Genre by Genre: Sega Saturn and Sony Playstation worldwide libraries comparison

[sheath]

The idea that sidestepping doesn't happen in "real fights" is utterly absurd, but I've already said in previous threads that VF, DOA, etc. aren't 2.5d (because of their plane-shifting elements), so I didn't say that in this thread either.

Sidestepping only works at the instant the opponent commits to an attack (not a feint). There is no point in walking around an opponent if they haven't committed to an attack, and an actual side step isn't even a 45 degree step, it's more like 15-20 degrees off your opponent's center. VF allows for this kind of sidestep in various moves, throws and counters. Just like a real fight.

But back on topic, can we get some more detailed descriptions of why the games in the OP should be on such a list of 2D Fighters? So far it seems like the best descriptions we have for most of them are pretty vague "it's a good conversion" "it's a good game". That's not very descriptive.

[Barone]

But back on topic, can we get some more detailed descriptions of why the games in the OP should be on such a list of 2D Fighters?

Actually, whoever is discussing with ABF is wasting time 'cause:
1) He's one of the most hardheaded members to ever grace this forum and he has a pretty big set of "unique" concepts; better yet, he thinks his unique concepts are well known "facts" which the whole world MUST agree with, NOW!
2) I don't give a fuck about the result of such discussion and I'm the OP of this thread. So, I'll include in 2D lists the games which I think are 2D and in the 3D lists the games which I think are 3D; and I usually go with what's more common or what used to be common back in '90s. Whoever has a problem with this, please, just leave/create your own thread with your own rules to build the lists and be happy in your 2.938274982384D world.
3) I'm not stupid enough to talk about axis as a decimal number; so, no, you'll never see a list of 2.5 or 2.68709D games from me.

[sheath]

Right, and I don't care if a 2D Fighter is rendered with polygons or not. Some of the hand drawn games may well be rendered with polygons on the PS1 but they are still 2D fighters. Anyway, I was trying to get back on topic and get some more details out of folks who have actually played the games in the OP. Why are these games exemplary for each platform or the generation?

[Barone]

Anyway, I was trying to get back on topic and get some more details out of folks who have actually played the games in the OP. Why are these games exemplary for each platform or the generation?

That's a good question actually.
I was hoping to get more out of this thread than just single-day-made lists of games... I would like to have people talking about those games and giving sharing some info and opinions about gameplay and other stuff; like Jackal and profholt82 did.

KOF series, well represented in those lists, was a huge landmark IMO.
Not only for the team-based gameplay but how those games actually went beyond them just throwing, randomly, martial arts attributes and sad biographies to each character to create their "profiles".
Characters have their own theme, their own graphic style, very characteristic voices and talking; and their moves are compatible with the martial arts they were supposed to be good at (also reflecting into the gameplay)... Depending on the fighting techniques of your character, you'll have to try to pace the fight faster or slower to give you a good result; as well as some characters require a close combat and others must be placed always far away of your opponent. And I do think it works much better than on SFII games; KOF characters also look more "adult" and appealing to me; the gameplay is more complex and brings more possibilities to the table than SFII. The special moves are gorgeous and much more important they were in SFII...
Background graphics also put most of the previous fighting series (to not say all of them) to shame... I mean, just look at that wonderful looking fluid waterfall in one of the KOF '95 stages (Saturn version is superb, a MUST IMO); man, that's a beauty like you would only see in very good animes from those days; those landscapes DO look natural and vivid like in the best animes you could watch. SFII had nothing like that IMO.

My 2 cents...

[A Black Falcon]

Sidestepping only works at the instant the opponent commits to an attack (not a feint). There is no point in walking around an opponent if they haven't committed to an attack, and an actual side step isn't even a 45 degree step, it's more like 15-20 degrees off your opponent's center. VF allows for this kind of sidestep in various moves, throws and counters. Just like a real fight.

There are several obvious things wrong with this. First, there's absolutely no reason why the way a "real fight" works actually should matter all that much. Most 3d games have some kind of sidestepping function, but people don't often sidestep in real life. It's a staple of pretty much every FPS, but how many real-life gun (or paintball, or whatever) fights are filled with sidestepping? Yeah, I don't think they are. Videogames are not reality, and do not need to reflect the "real world". They are very often better when they don't.

And second, if we pretend that how real fights work actually matters, almost all martial arts or fights happen in arenas of some kind for a reason -- the combatants move around while fighting, and not only on an exact plane line with their opponent. Close or far, in a game like VF you cannot circle. You can only shift things with attacks, not movement. That is NOT realistic, except maybe for fencing since the contestants in that sport fight in a long and very narrow space. I know you keep insisting this, and I presume it's because you must really love VF1/2, but for both of these reasons, it just doesn't make much sense.

Actually, whoever is discussing with ABF is wasting time 'cause:
1) He's one of the most hardheaded members to ever grace this forum and he has a pretty big set of "unique" concepts; better yet, he thinks his unique concepts are well known "facts" which the whole world MUST agree with, NOW!
2) I don't give a fuck about the result of such discussion and I'm the OP of this thread. So, I'll include in 2D lists the games which I think are 2D and in the 3D lists the games which I think are 3D; and I usually go with what's more common or what used to be common back in '90s. Whoever has a problem with this, please, just leave/create your own thread with your own rules to build the lists and be happy in your 2.938274982384D world.
3) I'm not stupid enough to talk about axis as a decimal number; so, no, you'll never see a list of 2.5 or 2.68709D games from me.

1) If I'm wrong about something I will admit it... but as for being stubborn, hah, as if you're any different.
2) This is a fair point; it's your thread, you can make the lists how you wish.
3) No, trying to accurately categorize things is pretty much the opposite of "stupid".

[sheath]

Now, back on topic.
Here's some good info I found about Dragon Ball Z: Idainaru Dragon Ball Densetsu comapring both versions of the games:
http://www.kanzenshuu.com/forum/view...p?f=11&t=19338

Heh, looks like they didn't manage to implement transparency in the Saturn version, in a 2D game on a system that supports 2D transparency natively. It's interesting that there are gameplay differences in AI and movesets and that different gamers prefer either version.

All of the kids were playing DBZ games when I worked at the local game store from 2004-2006, I tried some of them and didn't like them. I freaking love Psychic Force and Psychic Force 2012 so I'm not really sure why I don't like the DBZ games. I was even into anime at the time but got bored of DBZ after the Freeza (or whatever) fight. I got tired of seeing animations repeated and the constant defeats followed by powering up and getting stronger storyline.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Well, I don't think we really need to talk about why Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, etc. are good and deserve to be on the list. Those games speak for themselves because in the arcade they are pretty much legendary this point. What puts them on the list in this case would be the quality of the conversions.

For the other games though I'd say it's fine to put a bit of info about them. Even Darkstalkers and Fatal Fury are a bit less well known when compared to Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, and King of Fighters.

[sheath]

The conversion info is what I'm looking for along with any gameplay reasons why that particular fighter was unique or worth mentioning at the time. Popping any Mortal Kombat and SF and KoF game on the list just because isn't really helpful. Knowing that SFA3 on the Saturn has lower frequency samples than the PS1 version, for example, is worth knowing along with the fact that the Saturn version uses the RAM cart and has more (or all?) of the Arcade's animations. It is these kinds of details that would really be helpful in a good list.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

One thing that would be nice to know is if the PS1 actually supports the CPS2 resolution of 384x224 or not. A lot of people say the PS1 ports use smaller sprites when compared the Saturn versions but I'm curious if that's really the case or if the PS1 ports actually run in the correct resolution making the sprites look smaller by comparison. The Saturn ports run at 352x224 which would make things appear a bit stretched if I understand this correctly.

Though I am pretty sure that the Saturn port of Alpha 3 does have all the arcade frames of animation. From what I understand it's pretty close to arcade perfect with the only flaw being that the load times aren't as perfectly optimized as Capcoms earlier RAM cart titles as well as a few balance fixes.

[sheath]

From what I have been able to gather the Saturn's supported resolutions are:
Non-interlaced NTSC: 320X224, 320X240, 352X224, 352X240, 352X256, 640X224, 640X240, 640X256, 704X224, 704X240, 704X256
Interlaced: 320X448, 320X480, 352X448, 352X480, 640X448, 640X480, 704X448, 704X480

And the PS1's are:
non-interlaced 256X240, 320X240, 512X240, 640X240, 384X240 interlaced 256X480, 320X480, 512X480 640X480 384X480

So yes it is possible that the PS1 game runs at the exact horizontal resolution as the Arcade while the Saturn cannot quite make it. I'd say 32 pixels difference is splitting hairs but an extra 64 pixels in Genesis games was a rather large benefit and made a huge enough difference for sprite based games that most SNES ports stuck to the lower resolution.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Well if the PS1 can support 384 pixels of horizontal resolution then that would explain that difference. So that is one pro for the PS1 Capcom fighters for what it's worth. Though 16 pixels on each side really is splitting hairs I'd say. But unless we can get the exact sprite sheets and do direct comparisons, I think we could put the rumor that the PS1 uses smaller sprites to rest, as it could just be the resolution difference making them look smaller.

[sheath]

All we need to do is boot the respective games in PSX emulator (not ePSXe!) and SSF and take a screenshot to find the true screen resolution. I don't own either or have a line on an ISO for either or I'd do it myself.

[Barone]

Well if the PS1 can support 384 pixels of horizontal resolution then that would explain that difference. So that is one pro for the PS1 Capcom fighters for what it's worth. Though 16 pixels on each side really is splitting hairs I'd say. But unless we can get the exact sprite sheets and do direct comparisons, I think we could put the rumor that the PS1 uses smaller sprites to rest, as it could just be the resolution difference making them look smaller.

All we need to do is boot the respective games in PSX emulator (not ePSXe!) and SSF and take a screenshot to find the true screen resolution. I don't own either or have a line on an ISO for either or I'd do it myself.

PSX emulator says:
Mortal Kombat II (arcade (according to MAME): 399x253 | PS1: 320x240)







Mortal Kombat 3 (arcade (according to MAME): 399x253 | PS1: 320x240)







Captain Commando (release for the PS1 by New, 1998) (arcade (according to MAME): 384x224 | PS1: 360x240)







Street Fighter II: Champion Edition (from Capcom Generation 5) (arcade (according to MAME): 384x224 | PS1: 360x240; maybe 360x224 actually, since we can see horizontal black borders???)







Street Fighter Zero 3 (arcade (according to MAME): 384x224 | PS1: 360x240; maybe 360x224 actually, since we can see horizontal black borders???)









If this emulator really emulates all PS1 video resolutions exactly as they should be, looks like that most of Capcom ports actually uses 360x224 resolution on the PS1, with Captain Commando being the oddball and using 360x240.
About the sprites being smaller, it wouldn't be all that bizarre since KOF games did use reduced sprites on the PS1 AFAIK (KOF '98 is more noticeable IMO).

[sheath]

364x240, interesting. So they cropped the active area and limited the lines from the standard 384 resolution.

From PSX.doc.

Display Environment.
This contains all information about the display, and the area displayed.

• Display area in frame buffer

This specifies the resolution of the display. The size can be set as follows:
Width: 256,320,384,512 or 640 pixels
Height: 240 or 480 pixels

These sizes are only an indication on how many pixels will be displayed using a default start end. These settings only specify the resolution of the display.

• Display start/end.

Specifies where the display area is positioned on the screen, and how much data gets sent to the screen. The screen sizes of the display area are valid only if the horizontal/vertical start/end values are default. By changing these you can get bigger/smaller display screens. On most TV's there is some black around the edge, which can be utilized by setting the start of the screen earlier and the end later. The size of the pixels is NOT changed with these settings, the GPU simply sends more data to the screen. Some monitors/TVs have a smaller display area and the extended size might not be visible on those sets.(Mine is capable of about 330 pixels horizontal, and 272 vertical in 320*240 mode)

• Interlace enable

When enabled the GPU will display the even and odd lines of the display area alternately. It is necessary to set this when using 480 lines as the number of scan lines on a TV screen are not sufficient to display 480 lines.

• 15bit/24bit direct display

Switches between 15bit/24bit display mode.

• Video mode

Selects which video mode to use, which are either PAL or NTSC.

Also, from Charles MacDonald's Saturn Hardware doc sattech.txt:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VDP2 Display
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The VDP2 generates the following types of displays:

NTSC - 60 frames per second, 263 lines per frame
PAL - 50 frames per second, 313 lines per frame

Here's a description of how each frame is composed. I have visually
inspected the NTSC displays and provide more details about them, whereas
for the PAL modes I can only divide the display into the active display
and blanking/border/sync areas.

NTSC, 224 lines:

224 lines for the active display area
8 lines for the bottom border area
5 lines for the bottom blanking area
3 lines for the vertical sync area
15 lines for the top blanking area
8 lines for the top border area

NTSC, 240 lines:

240 lines for the active display area
5 lines for the bottom blanking area
3 lines for the vertical sync area
15 lines for the top blanking area

PAL, 224 lines:

224 lines for the active display area
32 lines for the bottom border area
25 lines for blanking and sync
32 lines for the top border area

PAL, 240 lines:

240 lines for the active display area
24 lines for the bottom border area
25 lines for blanking and sync
24 lines for the top border area

PAL, 256 lines:

256 lines for the active display area
16 lines for the bottom border area
25 lines for blanking and sync
16 lines for the top border area

A typical display frame looks like this:

+----------------+ Scanline 0
| |
| Active display | Graphics data is shown here.
| |
+----------------+
| | Either black (BDCLMD=0) or set to the border color
| Bottom border | as defined by the back screen. The bottom border is
| | optional.
+----------------+
| |
| Bottom blanking| Appears as light black.
| |
+----------------+
| |
| Vertical sync | Appears as pure black.
| |
+----------------+
| |
| Top blanking | Appears as light black.
| |
+----------------+
| | Either black (BDCLMD=0) or set to the border color
| Top border | as defined by the back screen. The top border is
| | optional.
| |
+----------------+ Scanline 262 or 313

Exclusive Monitor display modes

When bit 2 of the HRESOx field is set, the exclusive monitor modes are
enabled. It's not exactly clear what kind of monitor these modes are
supposed to be used with, I would guess HDTV or possibly VGA.

Depending on the screen width, the following types of displays are
generated:

320 or 640 pixels: (31kHz monitor)

480 active display lines
45 VBlank lines
525 lines total

352 or 704 pixels: (Hi-Vision monitor)

479 active display lines
82 VBlank lines
561 lines total

These display settings are identical between a NTSC and PAL Saturn.
The VRESOx bits have no effect on the display size.

It seems that while the LSMDx bits will enable an interlaced display,
this is not required for the exclusive monitor modes. I would guess that
enabling interlacing might adversely affect the display. The VDP2 manual
recommends turning interlacing off entirely.

So according to this the PS1 can't display 224 line modes, I'm not sure why PSX emulator is showing 360 lines either. I'll move any further technical discussion to the 5th gen thread though.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Actually it looks like the Street Fighter shots are cut off on the right side.