Why wouldn't you just play the PC version?
Printable View
Why wouldn't you just play the PC version?
Bceause 'back inthe day' A decent PC rig needed to run Quake at any sort of decent levels (we looking a Pentium) cost well over £1000, so most would rather go for a £300 console. Overlooking what a total pain inthe ass PC were back in those days, compared to the plug and play nature of the console and that you could hook up the console to a Big TV no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogogadget
I'd rather pay the £1000 for the benefit of my games not being shit personally, both console ports of Quake are hot trash.
Quake 2 on the PSX on the other hand? Other than it's janky controls that's an excellent port. Very playable.
You could say that about any PC port, even DOOM, Dark Forces was cut back on the PS. But the cost of PC's back then was a big factor, looking over it was kind of hard to have a PC in one's bedroom on the portable TV in early 90's. So most familes when for the console route and so so did a lot of gamers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogogadget
Think most console users were used to painful frame rates in FPS on the consoles back into those days, one only as too look at goldeneye N64 - Now it controls like a Pig and moves like a dog with sub bar 30 fps update. Back inthe day nobody cared, becasue consoles users were used to lame frame rates on console FPS's.
I was more than happy with both Quake and Duke on the Saturn and the likes of Dark Forces on the PS myself
Quake was decent on the 64.
You were paying a lot more than a thousand, regardless of currency. Some computers cost 2 to 3 grand for a Windows 95 machine back in the mid 90s.
Quake was decent on the Saturn too. Yeah my own PC cost £1,500 back in 1997 and it was only a pretty basic Pentium MMX 233Mhz (before that, the house PC was a rubbish 486 that cost like a grand) and my mates PC cost like £3,000 crazy money lol . PC were so expensive back into those daysQuote:
Originally Posted by sull56ivan2010
Low frame rates was a general thing, even PCs were affected. I don't remember Quake being very smooth, even on a beast PC during those days. You'd be lucky to play the game at steady 30fps at low resolution. And that's a game build for PCs. AFAIK, ports from consoles, like Wipeout, Daytona, etc were slow on PCs.
Smooth frame rates on PCs for 3D games became a thing when 3D accelerators became a thing.
Doom PSX was using the Doom engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
The Saturn version was definitely a great way to experience Quake back in the day. A Saturn was indeed a hell of a lot cheaper than a Pentium PC in 1996. It was likely your only choice, and the PSX didn't have Quake at all. But it was more of a skinned Exhumed than Quake at the end of the day.
Unless you were a spoiled rich kid, you didn't have that opportunity. And the N64 port was very impressive, it's just missing the soundtrack.Quote:
I'd rather pay the £1000 for the benefit of my games not being shit personally, both console ports of Quake are hot trash.
Not true. I had (have) a 1997 HP Pavilion with a 233 MMX Pentium. It ran Quake in software mode quite nicely (albeit at 320x200), and even more smoothly with a Voodoo3 later on in GLQuake.Quote:
Low frame rates was a general thing, even PCs were affected. I don't remember Quake being very smooth, even on a beast PC during those days. You'd be lucky to play the game at steady 30fps at low resolution. And that's a game build for PCs. AFAIK, ports from consoles, like Wipeout, Daytona, etc were slow on PCs.
Smooth frame rates on PCs for 3D games became a thing when 3D accelerators became a thing.
Quake was released in 1996. MMX processors were introduced in 1997. How smoothly would Quake run on a CPU you could get when the game was actually released?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blades
Also, Voodoo 3 is considered a 3D accelerator. Every gaming graphics card since 1997/98 handles 3D graphics. Playing the game in GL mode means it runs on a 3D accelerator. That's pretty much what i said.
I was on about Build and when the PSX was asked to do that in software it found it hard work, much like the Saturn version of DOOM (which it' self was using the Doom engine I think) only that it had to be all done in software render and it paid the price . Shame as the VDP1/VDP2 custom version of Saturn Doom was said to look much better than the PS version and run at 60 fps if what Jim Bagley said was trueQuote:
Originally Posted by Blades
Quote:
Yes, and no, we were given the PC and PlayStation data, but initially, I wanted to use the Saturn's hardware to it's max potential, and wrote a render engine to display the PC levels drawing the walls with the GPU, the problem I came across, was apparently John Carmack wasn't happy about this, he wanted it to look exactly the same as the PC version, but it looked a lot nicer, and was running full screen at 60fps, he said it had to be drawn using the CPU, and not the GPU, he even suggested I used the two DSPs on the Saturn to render the screen, but as they only have 4KB, and if I remember correctly, as it's been a very long time since I used one, 2KB code space and 2KB data space, doing it this way to render a complete screen full of game, would have been a huge memory bandwidth bottleneck, so I ignored that, and did it using the two SH2s to render the screen, each of the two CPUs splitting the draw time, doing a line each of the walls or floors, and to save time having to reduce the PC levels to fit into the Saturn's memory, we decided to use the Playstation levels as they had a smaller memory footprint than the PC ones.
http://www.retrovideogamer.co.uk/ind...=91&Itemid=160Quote:
Given the time and freedom, yes, I'd have done a better version of Doom than the PlayStation version, and it would have looked better than the PC version too. I know for a fact, as it did look better.
It was and why I went for that version and I was more than happy with the game myselfQuote:
A Saturn was indeed a hell of a lot cheaper than a Pentium PC in 1996.
DOOM is a 1993 game, running smooth enough (30-35fps) on a 486 in software.
A PSX or Saturn (used properly) should be able to handle a better looking version than the PC original, breaking no sweat. At least they managed that with the N64 version...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Reading can be a wonderful thing. Yeah, I got the Voodoo3 in 1999 or 2000.Quote:
Not true. I had (have) a 1997 HP Pavilion with a 233 MMX Pentium. It ran Quake in software mode quite nicely (albeit at 320x200), and even more smoothly with a Voodoo3 later on in GLQuake.
But ok, I guess my PC was from 1997 and not 1996. Before that, I had an IBM PS/2 with a 486SLC3 and no sound card. So the HP was a pretty big change of pace.
Quake or Doom? Neither the Saturn or PSX could handle the Doom engine completely in software. Both used hardware optimizations to get their results (of course, on the Saturn these were nixed by Carmack and we got what we got running completely in software).Quote:
A PSX or Saturn (used properly) should be able to handle a better looking version than the PC original, breaking no sweat. At least they managed that with the N64 version...
My family did have a PC back in 1996, completely forgot the specs but it played Quake 1, Duke Nukem 64 pretty much perfectly. Not GLQuake mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blades
The ports of DN64 are another issue, DN64 PS1 is fucking horrible
Yeah but if you didn't, you were completely out of luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogogadget
GLQuake itself came out in 1997 and only supported the Voodoo (and some other random card), so it's not too surprising it didn't work.