317 replies to this topic

[Gunstar]

spiffyone, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:34 PM, said:

fishsandwich, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:19 PM, said:

Gunstar, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:13 PM, said:

Tekken? Depth?!? It's a FIGHTING game and that's all, and has no more depth than ANY other fighting game I've ever played, including ones on the Jaguar.

NONE of the Jaguar's fighting games are particularly memorable (unless you count FFL which is memorable for being surprisingly shitty.)

Are you slamming the entire FIGHTING genre as a whole because the Jaguar doesn't have any first-rate fighting games or because you just don't like fighting games as a whole? Are Tekken, FFL, Kasumi Ninja, and Ultra Vortex the only fighting games you have ever played? Tekken might not be a particularly "deep" fighting game but it's a hell of a lot better than all of the Jaguars fighting games put together.

Actually, Tekken is one of the deeper 3D fighters out there.  Not as deep as Virtua Fighter, mind you, but deeper than Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive, and much, much deeper than any of the 3D Mortal Kombat games.

For 2D, there's Street Fighter 3: 3rd Strike, the Guilty Gear games, Last Blade 2, Garou: Mark of the Wolves, etc.

Yes, fighters can be deep.  Casuals, like Gunstar obviously is in terms of the fighting game genre, never understand the differences, much like those that don't understand the differences between shmups or sim racers or sports games.  In fighting games, the game engine and the complexity therein changes everything in terms of comparison with other fighting games.

There's a reason there are still tournaments for Alpha 2 or even Super Turbo.  It isn't because anyone can walk in there and smash it up.  It's because it takes quite a long time to be really good at such games and being really good at such games means knowing character balance, hit boxes, frames of animation on each and every last move, buffers, links, cancels, spacing, etc.

So, yes, Tekken is much deeper than Fight for Life.  Virtua Fighter completely rapes Fight for Life in terms of complexity.  Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo is infinitely deeper than Ultra Vortek, and UV is a friggin' joke of a fighting game compared to anything Capcom or SNK have come out with for that matter, just as MK is a joke of a fighter.

Gunstar obviously doesn't like the genre or doesn't understand and therefore isn't good enough at it to truly comment on what is or what is not "deep" in terms of the genre.

Absolutely NOTHING you have ASSUMED about How I feel about fighters or what I KNOW about fighters is in the least bit true. It's obvious that what you consider as "depth" and what I do are just completely different. That's all. But once again I will state that in my view of what "depth" is, a lack OF depth is NOT necessarily a bad thing, it ALL depends on the game genre to me. RPG's should have depth, adventure games should have depth, racers and shooters and fighters, to me, don't have nor do they require depth. Just for a few examples.

Edited by Gunstar, Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:54 PM.

[spiffyone]

Comparing a fighter to an RPG is asinine.  It'd be like comparing a horror movie to a drama and saying that the horror movie sucked because it didn't make you cry.  One should judge games on what they are, not what they are not.  Some RPGs are deeper than others.  Some fighters are deeper than others.  But saying an RPG is "deeper" than a fighter is silly, as what, exactly, is the criteria for comparing to very dissimilar genres?  Hours put in?  Depth of two very different combat engines?  Story (which, btw, should NEVER be used when saying a game is "deep")?  One can directly compare one fighter to another.  One simply cannot truly compare an RPG to a fighter or a racer or a sports game or any other different genre with wholly different gameplay.

In terms of fighting games, every single last Jag game is bottom of the barrel in terms of complexity.  Absolute bottom of the barrel.

Wait...no...it doesn't have Rise of the Robots.  That's absolute bottom of the barrel.  But Jag fighting games ain't exactly tournament worthy.  Or even vs. worthy.

And saying Ultra Vortek is as good as Mortal Kombat isn't exactly helping Ultra Vortek's cause in terms of saying that it's a "good" fighting game.  Mortal Kombat was never a "good" fighting game.  It had a hook, and that hook helped people overlook the absolutely horrid depth of the game.  The Street Fighter, King of Fighters, Vampire, Samurai Shodown and other series were much, much deeper.

Variation?  No, it's differences in depth.  There are fighting games that are deeper than others.  Variation isn't the right word as the fighting engines tend to be quite different from each other.

[spiffyone]

Absolutely NOTHING you have ASSUMED about How I feel about fighters or what I KNOW about fighters is in the least bit true.

Sure it is.

You erroneously assume that fighters lack depth because you are comparing them with genres that are entirely different.

It's obvious that what you consider as "depth" and what I do are just completely different.

Exactly.  I use proper criteria, you use improper criteria.  That's the difference right there in a nutshell.

That's all. But once again I will state that in my view of what "depth" is, a lack OF depth is NOT necessarily a bad thing, it ALL depends on the game genre to me. RPG's should have depth, adventure games should have depth, racers and shooters and fighters, to me, don't have nor do they require depth. Just for a few examples

Again, how can one accurately compare the depth and complexity between genres that are entirely different?

The depth in RPGs are entirely different that that found in fighters, racers, sports, and shooters respectively.  In RPGs, the depth revolves around the level/point management system (that is, how skills are assigned, the magic system, etc.).  JRPGs have the addition of the "combat" engine (which is usually turn based), WRPGs usually use simple hack 'n slash style combat (and thus the focus is more on management than in JRPGs).  SRPGs have the depth being in number of troops, items, movement as well as the management system.

Fighters?  Again, the complexity comes from knowing the intricacies of the fighting engine.  MK's is wholly different from SF's, which is different from KoF which is different from Samurai Shodown, etc.  Virtua Fighters is different from Tekken's, which is different from Soul Calibur, etc.  Smash Bros. is different from them all.  Depth in such games comes down to combo system, each individual character's movesets and properties, how they relate to each other, the overall fighting engine (hit stun, juggle count, block stun, etc.) and how each character interacts with that overall engine, as well as character balance.  That's the depth in fighters.  Ultra Vortek and Fight for Life do not have the complexity that Street Figher or Virtua Fighter have.  No where near the amount of complexity.

Adventure games?  The complexity there is different as well.  Depth comes from hours of play, difficulty of the logic and environmental puzzles, number of different answers provided by NPCs, number of NPCs, difficulty of the overall investigation, etc.

Racers?  Physics engine, handling of each and every last car, track layout, how different weather patterns affect driving, damage engine, and AI of the opponent racers.  All are values of depth in racing games.

Again, very different genres, and so comparing them in terms of depth is not really possible.  Because what then is the criteria?  There is no real point of comparison possible.

[Gunstar]

spiffyone, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:13 PM, said:

Comparing a fighter to an RPG is asinine.  It'd be like comparing a horror movie to a drama and saying that the horror movie sucked because it didn't make you cry.  One should judge games on what they are, not what they are not.  Some RPGs are deeper than others.  Some fighters are deeper than others.  But saying an RPG is "deeper" than a fighter is silly, as what, exactly, is the criteria for comparing to very dissimilar genres?  Hours put in?  Depth of two very different combat engines?  Story (which, btw, should NEVER be used when saying a game is "deep")?  One can directly compare one fighter to another.  One simply cannot truly compare an RPG to a fighter or a racer or a sports game or any other different genre with wholly different gameplay.

In terms of fighting games, every single last Jag game is bottom of the barrel in terms of complexity.  Absolute bottom of the barrel.

Wait...no...it doesn't have Rise of the Robots.  That's absolute bottom of the barrel.  But Jag fighting games ain't exactly tournament worthy.  Or even vs. worthy.

And saying Ultra Vortek is as good as Mortal Kombat isn't exactly helping Ultra Vortek's cause in terms of saying that it's a "good" fighting game.  Mortal Kombat was never a "good" fighting game.  It had a hook, and that hook helped people overlook the absolutely horrid depth of the game.  The Street Fighter, King of Fighters, Vampire, Samurai Shodown and other series were much, much deeper.

Variation?  No, it's differences in depth.  There are fighting games that are deeper than others.  Variation isn't the right word as the fighting engines tend to be quite different from each other.

Look you little @$&*!#%, I was playing fighters most likely when you were still in diapers. I'M NOT COMPARING AN RPG TO A FIGHTER. I'm comparing genres that have depth to genres that don't. If you can't grasp that, then there's no point in the discussion at all. You're right, Jaguar fighting games, for the most part are bottom of the barrel in the genre, with, IMHO, the exception of UV, but it's all subjective opinion anyway but I'm not talking about fighters form the jaguar or any other platform, I'm taling about DEPTH and genres that have or should have it, and genres that don't or don't need it. And COMPLEXITY AND DEPTH ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORDS WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANINGS; look them up in a dictionary!!!You guys just can't grasp what I'm talking about, I'm NOT dis'in fighters at all, and how YOU and I judge a fighting game is subjective opinion and telling me UV sucks isn't going to change my opinion on the game, or any other. YOUR OPINION is it sucks, MY OPINION is YOUR WRONG: PERIOD.
Get off the whole thing about thinking I'm judging fighters AT ALL based on Jaguar fighters or that I'm sticky up for Jaguar fighters in general or comparing fighters to other genres AT ALL. ONCE AGAIN, I'm comparing DEPTH of GENRES. PERIOD!!!! If you aren't educated enough to comprehend my comparison, that's your fault, not mine.

Edited by Gunstar, Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:47 PM.

[Gunstar]

spiffyone, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:24 PM, said:

Absolutely NOTHING you have ASSUMED about How I feel about fighters or what I KNOW about fighters is in the least bit true.

Sure it is.

You erroneously assume that fighters lack depth because you are comparing them with genres that are entirely different.

It's obvious that what you consider as "depth" and what I do are just completely different.

Exactly.  I use proper criteria, you use improper criteria.  That's the difference right there in a nutshell.

That's all. But once again I will state that in my view of what "depth" is, a lack OF depth is NOT necessarily a bad thing, it ALL depends on the game genre to me. RPG's should have depth, adventure games should have depth, racers and shooters and fighters, to me, don't have nor do they require depth. Just for a few examples

Again, how can one accurately compare the depth and complexity between genres that are entirely different?

The depth in RPGs are entirely different that that found in fighters, racers, sports, and shooters respectively.  In RPGs, the depth revolves around the level/point management system (that is, how skills are assigned, the magic system, etc.).  JRPGs have the addition of the "combat" engine (which is usually turn based), WRPGs usually use simple hack 'n slash style combat (and thus the focus is more on management than in JRPGs).  SRPGs have the depth being in number of troops, items, movement as well as the management system.

Fighters?  Again, the complexity comes from knowing the intricacies of the fighting engine.  MK's is wholly different from SF's, which is different from KoF which is different from Samurai Shodown, etc.  Virtua Fighters is different from Tekken's, which is different from Soul Calibur, etc.  Smash Bros. is different from them all.  Depth in such games comes down to combo system, each individual character's movesets and properties, how they relate to each other, the overall fighting engine (hit stun, juggle count, block stun, etc.) and how each character interacts with that overall engine, as well as character balance.  That's the depth in fighters.  Ultra Vortek and Fight for Life do not have the complexity that Street Figher or Virtua Fighter have.  No where near the amount of complexity.

Adventure games?  The complexity there is different as well.  Depth comes from hours of play, difficulty of the logic and environmental puzzles, number of different answers provided by NPCs, number of NPCs, difficulty of the overall investigation, etc.

Racers?  Physics engine, handling of each and every last car, track layout, how different weather patterns affect driving, damage engine, and AI of the opponent racers.  All are values of depth in racing games.

Again, very different genres, and so comparing them in terms of depth is not really possible.  Because what then is the criteria?  There is no real point of comparison possible.

All I can say, is refer to my above post, it goes for you too. And ONCE AGAIN, what YOU call depth and what I call depth are OBVIOUSLY TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. PERIOD! There is nothign else to it and YOU are ABSOLUTELY wrong in EVERYTHING YOU ARE ASSUMING, that's ASS-U-MING about me. I can say the same thing speaking of ANY GENRE, some have DEPTH some DON'T, and having it or not IS NOT A BAD THING, depending on the GENRE.  Complexity IS NOT DEPTH; look it up in the dictionary!!!   

Now I'm done discussing this, becuase you guys don't have a clue of WHAT I'm discussing, and are jumping to assumptions that have NOTHING to do with WHAT I'm discussing. So I'm out of this thread, never to return to it. So reply to this if you want, but I won't be reading it again, becuase it is OBVIOUS that I might as well be talking to the wall. It's like I'm saying "the sky is blue" and you guys are replying "the ground is not bumpy!"

Edited by Gunstar, Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:03 PM.

[phuzaxeman]

Gunstar, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:39 PM, said:

fishsandwich, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:19 PM, said:

Gunstar, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:13 PM, said:

Tekken? Depth?!? It's a FIGHTING game and that's all, and has no more depth than ANY other fighting game I've ever played, including ones on the Jaguar.

NONE of the Jaguar's fighting games are particularly memorable (unless you count FFL which is memorable for being surprisingly shitty.)

Are you slamming the entire FIGHTING genre as a whole because the Jaguar doesn't have any first-rate fighting games or because you just don't like fighting games as a whole? Are Tekken, FFL, Kasumi Ninja, and Ultra Vortex the only fighting games you have ever played? Tekken might not be a particularly "deep" fighting game but it's a hell of a lot better than all of the Jaguars fighting games put together.

I'm not slamming ANY fighting games at all, just stating that I'd hardly consider the fighting game genre to have "depth," and this doesn't mean that fighting games are great games, just that they are shallow; an RPG, for example, would be a genre that traditionally has a lot of depth, fighters don't, that's all. I like fighters, and they can have a lot of "variation" but not "depth" in my book. And Jaguar fighters are certainly not the only fighters I've ever played by a long shot. But your assumption that they are all I've played shows YOUR lack of depth. And whether the entire world disagrees with me or not, I DO think Ultra Vortek is a first-rate fighter and every bit as good, to me, as Mortal Kombat series. My favorites are Soul Caliber, Tekken, Ultra Vortek, Samuri Shodown, and the Street Fighter series, and of course the Mortal Kombat series. But I also like others too.

no depth and shallow for fighting games as a whole?  have you played the career mode on Knockout Kings 2001?  

Ultra Vortek a 1st rate fighter and just as good as any of the MK series? ok...if that's what you think.  i personally think UV is one of the worst and overrrated fighting games of all time but not as bad as fight for life, and kasumi ninja....

[jesusc]

gunstar's melting down.
The mods should prepare for an influx of "ban spiffyone" emails.

[Gorf]

spiffyone, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:13 PM, said:

Comparing a fighter to an RPG is asinine.

Now let me give you some FACTS from a 29 year coding perspective.

Comparing genres as a valid means of determining who has the best  AI is
what is asinine.

Every genre out there has an example of AI that is just as potent as
any other genre.

I can show you Space Saga type games that will blow away AI of
any RPG. Battle Sphere on the Jaguar alone is beyond anything you've
seen on a Playstation. Im not talking graphically. Play 'Alone Against
The Empire' and then come back and tell me you still think RPG's hold
the market on AI after the pilot in jet packs totally and completely hand
you your ass....That games is how old now?

I think Halo might be a good example of AI that out gunned it....years later
on way more advanced hardware. The playstation just cant do that as easily
and typicall does not. If you have never played Battle Sphere you are missing
out on what REAL AI does for a game. The whole premise of your argument
is flawed. I can show you racers that will toast RPG's in AI. (No definitely not
Checkered Flag.) RPG's require MORE AI for all the different routes one can
take but not by any means more complex.

That is not to say the an RPG can't have a killer AI but they certainly dont
hold the market on them by any means. No genre hold the market on
complexity.

[phuzaxeman]

Gorf, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:47 PM, said:

spiffyone, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:13 PM, said:

Comparing a fighter to an RPG is asinine.

....Battle Sphere on the Jaguar alone is beyond anything you've
seen on a Playstation. Im not talking graphically. Play 'Alone Against
The Empire' and then come back and tell me you still think RPG's hold
the market on AI after the pilot in jet packs totally and completely hand
you your ass....That games is how old now?....

there were over 7500 titles released on the playstation.....saying the jaguar's battlesphere was beyond anything seen on a playstation is absurd.  i'm not buying it.

and what's with the name calling?  gunstar...are you losing it man?  i love the jag like everyone on here but lets stay realistic....

[JagChris]

phuzaxeman, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:43 PM, said:

there were over 7500 titles released on the playstation.....saying the jaguar's battlesphere was beyond anything seen on a playstation is absurd.  i'm not buying it.

He's saying that just as much as the PS1s poly pushing power is beyond the Jaguar, so is the Jaguar's multi-processor ability to do things like the AI and physics in Battlesphere is beyond the PS1s ability.

Edited by JagChris, Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:26 AM.

[Gorf]

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:43 AM, said:

there were over 7500 titles released on the playstation.....saying the jaguar's battlesphere was beyond anything seen on a playstation is absurd.  i'm not buying it.

I dont care what you buy or not that is how it is. The PS1 is not a math workhorse.
It's a polygon workhorse. That is it's strength to cover up it many weaknesses.
The Jaguar has 3 processors to its one. It will beat the PS1 up in AI and in math.

[ovalbugmann]

Gorf, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:47 PM, said:

If you have never played Battle Sphere you are missing
out on what REAL AI does for a game.

I'll second that, it's true BattleSphere has VERY impressive & fierce AI.   I can't even complete the 20 training missions and I play at least 4 times a week for hours.    It changes it's tactics to defend your playing style and LEARNS to overcome everything you attempt to do to clear the targets.    This forces you to think and come up with new and different strategies to simply stay alive much less go on the offensive.   The AI in the enemy ships will hunt you down like an animal and kill you with a shot to the back of the head - and you may not even see it happening on the radar.   This really makes the game come alive and takes some serious dedication and thought to compete.

[Gorf]

ovalbugmann, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:58 AM, said:

Gorf, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:47 PM, said:

If you have never played Battle Sphere you are missing
out on what REAL AI does for a game.

I'll second that, it's true BattleSphere has VERY impressive & fierce AI.   I can't even complete the 20 training missions and I play at least 4 times a week for hours.    It changes it's tactics to defend your playing style and LEARNS to overcome everything you attempt to do to clear the targets.    This forces you to think and come up with new and different strategies to simply stay alive much less go on the offensive.   The AI in the enemy ships will hunt you down like an animal and kill you with a shot to the back of the head - and you may not even see it happening on the radar.   This really makes the game come alive and takes some serious dedication and thought to compete.

Halo is probably the first title that owned Scott's AI.  It's a shame BS was not more available.
If more Jaguar owners played that game networked, they'd understand fully what I've been trying
to say with all these 'this vs that ' crap. I think these arguments are just plain stupid. PS1 could
have been designed to blow away the Jaguar with 1000 times the polygons but I still never like
the systemor the games on it with some few exceptions. I 'll take a 2600 anyday over both these
systems if you want my real opinion. It's about the fun factor in the games. PS1 neer did it for me
and the Jaguar lacks tons of updated classics but at least has a couple.

Let look at the bus rate of each system...

PS1 132 megs a second across its bus.The PS1 has the tools to take advantage of this bus.
The Jaguar does not. Have fun coding everything in assembler. I do but most coders don't....
...understandably.

Jaguar 106 megs a second across its bus.

That is only 26 less megs. It's not insignificant but it's not overwelming either.

I'll never claim the Jaguar is a faster poly pusher than the PS1, cleaner more flexible, yes but
it will not throw up as many poiles in a frame in a game as PS1 will. The true is opposite for
computational ability. The MIPSR3K is a deadly processors in its own right but there is no way
it's going to compete with 3 processors working together.

The R3K has to do everything. Yes the Sony has other processors but they need direction from
the only CPU. The R3K has to have control over everything. It's just a lot less to think about when
coding for it and is why the machine is a dream to code for.

You have a matrix engine which does all the work of 3D calculations and very little work
on the programmer. This is the monster in the PS1. This makes the difference between
heaven and hell to a coder. This does all the stuff a Jaguar coder does by hand
automatically. This is exactly why a lot of  Jaguar games suck...tools to make this process
less hellish never exsisted.

The 3D hardware in PS1 is indeed its saving grace. That matrix engine is awsome. Its a dream
come true in 3D coding. A little more silicon in the Jaguar and it could have faked something
like this...ie making it a lot simpler to code the Jaguar matrix hardware which lacks the control
registers to allow it to run unassited.

The thing that makes me laugh is the data compression engine. This is supposed to be 80 mips
of CD spooling and decompressing power. The PS1 easily has some of the worst and most
aggrivating load times I've ever experinced. The Jaguar is faster at loading then it is and
the GPU is a killer compressor/decompressor. Disc acess goes to Jaguar hands down.

The 2D sprite engine is not all that impressive.
The Jaguar wins here.

The Jaguar is by far the most flexible 2D system. It has a Blitter but the real
2D monster is the OPL that can generate any size and color depth window and
as many as the memory can hold. I know the game play sucks but Trevor
Mc Fur as a graphical demo would put a hurting on the PS1.

Networking:

Most systems slow down when you add more clients in a networked game and eventually choke.
The Jaguar actually works faster...don't ask me how they did it but it's pure genius. It is a shame
that BS is the only game worth mentioning as far as networking goes. DOOM is fine but only two
player and errors. Air Cars? Give me a break....what a waste of Scatologic's network code hat
was. The Jaguar could have reigned supreme here if Sam tramiel did not say 'Yuk, yuk, yuk.'
when asked his opinion about them. why did he allow silicon to bewasted on the Uart then?

And BS uses the 68k...how they pull it off with out killing the
bus is amazing. Theoretically the 68k running is fine as long as

The GPU is running locally
The DSP is running locally
No blitting or OPL use

So the 68k, if set to run while the above conditions are true, will not slow the bus at all as nothing else is using it.
So the GPU/DSP and 68k can run in parallel before the frame is drawn( when you would then use the Blitter and
OPL to draw the frame) and there would be no bottlenecking. That means about 40-50 MIPS of computational power
with built in matrix math hardware and MAC's (multpily and accumulate instructions.) Sorry guys, the PS1 dont
stand a chance as far as AI and math go.

Wow....hmmmmm...now I need to run a few experiments.....Im just realizing
the kind of balls we are talking about.

Edited by Gorf, Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:09 AM.

[swlovinist]

When it all comes down to it, our childhoods can sometimes get in the way.  We dont like to admit it, but alot of us here are big Atari Fans, and defend the Atari systems versus others to the very bitter end.  Atari for many of us was a part of our childhood, a part of our innocence, and more importantly, some of our best game experiences.   When comparing Atari to anything else, it is going to be biased one way or another.  The Jag to the 3DO?  It is kind of comparing apples to oranges.  Two totally different systems, built to play different types of games.  I personally grew up with more Nintendo and Sega than anything, just to give you my background(which has its own bias by the way).  Here is what I look at both systems and compare on the surface without a bunch of nerd gumbo

3DO-excellent sound, limited gameplay, over 100 titles to choose from.  My favorite is Star Control II, and a close runner up would be Road Rash.  

Jaguar-limited software selection, but with some good gameplay mechanics.  My favorite is Tempest 2000 which totally rocks!


Bottom line:   The Jaguar probably had more potential, but in the end was only a whimper of what could have been.  The 3DO was so-so supported with many ports, but did have some gems like the Jaguar.  They both in my mind were pioneers of 3D gaming, but I have to give the nod to the 3DO due to its additional Software support.  Am I biased, Hell yes!

[Gorf]

swlovinist, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:31 AM, said:

Bottom line:   The Jaguar probably had more potential, but in the end was only a whimper of what could have been.

My point exactly. Especially about 3DO and Jaguar being in different categories to begin with.

[phuzaxeman]

Gorf, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:04 AM, said:

ovalbugmann, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:58 AM, said:

Gorf, on Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:47 PM, said:

If you have never played Battle Sphere you are missing
out on what REAL AI does for a game.

I'll second that, it's true BattleSphere has VERY impressive & fierce AI.   I can't even complete the 20 training missions and I play at least 4 times a week for hours.    It changes it's tactics to defend your playing style and LEARNS to overcome everything you attempt to do to clear the targets.    This forces you to think and come up with new and different strategies to simply stay alive much less go on the offensive.   The AI in the enemy ships will hunt you down like an animal and kill you with a shot to the back of the head - and you may not even see it happening on the radar.   This really makes the game come alive and takes some serious dedication and thought to compete.

Halo is probably the first title that owned Scott's AI.  It's a shame BS was not more available.
If more Jaguar owners played that game networked, they'd understand fully what I've been trying
to say with all these 'this vs that ' crap. I think these arguments are just plain stupid. PS1 could
have been designed to blow away the Jaguar with 1000 times the polygons but I still never like
the systemor the games on it with some few exceptions. I 'll take a 2600 anyday over both these
systems if you want my real opinion. It's about the fun factor in the games. PS1 neer did it for me
and the Jaguar lacks tons of updated classics but at least has a couple.

Let look at the bus rate of each system...

PS1 132 megs a second across its bus.The PS1 has the tools to take advantage of this bus.
The Jaguar does not. Have fun coding everything in assembler. I do but most coders don't....
...understandably.

Jaguar 106 megs a second across its bus.

That is only 26 less megs. It's not insignificant but it's not overwelming either.

I'll never claim the Jaguar is a faster poly pusher than the PS1, cleaner more flexible, yes but
it will not throw up as many poiles in a frame in a game as PS1 will. The true is opposite for
computational ability. The MIPSR3K is a deadly processors in its own right but there is no way
it's going to compete with 3 processors working together.

The R3K has to do everything. Yes the Sony has other processors but they need direction from
the only CPU. The R3K has to have control over everything. It's just a lot less to think about when
coding for it and is why the machine is a dream to code for.

You have a matrix engine which does all the work of 3D calculations and very little work
on the programmer. This is the monster in the PS1. This makes the difference between
heaven and hell to a coder. This does all the stuff a Jaguar coder does by hand
automatically. This is exactly why a lot of  Jaguar games suck...tools to make this process
less hellish never exsisted.

The 3D hardware in PS1 is indeed its saving grace. That matrix engine is awsome. Its a dream
come true in 3D coding. A little more silicon in the Jaguar and it could have faked something
like this...ie making it a lot simpler to code the Jaguar matrix hardware which lacks the control
registers to allow it to run unassited.

The thing that makes me laugh is the data compression engine. This is supposed to be 80 mips
of CD spooling and decompressing power. The PS1 easily has some of the worst and most
aggrivating load times I've ever experinced. The Jaguar is faster at loading then it is and
the GPU is a killer compressor/decompressor. Disc acess goes to Jaguar hands down.

The 2D sprite engine is not all that impressive.
The Jaguar wins here.

The Jaguar is by far the most flexible 2D system. It has a Blitter but the real
2D monster is the OPL that can generate any size and color depth window and
as many as the memory can hold. I know the game play sucks but Trevor
Mc Fur as a graphical demo would put a hurting on the PS1.

Networking:

Most systems slow down when you add more clients in a networked game and eventually choke.
The Jaguar actually works faster...don't ask me how they did it but it's pure genius. It is a shame
that BS is the only game worth mentioning as far as networking goes. DOOM is fine but only two
player and errors. Air Cars? Give me a break....what a waste of Scatologic's network code hat
was. The Jaguar could have reigned supreme here if Sam tramiel did not say 'Yuk, yuk, yuk.'
when asked his opinion about them. why did he allow silicon to bewasted on the Uart then?

And BS uses the 68k...how they pull it off with out killing the
bus is amazing. Theoretically the 68k running is fine as long as

The GPU is running locally
The DSP is running locally
No blitting or OPL use

So the 68k, if set to run while the above conditions are true, will not slow the bus at all as nothing else is using it.
So the GPU/DSP and 68k can run in parallel before the frame is drawn( when you would then use the Blitter and
OPL to draw the frame) and there would be no bottlenecking. That means about 40-50 MIPS of computational power
with built in matrix math hardware and MAC's (multpily and accumulate instructions.) Sorry guys, the PS1 dont
stand a chance as far as AI and math go.

Wow....hmmmmm...now I need to run a few experiments.....Im just realizing
the kind of balls we are talking about.

sorry bro..you got the programing jargon to back up your claims but no software to prove your claims that the jaguar, in terms of graphics, sound, ai, whatever is superior to a ps1.  "trevor" hurting ps1?  if trevor mccrap has to be even mentioned in a comparision to any decent title on a playstation, you've already lost your case.  battlesphere?  1 game?  how many years to make?  cost?  i would hope all the money i spent and time i waited it would put up a good fight to a ps1 game...but even that game has limits.  i'm not even going to go there.  battlesphere owners know some of the limits and small issues with that game.

i understand your passion for atari, and i've done my time playing every atari system (not to mention spending almost 3digit figures on battlesphere) over the past 3 decades, but the jag is what is...probably the worst console atari has to offer in terms of good games to bad games and potential not being used....if the jag is your system and you love every game, then no one can take that away and that's all that matters.

on the other hand, i could care less about 30 years of programming experience.....looking at the titles of jag games, there aint no way i see a jag all of the sudden doing a game like tekken 3, gran turismo2, fifa soccer, legacy of kain, final fantasy VII....i'm not buying it.  i don't care what numbers or computer mumble jumble you throw at me.  i'm a huge atari fan and a gamer but i'm also realistic.  hardware, software, in the end its all in the games.  potential don't mean a darn thing to me....

[Gorf]

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

sorry bro..you got the programing jargon to back up your claims but no software to prove your claims that the jaguar, in terms of graphics, sound, ai, whatever is superior to a ps1.  "trevor" hurting ps1?

Battle Sphere is all the proof I need to show the weakness of PS1 AI abilities.

and....

Um no...I have 29+ years of programming experience not jargon. You can believe
your fantasy the RPG's are some god like example of AI and that the PS1 is some
how perfect in every aspect of its hardware if you want but you are wrong.
BattlesSphere has out classed every systems games until Xbox Halo in terms
of AI and game logic.

If you had played it you 'd know exactly what I am talking about.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

if trevor mccrap has to be even mentioned in a comparision to any decent title
on a playstation, you've already lost your case.

You can pick on the shit game that TM is but I already did that for you so , that point is
lost and not even relevent to why I compared it.

The point was PS1 will never move 24 bit color sprites anywher near what the Jaguar can do
The PS1 uses 4096 8 x8 sprites ...you can't change the size or the color depth or any of that.

The Jagur also uses TRUE 24 bit color and writes TRUE 24 bit color values and does NOT
display a fake RGB 16 interpolated 24 bit color like the PS1

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

battlesphere?  1 game?  how many years to make?  cost?  i would hope all the money i spent and time i waited it would put up a good fight to a ps1 game...but even that game has limits.  i'm not even going to go there.  battlesphere owners know some of the limits and small issues with that game.

And it still blows away AI and game logic in ANY PS1 title you can name. And you have'nt
yet named that title, Why? Because there is none and never will be. The PS1 is not able.
It can't take one processor and out do three processors in parallel. IF common sense
does not tell you that, nothing will.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

i understand your passion for atari, and i've done my time playing every atari system
(not to mention spending almost 3digit figures on battlesphere) over the past 3 decades,
but the jag is what is...probably the worst console atari has to offer in terms of good
games to bad games and potential not being used....if the jag is your system and you
love every game, then no one can take that away and that's all that matters.

I base my arguments on facts not fanatisism like you suggest. You can go and look
at the specs of both systems if you want but you first might want to have an
understanding about system design. I doubt you do or you would not be arguing
with me right now.

No I dont love every  game on the Jaguar..there is about ten tops..the rest are
a joke and I have said this. You completely once again have entiely missed the piont
and go back to the useless 'taste in games' argument.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

on the other hand, i could care less about 30 years of programming experience

Yeah you made that quite clear. Experience obviously means nothing to you.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

jag games, there aint no way i see a jag all of the sudden doing a game like tekken 3, gran turismo2, fifa soccer, legacy of kain, final fantasy VII....i'm not buying it.

Again you are mistaken and arguing poly counts which I was clear that the PS1 has the
advantage. Fighters  and reacers like the ones you mention are no where near the class
of AI and game logic going on in BattleSphere. they dont need to be and they could not
be becasue the PS1 has only 1 procesor capable of doing math. The R3K. Saturn will do
it before the PS1 will..Saturn has 3 processors that can do math in it as well.
Its the facts my friend, not fan boyism as much as you'd like to believe.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

i don't care what numbers or computer mumble jumble you throw at me.

Then forgive me as Im sorry for confusing you with facts and reality.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

i'm a huge atari fan and a gamer but i'm also realistic.  hardware, software, in the end its all in the games.  potential don't mean a darn thing to me....

Caring what you care about , does not make it any less true.

This was never an argument about game selection. This is an argument about exsisting titles
and how they prove my point about Game AI..

I only need one...BattleSphere...its AI and game logic DOES blow away any Saturn or
PS1 can ever hope to do...the saturn will do it better than the PS1 becasue it has more
tha one processor thatn can do AI and math. The Jaguar has 3 and the PS1 only has one.
It is computationally impossible for PS1 to do BattleSphere on the same level of game
logic and AI as on the Jaguar. All you need to do is Ask Scott Legrand. He coded it  and
he would know and ahs told me as much.

Jag will never out do Saturn or Ps1 in polycount but it absolutely toast them both in math
and game logic. These are facts, not feeling but one you can actually go look up and read
for yourself.

[Fighter17]

Is there a thread here on Atari Age so I can study more on AI of Battlesphere ?

[phuzaxeman]

Gorf, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:31 PM, said:

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

sorry bro..you got the programing jargon to back up your claims but no software to prove your claims that the jaguar, in terms of graphics, sound, ai, whatever is superior to a ps1.  "trevor" hurting ps1?

Battle Sphere is all the proof I need to show the weakness of PS1 AI abilities.

and....

Um no...I have 29+ years of programming experience not jargon. You can believe
your fantasy the RPG's are some god like example of AI and that the PS1 is some
how perfect in every aspect of its hardware if you want but you are wrong.
BattlesSphere has out classed every systems games until Xbox Halo in terms
of AI and game logic.

If you had played it you 'd know exactly what I am talking about.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

if trevor mccrap has to be even mentioned in a comparision to any decent title
on a playstation, you've already lost your case.

You can pick on the shit game that TM is but I already did that for you so , that point is
lost and not even relevent to why I compared it.

The point was PS1 will never move 24 bit color sprites anywher near what the Jaguar can do
The PS1 uses 4096 8 x8 sprites ...you can't change the size or the color depth or any of that.

The Jagur also uses TRUE 24 bit color and writes TRUE 24 bit color values and does NOT
display a fake RGB 16 interpolated 24 bit color like the PS1

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

battlesphere?  1 game?  how many years to make?  cost?  i would hope all the money i spent and time i waited it would put up a good fight to a ps1 game...but even that game has limits.  i'm not even going to go there.  battlesphere owners know some of the limits and small issues with that game.

And it still blows away AI and game logic in ANY PS1 title you can name. And you have'nt
yet named that title, Why? Because there is none and never will be. The PS1 is not able.
It can't take one processor and out do three processors in parallel. IF common sense
does not tell you that, nothing will.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

i understand your passion for atari, and i've done my time playing every atari system
(not to mention spending almost 3digit figures on battlesphere) over the past 3 decades,
but the jag is what is...probably the worst console atari has to offer in terms of good
games to bad games and potential not being used....if the jag is your system and you
love every game, then no one can take that away and that's all that matters.

I base my arguments on facts not fanatisism like you suggest. You can go and look
at the specs of both systems if you want but you first might want to have an
understanding about system design. I doubt you do or you would not be arguing
with me right now.

No I dont love every  game on the Jaguar..there is about ten tops..the rest are
a joke and I have said this. You completely once again have entiely missed the piont
and go back to the useless 'taste in games' argument.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

on the other hand, i could care less about 30 years of programming experience

Yeah you made that quite clear. Experience obviously means nothing to you.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

jag games, there aint no way i see a jag all of the sudden doing a game like tekken 3, gran turismo2, fifa soccer, legacy of kain, final fantasy VII....i'm not buying it.

Again you are mistaken and arguing poly counts which I was clear that the PS1 has the
advantage. Fighters  and reacers like the ones you mention are no where near the class
of AI and game logic going on in BattleSphere. they dont need to be and they could not
be becasue the PS1 has only 1 procesor capable of doing math. The R3K. Saturn will do
it before the PS1 will..Saturn has 3 processors that can do math in it as well.
Its the facts my friend, not fan boyism as much as you'd like to believe.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

i don't care what numbers or computer mumble jumble you throw at me.

Then forgive me as Im sorry for confusing you with facts and reality.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 PM, said:

i'm a huge atari fan and a gamer but i'm also realistic.  hardware, software, in the end its all in the games.  potential don't mean a darn thing to me....

Caring what you care about , does not make it any less true.

This was never an argument about game selection. This is an argument about exsisting titles
and how they prove my point about Game AI..

I only need one...BattleSphere...its AI and game logic DOES blow away any Saturn or
PS1 can ever hope to do...the saturn will do it better than the PS1 becasue it has more
tha one processor thatn can do AI and math. The Jaguar has 3 and the PS1 only has one.
It is computationally impossible for PS1 to do BattleSphere on the same level of game
logic and AI as on the Jaguar. All you need to do is Ask Scott Legrand. He coded it  and
he would know and ahs told me as much.

Jag will never out do Saturn or Ps1 in polycount but it absolutely toast them both in math
and game logic. These are facts, not feeling but one you can actually go look up and read
for yourself.

first off...u don't need to swear in a post to get a point across.....:-)

nor do i have the knowledge like you to compare the AI schemes among jaguar games to ps1 games.  it's apparent you're losing your cool....

i do have to say (and many others agree) that the 3DO looks like a better system in game comparisons.  to even compare a ps1 is even a longer stretch.

i don't see it (and many people think like me).  even if math wise the jag can do more computations or whatever, the games on the jag don't show anything to help the system so in essence it doesn't matter because most, if not all the jag games aren't in the level of the 1st generation of playstation games.  let me reiterate again that i own battlespere.

you think a programmer couldn't do battlesphere on a ps1 today?  from the games i've played on the ps1, i think they could make it better AI and all!  :-p  could the jag pull of a madden, tekken 3, resident evil, gran turismo2, street fighter ex? from making club drive to grand turismo?  ultra vortek to tekken 3 or street fighter ex?  no way man....

"BattlesSphere has out classed every systems games until Xbox Halo in terms
of AI and game logic."  ok prove it?  i've played both halo and i own battlespere.

in the grand scheme of things, if the jag was more powerful (polygons/framerate/processor), had better sound, better in every respect from a hardware perspective it wouldn't matter because it was never fully used, never will, never ever.

i think it was people that kept claiming the power of the jag rather than focusing on marketing and making great games that killed the jag and atari in end....

Edited by phuzaxeman, Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:33 PM.

[DracIsBack]

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:31 PM, said:

in the grand scheme of things, if the jag was more powerful (polygons/framerate/processor), had better sound, better in every respect from a hardware perspective it wouldn't matter because it was never fully used, never will, never ever.

i think it was people that kept claiming the power of the jag rather than focusing on marketing and making great games that killed the jag and atari in end....

I don't disagree with this at all. Honestly, after the NES era began, this was a common criticism of all Atari systems. None of them reached their full potential because

1. The best software houses weren't making games for them
2. The software houses that were making games for them didn't have big budgets or a lot of time to throw behind pushing them.
3. The Tramiels didn't exactly put tons of efforts into facilitating great development.

The result?

A lot of disappointing games that look rushed or quickly ported.
A lot of "hints" that they can do certain things but few "WOW! games"
Lots of debate to this day about what the Jaguar, Lynx and 7800 can or can't do.

[Gorf]

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

first off...u don't need to swear in a post to get a point across.....:-)

First of all I said one swear...shit... and that is a proper description of Trevor McFur.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

nor do i have the knowledge like you to compare the AI schemes among jaguar games to ps1 games.  it's apparent you're losing your cool....

The only thing apparent is you imagining that I am. Trying to make people think I am
losing my cool when Im not will not make your inaccuracies any more accurate. If i am coming
across adamant about it , it's becasue Im telling you the truth and you poo poo it everytime,
then bring up game preferences again! DOH! This is not even slightly intended to insult you or the PS1.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

i do have to say (and many others agree) that the 3DO looks like a better system in game comparisons.  to even compare a ps1 is even a longer stretch.

You and many others then obviously lack the understanding to know the difference.
If you want to compare polish of games, i've never said any different. Show me any
programmers that agree with you that one processor can out do three in parallel
all in roughly the same speed range. Good luck.

3D0? LOL! Talk about a stretch.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

i don't see it (and many people think like me).  even if math wise the jag can do more computations or whatever, the games on the jag don't show anything to help the system so in essence it doesn't matter because most, if not all the jag games aren't in the level of the 1st generation of playstation games.

The games on the Jag were coded improperly. That is why they dont show it. Battle Sphere does
and Scott said it was NOT the best that could be done. I know when Mr. Legrande Speaks that I
should listen. I know his experience is even greater than mine and he'll tell you you are dead
wrong. I'll put my money on his opinon anyday.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

let me reiterate again that i own battlespere.

And your point? If you think because you own a title gives you some sort of expertise
in what is going on with it internally, guess again. You are simply looking at graphics and
confusing them with AI. Two totally different subjects in computing. You are not making
any argument for the PS1's AI and game logic ability.

Now allow me to reiterate ...the Jaguar will smoke the PS1 in AI and math. the PS1 has
one processor. IT is impossible for it to compete with three processors in AI and math.
It is physically and electronically impossible unless you are running the R3k at 3 x the
speed of those three processors. Its not only common computing knowledge it is simple
common sense and you refuse to accept it.

The PS1 will draw at least twice the polies in one frame as tha Jaguar can.
Never questioned that and I never will. However,

They will be low quality, aliased blocky, 256(or kiss your poly count good bye)
color, pixel holed, missing polies, are what they are polygons. That is all the PS1
can do, just a whole lot of them. There is always going to be more clarity and
precision in a hardware assited poly draw as the Jag does it.  It wont do as many
but they will look a lot nicer.

Hover Strike was doing mip mapping and HS is all 68k code except for the poly
renderer and DSP sound engine. move that code to the GPU and you have better
than Play station quality 3d. Less polies yes but definitly sharper and with more
effects as it has software assist.30- 60 FPS easy. Real time lighting effects and
shading and animated textures and terrain.  The PS1 would have to use the R3K
for all the extra stuff the hardware does not do and it would have to lose the
hardware 3D to do it and that would be the end of your fast frame rate.

It's the way the machine works....im sorry. I did not design it but I completely
understand it's strengths and it weaknesses as I do the Jaguars. It is not intended
at all to put down the PS1. Im simple stating the facts.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

you think a programmer couldn't do battlesphere on a ps1 today?  from the games i've played on the ps1, i think they could make it better AI and all!

You keep thinking that all you want but it wont make it any more true. The PS1 would do a
better graphical version but Scott legrand, the guy that coded it say it would lack seriously
in AI. why? BECASUE THE PS1 CANT DO IT!!!! That's why! And no im not losing my cool.
Just making sure you heard me this, for the millionth time.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

:-p  could the jag pull of a madden, tekken 3, resident evil, gran turismo2, street fighter ex? from making club drive to grand turismo?  ultra vortek to tekken 3 or street fighter ex?  no way man....

Ultra Vortek is a 68k ONLY game. the GPU does very litlle other than to let the blitter to do 3D.
Hardly the best it can do. Hardly a fair comparison.

None of the games you mention, AGAIN, have nothing in the way of the AI in
BattleSphere. Its just not possible unless you want 5 FPS a second PS1 games.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

"BattlesSphere has out classed every systems games until Xbox Halo in terms
of AI and game logic."  ok prove it?  i've played both halo and i own battlespere.

Ok you have both...and so do I ... now show me a game on the PS1 that has anywhere
near the level of AI or game logic going on in Battle Sphere. And dont bother wasting
time re-mentioning the same old tired titles again. They could not shine the shoes of
BattleSphere in terms of what is going on with the game logic and AI.

Not one of your titles 'learns' anything. The Pilots alone in BS will hand the ass to any
games AI untill Halo. You clearly have not PLAYED your BattleSphere on any mode or
difficulty level if you can't tell what I am talking about...also, play it with 7 other players
then come back here and tell me PS1 can do that...it cant. It does not have that kind of
computing power. It is a polygon pusher. Jaguar puts it foot up the PS1 toosh in this area.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

in the grand scheme of things, if the jag was more powerful (polygons/framerate/processor), had better sound, better in every respect from a hardware perspective it wouldn't matter because it was never fully used, never will, never ever.

And this still does not take away from the fact that it will smoke the PS1 in math and game logic.

phuzaxeman, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:31 PM, said:

i think it was people that kept claiming the power of the jag rather than focusing on marketing and making great games that killed the jag and atari in end....

The lack of tools and the over use of the 68k killed the Jaguar. That is a fact.

The games could not be made for it fast enough with the high quality it was capable of
because there were no tools that could do this. This again does not change the fact the 3
processors will beatch slap one processor at comparable speeds anyday.  It is physics.
Plain and simple.

Edited by Gorf, Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:35 PM.

[EmOneGarand]

What I'm curious about concerning these 2 systems is what is the largest possible draw distance capable on both systems? Seeing Need for Speed on the 3DO I was blown away by how minescule the pop-up was, I saw it here an there occasionally but it was barely noticeable. The Jag had a shorter draw distance in most of it's 3D games but say we scrapped the 68k and used the GPU how far could the draw distance on a 3D Jag game go?

[phuzaxeman]

Gorf says, "BattlesSphere has out classed every systems games until Xbox Halo in terms
of AI and game logic."  

i couldn't mention a game because i wouldn't even know how to compare them and prove it.  i'm not knowledgeable.  i admit that.  even if a game on the ps1 had more "AI" or "game logic" than the jag, i wouldn't have a clue on how to claim that.  

i do know that every system before xbox halo includes over 7500 titles on the ps1, all titles on n64, and all titles on the dreamcast.  

prove to me (and everyone else reading) then how battlesphere AI/game logic is better than goldeneye and rogue squadron N64, madden05 playstation, powerstone 2/shenmue/skies of arcadia (dreamcast) since all of them are games from systems released before the Xbox Halo.

you say how better the jag in your own terms is better than the 3DO, PS1, and how "battlesSphere has out classed every systems games until Xbox Halo in terms of AI and game logic." you keep going up on generations of how the jag can out class each system one way or another....what's next? ps2 or ps3? xbox360? :-)

[A Sprite]

Quote

What I'm curious about concerning these 2 systems is what is the largest possible draw distance capable on both systems?

Short answer: Infinity.

Long answer: Under what conditions?

[EmOneGarand]

A Sprite, on Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:22 PM, said:

Quote

What I'm curious about concerning these 2 systems is what is the largest possible draw distance capable on both systems?

Short answer: Infinity.

Long answer: Under what conditions?

I doubt Infinity, if it were vectors maybe but not with polygon and sprites on screen. But to mention conditions.. say with a dynamic polygonal landscape and on screen sprites or polygonal models in motion. From what I've seen it varies by the engine (Total Eclipse 3DO has a draw distance much like Cybermorph but then you have Need For Speed with a much farther draw distance) so I'm curious from a hardware standpoint how far it can go with a decent workload.