Jump to content
Rick Dangerous

Could Road Rash (3DO) be ported to the Jaguar?

Recommended Posts

 

I think there are different types of proof of concepts. One is the aforementioned tech demo that just has a basic running engine and no or limited AI, collision detection, etc. If instead someone made, say, a single level demo of a much larger game that still nevertheless had all of the elements of the real game, I think that would be more than enough "proof" of capability.

 

 

I would expect a full game-play level as "proof" not a half-baked tech demo. The latter is not proof-of-concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you point to Doom. but how about Wolfenstein 3D and Robinson's Requiem? And of course 3DO Doom is excused by poor programming, but GOD FORBID we allow the Jaguar the same excuse with it's poorly programmed games, oh no, it's a weaker system in it's case...hypocrisy. (not directed at you Bill, but in general)

 

Yes, because Doom is a good (and easy) example of a horrible 3DO game that's not representative of what can be done on the system. And again, like I said, even the Jaguar version wasn't optimized, although at least that had the benefit of not being an afterthought. As for Wolfenstein 3D, it's well done on both systems, so I don't know what that proves other than that both can easily handle that type of game (and how wonderful it would have been if both systems were programmed properly more consistently).

 

I was also more directing my comment about multi-platform games. Rarely are they optimized for the system in question, although there are exceptions (Wolfenstein 3D for one--I can't think of ANY ports oddly enough that didn't receive a level of TLC that most multi-platform games ever get). When it's clear a game is written to take advantage of a system, that to me is the more interesting comparison. Thanks in part to greater overall volume, there are probably many more examples of games that take advantage of the 3DO's capabilities than there are on the Jaguar that take advantage of its capabilities.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

On a side note, in the past I made the mistake that apparently several others made that the posted YouTube demo of Native on the Jaguar was a real gameplay segment from the game. In fact, it's the unreleased Nuon version that's popularly posted as the Jaguar version, which makes considerable sense considering the relative resolution. That's why it's so important to have a demo that's run from the actual hardware, and, if you can't run it yourself, at least posted by (and captured from the real hardware) someone known reliable.

This can also be said for real games on YouTube where the author doesn't have a clue how to play the game correctly, so it makes the game look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3DO, in general, had much better support in every way over the Jag, and this is why there are more good games to point to on the 3DO, not because it's better or more powerful.

 

 

Yes, because Doom is a good (and easy) example of a horrible 3DO game that's not representative of what can be done on the system. And again, like I said, even the Jaguar version wasn't optimized, although at least that had the benefit of not being an afterthought. As for Wolfenstein 3D, it's well done on both systems, so I don't know what that proves other than that both can easily handle that type of game (and how wonderful it would have been if both systems were programmed properly more consistently).

 

I was also more directing my comment about multi-platform games. Rarely are they optimized for the system in question, although there are exceptions (Wolfenstein 3D for one--I can't think of ANY ports oddly enough that didn't receive a level of TLC that most multi-platform games ever get). When it's clear a game is written to take advantage of a system, that to me is the more interesting comparison. Thanks in part to greater overall volume, there are probably many more examples of games that take advantage of the 3DO's capabilities than there are on the Jaguar that take advantage of its capabilities.

As I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3DO, in general, had much better support in every way over the Jag, and this is why there are more good games to point to on the 3DO, not because it's better or more powerful.

 

Well, I don't know if that's strictly true. There are several technical areas where the 3DO is quantifiably more powerful than the Jaguar. But absolutely, there's no question and no debate that the 3DO was far better supported by far better (and more) developers, which is certainly one of the major reasons why it generally has technically more impressive games. With that in mind, better or weaker in certain technical areas was absolutely not a significant factor in how poor many of the Jaguar's games turned out. I think we can all agree that the Jaguar's potential was rarely maximized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This can also be said for real games on YouTube where the author doesn't have a clue how to play the game correctly, so it makes the game look bad.

 

I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. No amount of masterful play can really make something like Highlander, Club Drive, Supercross 3D, etc., more compelling. In fact, I can't think of many games, regardless of platform, that if played poorly make the game seem poorer than it actually is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, I don't know if that's strictly true. There are several technical areas where the 3DO is quantifiably more powerful than the Jaguar. But absolutely, there's no question and no debate that the 3DO was far better supported by far better (and more) developers, which is certainly one of the major reasons why it generally has technically more impressive games. With that in mind, better or weaker in certain technical areas was absolutely not a significant factor in how poor many of the Jaguar's games turned out. I think we can all agree that the Jaguar's potential was rarely maximized.

Unfortunately there are no direct comparisons with games that seem to push either's hardware to the "limits." But both systems have weaker and stronger points than the other, and many times these weaknesses could be covered over with or worked around with clever programming to come up with comparable end results.

But, there are a couple of examples. For instance, I think Shockwave 2 and Hoverstrike: UL (just forget the cart version), are quite comparable as good games that use the respective systems well. Shockwave 2 has a slightly better frame-rate, but I think Hoverstrike: UL has much better texturing, and garuad shading and light-sourcing effects. As technology examples, regardless if one likes either games or not. If HS:UL's graphics were dumbed down to match SW2's, more like the cart version, the frame-rate would be equal or better, IMO. (the cart version of HS was a rushed travesty, as proven by the CD version)

Edited by Gunstar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. No amount of masterful play can really make something like Highlander, Club Drive, Supercross 3D, etc., more compelling. In fact, I can't think of many games, regardless of platform, that if played poorly make the game seem poorer than it actually is.

There are many more games than the weakest examples you have chosen. And there ARE some that are a matter of opinion. Fight for Life is judged as crap by many, yet the secret poll show a majority who think it is a competent title, yet there are no youtube videos done by people, like myself, that are good at the game and could show it off in much better light. unfortunately I don't have the resources to do youtube videos at this time. And no, it is not the only game I could point too, and I can also point to games that are better than FFL, like Battlemorph for one.

 

And yes, I have stated before that I think the majority can often be wrong, but others do no agree, so I use that example for their sake. While I do agree that Supercross 3D and another example, Checkered Flag are poor titles, I do happen to be very good at both, and I do believe I could make them both look better in videos than they actually are, as well as titles that I feel are decent or good.

Edited by Gunstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many more games than the weakest examples you have chosen. And there ARE some that are a matter of opinion. Fight for Life is judged as crap by many, yet the secret poll show a majority who think it is a competent title, yet there are no youtube videos done by people, like myself, that are good at the game and could show it off in much better light. unfortunately I don't have the resources to do youtube videos at this time. And no, it is not the only game I could point too, and I can also point to games that are better than FFL, like Battlemorph for one.

And yes, I have stated before that I think the majority can often be wrong, but others do no agree, so I use that example for their sake.

 

Sorry, but I just don't think a "secret poll" means much, or polls in general. A secret poll just means anyone can vote on it with no checking who did it (super Jaguar fans that signed up dummy accounts just to vote multiple times is one possibility). Even on a site like AtariAge, where Jaguar super fans are most likely to congregate, you can't get much of a true opinion. We could put up a Supercross 3D poll, secret or otherwise, and I'm SURE there would be plenty of votes for it being a good game.

 

I think regardless of polls, Fight for Life was considered harshly back when it was new and I don't think there has been any reason to change that opinion, particularly since it's the kind of broken game where one single move can win it all. Perhaps in a world where other 3D fighters didn't exist it might have fared better for its novelty, but it's not in that world.

 

As for Battlemorph, I don't recall anyone judging it harshly. The only area where a game like that falls down is it's not necessarily the type of game with broad appeal, or, to put it a better way, one you can immediately "get" without investing time in playing it.

 

The other thing we have to remember with YouTube game videos is that ALL such videos are on more or less equal footing. There's no way for the viewer to interact with them. So, if you single out the Jaguar as having games that need to be played a certain way to see the appeal, then I think that actually applies to the vast majority of systems. There's nothing special about the Jaguar in that regard, so I don't think it impacts the general opinion of the Jaguar one way or the other. If instead you're saying that there's not much audio-visual appeal with Jaguar titles on YouTube and they're judged harshly because of that (i.e., they really need to be personally played), that's another argument entirely, although one that again can be applied to most systems.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As for Battlemorph, I don't recall anyone judging it harshly. The only area where a game like that falls down is it's not necessarily the type of game with broad appeal, or, to put it a better way, one you can immediately "get" without investing time in playing it.

 

The other thing we have to remember with YouTube game videos is that ALL such videos are on more or less equal footing. There's no way for the viewer to interact with them. So, if you single out the Jaguar as having games that need to be played a certain way to see the appeal, then I think that actually applies to the vast majority of systems. There's nothing special about the Jaguar in that regard, so I don't think it impacts the general opinion of the Jaguar one way or the other. If instead you're saying that there's not much audio-visual appeal with Jaguar titles on YouTube and they're judged harshly because of that (i.e., they really need to be personally played), that's another argument entirely, although one that again can be applied to most systems.

I wasn't pointing to BM as a game judged harshly, but as a game that has no good videos of it by people that fully understand it and are good at it. And to your second point, yes, I do not hold the jaguar alone as having poor example videos. I never said I did.

 

As to the polls, I definitely disagree, I think secret polls allow people to vote their true feelings without being condemned by resident trolls. And if it were a case of multiple votes on dummy accounts, I think the poll would be far more seperated in the results. There is a majority, but it's only half a dozen or so votes. And, haters and trolls can do multiple votes to sway polls in their favor too, so that is a moot point, IMO.

 

As to FFL being a "broken" game is not true. It has a broken aspect to it, but it does not ruin the game, all you have to do is choose to NOT cheat by using that one move, and learn the moves and play the game the right way, and it is fun and not ruined. you could easily say that any game with cheat codes becomes "broken" when used too. If you choose NOT to use cheat codes, then the game does not become broken. Again, not a good point IMO.

 

As to your statements of polls being biased due to it being a fan site, that can be said for ANY console fan site.

Your disparaging statements about FFL only show that you agree with the minority in the poll.

 

We really need to have a discussion of Jag games we both like so we are not, what seems, almost always on opposing sides in these discussions! :-o

I quite like our banter, it's unfortunate it seems to be more like a debate as opposing political parties or something.

Edited by Gunstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are several technical areas where the 3DO is quantifiably more powerful than the Jaguar.

 

what several? allegedly better texture mapping support?

videostreaming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are to fairly include the Jaguar CD into the mix, since it is a possible part of the system and does exist, then the CD streaming tech is there too. Timing and price-drop issues aside, the Jag and Jag CD were far less expensive combined initially than the 3DO, so I find it perfectly fair to include them both as an over-all system on that aspect alone. Built-in texture mapping instead of software texture mapping is all I think there is beyond 1MB of video memory. If textures were stripped away and we compared plain polygon pushing power on both my guess would be they are close to one another. And the Jaguar could be said to be "quantifiably more powerful" in areas too. How about garaud shading? how about garaud shading and light-sourcing on polygons and over textures? how about Z-buffering? how about all of the above together like in HS:UL? Shockwave 2 doesn't use any of that (maybe Z-buffering, I'd have to look again) I don't recall seeing any of those on the 3DO. How about 2D sprite power, and I am sure more areas could be thought of...

Edited by Gunstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... If textures were stripped away and we compared plain polygon pushing power ....

But this is the crux of the matter.

 

As the PS1 proved just 2 years later, people wanted texture mapped polygons in their 3D games.

 

By the way this was the same kind of step up from low color count to high color count consoles for 2D games, we can surely praise the Jag for supporting a very high color count in '93, although all consoles at or after that period had that kind of support, meaning they all realized that people were attracted to eye candy (and justifiably so).

 

In the 3D gaming world very soon it didn't matter how many Gourad shaded poly you could push or even Phong, once you saw textured 3D games you were hooked even if the polygon count may have been less.

BTW we were still allright with mixed sprite + 3D where needed, Doom and AvP for example, but the 3D could not be flat and untextured. Actually flat + textured was still plenty acceptable, but lack of textures was very soon seen as a severe limitation.

 

EDIT: just to state the obvious, if you could render as many poly as you would want then you wouldn't need shading per se, as that was a technique to interpolate light/color values when only the vertex values of the poly where known, once you had support for so many poly that at rendering time they were as small as a single pixel then shading per se (as intended those days) becomes somewhat moot.

Edited by phoenixdownita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is anything but the crux of the matter. I am not discussing what people wanted, I am discussing comparable power between the 3DO and Jaguar in a bubble. What people wanted is irrelevant to the point I am making. That is all just attempted deflection of the facts.

 

And to qualm further deflection and disparagement I will also state that my example of Hoverstrike has nothing to do with how good any feels the game is or not, but simply an example of proof-of-concept in a FULL GAME and not just a half-baked tech demo. And your other comments are also rendered irrelevant to my points, regardless of validity or not. But in this case there actually is also a tech demo available showing the 3D engine used for Hoverstrike that allows one to add or remove any and all of the special polygon effects and show the exact amount of polygons and frames per second in every instance.

Edited by Gunstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to expand on my statement of comparing power between the 3DO and Jaguar in said bubble, I'm talking about respective weaknesses and strengths and equivalents to each other from a hardware standpoint. Either may also be able to make-up for any weaknesses compared to the other with software work-arounds which may be interjected. I am simply trying to make the point that I believe, over all, that both systems are roughly equivalent in power and that there probably isn't much that one can do that the other cannot if put into the right hands. And any statements of "quantifiably more power" isn't necessarily a true statement and that even if it were, BOTH have "qaunitifiably more power" in the hardware in different areas which really only amounts to an overall average of equal power. What was and is considered to be more favorable aspects of the hardware at the given time and what the "people" wanted is irrelevant to my points. For example textures and garaud shading. Maybe people, at the time, preferred textures over shading, but I think each machine can render polygons better than the other in the given choice. I liked both (textures and shading) at the time personally, and today looking back, I personally think garaud shaded polygons held up better over time than the low-res textures of the day. It's like the bit-war argument and whether a 64-bit machine is really automatically more powerful than a 32-bit machine, by the same token, back then it was "all textures all the time" in the industry overall, just to prove said machine can do it, and they did look good in tiny magazine pictures. But they are really butt-ugly in person, close up (compared to later higher-res stuff), IMO, and garaud shading is not.

Edited by Gunstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

what several? allegedly better texture mapping support?

videostreaming?

 

Yes, I was thinking things like 1MB of VRAM versus shared with system memory (which is the same on both), higher resolution, two video co-processors, CD-ROM by default (i.e., no limitations as add-on, it was designed from day one with that option in mind), etc. I'm sure there are some things that the Jaguar does better, but, high original price aside (because we're not discussing that obvious disparity, just the technical features), it seems like the 3DO was just engineered better overall with fewer bottlenecks. I'd be happy to hear where the Jaguar has a clear advantage in (for one, I would think pushing certain 2D-centric games it would, since the 3DO didn't seem to do great with things like parallax effects, at least in an obvious example like Super Street Fighter).

 

In any case, none of that really matters, it's what was done with that power that matters. I think in that regard for a variety of reasons the 3DO had more of its potential utilized than the Jaguar, but then that's not exactly a new idea. I'm simply not confident we'll ever see the Jaguar pushed in a way that's been hoped for (and consistently speculated on) by its biggest supporters.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3DO, in general, had much better support in every way over the Jag, and this is why there are more good games to point to on the 3DO, not because it's better or more powerful.

Wouldn't having better support and better games make it a better console?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3DO didn't really have higher resolution, it had ~320x240p res displayed within a 640x480i window, which did make it look better on 480i TV's of the day since it didn't skip scan lines. But on modern HDTV's were the ~320x240p resolutions of all the machines of the day (including the Saturn and PSX and maybe the N64) they are all now displayed in a 640x480p or higher resolution which now makes that 3DO advantage non-existent. Except to those who still use old CRT displays for their old systems. Besides, the Jaguar is capable of much higher resolutions than was ever used (possibly the 3DO too), just check out the Jaguar's hardware faq and probably in any development docs of the time.

Edited by Gunstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3DO didn't really have higher resolution, it had ~320x240p res displayed within a 640x480i window, which did make it look better on 480i TV's of the day since it didn't skip scan lines. But on modern HDTV's were the ~320x240p resolutions of all the machines of the day (including the Saturn and PSX and maybe the N64) they are all now displayed in a 640x480p or higher resolution which now makes that 3DO advantage non-existent. Except to those who still use old CRT displays for their old systems. Besides, the Jaguar is capable of much higher resolutions than was ever used (possibly the 3DO too), just check out the Jaguar's hardware faq and probably in any development docs of the time.

 

I don't think the Jaguar had a consistent resolution, and it was often well below even 320x240, wasn't it? I also think most 3DO games were 16-bit color depth, although a few touched 24-bit. I think the Jaguar dropped to 8-bit color depth a lot of the time. Again, I could be misremembering with this. In any case, I remember the 3DO resolution - even though it was what we would considered upscaled these days - to be particularly impressive on the TVs of the time at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best spec I could find on 3DO:
http://users.polytech.unice.fr/~buffa/videogames/3do_faq2.4.html
check 3.8-3.10


[3.8] What is the resolution of the 3DO system?
A: The resolution displayed on screen is 640x480. However, the 3DO has an internal resolution of 320x240 or 320x480, with each pixel being either 24-bits or 16-bits. The 16-bit mode is almost always used for animations, while the 24-bit mode is used mostly for still pictures. There are no other resolutions available. The internal resolution is interpolated into an anti-aliased 640x480 pixel display. The interpolation can be turned on and off via software.[/size]


[3.9] Can the 3DO do real 24-bit color?
A: The 3DO can do 16 bit graphics with CLUTs(Color Look Up Tables) drawn from 24 bits, or it can do true 24 bit graphics.[/size]


[3.10] What does it mean when 3DO product literature says that the system can "animate 64 million pixels per second?"
A: The system is capable of animating up to 64 million 16-bit on-screen pixels per second. This is really 16 million internal 16-bit pixels that are then interpolated as they are displayed on the screen to 640 by 480 pixel resolution, quadrupling the number of pixels displayed on screen.[/size]


Edited by phoenixdownita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I was thinking things like 1MB of VRAM versus shared with system memory (which is the same on both), higher resolution, two video co-processors, CD-ROM by default (i.e., no limitations as add-on, it was designed from day one with that option in mind), etc. I'm sure there are some things that the Jaguar does better, but, high original price aside (because we're not discussing that obvious disparity, just the technical features), it seems like the 3DO was just engineered better overall with fewer bottlenecks. I'd be happy to hear where the Jaguar has a clear advantage in (for one, I would think pushing certain 2D-centric games it would, since the 3DO didn't seem to do great with things like parallax effects, at least in an obvious example like Super Street Fighter).

 

In any case, none of that really matters, it's what was done with that power that matters. I think in that regard for a variety of reasons the 3DO had more of its potential utilized than the Jaguar, but then that's not exactly a new idea. I'm simply not confident we'll ever see the Jaguar pushed in a way that's been hoped for (and consistently speculated on) by its biggest supporters.

 

higher resolution? you must have a modded prototype or something ... 2 co-processors? okay when we start counting bits and processors .. the jag got 3 64Bit futuristic components inside .. the bus and its memory, the blitter, the objectprocessor

 

i have bouth consoles.. and the closer i look the more i see the "advanced" 3d eyewash... reduce the 3D world down to very lowpoly or even put it on rails and map it with textures is not an advance or improve. its a gameplay-step-back at costs of showing textures.. not in mention the fmv games

Edited by Otto1980

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

higher resolution? you must have a modded prototype or something ... 2 co-processors? okay when we start counting bits and processors .. the jag got 3 64Bit futuristic components inside .. the bus and its memory, the blitter, the objectprocessor

 

i have bouth consoles.. and the closer i look the more i see the "advanced" 3d eyewash... reduce the 3D world down to very lowpoly or even put it on rails and map it with textures is not an advance or improve. its a gameplay-step-back at costs of showing textures.. not in mention the fmv games

 

I'd suggest you temper your modern perspective a bit with how things were back when these systems were brand new. Of course early 3D hasn't aged well, but that doesn't change how we thought of these games when they were brand new. Are you going to criticize the quality of the FMV next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To OP: yes! it is portable, I just did it, but spy from foreign force just hacked and killed it.

Guess the world just ain't ready for the Xtreme POWAH yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...