Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure

[+Stephen]

35 minutes ago, JagChris said:

Yeah steady frame rate is nice. But you have noticed jumps from 30 to lower? Does it ever try 60?

 

No - the 64-bit Jaguar never does 60fps.  Only the lowly 16-bit Genesis does.

[JagChris]

Yeah that's a shame. Both it and the 32x got the shaft in that regards. I wonder why.

[marcio_napoli]

Just now, JagChris said:

Yeah that's a shame. Both it and the 32x got the shaft in that regards. I wonder why.

I think I've heard the reason for the 32x on You Tube.

 

The Genesis architecture itself is so optimized to work the way it does with sprites and background layers, that is has no problem running 2d tasks at 60 fps.

 

But the 32x has none hardware optimization on that regard, everything it does is written on software (therefore it relies exclusively on its 32 bit muscle power to render any tasks throw at it).

 

It's something like SNES's mode 7, which has that dedicated chip to scale and rotate backgrounds, but the 32x is handling super scalers like Space Harrier and After Burner without any hardware aid, it's all written in software and rendered by the fast 32 bit chip.

 

So, having no dedicated hardware to move backgrounds, Pitfall on 32x is a very curious case.

 

Genesis, with its dedicated architecture for backgrounds, is handling backgrounds (you can see those have no more than 61 colors and run at 60 fps), and foreground elements and character sprites are rendered by the 32x (at 30 fps due to lack of dedicated hardware), but those have much larger color palette and better artwork.

 

 

In a nutshell, we don't realize how much of a difference dedicated, optimized architecture does   it can beat 32 bit CPUs at 2d games.

 

 

And the Jag... I suppose it may be something similar, lack of hardware optimization for such tasks, or simply a rough, non-optimized code (yeah, that's more likely, because Rayman runs at 60 fps).

 

 

If this is all BS, maybe a dev can chime in

 

[tripled79]

Do the Math!

[CaptainBreakout]

If I may chime in, I own all three of the ported cartridge versions of this, but the only one I keep on my game shelf is the Jaguar version.

 

It says Pitfall on it, and when I see Pitfall I think Atari. I'm not bothered too much by the 30fps. Would it be nice to see it silky smooth like Rayman or Burnout? Sure... but it's not a flagship game for the Jaguar.

 

It is "Pitfall", however, and it gives me satisfaction to see it lined up next to the Jaguar cartridges. Plays fine to me, feels like most games of the era. I think the jungle looks nicer with more colors anyways.

 

If I'm in the mood for silky smooth fps platform stuff, there's always Vectorman or Rocket Knight Adventures, or something for the SNES, or, well... Rayman. 

 

[agradeneu]

8 hours ago, marcio_napoli said:

I think I've heard the reason for the 32x on You Tube.

 

The Genesis architecture itself is so optimized to work the way it does with sprites and background layers, that is has no problem running 2d tasks at 60 fps.

 

But the 32x has none hardware optimization on that regard, everything it does is written on software (therefore it relies exclusively on its 32 bit muscle power to render any tasks throw at it).

 

It's something like SNES's mode 7, which has that dedicated chip to scale and rotate backgrounds, but the 32x is handling super scalers like Space Harrier and After Burner without any hardware aid, it's all written in software and rendered by the fast 32 bit chip.

 

So, having no dedicated hardware to move backgrounds, Pitfall on 32x is a very curious case.

 

Genesis, with its dedicated architecture for backgrounds, is handling backgrounds (you can see those have no more than 61 colors and run at 60 fps), and foreground elements and character sprites are rendered by the 32x (at 30 fps due to lack of dedicated hardware), but those have much larger color palette and better artwork.

 

 

In a nutshell, we don't realize how much of a difference dedicated, optimized architecture does   it can beat 32 bit CPUs at 2d games.

 

 

And the Jag... I suppose it may be something similar, lack of hardware optimization for such tasks, or simply a rough, non-optimized code (yeah, that's more likely, because Rayman runs at 60 fps).

 

 

If this is all BS, maybe a dev can chime in

 

 Our upcoming game Gravitic Mines runs at 60 FPS with fluid scrolling, displaying thousands of colors. ?

[Austin]

14 hours ago, JagChris said:

I'm referring to the 30-60 fps debate. 30fps! Oh it's reprehensible! Harumph harumph! Pretentious.

 

What's pretentious about wanting something that has been a standard since the dawn of the industry?

  

12 hours ago, JagChris said:

Yeah steady frame rate is nice. But you have noticed jumps from 30 to lower? Does it ever try 60?

Yes, Pitfall never goes above 30, and it drops quite a bit at certain points. The second water stage where you are jumping on the crocs is a good example. The inconsistent framerate makes it much more difficult than it would be otherwise.

 

The issue with lower framerates (not to mention inconsistent ones) is that it has a negative effect on the overall playability of the game. Timing jumps is harder, controller responsiveness won't be as snappy, etc. A player is much more likely to fall off platforms unintentionally, or under/over-shoot jumps (bad in a game full of endless pits).

 

A steady 60 in a platformer will beat out a steady 30 any day. All you have to do is look at something like 3DO Gex that runs at 30, and compare it to its PS1 and Saturn counterparts that run at 60. The later versions feel vastly snappier. It's easier to make tighter, more accurate maneuvers and it just feels better overall (not to mention it's a lot easier on the eyes). That can only be a good thing.

 

I totally get preferring a version of a game with a lower, *consistent* framerate, that is prettier to look at. The issue with Pitfall on the Jaguar is that it doesn't stop there--the inconsistency in the framerate actually makes already aggravating parts even more so. People are obviously free to prefer what they want for whatever reasons they feel, but I have a hard time taking people seriously when they go around preaching X-version of a game is the best one, when it has all sorts of technical issues that affect the playability (and thus the enjoyment) that other versions don't have. I can't in good conscience recommend this version over other versions (especially the Sega CD version, with its booming soundtrack).

 

As an aside, one way Pitfall on Jaguar is objectively better than other versions (nicer visuals aside), is the save system. I believe it's the only console version to feature this functionality.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Austin

[marcio_napoli]

1 hour ago, Austin said:

What's pretentious about wanting something that has been a standard since the dawn of the industry?

  

Yes, Pitfall never goes above 30, and it drops quite a bit at certain points. The second water stage where you are jumping on the crocs is a good example. The inconsistent framerate makes it much more difficult than it would be otherwise.

 

The issue with lower framerates (not to mention inconsistent ones) is that it has a negative effect on the overall playability of the game. Timing jumps is harder, controller responsiveness won't be as snappy, etc. A player is much more likely to fall off platforms unintentionally, or under/over-shoot jumps (bad in a game full of endless pits).

 

A steady 60 in a platformer will beat out a steady 30 any day. All you have to do is look at something like 3DO Gex that runs at 30, and compare it to its PS1 and Saturn counterparts that run at 60. The later versions feel vastly snappier. It's easier to make tighter, more accurate maneuvers and it just feels better overall (not to mention it's a lot easier on the eyes). That can only be a good thing.

 

I totally get preferring a version of a game with a lower, *consistent* framerate, that is prettier to look at. The issue with Pitfall on the Jaguar is that it doesn't stop there--the inconsistency in the framerate actually makes already aggravating parts even more so. People are obviously free to prefer what they want for whatever reasons they feel, but I have a hard time taking people seriously when they go around preaching X-version of a game is the best one, when it has all sorts of technical issues that affect the playability (and thus the enjoyment) that other versions don't have. I can't in good conscience recommend this version over other versions (especially the Sega CD version, with its booming soundtrack).

 

As an aside, one way Pitfall on Jaguar is objectively better than other versions (nicer visuals aside), is the save system. I believe it's the only console version to feature this functionality.

Hi Austin, you're THE Austin from Gameplay and Talk right?

 

Man I love your channel, it's always one of my go tos channels on YT! May I make a request?

 

Please do more Jag stuff, your Raiden videos (for example) are awesome, but since they're fairly old they have a kinda soft capture.  If you could revisit Jag titles, it would be awesome!  Also it's awesome that your videos are always from actual hardware.

 

Sometimes I don't wanna play on my Jag, but I wanna enjoy some high quality, actual hardware footage.

 

Now, regarding the topic above, on that one my friend, I'll disagree.

 

Because you see, the way you approach games is from the hardcore player angle.  You're a fine player, you care for high scores and skillful gameplay. I believe not all of us care for high precision gameplay, we just wanna have a bit of lazy fun here and there.

 

Even if 30 fps may hurt some jumps, I don't think that's a big deal to many people that just wanna play carelessly for an hour or so.   I mean, it's just fun, not a job haha

 

Hope you don't mind this comment, but the day I think inconsistent framerate is killing a fine game for me, then it's time to sit back and chill.   

 

The only time this comment was ever true to me is arcade versions of Double Dragon 1 and 2, which slow down is really, really hurting gameplay.  (two of my all time favorites made a ton less fun because of that, sign...)

 

But yeah, that my entire rant knowing that I am not a hardcore player, I just wanna have simple, careless fun.

[agradeneu]

1 hour ago, Austin said:

What's pretentious about wanting something that has been a standard since the dawn of the industry?

  

Yes, Pitfall never goes above 30, and it drops quite a bit at certain points. The second water stage where you are jumping on the crocs is a good example. The inconsistent framerate makes it much more difficult than it would be otherwise.

 

The issue with lower framerates (not to mention inconsistent ones) is that it has a negative effect on the overall playability of the game. Timing jumps is harder, controller responsiveness won't be as snappy, etc. A player is much more likely to fall off platforms unintentionally, or under/over-shoot jumps (bad in a game full of endless pits).

 

A steady 60 in a platformer will beat out a steady 30 any day. All you have to do is look at something like 3DO Gex that runs at 30, and compare it to its PS1 and Saturn counterparts that run at 60. The later versions feel vastly snappier. It's easier to make tighter, more accurate maneuvers and it just feels better overall (not to mention it's a lot easier on the eyes). That can only be a good thing.

 

I totally get preferring a version of a game with a lower, *consistent* framerate, that is prettier to look at. The issue with Pitfall on the Jaguar is that it doesn't stop there--the inconsistency in the framerate actually makes already aggravating parts even more so. People are obviously free to prefer what they want for whatever reasons they feel, but I have a hard time taking people seriously when they go around preaching X-version of a game is the best one, when it has all sorts of technical issues that affect the playability (and thus the enjoyment) that other versions don't have. I can't in good conscience recommend this version over other versions (especially the Sega CD version, with its booming soundtrack).

 

As an aside, one way Pitfall on Jaguar is objectively better than other versions (nicer visuals aside), is the save system. I believe it's the only console version to feature this functionality.

That is true for arcade and consoles, but for homecomputers like ST and Amiga, games running at 16,6 FPS ad 20 FPS was often the standard choice (3 frames to render a screen). 

Usually those games were programmed for high detailed graphics, lots of sprites and some more complex gameplay mechanics, e.g. Lethal Xcess renders over 100 beatiful sprites on screen.

So here we go, while 60 FPS might be the preferrable choice, lower frame rates are always an option wit limited hw resources, just for the fact that you can display more impressive graphics or compute more complex game logic. 

There are some odd tricks as well, like rendering (bullets) sprites  only every 2nd frame while the game runs at full 60/50 FPS. 

 

Maybe things were a little less complicated when people did not overanalyze everything: if a game plays well, nobody cares about numbers really.

A game can be slow by design, so a low frame rate might be not an issue, but it could feel wrong if it was running at 2x speed (e.g. complains about the console ports of Gods)

 

I disagree that 60 FPS beats 30 FPS by default: e.g. Metal Slug looks brilliantand does not play worse than Contra.

 

 

[zzip]

1 hour ago, Austin said:

I totally get preferring a version of a game with a lower, *consistent* framerate, that is prettier to look at. The issue with Pitfall on the Jaguar is that it doesn't stop there--the inconsistency in the framerate actually makes already aggravating parts even more so. People are obviously free to prefer what they want for whatever reasons they feel, but I have a hard time taking people seriously when they go around preaching X-version of a game is the best one, when it has all sorts of technical issues that affect the playability (and thus the enjoyment) that other versions don't have.

I see this debate all the time around modern consoles.  There's always a vocal crowd that insists that 60fps or higher equals playability, and 30fps is somehow unplayable.  Yet time after time, even today, developers often choose 30fps and prettier graphics, because that's what actually sells.   Most people don't care about frame rate unless it's choppy and terrible.

[agradeneu]

2 minutes ago, zzip said:

I see this debate all the time around modern consoles.  There's always a vocal crowd that insists that 60fps or higher equals playability, and 30fps is somehow unplayable.  Yet time after time, even today, developers often choose 30fps and prettier graphics, because that's what actually sells.   Most people don't care about frame rate unless it's choppy and terrible.

I agree, for the most part, 30 FPS is still considered the sweet spot for certain type of games. This wont change with PS5 and new Xbox I guess,e.g he Unreal 5 tech demo was running at 30 FPS. 

So going cutting edge will probably sacrifice 60 FPS, and PC gamers will get the higher frame rates because in 1-3 years we will see much more powerful graphics card options.

[Austin]

14 minutes ago, zzip said:

Most people don't care about frame rate unless it's choppy and terrible.

And in Pitfall, there are areas where it gets choppy and terrible. That's the point. 

[+Stephen]

16 minutes ago, zzip said:

I see this debate all the time around modern consoles.  There's always a vocal crowd that insists that 60fps or higher equals playability, and 30fps is somehow unplayable.  Yet time after time, even today, developers often choose 30fps and prettier graphics, because that's what actually sells.   Most people don't care about frame rate unless it's choppy and terrible.

Which is precisely why I said consistency is better than high frame rate.  Unfortunately, Pitfall on the Jag has neither.

[Austin]

55 minutes ago, marcio_napoli said:

Please do more Jag stuff, your Raiden videos (for example) are awesome, but since they're fairly old they have a kinda soft capture.  If you could revisit Jag titles, it would be awesome!  Also it's awesome that your videos are always from actual hardware.

 

Sometimes I don't wanna play on my Jag, but I wanna enjoy some high quality, actual hardware footage.

 

I will absolutely be covering more Jaguar stuff again and will be re-doing some of the old playthroughs as well (Raiden in particular), but it's going to require a particular Game Drive before I can do so. No way in hell am I building up a cart collection again in this day and age, if you know what I mean, haha. Right now I just have DOOM, Val D'Isere and a few Reboot titles (I streamed those a few months back).

 

55 minutes ago, marcio_napoli said:

Now, regarding the topic above, on that one my friend, I'll disagree.

 

Because you see, the way you approach games is from the hardcore player angle.  You're a fine player, you care for high scores and skillful gameplay. I believe not all of us care for high precision gameplay, we just wanna have a bit of lazy fun here and there.

 

Even if 30 fps may hurt some jumps, I don't think that's a big deal to many people that just wanna play carelessly for an hour or so.   I mean, it's just fun, not a job haha

 

Hope you don't mind this comment, but the day I think inconsistent framerate is killing a fine game for me, then it's time to sit back and chill.  

 

The only time this comment was ever true to me is arcade versions of Double Dragon 1 and 2, which slow down is really, really hurting gameplay.  (two of my all time favorites made a ton less fun because of that, sign...)

 

But yeah, that my entire rant knowing that I am not a hardcore player, I just wanna have simple, careless fun.

I totally understand the casual angle and that's perfectly fine. Given what I do online, I hear from people with totally different playing habits from myself regularly, anywhere from hardcore players that relish in 1CCs, to people that only play an hour or two a week with their kids and mainly watch retro gaming videos for the nostalgia. I get it.

 

My issue in conversations like these is when people go dropping blanket statements about ports being the "best" ones to have, without touching on its many objective flaws. Some dipshit will read it as a glowing review, then go drop $100 for a copy on eBay, heh. It's kind of irresponsible in a way if you ask me.

 

I personally have versions of games I play more of than others, despite being inferior. A good example is Scorcher on the Saturn. The PC version is far improved--double the resolution, snappier controls, constant 60fps as opposed to the Saturn's 30fps and under. However, it's a lot more work to bring out one of my old PCs to run it, and it's a lot more convenient playing with a Saturn controller as opposed to a keyboard. However, I'll never say with a straight face that the Saturn version is the "best" version--the PC one is in nearly every way. It's just the one I prefer going to more frequently because of convenience, and it's good enough for my needs.

 

The back and forth in these types of conversations is good. Details can be fleshed out and we can get enough info out there to make it so onlookers will have a better idea what separates the various versions from one-another. Then if they decide to check it out, they'll have the info to make a playing or buying decision that's right for them. Contrary to what some believe here, some people want better quality if the option is available.

[agradeneu]

16 minutes ago, Austin said:

 

I will absolutely be covering more Jaguar stuff again and will be re-doing some of the old playthroughs as well (Raiden in particular), but it's going to require a particular Game Drive before I can do so. No way in hell am I building up a cart collection again in this day and age, if you know what I mean, haha. Right now I just have DOOM, Val D'Isere and a few Reboot titles (I streamed those a few months back).

 

I totally understand the casual angle and that's perfectly fine. Given what I do online, I hear from people with totally different playing habits from myself regularly, anywhere from hardcore players that relish in 1CCs, to people that only play an hour or two a week with their kids and mainly watch retro gaming videos for the nostalgia. I get it.

 

My issue in conversations like these is when people go dropping blanket statements about ports being the "best" ones to have, without touching on its many objective flaws. Some dipshit will read it as a glowing review, then go drop $100 for a copy on eBay, heh. It's kind of irresponsible in a way if you ask me.

 

I personally have versions of games I play more of than others, despite being inferior. A good example is Scorcher on the Saturn. The PC version is far improved--double the resolution, snappier controls, constant 60fps as opposed to the Saturn's 30fps and under. However, it's a lot more work to bring out one of my old PCs to run it, and it's a lot more convenient playing with a Saturn controller as opposed to a keyboard. However, I'll never say with a straight face that the Saturn version is the "best" version--the PC one is in nearly every way. It's just the one I prefer going to more frequently because of convenience, and it's good enough for my needs.

 

The back and forth in these types of conversations is good. Details can be fleshed out and we can get enough info out there to make it so onlookers will have a better idea what separates the various versions from one-another. Then if they decide to check it out, they'll have the info to make a playing or buying decision that's right for them. Contrary to what some believe here, some people want better quality if the option is available.

Most people collect for old consoles just for the fun of it, not for having the ultimate "best" version of particular game. So, Jag Doom and even Tempest 2000 are not the best versions out there, whats the point then to buy games for the Jaguar at all?? The point is, there is not a competition for the best version anymore, if you bought a Jaguar to collect and have fun with it, you will end up buying games for it. It's quite simple.

And in that sense, Pitfall is still a pretty good choice if you like to buy a well made platformer for your Jag. Raiden is not the best version either, but its still enjoyable and kinda different (than the other versions). Worms is great fun too, its not the best version out there and expensive, but I guess its still a recommendable choice if you want to play a good game on your Jaguar.

 

[JagChris]

7 hours ago, Austin said:

And in Pitfall, there are areas where it gets choppy and terrible. That's the point. 

In Pitfall on the Jaguar I agree somewhat with Austin in that it is a bit of a travesty in that there isn't any real excuse for it except lowest bidder bullshit again. It should be damn near the best version among all ports. And please have steady framerate. That's a big one to me. 

 

Certainly makes it regrettable. Whether it makes it nearly unplayable or not is where we disagree.

Edited September 23, 2020 by JagChris

[JagChris]

7 hours ago, Austin said:

 

I will absolutely be covering more Jaguar stuff again and will be re-doing some of the old playthroughs as well (Raiden in particular), but it's going to require a particular Game Drive before I can do so. 

 

I was told that thing is ready. 

[marcio_napoli]

7 hours ago, Austin said:

 

I will absolutely be covering more Jaguar stuff again and will be re-doing some of the old playthroughs as well (Raiden in particular), but it's going to require a particular Game Drive before I can do so. No way in hell am I building up a cart collection again in this day and age, if you know what I mean, haha. Right now I just have DOOM, Val D'Isere and a few Reboot titles (I streamed those a few months back).

 

I totally understand the casual angle and that's perfectly fine. Given what I do online, I hear from people with totally different playing habits from myself regularly, anywhere from hardcore players that relish in 1CCs, to people that only play an hour or two a week with their kids and mainly watch retro gaming videos for the nostalgia. I get it.

 

My issue in conversations like these is when people go dropping blanket statements about ports being the "best" ones to have, without touching on its many objective flaws. Some dipshit will read it as a glowing review, then go drop $100 for a copy on eBay, heh. It's kind of irresponsible in a way if you ask me.

 

I personally have versions of games I play more of than others, despite being inferior. A good example is Scorcher on the Saturn. The PC version is far improved--double the resolution, snappier controls, constant 60fps as opposed to the Saturn's 30fps and under. However, it's a lot more work to bring out one of my old PCs to run it, and it's a lot more convenient playing with a Saturn controller as opposed to a keyboard. However, I'll never say with a straight face that the Saturn version is the "best" version--the PC one is in nearly every way. It's just the one I prefer going to more frequently because of convenience, and it's good enough for my needs.

 

The back and forth in these types of conversations is good. Details can be fleshed out and we can get enough info out there to make it so onlookers will have a better idea what separates the various versions from one-another. Then if they decide to check it out, they'll have the info to make a playing or buying decision that's right for them. Contrary to what some believe here, some people want better quality if the option is available.

Austin, there're many types of players out there, some (I'd say a lot) are not concerned in the slightest about minor issues with framerate. 

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I know your style from your YT channel and I guess you're putting more emphasis on this than most casual players will ever care.

 

If not being 60 fps, or even the matter of inconsistency, is all that important, than 3DO's Gex, Metal Slug, Jag's Raiden are not deserving at all the praise they've got from reviewers, are these reviewers irresponsible? 

 

BTW, I just focused on 30 fps 2d games that everyone praises, there must be others out there.

 

Hey, Double Dragon 1 and 2 should have been trashed and never become milestones at the arcades by that criteria.  (even though those are the only ones I agree inconsistency almost kills them - but that's because it's ABYSMAL inconsistency we're talking here)

 

If Jag's Pitfal ran at 10 fps and had identical graphics to the Genesis version, then yeah I'd not praise it, but it's a little better than that... 

[tripled79]

11 hours ago, agradeneu said:

Most people collect for old consoles just for the fun of it, not for having the ultimate "best" version of particular game. So, Jag Doom and even Tempest 2000 are not the best versions out there, whats the point then to buy games for the Jaguar at all?? The point is, there is not a competition for the best version anymore, if you bought a Jaguar to collect and have fun with it, you will end up buying games for it. It's quite simple.

And in that sense, Pitfall is still a pretty good choice if you like to buy a well made platformer for your Jag. Raiden is not the best version either, but its still enjoyable and kinda different (than the other versions). Worms is great fun too, its not the best version out there and expensive, but I guess its still a recommendable choice if you want to play a good game on your Jaguar.

 

There's a better version of Doom and Tempest 2000? Blasphemy!

[Lost Dragon]

11 hours ago, JagChris said:

In Pitfall on the Jaguar I agree somewhat with Austin in that it is a bit of a travesty in that there isn't any real excuse for it except lowest bidder bullshit again. It should be damn near the best version among all ports. And please have steady framerate. That's a big one to me. 

 

Certainly makes it regrettable. Whether it makes it nearly unplayable or not is where we disagree.

I'd lump Flashback in with Pitfall. 

 

Another title that could of been so much more on the Jaguar, but it was another lowest bidder contractual conversion. 

 

Tiertex, like Imagitec Design, had a proven track record for develivering conversions within the confines Atari were looking for and we recieved a mish mash conversion, rather than something built from the ground up for the Jaguar. 

 

But again, it goes right back to the commercial viability aspects of the Jaguar. 

 

Atari badly needed product on the shelf whilst the Jaguar still had a viable market, it wasn't going to pay for a conversion that took far longer to produce and would of been released to a market in rapid decline. 

 

 

 

[Leeroy ST]

8 hours ago, Lost Dragon said:

I'd lump Flashback in with Pitfall. 

 

Another title that could of been so much more on the Jaguar, but it was another lowest bidder contractual conversion. 

 

Tiertex, like Imagitec Design, had a proven track record for develivering conversions within the confines Atari were looking for and we recieved a mish mash conversion, rather than something built from the ground up for the Jaguar. 

 

But again, it goes right back to the commercial viability aspects of the Jaguar. 

 

Atari badly needed product on the shelf whilst the Jaguar still had a viable market, it wasn't going to pay for a conversion that took far longer to produce and would of been released to a market in rapid decline. 

 

 

 

If anything this aids the argument that Atari should have released Jaguar with a builtin drive from the start like it's competitor. 

 

Games like Flashback, Another World (not on console but could have), Rayman could have had additional benefits and by having CD's from the start developers could take more time to get things right. Instead of doing the bare minimum with the Jaguars traditional tools.

[Lost Dragon]

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

If anything this aids the argument that Atari should have released Jaguar with a builtin drive from the start like it's competitor. 

 

Games like Flashback, Another World (not on console but could have), Rayman could have had additional benefits and by having CD's from the start developers could take more time to get things right. Instead of doing the bare minimum with the Jaguars traditional tools.

Atari always rejected the concept of making Jaguar disc-based from the start, as it would push the price of the hardware up. 

 

It came in over Atari UK's initial pricing as it was. 

[Leeroy ST]

2 minutes ago, Lost Dragon said:

Atari always rejected the concept of making Jaguar disc-based from the start, as it would push the price of the hardware up. 

 

It came in over Atari UK's initial pricing as it was. 

What as UK initial pricing?

[Lost Dragon]

31 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

What as UK initial pricing?

Updated post. 

 

Bob Gleadow said Jaguar would come in at £200

 

Peter Walker said games would cost around £20.

 

This after the Falcon arrived £100 more expensive than originally annouced, Atari blaming that on exchange rates. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Lost Dragon

[Barone]

On 9/22/2020 at 9:42 AM, Austin said:

 

"You know, if we discount one of the worst aspects of the game--and one of the aspects that truly makes it a chore to play--we can consider it the best version. So yeah, let's roll with that. It's the best version."

 

?

This. Lol.

The Jaguar version looks great but plays with noticeable frame rate issues.
And even back then that was pretty much the overall opinion of this version of the game. If you think it plays normal, then you never played the PC/Sega CD/Genesis versions.
I'd say the 32X version has even worse performance issues though and the SNES' is the worst in terms of gameplay.

The SNES version is more like an adaptation than a port of the original code; there's at least one secret missing, the final boss fight is simplified, platforming controls are a bit off and hurt some of the chained moves you need to do to reach secret areas, enemies are reduced in numbers, noticeable animation cuts, etc.

I wish the Jaguar version could be fixed. It has the best visuals and the updated layouts with more secrets. It's a shame.
 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Barone