How could they mess up Doom for the 32X?

[Ranger03]

i'm just saying that the music uses too much bass in the 32X version. at least try to make use of the better audio

[keepdreamin]

"How could they mess up Doom for the 32X?"

 

Easy: They ported it to a console.

 

Don't you mean Easy: They ported it to the 32x.

 

Doom on PS1 is pretty good.

[Ranger03]

will have to check it out.

[Flojomojo]

Don't you mean Easy: They ported it to the 32x.

 

Doom on PS1 is pretty good.

I wonder what Doom on Saturn would have looked like had the Powerslave/Duke Nukem team worked on it.

[Austin]

Again, cost is irrelevant if you want the best.

Cost *is* relevant when you are 12 years old with no spending power, as some of us were when the 32X launched.

[keepdreamin]

I wonder what Doom on Saturn would have looked like had the Powerslave/Duke Nukem team worked on it.

 

They would have adapted it from scratch to their engine like they did with Duke Nukem 3D and Quake. Visually it might have ended up similar to the one Rage Software developed, but it would have ran much smoother. I actually just fired up Saturn Doom out of curiosity for like a minute to remind myself how bad it was, and it's not good. It's a few frames away from being Tiger Game.Com level bad. I quickly hit 'A+B+C+Start' twice to get the heck out of there, 'A' at Saturn home menu to load games menu and was running Quake in seconds. (if other Saturn owners reading are going "Wha?!" don't worry about it. ) Quake is so much smoother, like a solid 30fps with a few slowdown dips. Lobotomy really was like the AM2 of Saturn FPS games.

Edited July 19, 2018 by keepdreamin

[Austin]

Eh.. Saturn Quake is a nice technical showpiece, but it still plays like ass.

[keepdreamin]

Eh.. Saturn Quake is a nice technical showpiece, but it still plays like ass.

 

It's alright for a console FPS with a gamepad for the time, you can use the 3D controller if you want. Compared to Saturn Doom though, it's a masterpiece.

[Austin]

It's alright for a console FPS with a gamepad for the time, you can use the 3D controller if you want. Compared to Saturn Doom though, it's a masterpiece.

Yeah, I can't really get behind that unfortunately. To each their own of course, but I played through the entire thing on Nightmare recently and it was a terrible experience. I almost put it on the same level of "bad" as Saturn DOOM, just for different reasons. Saturn DOOM because of its framerate (but movement and collision detection still fully works, making the game somewhat playable), and Saturn Quake because of its various wonky issues (bullets clipping through enemies, monsters that move like they're marionettes, spike traps that seem to operate as hit-scan objects that can't be avoided, poor framerate when multiple enemies are on screen, among other things).

 

It's nice that Quake does support the 3D controller, but the analog control is so twitchy it is borderline useless. It's possible it may have worked better with a different analog stick--I'm not sure who's great idea it was to craft a stick that's three times the size of the average person's thumb. That's not the fault of the Saturn Quake creators, of course.

[keepdreamin]

It's nice that Quake does support the 3D controller, but the analog control is so twitchy it is borderline useless. It's possible it may have worked better with a different analog stick--I'm not sure who's great idea it was to craft a stick that's three times the size of the average person's thumb. That's not the fault of the Saturn Quake creators, of course.

 

I use the 3D controller at this point for pretty much just Nights. Back in the day I used to play some of the racers with it, the older games like Sega Rally recognize it as the wheel. But nowadays I find the regular Dpad is more precise.

[phoenixdownita]

 

I use the 3D controller at this point for pretty much just Nights. Back in the day I used to play some of the racers with it, the older games like Sega Rally recognize it as the wheel. But nowadays I find the regular Dpad is more precise.

Give a shot to Sega Touring Car Championship with the 3D ctrl, it actually makes it "playable" ... that plus the eurobeat it's not that bad of an experience (aside the framerate that is)

[Austin]

I use the 3D controller at this point for pretty much just Nights. Back in the day I used to play some of the racers with it, the older games like Sega Rally recognize it as the wheel. But nowadays I find the regular Dpad is more precise.

Likewise. It was interesting for me to try it with wheel-supported games like Sega Rally, but the novelty wore off pretty quick. Some Saturn versions of games like that feel like they were designed with the d-pad in mind. I'd still love to try it with an actual wheel though to see how it compares.

[keepdreamin]

I totally forgot the Panzer games, not sure why I didn't mention that. I use the 3D pad for a game like Zwei, this time the system recognizes it as the mission stick. Although, I always had a weird issue with the right trigger setting off a berserk shot when you went to spin around. Have to go into key config to fix it.

Edited July 19, 2018 by keepdreamin

[80s_Atari_Guy]

Cost *is* relevant when you are 12 years old with no spending power, as some of us were when the 32X launched.

 

Then you couldn't afford it, so cost is irrelevant. My point being, moaning on a forum about the cost of the best PC gets you nowhere because, if you want that PC you have to pay for it, end of.

Now, if the topic was, "What is the best PC I can get for my money", then cost IS relevant because the PC you get is based on what you can afford.

It brings me back to Ferrari. Walking into a Ferrari seller, and moaning about the cost of their cars because you can get a Golf GTI for a lot less, is completely irrelevant The Ferrari being the best PC of 1994, and the Golf being the 32x.

[Austin]

Then you couldn't afford it, so cost is irrelevant. My point being, moaning on a forum about the cost of the best PC gets you nowhere because, if you want that PC you have to pay for it, end of.

Now, if the topic was, "What is the best PC I can get for my money", then cost IS relevant because the PC you get is based on what you can afford.

It brings me back to Ferrari. Walking into a Ferrari seller, and moaning about the cost of their cars because you can get a Golf GTI for a lot less, is completely irrelevant The Ferrari being the best PC of 1994, and the Golf being the 32x.

The point is putting things into a reasonable perspective, which playing DOOM on a high-end PC is only one angle of. Playing a condensed version on a much cheaper console is another angle, and I think this needs to be something to think about when judging any specific version (say, the 32X version, or the SNES version, etc). For the time, some of these versions were the only viable options for people, while the PC version may have been a viable option for others.

[80s_Atari_Guy]

The point is putting things into a reasonable perspective, which playing DOOM on a high-end PC is only one angle of. Playing a condensed version on a much cheaper console is another angle, and I think this needs to be something to think about when judging any specific version (say, the 32X version, or the SNES version, etc). For the time, some of these versions were the only viable options for people, while the PC version may have been a viable option for others.

 

I understand your point. But you don't seem to understand mine.

Youtube comments, for example, are worse than Reddit. On PC videos, you often see console gamers moan about the cost of a high-end PC. My whole point is, it's irrelevant because a 4k gaming PC IS going to cost you. A I7 8700k, a Nvidia GTX 1080Ti IS going to cost you. They're driven by market forces, and the market prices are high, especially because of miners. Moaning gets you nowhere, it doesn't magically bring down the cost to a Xbox One. To me, it's used to bash PC gaming. I can afford a high-end PC because I'm paid well. But don't bash me (Not you personally) because I paid 4x the price of a Xbox One because, like I've tried to explain, it's completely irrelevant.

[Flojomojo]

What does the price of modern PC and console hardware have to do with the SEGA 32X version of Doom? The gap in price between 1994 PC and 1994 console hardware was much larger than it is today.

 

To say nothing of YouTube and Reddit comments, what does that have to do with anything? I wonder if you're accidentally replying to the wrong thread. You did something similar in the "GameStop is doing badly" thread. Your personal opinions are often interesting, but not always relevant to the topic.

 

1994 computers were costly. 1994 game consoles, much less so. Nowadays DOOM runs on a potato computer and there's little need for console ports, sort of like Colecovision arcade ports now that we have MAME.

[80s_Atari_Guy]

 

 

1994 computers were costly. 1994 game consoles, much less so.

 

Exactly as it is today. Your point ?

 

 

 

What does the price of modern PC and console hardware have to do with the SEGA 32X version of Doom?

 

Because nothing has changed. People like you still moan at PC prices, and still bring up the cost of playing GameX on SystemX, compared to GameX on SystemY. In 1994, the best way to play Doom was on a high-end PC. The best way to play a budget Doom was on console. Bitching about the price of that high-end 1994 Pentium PC, like I've tried to say, is irrelevant. If you could afford it, you bought it. If you couldn't, you got a console. Bitching about a Pentium PC costing over a £1000, in 1994, is/was irrelevant.

[Flojomojo]

Gaming PCs are significantly cheaper now, both in relative and absolute terms, than they were in 1994. Yes one can spend thousands on SLI 4K whatever, but it's not necessary for the core experience, just the Ferrari version, overkill and out of reach for the vast majority.

 

I can play any modern PC game on my aging, modest desktop and laptop, and the combined cost of both is less than a new mid-range multimedia PC in 1994. I can play Doom (as well as much newer, more advanced software) on a $100 netbook, unthinkable a few years ago.

 

Console prices are pretty much the same as they've always been.

 

SEGA 32X DOOM fit a niche for some people at a certain point in time. I guess it could have been better but at the price of a bigger cartridge, and/or delays because of more development time. It probably "needed" to come out when and how it did.

[80s_Atari_Guy]

But you have proven my point.

 

Moaning about this

 

 

 

Yes one can spend thousands on SLI 4K whatever,

 

When, like you said, you can quite easily play any game on modest hardware, is completely irrelevant.

Console gamers, the real rabid ones, use this

 

 

 

Yes one can spend thousands on SLI 4K whatever,

 

to bash PC gaming. When, in the end, you can just do what you said, here...

 

 

 

I can play any modern PC game on my aging, modest desktop and laptop

 

It's similar to the Xbox One X thread, where someone is moaning about "whats the point of the Xbox One X". Again, irrelevant. I'm sure you'll agree. Because, if you can't afford the X, then just get the One. To moan about the X, is like pissing in a hurricane. It's pointless.

So, again, why bash the PC for it's cost, 1994 or today, when you can just play gameX on whatever you can afford. Isn't that the whole point ? I'm not trying to be funny, or annoying. I'm trying to say, why use cost, to bash a system ?

[roots.genoa]

And even with a powerful PC, back then you almost always had to use a boot disk and sacrifice things to get more conventional memory... Fortunately Doom didn't need a mouse.

[youxia]

The Ferrari comparison is not very good because best-PC-for-the-money in many cases is either an overkilll - a game will max out performance wise at lower specs - or the game is unoptimized and no matter how many teraflops you throw at it, it will run like a dog.

[80s_Atari_Guy]

My PC, is overkill. I game at 1080p, and a 1080 GTX + I7 8700k, is overkill - when a 1070 + I5 6500k would be sufficient. But that is irrelevant. I own it because I can afford it.

 

The Ferrari comparison has nothing to do with best PC for the money. It's to do with moaning about COST for something, anything, high-end. Like I said, if you own a Golf GTI, or (like myself) you own a Ford Focus ST II, they're fast cars and do what the Ferrari does, only slower and without the luxury or the brand. But walk into a Ferrari dealer and moan at the salesman because the cost of one of their cars is 1/4 of a million dollars, and that you can get a Golf GTI for 10 times less, is absolutely pointless and irrelevant.

 

I mean, it's pointless in any market. TVs, Cars, Houses, etc...

 

And that brings me back to the original 1994 point. In 1994, the BEST way you could play Doom - Best fidelity, Best FPS, was on a Pentium PC + Monitor + Keyboard + Mouse. And the cost of that is irrelevant BECAUSE you want the BEST. If you want second best, then a 486 DX2 66/100 would have been cheaper. But a 486 was nowhere near the Pentium performance. I know, because I went from a 486 DX2 66 to a Pentium 60. The difference was huge.

[John Stamos Mullet]

The "charm" of the 32X is how you would add the module to an existing Genesis/TV setup -- I doubt anyone would splash out for this combo just to play Doom, especially st full price.

 

I was just getting into PC games at that time and a nice 486 system (with monitor) was close to $1000 US. Consoles like 3DO and Jaguar were a somewhat attractive alternative despite their relatively high startup cost.

 

32x tanked fast enough it was easy to get it on discount, so I assume most people played it on the cheap.

I bought the 32x at retail new specifically for Doom, Virtua Racing and Star Wars. Sure, doom wasn't as good as the PC version. But to have a PC rig capable of playing it, you needed to spend $1000+. The 32x was $150. It was a no brainer at the time. It's completely playable.

[John Stamos Mullet]

My PC, is overkill. I game at 1080p, and a 1080 GTX + I7 8700k, is overkill - when a 1070 + I5 6500k would be sufficient. But that is irrelevant. I own it because I can afford it.

 

The Ferrari comparison has nothing to do with best PC for the money. It's to do with moaning about COST for something, anything, high-end. Like I said, if you own a Golf GTI, or (like myself) you own a Ford Focus ST II, they're fast cars and do what the Ferrari does, only slower and without the luxury or the brand. But walk into a Ferrari dealer and moan at the salesman because the cost of one of their cars is 1/4 of a million dollars, and that you can get a Golf GTI for 10 times less, is absolutely pointless and irrelevant.

 

I mean, it's pointless in any market. TVs, Cars, Houses, etc...

 

And that brings me back to the original 1994 point. In 1994, the BEST way you could play Doom - Best fidelity, Best FPS, was on a Pentium PC + Monitor + Keyboard + Mouse. And the cost of that is irrelevant BECAUSE you want the BEST. If you want second best, then a 486 DX2 66/100 would have been cheaper. But a 486 was nowhere near the Pentium performance. I know, because I went from a 486 DX2 66 to a Pentium 60. The difference was huge.

This is a flat out ridiculous statement. Cost is the most relevant factor when you're an underemployed teenager. Most of the prime demo graphic of this site is people who were kids in the 80's, and teens/early 20s in the 90's who couldn't afford to plunk down $1000 for a PC just to play one game.