Tomb Raider was over rated

[sheath]

Definitely, Tomb Raider realized my expectations for a 3D platformer in every conceivable way at the time. I liked it better than Mario 64, actually I still do but not my much. The gameplay being block based really wasn't an issue for me as I loved Flashback and Out of This World to no end.

Once the sequels started farming out though, I felt like I was playing a level edited mod of the original and lost interest. I was fooling around with making Doom levels for the PC at that point and really did not appreciate the lack of gameplay and graphical advancements in the later Tomb Raider games.

[Thenewguy]

Here's a very good, and extremely accurate comparison of the console versions

[sheath]

They must have cropped the PS1 version at the least, as it had the most vertical screen space of all of the versions I recorded. They also must have increased the default gamma of the Saturn game (adjustable in game from the menu) which I did not do.

Also, their lack of effort in displaying the same scene on both screens makes this video very difficult to use for a 1:1 comparison.

[Black_Tiger]

They must have cropped the PS1 version at the least, as it had the most vertical screen space of all of the versions I recorded. They also must have increased the default gamma of the Saturn game (adjustable in game from the menu) which I did not do.

Also, their lack of effort in displaying the same scene on both screens makes this video very difficult to use for a 1:1 comparison.

Ever since I played through the Playstation version after mastering the Saturn version, this was clearly the biggest difference and seemed to be the basis of all the ridiculous reviews like Gamefan's coverage saying that the difference in graphics between the two games were like day and night. I adjusted the gamma so that it was balanced with the contrast of the Playstation version and found the them to be very similar with subtle pros and cons for each. I hooked both consoles up and loaded up saves at the same spots and switched the video between them to compare. I remember that the Playstation version was choppier when viewing a large area and seemed to have more pop-up. The most noticeable difference to me besides the wavy water effect in the Saturn version, was the mirrored save spot icon in the Playstation version. I thought that it was very cool. But neither version had anything that ruined the experience.

Even if that comparison video isn't perfect, the two versions still look more or less identical compared to shared ports from the previous generation. They have different ways of 'filtering' the textures as they get closer, but the Playstation's appear slightly more consistent (might just be a result of the Playstation's dithered haze blurring from the video compression though). The Playstation version does have noticeable seams all over the place and glitching not found in the Saturn version. I wonder if the Saturn version has extra texture art since it takes longer to load and the system has more ram than the Playstation?

It's too bad that this game was used as early propaganda by Gamefan to unfairly trash the Saturn early on. Dave Halverson's comments were ridiculous in both directions. The Playstation version was supposed to be the greatest game of all time, but the Saturn version got knocked down by 10% for visuals alone. Even if the graphics were as far off as he claimed, why such a huge drop in score for a game that's supposed to be perfect? Of course, around the same time they did the same thing to Saturn SFA, even though in their own words it had better gameplay and faster loading.

[sheath]

The Saturn does technically have more RAM, but it is only in the two VDP's having their own 256KB Frame Buffers. So it has been argued that the Saturn doesn't actually have more usable memory on these very forums. I did notice that the Saturn version seems to use a software method for displaying lower and higher resolution textures depending on the distance from the camera. I did not notice this effect in any other version. The Saturn version definitely has the longest draw distance, but some of the darker scenes make some textures so close to black that it basically negates that small advantage.

The bottom line for me is that the Saturn and Playstation games are using the same textures, with different brightness levels applied, they are running at virtually the same resolution (356x224 vs 320x240), they have similar framerates, and identical gameplay. I can see nothing in the technical comparison to seriously discount either version with.

With that said, it isn't obvious, but I noticed that the guard rails in the Gym/home had two layers in the Saturn version only, which would be more polygons on screen for that segment.

[Olls]

Lol you guys. Digging up old threads to wage another Saturn vs. PSX war.
Anyway, if it featured a guy instead of a boobed chick, nobody would've given a shit about Tomb Raider. Slow POS game.

[sheath]

... So did anybody notice that the comparison video I just made had the PC version and the 3dfx version in it too?

[kool kitty89]

They must have cropped the PS1 version at the least, as it had the most vertical screen space of all of the versions I recorded. They also must have increased the default gamma of the Saturn game (adjustable in game from the menu) which I did not do.

Also, their lack of effort in displaying the same scene on both screens makes this video very difficult to use for a 1:1 comparison.

Capture cards can skew things. If you want to compare aspect ratio and overscan, you'd need to do that on a real CRT SDTV with normal calibration. (capture cards and some LCD sets can give false boarders relative to what a real analog set would show)

Having a larger vertical boarder wouldn't make sense if the PSX really is running in 320x240 and Saturn in 352x224. (the Saturn would have more vertical boarder than the PSX by that definition) Not that it matters since most TVs show no more than 224 lines (NTSC) anyway. (for PAL it would be more significant)

Horizontal resolution is another story though and without knowing the pixel dot clocks used, the context of 320 vs 352 would be pointless. (you could have the identical resolution with the "extra" screen going into overscan on the Saturn version depending on the case)

The Saturn does technically have more RAM, but it is only in the two VDP's having their own 256KB Frame Buffers. So it has been argued that the Saturn doesn't actually have more usable memory on these very forums. I did notice that the Saturn version seems to use a software method for displaying lower and higher resolution textures depending on the distance from the camera. I did not notice this effect in any other version. The Saturn version definitely has the longest draw distance, but some of the darker scenes make some textures so close to black that it basically negates that small advantage.

No, no, no!

Both framebuffers are for VDP1, just like the 128k buffers in the 32x. You need a framebuffer to display plus a back buffer to render to.

The added RAM comes from the SH1 work RAM and VDP2 tile RAM. (512k each)

For Tomb Raider, the PSX has MORE nominal video RAM to work with as the VDP1 framebuffers are only using a small chunk of their RAM and VDP2 is barely used at all. (just for occasional water effects and maybe some BGs in the few open areas)
Then there's the sound compression. (and some SFX are noticeably crunchy on the Saturn -even 8-bit PCM would have to drop to ~56% the sample rate on the Saturn to fit into sound RAM -without software compression)
You could probably use VDP2 RAM (possibly SH1 RAM) for added data, but you'd have to move that around as needed in other subsystems. (and I'm not sure if that's as straightforward as doing the same thing with CPU RAM on the PSX or Saturn)

And if they're not doing anything special with the "extra" RAM, the Saturn would effectively have been roughly 3.35 MB while the PSX would have effectively been 4.9 MB. (or, dropping the audio comparison, it would be ~2.85 MB vs 3 MB, though it would be closer in cases where VDP2 was being used)

The bottom line for me is that the Saturn and Playstation games are using the same textures, with different brightness levels applied, they are running at virtually the same resolution (356x224 vs 320x240), they have similar framerates, and identical gameplay. I can see nothing in the technical comparison to seriously discount either version with.

From what I've seen, the PSX version has some significant cases of higher res textures. (one of the most obvious being the stained glass windows in the training area)

With that said, it isn't obvious, but I noticed that the guard rails in the Gym/home had two layers in the Saturn version only, which would be more polygons on screen for that segment.

2 layers? And how would that definitively mean more polygons on-screen for the entire scene? (rather than just 1 specific object)




The most definitive difference is the much better looking PSX FMV though, but that's hardly surprising. (Saturn is probably using 256 color cinepak -and you can easily see low-color posterization and more artifacting -the aspect ratio is wrong too, but that could be the capture card)
Granted, the Saturn was capable of much better software video decoding if pushed, Cinepak was just the early standard to use.




Edit:
Also, it's really hard to compare the videos with the default lighting/gamut settings enabled, the Saturn version is SO much darker and higher contrast that it totally throws things off. (it makes the PSX's lighting look a lot better, but I know the Saturn version is pretty even other than the trade-offs of smoother dithered interpolated shading used on the PSX)

[Nuxius]

The bottom line for me is that the Saturn and Playstation games are using the same textures, with different brightness levels applied, they are running at virtually the same resolution (356x224 vs 320x240), they have similar framerates, and identical gameplay. I can see nothing in the technical comparison to seriously discount either version with.

Actually, the PSX version runs at 384*240. TRII runs at 384*240 as well. TR3, TR:TLR and TR:C all run at 512*240. This is the reason why Lara is always thinner in the PSX versions than she is in the PC versions (this is especially true for the last 3).

Definitely, Tomb Raider realized my expectations for a 3D platformer in every conceivable way at the time. I liked it better than Mario 64...

its greatness lies in the level design. Awesome puzzle-solving combined with action. It's an engrossing quest.

This pretty much sums up my opinions on Tomb Raider.

[j_factor]

What weird resolutions.

[kool kitty89]

Actually, the PSX version runs at 384*240. TRII runs at 384*240 as well. TR3, TR:TLR and TR:C all run at 512*240. This is the reason why Lara is always thinner in the PSX versions than she is in the PC versions (this is especially true for the last 3).

Resolution has nothing to do with being "thin" or "fat", it's all up to pixel aspect ratio and how the renderer expects the screen to be displayed. (then there's the PAL and NTSC aspect ratio differences too -if the rederer doesn't expect it, all PAl stuff will look short/wide compared to NTSC)

For 320x200 in DOS (stretched to 4:3 as VGA intends it to), Lara looks normally skinny, but in 640x480 looks too wide.
For TRII on PC, it seems to correct things, but assume 4:3 screen size for all resolutions. (ie 1440x900 looks fine as long as it's displayed on a VGA monitor filling a 4:3 screen, so it assumes non-square pixels)


As for 384x240, again, you'd need to have the dot clock to show that real-world. (ie depending on the clock, it could be the same resolution as the Saturn or lower for practical on-screen viewing -assuming they used a 7.16 MHz dot clock, you'd have a max of about 340 pixels on most TVs, or a bit less)




On another note:
Sheath, it's cool that you included the PC versions for comparison, and the accelerated example looks great, but it doesn't look like your machine can handle the software renderer in DOSbox. All that low framerate and tearing skews things. (I also assume you're running it at the max 640x480 high detail mode -ie maximum perspective correction)

If you're not going to use a real 9x/DOS compatible machine, at least use a configuration that emulates it properly.
There should be a high framerate and no tearing at all. (you should also disable scaling -DOSBox does it by default, so you need to go into the conf file and change that)

Odd that the PC SFX are so low quality, maybe catering to the lowest common denominator with 8-bit soundblaster cards. (still wouldn't make sense) Of course, with most/all SB compatibles, you'd have heavy filtering anyway, so you'd get more muffled sound with the aliasing hidden compared to your video. (for that matter, they should at least have been using ADPCM too; all SBs supported it iirc, but that was limited to the hardware channels rather than software mixing -PCs gave room for a lot more RAM for uncompressed PCM though, or CPU grunt for software decompression)

I doubt CORE did a very good job optimizing any of the uncompressed PCM given how crunchy sounding much of it is. (ie lack of good dynamic range compression)
And given SFX are the only realtime sounds (ie non CD streamed), using the Saturn's 68k for software decompression should have been very straightforward. (decoding 4 or so ADPCM streams for the PCM channels to play should have been simple to arrange unless the tools were really poor for the sound system)

The PSX's set-up was certainly more foolproof, but for a game with sound as simple as TR, there shouldn't have been that sort of difference. (the PC sound actually seems to be worse, and that's even stranger -unless it's a problem with DOSBox . . . then again, the Saturn has interpolated sound at least, so low sample rate stuff will sound less aliased)



I was wrong about the "stained glass" windows, they're not stained glass, but they are lower res in the Saturn.

The framerate is noticeably lower on the Saturn too, I hadn't realized how big that gap was before. (still looks quite playable, but enough to be annoying when compared back to back)

[Nuxius]

512*240 is actually the second most common resolution for the PSX, after 320*240. 384*240 is a odd one though. The only other games I have been able to find that run at that resolution are Abe's Oddysee and Abe's Exoddus.

Resolution has nothing to do with being "thin" or "fat",

For the PSX it does, as most games are stretched to 640*480 on it.

[kool kitty89]

512*240 is actually the second most common resolution for the PSX, after 320*240. 384*240 is a odd one though. The only other games I have been able to find that run at that resolution are Abe's Oddysee and Abe's Exoddus.

Interesting, I wonder why they went for higher horizontal res and not vertical given how vertical res isn't degraded by composite.
Maybe they wanted to allow for 60 FPS games or something.

Still, for average people, I'd bet most would have seen a more noticeable improvement for games running at 320x480i. (especially for games that would be running close to 30 FPS anyway)

For the PSX it does, as most games are stretched to 640*480 on it.

Now you're talking emulators, a totally different context.
In that case, if the emulator is dumb (or the user has specifically disabled scaling to allow square pixels), the image displayed will be at the wrong aspect ratio compared to what the game expects.

Of course, any emu using proper aspect will show the same "wrong" aspect ratio as a TV would for a game not optimized for real-world pixels. (pretty much no game console uses square pixels on an SDTV)

512x240 stretched to 640x480 4:3 should look fine as long as 512x240 was 4:3 on an SDTV and the game complies with the real-world pixel aspect ratio of the TV. (albeit if that 512 wide is the same 10.74 MHz res as the PCE/SNES, then 640x480 stretching would be slightly off; you'd want to stretch it taller than that, 640x512 would be about right -otherwise it's pretty close though)


Again, except the DOS game, the PC versions look "right" too as long as you're using a 4:3 aspect ratio. (and if in windowed mode on a desktop with square pixels, you'd have to pick a square pixel resolution like 320x240, 400x300, 640x480, 800x600, and not 640x400 or such)



Also, I was just playing around in DOS Tomb Raider again and remembered just how good they managed to make it look in 256 colors. In some areas, even the shading on lara isn't especially posterized (looks more like highcolor than 256 color shading), though it's uglier at other times. (it's much harder to tell on most textures though)

And running in 640x480 really does make a big difference (320x200 is pretty jaggie and low-detail).

It also has seaming issues rather like the PSX version, though maybe not quite as prominent.


I attached a 640x480 screen capture from DOSBox below. (pretty nice looking for only 181 colors) I had to convert it to JPEG for the site to allow it, so the comparison isn't as good. (I don't have an image hosting account as of yet)

[Nuxius]

Interesting, I wonder why they went for higher horizontal res and not vertical given how vertical res isn't degraded by composite.
Maybe they wanted to allow for 60 FPS games or something.

No, because they wanted progressive scan. The max vertical res the PSX can use in progressive is 256. When you bump that up to 480, it's interlaced only.

Still, for average people, I'd bet most would have seen a more noticeable improvement for games running at 320x480i. (especially for games that would be running close to 30 FPS anyway)

I've had a hard time finding games that run at 320x480i during gameplay. I've found plenty that use it for menus though; Rage Racer, Dino Crisis and Silent Hill just to name a few. They all switch to 320*240p for gameplay though.



Tekken 3 runs at 384*480i [bordered] (arcade version ran at 512*480); it's the highest gameplay resolution I can find.

Next highest gameplay resolution I can find is 640*240p, Toshinden and Intelligent Qube are a few that used that res.



I've also found a few PlayStation games that used 640*480i for menus and the like, Air Combat and the Jet Moto games are two that come to mind. I've found nothing for actual gameplay though.

Now you're talking emulators, a totally different context.

Uh, no, emulators will run at whatever resolution your computer will allow. I'm talking about the actual PlayStation here.

[Chilly Willy]

The resolution for games on the PSX was limited by the vram. You need to at least double-buffer the frames, and the lowest color mode is thousands, which uses two bytes per pixel. So 640x480 can't be used as a game screen as it takes more than half the vram. The highest resolution you could use and still be double-buffered is 512x480. That would leave very little vram free for textures, meaning you'd have to use more system ram for textures, which then means less room for level data and whatnot. So I can see a game using 512x240 or 384x480, but not higher.