team for the console design they had come up with, and they came up with a Saturn loaded with extra silicon on its board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ALoemENV-s

excuse me ken

pls do not interrupt andromeda & trekkies wankfest like that with things relevant to this topic that people actually want to see, it's hella rude

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to IrishNinja again.

man i'm a massive cunt, doubly so when i'm drunk

You're drunk now?!

Now this looks very interesting to say the least. Is it wrong for me to want more 2D games that look like this rather than so many that got for that ugly 8-Bit style?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Rt7NugRMs

Cuphead looks gorgeous, the only thing I don't like is that smear filter they are using.

They're going for the look of old cartoons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

They're going for the look of old cartoons.

---

I know why they are using it, but I just doesn't do it for me. Much like modern CRT filters it just doesn't look right.
Even if they nailed the look I personally never thought to myself how much I'd like to have that weird VHS blur back.

What I care about is that gorgeous Disney style animation. Even Disney can't do that anymore. Major props to the artists working on the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamahl

I know why they are using it, but I just doesn't do it for me. Much like modern CRT filters it just doesn't look right.
Even if they nailed the look I personally never thought to myself how much I'd like to have that weird VHS blur back.

What I care about is that gorgeous Disney style animation. Even Disney can't do that anymore. Major props to the artists working on the game.

---

It's possible you can disable it, which would be nice (like the grain filter in the first ME game).

But yes, I've been waiting for this game for ages. It just looks excellent. I'm hoping the game itself can live up to the visuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

It's possible you can disable it, which would be nice (like the grain filter in the first ME game).

But yes, I've been waiting for this game for ages. It just looks excellent. I'm hoping the game itself can live up to the visuals.

---

I loved that film grain in ME1 & 2. Always played with it on. On X-Box 360 that is, for the PS3 I always turn is off as it never looked right on that console.

Why make a game that looks so nice and then put a filter on it to make it blurry.

Still, the game looks fun so i'll live with it.