Printable View
Yes I remember being surprised when my Dreamcast games asked me whether I wanted them displayed at 60Hz or 50Hz. Before that point we had never been given a choice here in PAL land. Well, it was the first time I'd been given that choice in a games console anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
There wasn't an option for PAL 60 before the Dreamcast afaik. Older consoles didn't have that. And not everyone had 60hz enabled TVs in the mid 90's anyway. So until the early 00's, developers couldn't do much to fix that issue. We all had to play games at lower frame rates in Europe, unless we had an import machine and a compatible TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by stu
Well, a mod told him to chill out and he responds with “but they started it!!!!”Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief
I - quite reasonably, I think - restate my position, and he accuses me of “trolling.”
So yeah... I think he might be taking it a little personally...
Nope it was still rubbish with the same frame issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by bultje112
But you call out the Saturn for use of 2D sprites instead of 3D polygons for bacrkround gfx, when the N64 did that too, even today the games like Forza 7 do that trick. You go a little OTT in comparing the Amiga to the Master system, which would have been like comparing the Sharp 68000 to the Mega Drive, never mind one system cost 2 grand more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
N64 was me such a letdown after the amazement of what Saturn and PS were doing. When I 1st played Mario 64 I thought thye hype was real, only to then play Pilotwings and see N64 trademark issues of low res, blurry gfx add in low 22 fps and not the best sound and that was a pattern for so many N64 games, The system lack of sound hardware (huge comedown after the fab Snes sound hardware) and horrible washed out blurry display was such a step back(not even support for RGB Scart without a mod) and then to see so many games not even be able to handle 30 fps, never mind 60 fps very disappointing.
It was like the PS2 for me, after all the hype and all the promise it failed to deliver bar the odd mircale game and the odd bit of magic from a talented developer
In case you didn't realized it, this was a response to your WDC review, so i made one of Sega Rally in the same spirit. Didn't call out the Saturn itself for all game's faults, except for the dithered shadows and lack of transparencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
See that's your opinion and that's super fine. My problem before was with the false generalization comments. Here you also make a couple of generalizations but now you are mostly correct. N64 games did suffer from this blurred out look so that's a legit complain about the console itself. And sure, there are less 60fps game on it but you also have to take into account that the N64 had a smaller library in general as well and most of it was from janky US developers. If the N64 had proper Japanese 3rd party support, there would be more games on it that move graciously. Really, the worst thing about the N64 for me was the abysmal Japanese 3rd party support. Most big 3rd party Japanese developers either made side projects on it or were just publishers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
Having said that, i will disagree about your FPS generalization. The Saturn also suffered from low frame rates in many of it's games. And as i test more and more new games, i discover that there are many more max 20fps games than i thought.
You talked of the use of 2D sprites, even though the Model 2B Rally version also used 2D sprites for some background gfx and on the crowd/spectators (so did Model 3 Step 2 Sega Rally2). It's still being used now in game like Forza, GT Sports So to call the Saturn out for it is pretty lame, more so when one moan's about the lack of consistency when it comes to fogging in games, but looks over, how even N64 games used 2D effects to cover the lack of PolygonsQuote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
I agree with you on Saturn lack of 3D alpha effects, it was rubbish and looked rubbish but that was an issue Model 2 suffered with and even the MD was totally outclassed by the Snes for colour layering, Like I said in endless Saturn threads, it just seemed that in that era (until Model 3) SEGA engineers priorities weren't alpha effects and the one part SEGA should and could have done better. But in the end the Saturn was a huge leap over the Mega Drive and also systems like the 3DO.
Quote:
N64 games did suffer from this blurred out look so that's a legit complain about the console itself. And sure, there are less 60fps game on it but you also have to take into account that the N64 had a smaller library in general
Thanks to the Hardware and to use the lack of games its a bit of a cope out, given the N64 had a decent life span and little of Nintendo own In-House games run at 30 fps, much less ever hit 60 fps. You can make fun of the Saturn hardware all you want, but thanks to that system set I was able to play fighters, sports games in High Res and at 60 fps and enjoy games with fab music and a vibrant clear RGB display. N64 not so much at all. I'll will credit Mario 64 amazing gfx and Golden Eye 64 and Conkers music though :).
I didn't call out the Saturn though. I made a review of Sega Rally comparing it to WDC, as a response to the Sega Rally review. Like i said, the only thing i blamed the system for was the shadows and transparencies. And calling out the system for the shortcomings of a game isn't my thing anyway. Unlike you and other posters who blame the shortcomings of all N64 games on the system, even when some don't suffer from the same shortcomings as others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
But anyway. You seem to care too much about the systems themselves than the games. That's not how i see things. I enjoyed both the N64 and PS1 despite the shortcomings of each system (i didn't have a Saturn). I couldn't care less about the polygon warping or pixellated textures in the PS1 games. Or the blurry image and textures of the N64, i mean, i had an old TV so there wasn't much difference anyway. I just cared about the games themselves and it just happened that most of my favorites ended up on the N64.
No. Prioritizing frame rate is a design/developer choice. Any console can handle 60fps, even the 3DO or the Jaguar. And every console has to have sacrifices compared to 30fps games to achieve that. After that, it's on developers talent to hide those sacrifices and make games look good. 3rd party Japanese developers were pretty good at this back in the day, especially Sega and Namco who had experience from the arcades (where 60fps was prioritized in Japan). Motion and animation was generally better than the jankiness of western developers who didn't even prioritize fluid motion in their arcades. It was in later generations when US devs could compete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
You talked of just the Saturn using 2D sprites to hide the lack of polygons, looking over that's what N64 and PS games did too, so does todays current gen of consoles. So if ones likes consistency on fogging, please let's have the same for 2D sprites being used in 3D games to cover up the lack of polygons in N64, PS gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Transparencies, sure that was a major drawback of the Saturn, I guess I could be pedantic and say how Astal used transparent effects, the likes of Last Brox, World League Soccer 98 and World Wide Soccer 97, 98 shadows were also transparent(if we want to talk shadows), but that be a lame way of trying to cover up the Saturn issue with 3D transparent effects.
Lets be real and lets live inthe real world. Amiga fans may point out that the Amiga CD 32 could tehcnailly support 262,144 on screen. Technically both the Jagur and Philips CDI had higher screen Res to that of even the Saturn. Name me one game that used the CD32's Ham 8 mode in game real time (not for a title screen) and then any CDi or Jaguar game that in real time at 60 fps righer at higer screen 704x480.Quote:
No. Prioritizing frame rate is a design/developer choice. Any console can handle 60fps, even the 3DO or the Jaguar.
Stop being so argumentative for the sake of it . The different was with the Saturn was there were a number of games that not only did 60 fps but also at run at 704x480.
Even today systems have issues running thier 3D games at the system full screen res at 60 fps (even the PS 4 Pro have issues ) . Saturn was doing that back in 1995,its impressive now, never mind back in 1995
Whenever a mod pops in and says that, always assume trolls summoned him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMatthews
Who accused you of trolling? Because i sure didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMatthews
No, i talked about Sega Rally doing it. And even if i did, you didn't seem to mind when the N64 got criticized for low draw distances over Turok or Extreme-G when PS1 and Saturn did it too. See how that works both ways?Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
Say what? This has nothing to do with the systems themselves. Like, at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
Whether or not a game is 60fps is 100% developer's choice. There is no such thing as "Even today's consoles have issues", what are you talking about? Its the developers who choose to stick to 30fps because they try to max out detail and graphical effects. The mainstream crown doesn't care about anything but the highest quality graphics possible and the developers cater to them. There are still plenty of 60fps games, fighting and most racing games are 60fps so i don't know where you got this false info.
Also, the N64 had (few) 60fps games which means it could so i don't know why you are still mumbling about it.
No, you said Saturn doing it. I wouldn't say too much, but PS and N64 games did and both Model 2 and Model 3 Sega Rally games used 2D sprites in places, instead of full 3D polygon models. So spare me, on the constancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
The more powerful the Hardware the better the system can be able or more able to handle 3D polygons at 60 fps whilest at full screen res.Quote:
Whether or not a game is 60fps is 100% developer's choice.
A lot of XBox One games have issues at running at 1080p at 60 fps a lot of games have to come in at 900p. GT Sport on the PS4 can't run at the systems at 2160p at 60 fps, Tekken 7 doesn't run at the highest screen res mode at 60 fps . Its not much better on the One X, but at least the likes Forza 7 does it, but even on that system, games have issues running at 4k (the systems highest screen mode) at 60 fps. So to have Saturn 3D games running in its highest screen mode while at 60 fps was impressive, its really impressive now when a AAA console game runs in the systems highest screen res at 60fp,s never mind when AM#2 were doing it in December 1995Quote:
There is no such thing as "Even today's consoles have issues", what are you talking about
Did any 3d N64 game run its highest screen res while at 60 fps?
So what you are saying here, the Saturn is more powerful than the N64?Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
You don't make any lick of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
XBOX one games don't run well because they try to make these ports as close to the PS4 as possible so they won't look much worse, just a little. Also wtf has resolution to do with this? We are talking whether consoles are capable of doing 60fps.
It's all about how you handle the resources. It's as simple as that. I don't know what else to tell you.
No but so what? What did the few Saturn games that run at 60+high res sacrificed for doing so? I remember Decathlon being a completely flat and empty stadium and only 2 or 3 3D models in it, with the rest of the athletes being sprites (looked like you were competing with mannequins). The other one was VF2. Great port but it's a fighting game. 2 models, one flat empty stage and one picture for background. Again, i don't see something impossible here. Not saying the game isn't great. It looks as good as it could on the Saturn. But do you really believe Sega wouldn't be able to make the same if they had the N64 hardware to work with and put the same effort? Sure there would be changes, the textures would have to be lower res, but maybe there would be more 3D details in the backgrounds to compensate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
When you have games like WDC, Conker, B-K, Rogue Squadron, etc, it's clear the N64 has more grunt. But that's just my opinion. Only a developer who spent a lot of time with both consoles can really tell.
Love the way you try and twist what is said. I'm saying after seeing Saturn and PS games running at 60 fps and sometimes also at the systems highest screen mode, seeing so many N64 fail to hit 60 fps much less run at N64 highest screen res was a letdown and disappointing. I wasn't at all impressed with the N64 chipset myself and glad SEGA Japan turned it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Ryse, Quantum Break ports of PS4 games now are they?Quote:
XBOX one games don't run well because they try to make these ports as close to the PS4 as possible
Decathlete is running at 60 fps at the highest screen res and also feature 3D polygons models and backgrounds. You talk about people not being fair and consistent, how many N64 Sports games have 3D polygons used for the spectators in the stands, much less how many N64 sports games that run at 60 fps or in the system High screen res or. Compare Nagano Winter Olympics 98 and Saturn Winter head and its a noncontest and see even the Mighty N64 use 2D sprites in its Winter sport game and still fail to run at 60 fpsQuote:
No but so what? What did the few Saturn games that run at 60+high res sacrificed for doing so? I remember Decathlon being a completely flat and empty stadium and only 2 or 3 3D models in i
You might not like Vfs fighters, but that what was good about the Saturn Chipset , you could have each CPU handle the individual fighter, whilst the VPD II scrolls the planes at no cost or hit to the CPU run at the highest screen res possible and then also have the Sound hardware handle the maximum number of channels, again at no hit to the CPU's.
You didn't get that with the N64, it was poor for Vs fighters, pretty poor at running gams at 60, poor at using it highest screen res mode, poor at texture mapping and each channel of the system sound, came at the cost of the CPU clock cycle. That's why for me in most cases, I was far more impressed with Saturn and PS games
In other words, similar to Playstation and Nintendo 64 track and field games, only higher resolution, framerate and increased detail?Quote:
No but so what? What did the few Saturn games that run at 60+high res sacrificed for doing so? I remember Decathlon being a completely flat and empty stadium and only 2 or 3 3D models in it, with the rest of the athletes being sprites (looked like you were competing with mannequins).
http://youtu.be/ikYkUOBkrAQ
https://youtu.be/SvwHUteTvhk
https://youtu.be/EhwYMOWs0FE